PORTUGAL: Filed a petition to the parliament to erase the legal entity of the Jehovah's Witness

by EdenOne 127 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  vivalavida

  Voted!
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  Then, with 1000 signatures, the petition can not be dismissed on the basis of inadmissibility and the petitioner must be given an audience at the parliament to present the case. The petition also gets published in the official "Diário da República" paper, where all the laws are also published.

  I see... so, and im just asking, what if you started a petition to ban the word “cucumber” and got 1000 people to sign onto that... whats the next step? Is there no means by which parliament could say “this is rediculious and we aren't wasting time on it”? They would have to hear you out on the subject of banning the word cucumber? And then, after giving opportunity to speak on banning the word cucumber, am i correct in understanding that they are not obligated to take any action? Again, just curious...
  
  
• 

  John Davis

  Morpheus:

  A petition even with the requiset number of signatures can still be denied to be received and reviewed on it's face if it meets certain requirements:

  Exercise of the Right of Petition

  Law no. 43/90 of 10 August 1990, as amended by Law no. 6/93 of 1 March 1993, Law no. 15/2003 of 4 June 2003, Law no. 45/2007 of 24 August 2007 and Law no. 51/2017 of 13 July 2017 (Declaration of Rectification no. 23/2017 of 5 September 2017) In accordance with Articles 52, 164(d), 168(b)
  

  Article 12

  Immediate denial A petition shall immediately be denied when it is manifest that:

  a) Its goal is illegal;

  b) It seeks the reconsideration of court decisions, or of administrative acts which are not subject to appeal

  ; c) It seeks the reconsideration by the same entity of cases that have already been considered following exercise of the right of petition, save only if new grounds for consideration are invoked or have occurred.

  2 - A petition shall also immediately be denied if:

  a) It was submitted anonymously and studying it has not made it possible to identify the person or persons it came from;

  b) It is groundless.
  
• 

  EdenOne

  John Davies dixit :)

  But, there's more:

  "Article 21

  Hearing of petitioners

  1. The hearing of the petitioners during the examination and investigation shall be mandatory before the parliamentary committee or its delegation whenever the petition is signed by more than 1000 citizens.

  2. The hearing may also be decided by the parliamentary committee on meritorious grounds, duly substantiated, having regard, in particular, to the scope of the interests concerned, their social, economic or cultural importance and the gravity of the situation which is the subject of the application."

  This is also what we're aiming for.

  325 signatures.
• 

  John Davis

  I am not saying that this is, in fact, would not be considered. I am just saying that there is built within the petition laws certain circumstances where a petition can be denied.

  I think it will be accepted but that is as far as it is going to go. The ECHR has already ruled in the France case that a nation cannot charge tax.

  There could be petitions made with a number of other religions and groups. Catholic parishes and religious organizations would have to be charged because they deny communion to people who support abortion. Jewish institutions would be denied because they require women to receive both a civil divorce but also a Get in order to divorce. If it is part of religions strongly held belief it is hard for western governments to do anything that would coerce them into changing their belief system.
• 

  _Morpheus

  Yea thats what i figured john. As i noted its not my time being wasted and if tilting at windmills is someones thing then by all means mount up, don... but this aint going anywhere. Zero chance.
• 

  EdenOne

  I think it's an interesting civilizational discussion to have, to say the least.

  I feel strongly that institutionalized shunning and discrimination cannot be allowed to a religious entity, especially when that is used as a form of punishment that extends beyond the boundaries of the membership to said institution, which is the case in question. And it causes real suffering and pain to real people, both in and out of the religious community.

  I recognize the right to excommunicate someone, in the sense of ceasing communion or spiritual fellowship; also, it's not my business to decide how that is implemented, albeit I could argue for hours how the Bible and the history of the early christian church doesn't grant shunning as defined by the Governing Body. But what goes beyond that termination of spiritual fellowship, in the way we know JW's do, it's simply not acceptable in this 21st century. Change must come.
• 

  John Davis

  Well, you are going to have your voice heard if the petition is considered. If that makes you feel better then go for it, which you are doing. But I really hope you don't expect major changes by this petition.
• 

  EdenOne

  It's the case of the proverbial mouse standing against the elephant, JD.
• 

  _Morpheus

  I think it's an interesting civilizational discussion to have, to say the least.
  I feel strongly that institutionalized shunning and discrimination cannot be allowed to a religious entity, especially when that is used as a form of punishment that extends beyond the boundaries of the membership to said institution

  i agree, of course, but no law can or will change it. They (the jw’s) will lie regarding the nature of shunning and no one can prove otherwise. They will also say its individual choices. Its fruitless. But if it makes you feel better then again by all means mount up and charge. No harm will come from it and legal challanges have merit even if unsuccessful, but i doubt they will hear it. The ramifications would be too far reaching.