In conclusion does a father really need a law to prevent him shunning a son?
I believe it really comes down to a choice between "who do you love more". Do you care about your relationship with [whoever] or with the elders / the WTS.
Some people make the wrong choice for the best of reasons and regret it. I can totally understand why people don't want to acknowledge the reality that their protests of "the WTS made me do it" may not be 100% valid. It's harder to accept that "no, I did that, it was wrong and I'm ashamed".
I think if we go along with the idea that "the WTS can make you do it" it plays into the WTS hands of making it easier for people to do and thus more likely and more effective. Instead we should be telling people that "you, YOU are choosing to do this and it's unkind and you will feel bad WHEN you realize the truth".
It removes the illusion of WTS control and reminds people that they don't need to be controlled.
There are things that when done alone pose no problem, but are regulated when done in large groups. For instance, in Canada, someone can walk anywhere in town with a billboard and protest on the subject of his choice. However, if a large group does the same thing, they must give their time and trajectory they will take to the police ahead of time, otherwise, it will be deemed illegal
I think that is the case of having a law purely for practical purposes. Having a large group march in a field somewhere is fine and no one is going to be arrested.
I know you are playing devil's advocate here, however, you must acknowledge that these are word games that can easily be exposed to a jury.
Yes, but to a jury who doesn't know the ins and outs of things it will be convincing. Also, way before it gets to a jury it has to gain support through media representations to politicians and the electorate. I don't think the media is capable of explaining it or could be bothered ... where's the blood? They're not interested.
However, being shunned by everyone you ever loved can be hurtful to such an extent that some will even commit suicide.
That isn't enough to make something illegal. There are lots of things that "cause" people to commit suicide - relationship breakups for example, but we could never make those illegal simply because of that.
For instance, a cop could not be seen fraternising on a regular basis with known gang members. However, there is a world of difference between loosing your job and loosing your friends.
Dam... this complicate things... I will really have to think about this one further.
That's the issue. Take what people are suggesting and then apply that same law to other situations. If you can come up with bizarre cases then it wouldn't work as a law.
Imagine a teacher caught visiting a brothel and / or hanging around with drug dealers. Should the school be allowed to fire them? Should the teacher then be allowed to sue the school and have the principal arrested?
Laws have to have clear benefit and not rely on vague notions of "we'd only use it where it was intended". The intention has to be codified and it can't call out specific groups. If the law relies on saying "Jehovahs Witnesses can't ..." then it would never pass.
