see the title
Is JW shunning a religious hate crime ?
by stan livedeath 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
MeanMrMustard
No.
-
Touchofgrey
Your personally free to shun anyone who you decide deserves to be cut out off your life.
But the issue as I understand it ,is when you try to influence others to shun the individual and encourage them to cut off association with the individual .
So when jws make a announcement saying touchofgrey is no longer a jws ,they are basically telling everyone who hears the announcement to shun them, that's when it could be considered a hate crime.
Which is probably why they are saying it's up to the individual to decide whether they will shun the individual or not ,but as usual they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
-
MeanMrMustard
Your personally free to shun anyone who you decide deserves to be cut out off your life.
But the issue as I understand it ,is when you try to influence others to shun the individual and encourage them to cut off association with the individual .
So when jws make a announcement saying touchofgrey is no longer a jws ,they are basically telling everyone who hears the announcement to shun them, that's when it could be considered a hate crime.
Which is probably why they are saying it's up to the individual to decide whether they will shun the individual or not ,but as usual they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
A crime, eh? It doesn't matter if they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. When a group has a rule against ex-members, the only way it's enforced is through the current members. The active members either believe it's the right choice to shun former members, Or they don't but do it anyway because they agree their agency should be outsourced. No matter what, bringing the state into this sets a horrible precident for all sorts of unintended consequences. Try to think outside of the JW-hurt-bubble to what it means more generically.
Trying to outlaw “shunning” would allow the government to intrude into more than just religion. Many groups rightfully choose to ostracize disruptive individuals, from friend circles choosing to ignore manipulative and drama-causing individuals, to clubs and organizations disinviting individuals trying to subvert those organizations for their own ends, to religions removing individuals attempting to proselytize a different religion from within their own ranks. Such a law would effectively allow a government to control who people can choose to associate with.
But I get it - religious shunning is top tier assholery. Shunning can be horrible and cruel. But you simply can't make a law prohibiting people from being assholes.
Also, you are removing all of the agency from the current members - people who have and continue to make astoundingly horrible moral choices. Don't let them off the hook by making them victims. They do have a choice.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Let's go to Psycology Today for legal advice....
Alright .. let's read it.
-
MeanMrMustard
Let's get into it. The key points:
* Mandated shunning is a hate crime, employed by high-control religious groups to maintain membership.
By what definition? Under what legal theory does this rise to the level of a "crime"? (more on this below)
* A new research study, led by the University of Roehampton, is seeking to quantify the psychological impact.
So? Are you really prepared to make the leap from a study showing negative psychological effects to taking physical action and locking someone up in a jail cell? What about other studies? Where would you draw the line, or is any perceived "negative effect" on the table as a basis for a new law?
* The research group is calling for case studies and survey responses to aid its investigation.
I'm sure there are a lot of case studies to find, all of which will (or should be) legally irrelevant.
The article cites a JW (Matthieu) example, and attempts to make the distinction that you have already made: People can shun, but "mandated" shunning should not be allowed. My reply isn't so different than the first post above.
The question is: Concerning this law (or series of laws), can you write them down? Don't just opine about negative effects and how hurt people are. Don't just cite examples of families making the choice to pull away, or even suicides. No - can you put the law into words? Write down the law on paper, knowing the words that you use will be interpreted by many different parties for their own needs, even twisted at times. And then can you spend some minimum amount of time thinking about those people and all of the unintended consequences your law would bring? Ask yourself, is there any way this could get out of hand and start to infringe on rights? Can you really see no other areas of life that you are inviting the government into?
This paragraph here in the article is really telling, and its where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak:
"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate whether mandated shunning and coercive control practices constitute a violation of human rights. The research aims to identify specific elements that would be classified as criminal offenses, including crimes against humanity. By extending the existing body of literature, this study will offer robust evidence to inform policies and legislation to tackle this form of abuse, protect those who leave high-control groups, and provide adequate support for victims."
By the way this is worded, I don't think these psychologists understand what a "human right" really is. They operate from very fuzzy "feel good" definitions of "rights" and "crime" and "hate" - the end result being a law (if they ever tried to actually verbalize it) that would cannibalize real human rights (like freedom of speech and association). It would make in-roads into those rights, and set a precedent for the government getting involved in areas you never thought possible.
Matthieu said:
"Freedom means the ability to change religion freely, say legal experts. But in reality, the moment I leave, I lose everything: my elderly parents, my siblings, my uncles, and every friend I have ever known. People I have helped, people I have been through struggles with, people I have trusted with my life—they will abandon me. The moment I walk away, my entire life will be erased."
I feel for Matthieu. However, any such law would cause way more harm than good. But also, Matthieu is INCORRECT here. Yes, family may leave you. Uncles, siblings, friends. They may all actually turn their back on you. And it - and here is the important part - MAY *FEEL* LIKE your entire life is erased. But in reality, just the opposite. If you *FEEL* like you have been "unjustly shunned", then thank your lucky stars that the people shunning you have outed themselves as the assholes they are before they could do any further damage to your life. Yes, I AM ALSO TALKING ABOUT FAMILY, parents, siblings, etc. You may love them, BUT THEY DON'T LOVE YOU. Oh, they may be "sad" that they are doing this "for your good", but THEY, YES THEM, INDIVIDUALLY, AS PERSONS, are making a choice.
That is what really hurtful here - to see your loved ones make a choice that so clearly demonstrates they don't love you - not nearly as much as you think. And in that hurt and anger, I get it - its natural to lash out at the religion. If it's the religion that needs fixing, then it means that maybe my family really do love me the way I think... they are just being prevented by the big nasty WT. Yeah, I get the allure of that narrative.
But its not true - they have agency in this. Don't seek legal perspectives that actually would cause the erosion of fundamental rights, real rights. If you use government force to make them continue associating with you, all you are doing is letting them screw up your life even more, using much more inventive and insidious methods.
The answer to the question in the title is still, emphatically, "No!"