Decent proof-reading aside, this has two major flaws;
1/ It states there are two ways to leave. There are three. One can simply become inactive and slip away. This does not reduce the human-rights impacts of DF'ing of DA'ing, as if one actively leaves, one cannot do so freely. But to state there are only two ways means the press release fails in its goal by being dismissable as inaccurate by a JW or a supoorter.
2/ It doesn't have sizzle. Essentially, to a non-concerned party, it is 'yes, and, so, what'. How about framing it in view of the recent withdrawl as a UN NGO?. Example;
"Although JW's have been victims of human rights violations in the past, and have actively campaigned for legislation supporting human rights, recent developments have shown that they do not apply the same rules to their internal conduct. They recently withdrew from the UN as an NGO as they were no longer able to support the aims of the United Nations that NGO's are required to support, such as "xyz".
This failure to support fundamental human rights internally is evidenced by their treatment of people who are either judged 'unworthy' of being a Jehovah's Witness and are shunned by their former associates after being difsfellowshipped by the organisation's hierachy, or who leave for personal reason, and are again shunned by their former associates due to the organisations teachings."
This is far more interesting to any reader; blatent hypocracy, double standards, and it is all proved by their own actions in dissassociating themselves from an organisation dedicated to supporting human rights as they were unable to support that organisations aims.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...