Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?

by aboveusonlysky 115 Replies latest jw friends

  • Simon
    Simon
    And even politically you would have to get enough legislatures to stand up to not JWs but many religious groups who would fear that any cretailing of ones religions doctorine it will affect them too

    That's the biggest problem. The Churches are all in on the same scam and they'd rather defend the system that favors them than any victim of it. They leap to defend Muslim clerics preaching actual hate speech and advocating for people to be killed rather than risk "religion" being constrained by any law in any way.

    There simply isn't the political will or motivation to do it in any of the major western democracy "5-eye" countries at least and I doubt it would happen in Mexico or Brazil.

    This is the biggest reason why law enforcement should get involved. Kids are raised in this. Are basically force to build their entire lives around the JWs. And when finally, they want to do something else, they loose their family and friends.

    There are far more children at far greater risk that the government fails to bother getting involved in some law-abiding, respectful families and potential fallout later in life. It comes back to it being a choice that parents make.

    It's unlucky if you're born to parents who chose it. I was. Boo hoo to me.

    But at some age we get to live our own lives and make our own choices and hopefully do better for our own children.

    I don't think getting the police involved (to do what?) would actually help in any way. What are they meant to do? Take the kids away?

    A great deal of JW are deprived of the right of free speech and religion as they are threatened by the shunning policy. And xJWs have obviously sustain a great deal of emotional injured in his person.

    That's not really what "free speech" is about. Private groups can tell you what you can and can't say and where. Free speech is about political expression and the governments inability to silence you.

    Once this is considered criminal, than civil cases will follow.

    Well that's a "du-huh" statement ... the trouble is that it's never going to be considered criminal.

    We live in a world right now where some religions break real laws with impunity. They perform mutilating procedures on their young children. They have forced marriages of underage girls. They plan terrorist attacks within their secret walls.

    There are no doors being kicked in or people being arrested (actually, the very first prosecution for FGM may just be happening).

    Now think - is "someone won't talk to me" really going to warrant the immediate attention of anyone?

    No body cares. Get over it.

    Yes it sucks that it happened to us, that our parents were stupid and brought us up in the stupid as well until we figured it out. But there are worse parents and rougher childhoods.

    Rights and freedoms are a balancing act and the price we pay for freedom is the freedom others have to offend us and do things we don't like. But we have the right to offend them too and they cannot take any real action against us - they cannot sue us, they can only ignore us.

    Be careful wishing that away.

  • StephaneLaliberte
    StephaneLaliberte
    Simon - I don't think getting the police involved (to do what?) would actually help in any way. What are they meant to do? Take the kids away?

    I think you keep missing what I believe should be criminal: Not the shunning itself, but the organizating of the shunning.

    People have the right to shun anyone they want. the problem is when leaders force the shunning. If you don't shun, we will punish you!

    Hence, the cops would arrest Elders organizing a JC over someone for not respecting the shunning practice. To arrest anyone in religious leaders threatening any type of consequences for not shunning someone.

    This type of police activity would not impact rank and files, it would solely target religious leaders forcing the shunning practice upon them.

    The objective here would not be to turn down the JW religion, it would be to hold individuals accountable for a specific teaching that is hateful in practice.

  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    I'm beginning to think that the printing corporation can be held liable for emotional damages it cause for it's corporate clones and whistleblowers who choose to express views held in contrary to corporation's directives. I feel that the amount fraud that could be proven in a open court would put WTB&TS at a great financial loss. Well I think there is some clever do good lawyer that work up the proper lawsuits to sink their ass and divide up the carcasses.

  • poopie
    poopie

    Matt 5 Jesus told us how to treat tax Cole tors and sinners God makes sun shine on them so that's the right view never to shun.

  • Simon
    Simon
    I think you keep missing what I believe should be criminal: Not the shunning itself, but the organizating of the shunning.

    It seems a stretch to make arranging something that isn't illegal into an act that is illegal. Like having BBQ is fine but organizing a BBQ ... "hands up criminal scum!"

    People have the right to shun anyone they want. the problem is when leaders force the shunning. If you don't shun, we will punish you!

    Punish? How? The only punishment they have is withdrawal of approved membership status.

    Hence, the cops would arrest Elders organizing a JC over someone for not respecting the shunning practice. To arrest anyone in religious leaders threatening any type of consequences for not shunning someone.

    When exactly do they tell everyone to shun someone? Specifically, "you must shun Mr Whoever". Because all they do is announce that someone is no longer a JW ... which they are not, because they have the right to withdraw that membership status.

    What you are suggesting is that people completely unfamiliar with the religion suddenly know all the ins and outs of every nuanced piece that makes it up. That isn't going to work.

    This type of police activity would not impact rank and files, it would solely target religious leaders forcing the shunning practice upon them.

    Forcing it upon them ... how?

    The objective here would not be to turn down the JW religion, it would be to hold individuals accountable for a specific teaching that is hateful in practice.

    And if a mother puts her child on the naughty step, they should be arrested too?

    The definition of "hate" is far too vague and nuanced to ever be convincing to any jury or judge.

    All they have to do is claim what they would - that it's meant as a reproof to correct someone's dangerous behavior and / or as a protection to the rest of the congregation from such behavior and oh dear, your prosecution just evaporated in a cloud of doubt.

  • sparrowdown
    sparrowdown

    I'm late to this discussion and it's probly all been said but no I don't think a petition would or could have any impact on lawmakers. It would be impossible to enforce non-shunning and it's unrealistic to expect lawmakers to make people do something they should be deciding for themselves regardless of the rules of the dubclub.

    At the end of the day it's the responsiblity of every individual JW to stand up to WT and say no to shunning.

  • berrygerry
  • aboveusonlysky
    aboveusonlysky
    StephaneLaliberte

    again, to me, it is not the practice of shunning that should be illegal. it is the practice of organizing and enforcing it.

    I totally agree, article 9 of the human rights act says the following -

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

    It would be a case of proving that the official policy requiring members to shun those who leave and speak out against the organization is an infringement of the above right, IMO it is, I also believe far more people would openly speak out against watchtower if their official shunning policy didn't exist, the difficulty would be proving it in court but I'm sure harder cases have been proven in the past.

    Take for example online bullying that includes coercion to ostracise, In America different states have different laws that are changing all the time.

    Also the argument that we should 'get over it' because there are bigger issues is just ridiculous, no matter what injustice happens to us there is always something worse that could of happened, a homosexual being fired because his company has homophobic policies is not as bad as his entire family shunning him because his religion has similar policies, but few would criticize if he sought compensation from his company so why not his religion? 40 years ago such a case would have no chance but laws change making such things possible.



  • aboveusonlysky
    aboveusonlysky

    The following case is interesting

    Example case - R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others [2005]

    A group of parents and teachers tried unsuccessfully to use Article 9 to overturn the ban on corporal punishment of children in schools. They believed that part of the duty of education in the Christian context was for teachers to assume the parental role and administer physical punishment to misbehaving children. The House of Lords rejected the case because the parents’ rights under Article 9 were restricted by the need to protect children from the harmful effects that corporal punishment might cause – a punishment that involves deliberately inflicting physical violence.

    So if 'a punishment that involves deliberately inflicting physical violence' can be outlawed why not a punishment that deliberately inflicts emotional damage? This is no small area as it can be easily proven that religious shunning causes severe emotional problems and even suicide. Again I'm talking about the POLICY, not an individual's right to not invite a family member to tea.

  • aboveusonlysky
    aboveusonlysky

    Simon

    if you can claim that someone should be killed, but the person who pulls the trigger will always be way more guilty.


    What about the Manson family then? Should Charles Manson have received a much shorter sentence because he didn't actually kill anybody? Or was it not established that he was more guilty because he used undue influence to cause others to murder? I know we're not talking about murder here but other than that what's the difference?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit