Should the GB be charged with crimes against humanity? (page 2)

flipper

PUNK OF NICE- Yes, I agree- the GB and leaders of the WT society SHOULD be brought up on charges and tried for crimes against humanity. Not only are they guilty in the child molester mishandling, blood transfusion doctrine, and DFing - also they cost thousands of JW's lives in Malawi for not signing a simple political I.D. card and yet at the same time in Mexico allowed male JW's to join the military in order to keep preaching in that country. So they should be brought up on charges of hypocrisy as well. Makes me puke. Peace out, Mr. Flipper

flipper

Forgot to answer " What's the chances ? " part. Only if a sizeable number , or even one or a few people getting unjustly treated like this went to court these victims would have to be wealthy to keep these crimes going in the courts for a number of months or years. And how many JW's are wealthy who are sitting on the fence that could hire an attorney for months, even years to accomplish this ? A class action suit may be the way to go - you'd have to get an attorney who knows the game and would attack the WT society for the long haul. WT society has their OWN attorneys and is a wealthy corporation. They would fight like hell to keep hings out of the media - so it's going to take, time , money, and commitment to exposing these injustices . I hope it happens

sizemik

This thread raises an interesting issue . .

There is too much religious freedom

I'm normally an advocate of personal freedom . . . but in this case I believe the above to be true.

We have laws and legislative bodies who demand we wear a seat belt in our car . . . to put on hard hats, protective equipment in the workplace . . . Govt sponsored campaigns on the dangers of cigarette smoking . . . and on and on it goes.

All these provisions are to "protect" the citizens from harm . . .

And yet we have religious cults with highly developed mind-controlling tactics preying on vulnerable citizens, and causing a hell of a lot more harm than a stubbed toe or a bang on the head (OK I'm being cynical).

But surely it's a valid concern . . . these groups hide behind the holy grail of religious freedom only to inflict untold harm on our "citizens"

When citizens are unsuspectingly exposed to harm . . . we are normally quick to protect them from it in order to protect their "freedom". Why is patently harmful religion exempt?

glenster

Freedom of speech: there's no panel to determine if writing is true to allow
it to be published or writers of all kinds of belief and non-belief material
would be in trouble. That the JWs leaders don't believe their own concoctions
of their exclusiveness any more than Popoff thought his radio reciever trans-
mitted messages from Jesus doesn't matter in that regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Special_exceptions

There are sections in my expose of the JWs leaders of authors complaining that
their research material was misused to make it seem supportive of things it
wasn't, and evidence that shows the same thing, even on the issue of the medical
use of blood/major blood products, and all I can think of to do is get the word
around.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm

This has been updated since the last time I read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#Critical_views

A more socially prominent voice needs to bring it to public attention.

Reality79

Yes, they should. Although I'm now free and recovering, I've still lost a huge part of myself because of this goddamn cult.

Many people have died because of them and for those who were lucky enough to survive and walk out like many of us, it can take YEARS to recover from the psychological and emotional damage those vicious people cause.

Not nearly enough is done to highlight just how dangerous this evil organisation really is.

Borgia

Losthobbit, you wrote

An athiest is bound by the law.

A religious person is bound by the law and their religion.

So it seems that a religion doesn't have any special rights (athiests have more rights than religions)

I would concur that in reality it should be the case. But in actuality it is not. It is the religionists of this world who would very much like atheist like us to accomodate their dictatorship over all our choices. The concept of liberty and a free conscience is completely lost on the vast majority of them (still). Untill they re-discover' this precious item, they will continu to force their worldview down people throats, with all consequences.

As for ontopic:

Although I think that religion in general debases the value of humanity, I don't think it will stand in court to accuse the GB of crimes against humanity.

"are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion

So you have to come up with some evidence here ....

Besides: I'm not under the impression the US has already ratified the ICC treaty, if it ever comes that far. .... it's quite a sensitive issue a the moment given the US implication of many ... let's just say most unfortunate and lamentable actions ...

The ICC acting without a UN referral lacks the broad jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity, and cannot prosecute many cases, particularly if they occur outside of ICC-member nations.

Ch eers

Borgia

Should the GB be charged with crimes against humanity?

flipper

flipper

sizemik

glenster

Reality79

Borgia

JW GoneBad

kimbo

punkofnice

Share this