No, you don't need case law to proceed, but it's awfully hard to proceed in the face of established contrary law. There is an abundance of case law saying that the government can't do what you're asking it to do. A comparison with the sex abuse scandals is not helpful. Sexual abuse of children is obvious criminal behavior under US law, while shunning is clear protected behavior. I'm curious, Poconoknows, what you think the remedy should be? It's easy to say to investigate, but what should be the ultimate resolution? Would the government have to review their literature before it's printed to make sure it's acceptable? Would parents be reported for not inviting their grown children over for meals? I'm genuinely curious what those in favor of the petition think the end game would be. Also, welcome to the forum.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
They DO have a case.
Of course they do not have a case, for the same reasons that many have stated in this thread. As you said, they didn't change the substance of the petition, only cleaned up the form so it doesn't seem so amateur.
It is not Christian-like to me. Nothing Jesus would advocate, and it seems to be a form of extremism.
Yes, it's un-Christian and extreme, but that's not what makes a violation of the law. I would be shocked if a law firm actually is "getting involved" in this in the sense of taking it on as a case. Maybe they will send it on their letterhead to some officials, but I would like to see a press release or something before I believe that they are actually doing anything meaningful.
That is why, the former JW's can make a valid case at the UN
You can't "make a case" at the UN. You can send them a letter, but there is little they can do even if they agree. The document you cited has no teeth. And besides, it's too general to even establish that the WTS violates it. It is primarily directed at governmental intrusions into someone's ability to change their religion. Do you have any authorities, other than personal opinions, that institutional shunning is "coercion" as defined by the UN? And even if it was, isn't their right to nonviolent shunning part of their own right to freedom to worship as they like, according to the same document?
It almost sounded like some of the comments here didn't want anybody to have success in stopping what the society does.
I don't know about others, but personally, although I don't like shunning and authoritarian dogmatic religions, I hate authoritarian government overreach and censorship more, and I know that the latter can be far more dangerous if unchecked.
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
Put aside the reality that the DOJ wouldn't do anything even with a hundred million signatures because no federal law has been broken and it would be contrary to the Constitution. Besides that, those signing the petition should think about what a slippery and dangerous slope it would be for the government to start investigating every percieved harm in society. As wearewatchingyouman pointed out, people unfortunately commit suicide for a lot of reasons. Why not criminalize adultery, being a poor parent or child, unkindness to co-workers, or the many other things that have led to suicide in some cases? Why not force everyone to be nice to everyone else under penalty of prosecution? Wouldn't anyone who turns someone against a friend so that they "shun" their former friend be part of some conspiracy to violate human rights?
Think also about the right to speak out critically that we take for granted in free societies. Essentially, the petition wants to criminalize the WT's criticism of former members and their collective decision to shun the former members. Why would the government then not have to investigate anyone who speaks out critically toward politicians, businesses, celebrities, or religious groups (any "Anti" movements come to mind?) to see if the criticism is justified? This is why the better way to combat shunning and breaking up of families is to publicize it and expose their double speak for what it is.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
-
-
Chaserious
My understanding is that anyone who's not a party to the action can submit an unsolicited letter (called an amicus curae brief)
Amicus briefs are filed by persons who are not parties in the case, but they are not the equivalent of unsolicited letters. Generally, it is not the case that anyone can file an amicus brief. Parties wishing to file such briefs usually need permission from the court. It appears the California court system follows this rule.
CA Court Rule 8.200(c):
(c) Amicus curiae briefs
(1)
Within 14 days after the last appellant's reply brief is filed or could have been filed under rule 8.212, whichever is earlier, any person or entity may serve and file an application for permission of the presiding justice to file an amicus curiae brief. For good cause, the presiding justice may allow later filing.So applying the CA rule, not only would the letter presumably not be a proper amicus brief, but it would be out of time. An application for permission to file an amicus brief would appear on the docket if one were filed. I have never heard of a court allowing someone who is not a lawyer to file an amicus brief. The standard is generally that it is able to help the court decide the case, so filing such a brief requires discsussion of the law (usually some nuance of the law that the parties themselves are unable to delve into).
-
15
I mentioned the Candace Conti court case in a letter to a JW
by Xanthippe inso as i've written about this before.
an old friend of my late husband's suddenly contacted me out of the blue after over twenty years of shunning and we started writing.
i didn't know why she contacted me but i thought perhaps something had happened in the organisation to make her think, which is why i came on this forum in the first place.. she kept talking about her religion and basically 'witnessing' to me and i replied with just how long are we supposed to wait when it's been nearly 100 years since christ came into his kingdom.
-
-
Chaserious
Many JWs favor the ostrich approach when confronted with anything inconvenient. Burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist is really the easiest way to press on. The majority of JWs have already decided, whether consciously or not, that they are going to stay the course with the WTS no matter what. From there, it's just a matter of what needs to be ignored in order to stay the course. Ostrich, meet sand.
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
Does AAWA have some kind of edict that their members need to have a little AAWA logo embedded in their facebook profile picture? Because at least 6 of them have that exact same thing going on. Maybe they are just trying to "advertise advertise advertise."
-
170
Sign this petition - Investigation On Jehovahs Witnesses Religious Policy That Violates Human Rights and Abuses Religious Freedom
by TJ Curioso inlaunch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
-
-
Chaserious
The short answer is no, the Universal Declcaration of Human Rights can't be enforced. My take on the UDHR is that it's an aspirational document. It sets forth some nice things that we would all probably aspire to in the general sense. A lot of what it says is too general to actually "enforce." For example, the very first article says that "All human beings . . . should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I can't imagine how that would be enforced, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to try. Trying to enforce one part of the UDHR, like the petition suggests, would arguably violate another portion, such as the one where people are free to practice the religion of their choosing. For Americans, maybe think of it like the Declaration of Independece. There's lot of nice sounding language, but it's not like you would think of going into court to try to enforce your right to the pursuit of happiness.
Also, it is absurd for whoever created this petition to suggest that the Watchtower is violating the U.S. criminal torture statute. Maybe a JW will accidentally read your petition and feel sad and depressed, so the petition drafters must be torturers also. Amateur hour...
-
7
Gene Smalley and the Watchtower's Blood Transfusion Doctrine
by Dogpatch inin recent years the legal dept.
isn't he, barr and barber the last of the old gb?
aug 22 1965, p. 18. but awake feb 22 1975, p. 30 may have reimposed it.
-
-
Chaserious
I'm sure he still is. He's a generation [standard definition] behind Jaracz, Barr, and Barber. I would say he'd be somewhere in his 70's now.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
-
-
Chaserious
No, it doesn't mean that anyone can submit a letter, at least not in the sense that you can expect it to be considered as past of the case. The judges don't post these items on the docket, so the fact that it appears does not mean that it will be considered or that the judges have read it. Generally, everything that is received from the parties is posted on the docket, which sometimes can even include things submitted by the parties that are improper or can't be considered. I'm not sure if all courts have a policy on unsolicited documents that arrive in the mail from someone other than a party. It could be that the court rule is to post everything on the docket for the sake of transparency, or it could be that this doesn't happen often and someone in the court clerk's office posted it by mistake.
-
212
Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641
by jwleaks injw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
-
-
Chaserious
Regarding the letter from Joseph Herrera, just because they made a docket entry that an unsolicited letter was received doesn't mean they will consider whatever he submitted.
Within 14 days after the last appellant's reply brief is filed or could have been filed under rule 8.212, whichever is earlier, any person or entity may serve and file an application for permission of the presiding justice to file an amicus curiae brief. For good cause, the presiding justice may allow later filing.