Hawkeye
From Scott
In response to your post I would like to raise the following arguments:
1. The idea of constitutional challenge is interesting but what will be at stake is not the religious freedom of the JW's but whether the JW's have the right to infringe on the basic human rights of one of its members once that member has stated that they do not want to go throught with a religious practice.
To use an analogy:
Your boss wants to engage in a sexual relationship with you. You are not interested and state so.. but then your boss brings financial pressure to bear, indicating that you might lose your job and your house and maybe your marriage if you dont cooperate.
If you then succumb to the pressure and later bring charges against your boss the courts would side with you in a heartbeat and find the boss guilty of using undue influence and his/her position of authority over you to force you to do something you dont want to.
If the boss then used the argument that it is a company policy that employees have to sleep with their boss he would be laughed out of court. Would the courts say that he has no responsibility because you could have quit and walked away from your sole source of income at any time.
The JW's were vickis life at that time ... all her family and friends were JW's... For them to say that she could have just stopped being a JW and walk away was absurd. Age of the person is no greater a factor than it would be for a date rape case.
The basic tenent of my argument is this:
The charter of rights and freedoms guarantees a persons right to volontarily partake of a religion and any religious practice they want without interference from a third party.
However once a person states that they dont want to partake of a religious practice or policy, they are setting themselves apart from that religion and asserting their rights as a Canadian citizen. The charter of rights and freedoms then should shelter them from undue influence by the religion to submit to a mentaly or physically harmful practice.
If the religion then brings to bear an undue influence on that person and causes harm to their physical or mental well being then the religion has contravened the Charter of rights and freedoms and in my mind has broken their fiduciary duty.
Once having inflicted harm on their member the church owes a duty of care to mitigate the damages caused by their actions. If they then simply set adrift the member and ignore the damage they caused then they are guilty of neglegence.
At no time did vicki submit willingly to the process. She was very vocal in her opposition and it was only after extreme pressure was brought to bear that she submitted. The elders ignored her cries for help and her angst about the confrontation process.
Then to be told to forgive the abuser was simply cruel.
Scott
