by Nick! 38 Replies latest jw friends
This makes me want to log a com;laint against them now for not allowing me to use the toilets because being TG a few months ago... Also not being allowed to get baptised and publically go out on ministry( mind you after reading some of the stuff on net i don't think i want part of the "disgusting thing") .
All the best for this case though
Agape
Gayle
"attorney class"
i like it
mariemcg
freedom from the borg is precious, I never felt so free b4 leaving.
the wt is just full of biggoted pricks
yes, what was the result... keep this page bumped till we find out?
calling 'nick'....
oz
@ Nick!. Do you know whether the Belgium Court made a decision and what it was concerning Jacques Lejeune’s case?
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
The US has a history of being overly cautious about interfering with religious rights, even when there is abuse.
I believe the best action is here is a public information campaign. The public in the US does not get disfellowshipping and they largely see Jehovah's Witnesses as harmless. Apart from the annoyance of the door-to-door work they are generally held in high esteem in the community.
Objectives:
1.) Inform the public.
2.) Give JW's a "voice" to express how policies like shunning have affected them and their family.
3.) Create a backlash of negativity that might pressure Org to backdown on the policy.
Hi Friends,
sorry for not having reacted earlier.
The situation is the following:
First, the Court gave itself time until December 20 th to come up with a decision.
Then, on that day, they said they needed more time and postponed their decision to January 10 th 20012.
A few days ago, on January 10 th , the Court finally came up with a preliminary judgment:
Some considerations:
The first trial at the first judgment level dates back to August 2004. The claim was of Belgian law against discrimination. In the meantime, while the case went through 4 levels of judgment, Belgium has rewritten the law against discrimination, invalidating the old 2003 and introducing the new 2007 law.
For some reasons (we do not have yet the details of the justifications used by the Court), it was deemed that this case, which dates back to 2004, has not violated the 2007 law.
We need to understand the details of the justification to take the appropriate decision as to whether or not there is a base to pursue further the case at the European Court of Human Rights.
Independently of this particular aspect, the case will have to be re-judged by a new Court, in the light of the four aspects highlighted by the Court of Appeal of October 18 th 2011.
Jacques is away on vacation right now, and I did not have a chance to speak to his lawyer. As soon as he is back we will sit together to evaluate the whole issue.
I shall keep you informed of the evolution of the case
Thanks Nick! for the information. I'm surprised that the Belgium law became less restrictive in 2007. Usually laws concerning discrimination become more restrictive with time. I look forward to your update after talking with Jacques Lejeune.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
I am very curious. American courts will say we have a different tradition but no one is going to call Belgium a wacko country. Imagine if they had to regroup throughout Europe.
