Watchtower fined in Belgium

by Vanderhoven7 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Jehovah's Witnesses in Belgium have to pay €12K fine for shunning policy

  News

  

  You have probably heard of the trial going on in Belgium about the shunning policy of JWs. Several ex-members took the JW org to court stating that the policy violaties the anti-discrimination law of the country. The judge has decided that this is correct, and has issued a fine of 12,000 euros for 'instigating discrimination and hate' against ex-members. This is the first time the organisation has been convicted in Belgium.

  Quote from the judge: "The organisation promotes their disfellowshipping policy in their local faith communities, which compromises several pillars of our basic human rights. At no point did the community consider the very harmful consequences for the victims. It is up to the justice system to stop those practices. In our society, religious rules are not above the law."

  Article in Dutch: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/16/jehova-getuigen/
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Could this be a dangerous precedent?
• 

  Rocketman123

  Several ex-members took the JW org to court stating that the policy violates the anti-discrimination law of the country.

  I've been speaking about this for long time, finally someone has taken action and done something about this.
  
• 

  truth_b_known

  This is where the Watchtower's "Theocratic Warfare" will come into play. Disfellowshipped and disassociated Witnesses will be shunned. The Watchtower hold some sort of regional elders meetings where no recording or notes are allowed to be taken. The elders will be told by the Watchtower that new language will be used in the practice to get around this judicial ruling.

  The official Watchtower stance will be that Witnesses are on their own to decide who they associate with and who they don't. If Witness just happen to shun someone in the congregation it is not sanctioned by the congregation or the Watchtower. Then it will be business as usual.
• 

  vienne

  I would not like my choice of associates to be regulated by law. Is disfellowshipping painful? I see that it is. Do I want to be forced to speak to a disfellowshiped pedophile because a judge says I must? No. Not now. Not ever. One's choice of associates, no matter what drives it, should be beyond a judge's purview.
• 

  Longlivetherenegades

  • vienne2 hours ago

    I would not like my choice of associates to be regulated by law. Is disfellowshipping painful? I see that it is. Do I want to be forced to speak to a disfellowshiped pedophile because a judge says I must? No. Not now. Not ever. One's choice of associates, no matter what drives it, should be beyond a judge's pureview.

    Reworded by me...........

    I would not like my choice of associates to be regulated by WTBTS. Is disfellowshipping painful? I see that it is. Do I want to be forced not to speak to a disfellowshiped pedophile or diassociated person because a an elder says I must not? No. Not now. Not ever. One's choice of associates, no matter what drives it, should be beyond an elders pureview
    
• 

  Rivergang

  I would not like my choice of associates to be regulated by WTBTS. Is disfellowshipping painful? I see that it is. Do I want to be forced not to speak to a disfellowshiped pedophile or diassociated person because a an elder says I must not? No. Not now. Not ever. One's choice of associates, no matter what drives it, should be beyond an elders pureview

  That is surely more the issue:

  i.e. A court has ruled that no Body of Elders may regulate whom I may or may not talk too, and thus effectively giving the two-fingered salute to the idea that a religious body can dictate who an individual may associate with.

  
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  This is awesome!
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  I think it will be reversed on appeal.
• 

  Pete Zahut

  
  

  Do I want to be forced to speak to a disfellowshiped pedophile because a judge says I must? No. Not now. Not ever. One's choice of associates, no matter what drives it, should be beyond a judge's purview.

  Talk about coming to the opposite conclusion .

  JW's don't force anyone to speak to someone if they don't want to, but they do however attempt to prevent and even punish individuals for speaking to someone (including their family members) by disfellowshipping them. That was the point of the Judges ruling. He said that the JW disfellowshipping policy was promoting something that is a violation of ones basic human rights. He wasn't talking about forcing anyone to talk to someone if they chose not to, he was talking about your right to choose for yourself who you talk to and the rights of the disfellowshipped person to being treated justly and within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization.