Using Illegal Means for Righteous Activism
John Davis: ...do you think it is right to willfully break the law to get this accomplished?
The way to fight an organization that has no respect for the law itself, is to fight with the same tools.
The org has an established history of challenging the law and breaking the law at every opportunity that it can when it suits their purposes.
Think of the children that have been kidnapped from hospitals to avoid a legal, court ordered blood transfusion. Think of the children who were instructed to defy the law back in the 40s...just so Rutherford could challenge US law (and don't forget the one boy who was castrated for his loyal efforts to break the law).
Think of all those Gilead special pioneers (or are they "need-greaters"? I dunno...whatever...specially trained ones) trained to break the law in countries where the WTS has been banned or restricted. Think of all the clandestine smuggling they engage in that the org brags about - the smuggling of money and literature.
The org is a legalistic organization that breaks the law, challenges the law, and hides behind the law.
If the org followed the law and respected the law...then it would be reasonable to expect the activists to do the same.
There is an old adage..."Fight fire with fire."
Before the days of small digital recorders I was asked to participate in a JC inquiry about an alleged wrongdoing. When I arrived, of course the lying accuser was nowhere to be seen, just the three judges and the accusation. So I politely informed them that the entire proceeding was going to be recorded by multiple "eye witnesses" to their JC meeting. They excused me and said they would get back to me at a later date. I did not tell them that it would be angels, Jesus, and God himself "recording" everything said. Is that "spiritual warfare"?
In most countries illegal acts that uncover serious wrongdoing are praised; an example of that in USA was "the Pentagon Papers". I think that the unmasking of the WT pedo database will be generally approved.
There are laws and then there is: what is right and what is wrong.
Every individual must decide for themselves on all of the above: what (or who) to follow/obey and what to disregard.
That being said, if a person willfully disobeys a law--even if they believe it is unjust--they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
This is and has always been the underlying understanding of acts of civil disobedience.
I think the place to have a judicial meeting is in a public area, most countries allow public recordings. As for illegal activities number one rule don't get caught, number two rule is if get caught is no comment to authorities.
You ask for opinions but never respond to them?
I don't respond after asking for people's opinions because I am not trying to say someone is right or wrong. Some people don't have a problem with all of those scenarios, while others have a problem with some and not others. It is everyone's opinions.
BTW: I never said that it is always illegal to record someone without their permission even in private locations. Even in the US, it varies by state, some are two party consent and others are 1 party consent.
Why not just acknowledge the responses then, if people go to the trouble of commenting just say thankyou for the comments. You know, just like in a WT study.
Um yeah JD, it's just good internet forum etiquette.
I am sorry. Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I will thank everyone for their comments more often. I am very sorry.