I never said you were a drunkard or a wife beater. I was just stating it is not slander. Watchtower doesn't announce why a disfellpwshiping occurs just that someone is longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses which is a true statement. And in a pleading under undisputed facts it would state that someone was disfellowshipped for something, not that they committed that act, unless that is stipulated that it occurred, but that is why a person was disfellowshipped.
Disfellowshipping decision to go before Canadian Supreme Court
search: Just to add clarity:
This case is about two simple things:
- Did the Judicial Committee follow the "principles of natural justice"? - A requirement in Canada.
- Did the Judicial Committee follow its own internal rules (eg. in The Shepherd the Flock of God book)?
The statements made by Gnam and MacEwan as to freedom to associate, etc. are superfluous, strawman statements.
(And, no, Richard Oliver, I am not a wife-beater).
Thank you for that clarity, Randy. And best of luck as you proceed. You are taking a big bite and have got this far. It is monumental, really. Well done.
As far as the one judge's comments about likening the JC/shunning process to a "bridge club"...he is way off base. A bridge club that has affiliation with an official body (and, the JW congregation has affiliation with an official body that links them together with the WT organization, however loosely), must abide by "principles of natural justice" when they consider banning a player for impropriety. For example, in the world of ACBL sanctioned bridge club hearings, the accused is entitled to representation at the hearing, among other things, that distinguishes them from the JWs on how they handle judicial matters.
I will be watching for updates. Again, good luck. Eat well and get lots of sleep. Do happy things when you can...you have a long road ahead and you will need your strength!
Just a thought
What if this guy wins this law suit and the WTS has to pay out a huge amount in personal damages.
You can imagine a lot of DFed ex-JWs lining up at their local Law Courts .
He would have a much stronger case if he had been DF'd for apostasy, smoking or celebrating Christmas. Too bad the question of whether shunning is sue-worthy or not rests on an incident like this. I have heard of and personally witnessed far worse cases of DFing than this, but the victim just wasn't willing to take it to court.
So are JWs going to be encouraged to write letters to Trudeau about this case?
(And, no, Richard Oliver, I am not a wife-beater).
Yes, but you are an estate agent. Which is probably worse. ;)
As I see it no religous group has the right to tell another human whom he can or cannot do business with there is nothing in the bible that says you can do that.
There is a similar case, her in Europe ( Belgium ), where Jacques le Jeune worked as a financial advisor for a lot Jws and among these some elders. He was cheated by one of the elders and you can immagine what happened after;" JC and disfellowshipment ", so he lost a big part of his business. He is now waiting, after mor than 10 years, a decision of the belgian supreme court but is expecting this case will end up at the european court.
All this I hope will do is show the public more of what goes on inside the org. that the JW's won't tell you about until they love bomb you and you feel this is now your family and so now DF'ing doesn't sound so bad....plus they are in now, too late to turn back, if you do, you'll lose all the connections you made...
So as many have said, it nothing comes of it...at least it may get some more press coverage...maybe more DF'd folks should do what he did...they may not win, but it sure will make a fuss back at the ranch.
sir82: So are JWs going to be encouraged to write letters to Trudeau about this case?
Lol! Maybe there should be some letter writing going on.
This case has the potential to fight the very thing that causes the shunning to begin with. The internal judicial system of the JWs. And the Supreme Court of Canada is nothing to sneeze at - that is where many religious freedoms have been set in the past. It is ironic, now, that the "Champions of Freedom" are now being called out on whether or not they grant the same freedoms to their members.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read it, what is going to be at question, is whether or not the judicial process of the JWs respects the rights of individuals under Section 7-14 Legal Rights of the Canadian Constitution.
In other words, did the JC follow correct legal procedure? Was Randy given his full legal rights during that process?
I think it is quite clear that one essential right is always denied a person during those proceedings and that is the "right of representation".
The first argument is not concerning what he was accused of doing, or even what the results of the punishment was, it is whether or not the process was fair and constitutional.
However, where those issues may come up is in questioning whether or not the "punishment fit the crime", so to speak. That will be a difficult one if it needs to be addressed, considering that the WT law equates disfellowshipping with stoning to death - the harshest punishment of all. Seems a bit over the top to treat someone who was accused of what Randy was, in the same manner as you would a murderer.
So, for anyone interested in doing something about shunning, this case is critical because it strikes at the heart of where shunning comes from. The JWs' judicial system itself.