Badwillie's Dad's response to UN scandal (page 2)

badwillie

Hawk & outnfree,
Thanks for the suggestions. I know that there is no way for any JW to wriggle out of this. I t's just no use when they don't WANT to see it. I may try later with him, who knows?
- BadWillie

hawkaw

badw,

Don't just jam it down his throat. You need the human reasons why it is sooo bad (eg. people in prision and Malawi but the leaders break the whole doctrine for a measly library card).

There are ways to get the message out to your dad. I urge you to look into them before you go at it. Randy's web site (Freeminds) has a good topic on it.

hawk

patio34

Hi Badwillie,

I agree with all that's been posted on your thread, but just want to say that your dad is surprisingly nice in his approach. He must be a bit more of a liberal JW.

Pat

Trevor Scott

Don't forget the responsibilities of associated ngos:

"...disseminating information and mobilizing public opinion in support of the UN and its Specialized Agencies. Association with DPI constitutes a commitment to that effect."

"Associated NGOs are expected to devote a portion of their information programmes to promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities."

"In addition, they are expected to keep the DPI/NGO Section abreast of their activities by regularly providing samples of their information materials relating to the work of the UN."

When the WTS plays dumb on this one, they are lying through their collective teeth.

How would the rank and file feel to learn that the WTS was reporting back to the UN, supplying them with regular samples of their efforts in disseminating UN propaganda and building support for the UN? Just a library card? I don't think so.

If you have access to the Nov 22-98 Awake, and have not looked at it lately, DO SO. THE FIRST 14 PAGES IS NOTHING BUT UN PROPAGANA. I would bet money that a copy of this mag is at the DPI/NGO Resource Centre right now, as a "sample" of WTS efforts in supporting the UN.

TS,

mikepence

Interesting that he posts no source for his information. Has someone been surfing apostate web sites?

"I understand that the press officer at the office of public information at London Bethel on 10/22 responded to the Guardian article by refuting, point by point, the "factual errors" contained in that article."

Again, he provides no reference, no indication which points were "factual errors", just states that it was replied to, as if that mere act constitutes a factual victory.

"As it happens the society did apply for DPI/NGO status in 1991 for the purpose of getting access to the UN's library."

Right. Proof?

"In 1991 there was no requirement to sign off on a statement endorsing UN principles."

So, the letter from the head of the NGO program is a lie? (It is posted as a scanned image on this site and at http://watchtower.observer.org). Surely, he could call the UN and verify this fact?

"In effect they were applying for a "library card"."

Strange ends to justify awfully questionable means.

"It seems that that requirement came after Kofi Annan's arrival as part of a general tightening up effected by Annan. Evidently, this requirement was slipped in unnoticed."

Such creatvity! This is an interesting attempt to make his argument sound credible with coercive words like "It seems" and "Evidently". Kofi Annan had nothing to do with this, since the requirements have not changed substantially, and the UN has not "slipped" anything by on their NGO partners. They have a contractual agreement with them, which goes both ways. The UN also has lawyers to answer to in their legal department.

"If the Society is quilty of anything it is that they went unaware of this new requirement."

What new requirement? When was it changed? How did it change without the NGO's being notified? Why did the head of the NGO program indicate that it had not changed? Is this a big conspiracgy to make the WTS look bad?! C'mon!

"Additionally, I have learned that the Society had an observer at the UN sessions for many years. Just as in the case of the press, media or any interested observer it does not necessarily constitute endorsement. I understand that the library access was a more cost effective expedient for accessing UN info."

This is completely off topic and irrelevant. Rhetorical hand-waving.

"If and when I get any more detail on this I will pass it on. Otherwise, I will abide by your wish to limit conversation to light non-confrontational issues. Hope you and your family are well."

As a father, I can't imagine being content with a superficial relationship with my son and his family.

I think that Badwillie's Dad is very afraid. He seemes to be an intelligent enough man to see the truth of this silly library card excuse.

Bill, just ask him to call the UN Librarian and ask about what it takes to get access. The numbers, fron Kent's thread, are:

Head Reference Librarian, Ms. Dana Loytved at 212-963-8822
Ms. Yengit from the Head Librarian's office at 212-963-7443

Or, just send him this link, http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/services.htm#access, without comment.

Peace and Love,
Mike
http://xjwnews.com

Satanus

BadW

It takes a lot of courage. Bad medicine needs to be given in small doses, w lots of time in between.

Hang in there, SS

searcher

"It seems that that requirement came after Kofi Annan's arrival as part of a general tightening up effected by Annan. Evidently, this requirement was slipped in unnoticed."

Does any JW orXJW REALLY believe that ANYONE can slip ANYTHING unnoticed passed the Watchtowers Legal Eagles?

steve

Gozz

I do not yet have all the relevant detail but I'll pass on what I do have at present.

Watchtower Style. That's a line that the Rank and File would have to swallow. They don't ahve allt he (relevant) details.

I understand that the press officer at the office of public information at London Bethel on 10/22 responded to the Guardian article by refuting, point by point, the "factual errors" contained in that article. As it happens the society did apply for DPI/NGO status in 1991 for the purpose of getting access to the UN's library. In 1991 there was no requirement to sign off on a statement endorsing UN principles. In effect they were applying for a "library card". It seems that that requirement came after Kofi Annan's arrival as part of a general tightening up effected by Annan.

Evidently...

Classic Watchtower style. I think when the Writing boys have not much information about a matter, this word comes rolling in...

...this requirement was slipped in unnoticed.

The brothers in Legal should get some Public Reproof on the Internet for subjecting neglecting their duties in the Courtyard.

If the Society is quilty of anything it is that they went unaware of this new requirement.

The Society should be disfellowshipped for being slow about discerning, and slow about acting.

Additionally, I have learned that the Society had an observer at the UN sessions for many years.

Society has printed tomes on the UN. Why didn't they mention this?

Just as in the case of the press, media or any interested observer it does not necessarily constitute endorsement. I understand that the library access was a more cost effective expedient for accessing UN info...

That's what the Society would want believed. But it's apples and oranges.

Hope you and your family are well.

The love of a dad...

Badwillie's Dad's response to UN scandal

Share this