by joe134cd 21 Replies latest jw friends
@tech49
With this recent set of instructions regarding the upcoming international conventions, I mentioned to someone that we may just go to one on our own, without making special arrangements with the WT tour groups and packages.
seriously - you would go to one of these voluntarily? waste of time, much?
If we were so exemplary, I guess we wouldn't be cancelled from going! Basically, they just want to warn you that they are not going to give you back any of your travel expenses if you are canceled. I think any "tour group" would have to let you go or refund you, but they have no control over the elders-it is probably a brother who would be out if you cancel, too. They have to take you and if they refuse, they need to refund. And heck, I'd call a lawyer if they didn't do one or the other.
As I learned in the legal world.........
It is only illegal if you get caught
I think legally if someone took them to task over it, they would loose. But I'm no lawyer.
I suspect that any JW who would sue the WTS would be found guilty of "brazen conduct".
Doc
if you sufferred damages (or if they promised to pay for something) you could probably sue them in small claims at your local county. If you served the local corporation (trustee jokers of the kingdom hall) you could probably at least make them show up at the small claims court and embarrass them. LOL It would get their attention. LOL
Note that the "instruction" is confined to "special" conventions - which is by invitation only, such as elders, pioneers etc. It is NOT talking about money upfront for tours. By its constricted definition, the organization would be on solid legal ground in reversing an invitation. You could try going to a smalls claims court, I suppose, or spend your good money on coffees whilst your brethren are suffocating in the confines of a special convention.
Quite why anyone would choose to apply to attend and then protest when they have been found to be unworthy of going beats me.
“Exemplary status” – that is quite the subjective term. Unlike having been actually disfellowshipped or disassociated, which is a more black-and-white, either-or status formally on record, the status of being “exemplary” or not is a concept which really could be at the discretion or whim of almost anybody with any kind of position in the organizational hierarchy. The idea of being “exemplary” could, as Our Kingdom Ministry has stated, involve ‘having well-behaved children’ – or, it could be a matter of just being “well-reported on,” or having a “good reputation” in the congregation, which would basically be at the mercy of whatever rumor mill is operating around where the person lives (where hearsay and innuendo rule supreme). And, of course, there is the old guilt by association trick; i.e., in the example provided above of harboring a disfellowshipped family member in the home. Being “exemplary” or not is pretty much infinitely broad, and certainly as subjective as you can get.
It would therefore be basically impossible to establish with any kind of factual or legal veracity whether a congregation member would be rightly deemed as not exemplary. It would basically boil down to a he-said-she-said scenario.
As for the actual monetary expenses involved, I would think that it would depend on whether or not there had been any prearranged deposit made through the Watchtower corporation. The Watchtower couldn’t be responsible for any deposit made directly to any lodging facilities by an individual member. However, you would think that any deposit made through the Watchtower would be considered a legally binding arrangement or contract, and as such would be subject to mandatory refund if the member/client was denied satisfaction of the services already prepaid due to some intangible and arbitrary judgment which couldn’t even be proven in any event.
As an analogy, think of someone purchasing, say, a vacation package through a travel agency, or perhaps purchasing an item through an online fulfillment service such as E‑Bay. If the business arbitrarily denied the client his/her right to the services already prepaid (especially due to some disingenuous and improvable “hang‑up” they had about the client, such as being gay or having red hair, etc.), then you would think that they would morally, and probably legally, be obligated to refund the client their funds. That would certainly be the essence of “natural law,” because, after all, fair is fair – even for an evangelical corporate giant such as the Watchtower.
If the business arbitrarily denied the client his/her right to the services already prepaid (especially due to some disingenuous and improvable “hang‑up” they had about the client, such as being gay or having red hair, etc.), then you would think that they would morally, and probably legally, be obligated to refund the client their funds. That would certainly be the essence of “natural law,” because, after all, fair is fair – even for an evangelical corporate giant such as the Watchtower.
The key phrase in the above response is "arbitrarily denied". The purchaser has clearly been advised of the terms and conditions and so, to repeat, the Watchtower is on solid legal ground. The question of whether there are "moral" and "ethical" considerations is entirely separate. We can belly-ache all we want about how harsh and unloving the terms and conditions are, but the key point of interest is whether they are sustainable from a legal point of view. Yes they are. The official Watchtower statement makes clear the risk of cancellation applies only to "special" conventions. As stated, attendance is through application and/or invitation. These "special conventions" - an odd but specific use of the word "conventions" - are not open to the rank and file let alone the public.
How would they stop anyone? How would they even know?
It's all about control. This entire religion is all about control.
None of it is real. It's all a mind-fuck. We all played along until the day we decided to stop. But then our family and friends that are still playing the mind-fuck game stopped talking to us because that's another one of the mind-fuck rules.
How would they stop anyone? How would they even know?
The first question is good, the second one, somewhat naive. We're talking about private meetings where names are checked against updated attendance lists. Ever tried attending even a secular seminar/workshop when you're name's not on the list? There's your answer to the second question.
Regarding the first question, rarely do organizations need to call in security guards or the police to remove dis-invited delegates. By far, most people stay away when they are told they are not welcome. It also speaks to an organization's right to hold private meetings which "special conventions" are. All organizations have private meetings - although there may be far fewer organizations who reverse an earlier approval to attend.
Perhaps this is a good test case to those JWs in good standing whose application to attend a "special convention" was intially accepted and then reversed because of a change in status (i.e., no longer exemplary). I don't expect, though, we will see them lining up to try to get in.
