Watchtower Hate Speech and Intimidation Might be a Violation of US Federal Law

by DT 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DT

  The United States is more lenient than most countries when it comes to hate speech and allowing organised religions to have their way, even when they hurt others. However, there are limits. I found a federal law that seems strangely relevant to recent Watchtower articles that labels former members as "mentally diseased" and discuss the "slaughter of apostates".

  Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
  Conspiracy Against Rights

  This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

  It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

  Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

  source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

  I'm not a lawyer, so these are just my opinions.

  This law isn't about shunning or expelling a member from an organisation. The US courts have been reluctant to interfere with these issues. However, the Watchtower Society has conspired to intimidate and threaten it's members to avoid any questions or challenges to their authority or even leaving the religion peacefully and quietly. The enforced shunning from friends and family is certainly part of this intimidation, but it also includes written comments demonising and insulting any who disagree or leave. This includes a recent article that gleefully discusses the "slaughter of apostates". The fact that they say that they don't do that today (there is no mention of tomorrow) doesn't change the fact that the article is extremely threatening and intimidating.

  Furthermore, the article is largely directed at current Jehovah's Witnesses who may be intimidated to attend public JW meetings and are then confronted by direct threats about the things that will and might happen if they dare to question anything that is taught or if they just try to leave or change religions according to their contitutional rights.

  I personally believe the discussion of the slaughter of a minority group who merely wish to exercise their freedom of (and from) religion, accompanied by both real and veiled threats and a range of official procedures and propaganda to further isolate and intimidate these people is a direct and blatent violation of this federal law.

  I welcome your comments.
• 

  purplesofa

  Are you familiar with this group:

  USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. USCIRF Commissioners re appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress. Website: www.uscirf.gov

  U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
  800 North Capitol Street, NW
  Suite 790
  Washington, DC 20002
  Tel: 202-523-3240
  Fax: 202-523-5020
  

  [email protected]

  
  

  At their site look under Issues>Defamation of Religions....the first issue listed is

  UN could move to target criticism of Islam as 'hate speech' - Catholic News Agency
• 

  MrFreeze

  If the Westboro Baptist Church can say the things they do, why would the WT be any different?
• 

  purplesofa

  MrFreeze, Westboro came to mind to me instantly. I think these issues are important and will be addressed some day, but I feel like we are far from resolving these things as a nation.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I think this is a hell of a stretch in the US. The US has very strong free speech protections.
• 

  sabastious

  If the Westboro Baptist Church can say the things they do, why would the WT be any different?

  The law's verbiage indicates action of conspiracy not just speech.

  Take their change of policy from announcing someone is disfellowshipped to announcing someone is no longer a Jehovah's Witness. They actually had articles (or maybe just letters) stating that when they say "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" they really mean to treat them as if they were disfellowshipped. Why were they forced to make this change? Because the term, when stated on a podium and in a formal way, evokes action from the congregation and that can be considered criminal hate.

  Medical science of the brain has given the term "mentally diseased" a complex description. It was translated into the NWT (1 Tim 6:4) in the mid 20th century where that term was considered more slang or hyperbole.

  What if they said all apostates have schizophrenia? Because that's basically what they are saying and when published in an article that millions of Witnesses will see, as well as predictably heed, it can easily consitute hate.

  -Sab
• 

  DT

  I agree that there are serious obstacles to confronting this type of intimidation in the United States. However, I think it is encouraging that there are already laws on the books that could address this if there is ever enough political will to do so.

  I also think that this involves much more than free speech. If I tell someone that I think it would be fun to see them put their hands in the air, that is free speech. If I also point a gun (or even something that looks like a gun) then it becomes a serious crime and act of intimidation. These articles are threatening, intimidating and accompanied by an entire system of procedures and statements that appear to be designed to deny people people's basic constitutional rights. They are also primarily the result of a single Governing Body who can be identified as the people who have conspired to produce this intimidation. The individual actions of shunning, disfellowshipping, hateful comments, etc. might not be crimes by themselves, but if they are intentionally used in combination as a way of denying people their rights, then a good argument could be made that they are violating the law. A prosecution based on this wouldn't have to be viewed as an attack on free speech.

  It's also interesting that the Watchtower Society's actions are primarily directed at their own members. Hateful comments may be less intimidating when the people making them don't also have the power to destroy your life. The Watchtower Society has this power over their members, which includes minors and people who are vulnerable in other ways, such as people who are mentally ill or physically dependent on the care of other Jehovah's Witnesses.
• 

  DT

  If this hateful speech escalates or results in violence or other unlawful or intimidating actions, then it would be easier to make a case that a certain group of people (the governing body) actually conspired to interfere with the basic human rights of its members. This would especially be true if they persist in their actions despite worldwide media coverage and possible prosecutions in other countries. They won't be able to claim that they couldn't have predicted the results of their actions.

  They would probably claim that the courts don't have jurisdiction over their internal religous affairs, like they have in the past. The good thing is that law is designed to protect constitutional rights, so it might be harder to use freedom of religion as a defense.
• 

  sabastious

  If this hateful speech escalates or results in violence or other unlawful or intimidating actions, then it would be easier to make a case that a certain group of people (the governing body) actually conspired to interfere with the basic human rights of its members. This would especially be true if they persist in their actions despite worldwide media coverage and possible prosecutions in other countries. They won't be able to claim that they couldn't have predicted the results of their actions.

  I hate to say it, but certain Witness "types" are the prime profile for degrading to violence. It's the one's the have developed a codependent relationship with the Watchtower and it's doctrine. They use the Watchtower like piglets use their mother's teats. As the Watchtower's fantasy degrades down many people will find themselves frightened and completely void of world view.

  -Sab
• 

  WTWizard

  I believe this is way more serious than a mistake. Anyone can issue a "slur" in their teachings--whether it be racial, gay, or religious. Someone can call a black person something they will regret. They can call a homosexual person something that is unsavory. Usually, these are isolated mistakes.

  What is going on here is more than this. It is one thing to call apostates "mentally diseased". It's another to expound on it to make it appear that such apostates are scumbags, and worthy of destruction. The whole paragraph is the offense, not just the phrase "mentally diseased". And it is worse because it goes in line with things the religion persistently teaches--treating apostates as something vile, shunning them, busting up their families, and even threats that they are going to get destroyed. I have seen it hinted that only secular law prevents them from killing apostates. This whole pattern, not just the phrase, is enough to get each and every person making up the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger charged with hate crimes--against people that have had enough of the lies, discrepancies, and lousy treatment.