Staffordshire Police Contacted about WTBTS Mentally Diseased WatchtowerArticale

by Hairyhegoat 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  soft+gentle

  I think it is worth keeping in mind what the law in the UK allows religions to say and do and then think about how to frame our concerns to the police and charity commission. wiki has something to say on this that may be helpful. i will try to find the article

  edit: okay here is something

  The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

  Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

  my understanding of the above is that the WTS can defend and justify its mentally diseased epithets by showing police what apostates say about Jehovahs witnesses unless of course you can demonstrate harmful intent that goes beyond the above and can demonstrate harm done

  or am I mistaken

  Britain is very committed to religious freedom as the above (section 29j) shows
• 

  cedars

  soft+gentle, I appreciate you raising this so that we can examine the legislation in more detail. However, there is a difference between saying that someone's beliefs and practices are mentally diseased, and saying that someone IS mentally diseased, and encouraging prompt, courageous and determined action of the type taken by a biblical figure who engaged in the "slaughter of apostates".
• 

  soft+gentle

  cedars I have read DT's thread and as much as i would like to arrive at your conclusions the fact is that the wt article clearly says the opposite by highlighting the courage of Jehu not his actions which it explicitly says christians would not engage in.

  I have been trying to get hold of the article so that I can read it in full but have failed so far.
• 

  cedars

  soft+gentle - the part of the article I have quoted above is near the end, and nowhere in the remaining text does it say that Christians should not mimic his actions. It is merely implied, not stated clearly.
• 

  soft+gentle

  I think the para begins with the point I am making - do you have a copy of the para in question as I don't at the moment and have a meeting to attend this evening
• 

  cedars

  soft+gentle - yes you're right. Earlier on in the article it says: "Today, no servant of Jehovah uses physical force against opponents of pure worship."

  I stand corrected!

  Perhaps we should stick with the argument that a charity that does not serve the public benefit should be receiving millions of pounds worth of Gift Aid at a time of financial crisis and spending cuts.
• 

  soft+gentle

  I think hairyhegoat and cantleave have real life experiences that can be used as evidence of harm done. It would be interesting to see if the CPS would view such as evidence.

  Also I hope I don't sound dismissive of the momentum we have gained in publicising the WTS extreme measures to silence dissenters. after all aren't we simply putting section 29j into practice?

  edit: re the charity commission. The difficulty here is that many people do view Jehovahs witnesses as a force for good especially in these troubled times. for example their morality, the many positive male role models they provide in the community etc. But the question is - does the bad fallout cancel out the good beneficial aspects.
• 

  cedars

  soft+gentle - you don't sound dismissive at all. Pragmatism is always essential in these things, together with a whole lot of patience!

  I'm quite pragmatic myself when it comes to anything meaningul coming from the CPS, although I would love it if something would happen. I personally think the best route forward is to find out how much taxpayers' money has been poured into the Society on a yearly basis despite the current financial woes of the UK economy.
• 

  soft+gentle

  cedars I was just editing and updating my post above with this

  edit: re the charity commission. The difficulty here is that many people do view Jehovahs witnesses as a force for good especially in these troubled times. for example their morality, the many positive male role models they provide in the community etc. But the question is - does the bad fallout cancel out the good beneficial aspects.

  and yes I guess as taxpayers we need to think about how best to have our money spent
• 

  cedars

  soft+gentle - I think it's just a case of awareness. I have read the "public benefit" statement that the Society has made to the Charity Commission, and it is misleading to say the least. The only "benefits" to be enjoyed are by those who agree with the Governing Body (and whose relatives are of the same mind), and do not encounter a situation where treatment with blood is urgently required. Ordinary members of the public see precious little benefit, unless you count turning up at a convention and taking in the 'atmosphere'.

  If it can be demonstrated that the public preaching work is carried out for the sole purpose of bringing members of the public to baptism; that baptism (by means of the 2nd question) is an oath of loyalty to the organisation, and that any subsequent breaking of this oath results in dire and catastrophic circumstances including the break-up of families through the shunning principle, then I feel that the "public benefit" argument would crumble instantly. It's just a matter of getting information out there, because so far the Society has done an excellent job of completely pulling the wool over the eyes of the Charity Commission.