Watchtower appeals the lawsuit in Quebec (Canada) french:
Watchtower appeals the lawsuit in Quebec (Canada)
Protocol -- too bad these judges don't slap them with more monies to be paid in these appeals.
Surely if they lose the Appeal there will be more costs ?
Phizzy: I don't know all the details. We'll see.
More costs if they use the big guns (real law firms) but it's worth rolling the dice for the mafia.
Maybe pay out more costs/attys. fees if they call in the big guns (professional real firms) and get lucky rolling the dice and gamble since they're playing monopoly on free money. Weren't they successful (judgment reduced) in the Candace Conti case where they tried to poor-mouth and use Patterson for collateral or something? Mafia has no conscience.
Oops -- didn't intend on 2 posts/WOW need my Starbucks.
The Canadian Press
Jehovah's Witnesses may appeal a judgment that has given the green light to a collective action against them for alleged sexual assault on minors. The Quebec Court of Appeal granted them this right by a decision rendered Monday.
The two entities targeted by the action, related to Jehovah's Witnesses, are the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. They had sought leave to appeal the judgment authorizing the class action rendered on February 27 by Justice Chantal Corriveau of the Superior Court.
This judgment allowed all persons who are - or have been - Jehovah's Witnesses to sue for sexual assault committed in Quebec by a person in the role of "Elder" or by a member of the community.
"A culture of silence"
An ex-faithful received the status of representative for this class action. Coming from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, she alleges that she was assaulted by her brother when she was a minor. She would then have confided in her mother and an "elder", a spiritual leader within the group. According to her testimony, they would have discouraged her from complaining to the police against her brother, as this would "tarnish the image of Jehovah God". She has since been excommunicated.
She therefore blames the two companies to maintain a "culture of silence" in the community. She further argues that this organization is responsible for the abuses committed by its "Elders" because they are part of its hierarchy.
She claims $ 250,000 for herself, as well as for all those who have been victims of aggression.
None of these allegations have yet been proven before a judge.
Four grounds of appeal
Watch Tower Canada has sought leave to appeal this judgment, which it describes as "unprecedented in Quebec". The alleged assaults did not take place in an institutional setting, she said, and it was not the leaders or employees of the religious organization who allegedly committed them.
"The collective action would rather be to hold Watch Tower Canada responsible for the sexual assaults of all Jehovah's Witnesses, regardless of the context or circumstances in which they are committed and on the sole criterion of the religious identity of the attackers and their victims, "it is reported in the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Jehovah's Witnesses put forward four grounds of appeal. First, they argue that the action was not brought within the prescribed time. Second, they argue that there is no obligation for a religious organization to provide guidance to its followers so that they do not suffer aggression.
Third, the action is based on religious affiliation, a "fluid and highly subjective" concept that would put the hands of state authorities in the right to decide who is or is not part of it. Finally, the complainant can not be an appropriate representative for the alleged assaults allegedly committed by the "Elders" because she herself would not have been assaulted by them.
As for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, she maintains that there is no connection between her and the former faithful at the origin of the appeal.
The Court has considered all these arguments and has held that they deserve to be assessed in greater detail.
Jehovah's Witnesses will now have to plead their case before the Court of Appeal, at a date yet to be determined.
Judge Chantal Corriveau, who had authorized collective action, noted in her decision that the objective is not to try a religion.
"Collective action does not call into question the beliefs conveyed. However, it is possible to submit to the courts ways of doing things that may be at fault and cause damage to victims. There is indeed a distinction to note. For the court, the proposed class action is not intended to prosecute the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather certain modes of action. "
"...the proposed class action is not intended to prosecute the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather certain modes of action."
...as far as JWs are concerned, the religion and its "modes of action" are essentially interchangeable.
For the WTS, doctrines are policies, and policies are doctrines.
And they're sure as hell never going to acknowledge that either might be wrong...
...not just because their religion is "Bible-based", but also because to do so would appear to be capitulating to "Satan's World", and undermine their insistence that they are God's sole channel of communication (i.e. Biblical interpretation) on Earth.
As such, any WT higher-up or loyalist will still perceive the proposed class action as an attack...
...which is actually fine with me, because when zealots feel threatened, they - in my observation - tend to...
a) ...say and do stupider and stupider things, and...
b) ...dig in that much harder in the belief that they will be rewarded for doing so, thus increasing the chances of an ever-increasingly painful fall, simply because no matter how much they refuse to believe it, they're still wrong (and thusly doomed to fail).
I'm not an attorney, but I played one on TV, and I'm betting the appeal will be upheld. WTS isn't guilty and liable for every sexual assault on a JW by a JW. They are not omnipresent so as to be able to stop bad JWs from doing bad things (at least not the first time).
Yes, the representative plaintiff was abused by a family member, and regardless of their religious belief, the abuse would have happened. The mother at any time could have asked her adult son to leave, as he was well over 18 when the mother was informed of the abuse.
Also, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that a civil court cannot rule if a person can or cannot be a part of a religion. The plaintiff is asking for the court to interpret if religion provided enough support to someone who was abused. What standard are they going to use, what words does someone have to say in order for them not be held liable in a lawsuit? A large part of the lawsuit is that the plaintiff says that because the person wasn't removed from the religion then the mental abuse continued. Again their Supreme Court ruled that is not a thing that a court can decide.