Stratton: why different from other cases?

by expatbrit 3 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  The Stratton township case appears to have a very good chance of success despite the appeals to the Supreme Court. But this is obviously not the first time villages and towns have attempted to stop continual disturbance by the JW's. The Quebec court cases that the WT won are examples.

  So what makes this particular case different? That it is different is shown by the fact it has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, because the precedent of those other cases has not been applied here.

  It's my understanding that the village of Stratton does not wish to ban the JW's altogether, but merely requires them to get a permit, and then to confine their conversion campaigns to the mon-fri 9-5 time slots. Is this different to previous cases?

  Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the case can enlighten me.

  As an additional question: assuming the Supreme Court upholds the favourable verdict, this would be a serious blow to the WT, as other townships could presumably enact the same legislation without the long court process. What could be done to inform politicians at local level? Are there databases of town Mayors etc?

  Expatbrit
• 

  MadApostate

  First, let me hedge by stating that I have yet to take/find the time to look at this case closely. As a matter of fact, I haven't read the appealed Case since the Do_Not_Call posts.

  With that said, it is my understanding that the 9-5 restriction has already been ruled unconstitutional, and Stratton accordingly amended the ordinance to something reasonable, like "during daylight hours" or possibly "dawn to 9/10:00PM". (I can't recall.)

  The issue the USSC is looking at is whether Stratton can require registration which forces solicitors to provide extensive personal info (supposedly so the city can either run background criminal checks up front, or have the ability to easily locate after the fact a solicitor who commits a crime), and which also requires solicitors to wear id badges, thus taking away someone's ability to anonymously disseminate their religious views door-to-door.

  As for publicity, you don't have to worry. Local governments belong to state and national associations which keep them abreast of all laws pertaining to their circumstances. Besides, this ruling (no matter which way it goes) will get extensive news coverage.

  As for ordinances in other cities, if you do a search, you will find most already have solicitation ordinances in force, but such simply are not enforced against JWs. If the USSC upholds Stratton, many cities will likely amend their present ordinances to match up with whatever the USSC says is const.
• 

  expatbrit

  Thanks Mad.

  It'll be interesting to see how this one comes out.

  Expatbrit
• 

  uncle jimbo

  Hi Mad and Expat,

  From my understanding of the case, I thought that the fact that it applies to EVERYBODY (not just religions) makes it different as well. I could be mistaken. It will be interesting to see how a very conservative Supreme Court will rule on this issue.