Town says ban on Jehovah's Witness canvassing reasonable (page 2)

Just found this at the Citizens Advice bureau:

Pedlars and hawkers

Pedlars and hawkers who sell door to door may need an annual certificate granted by the chief officer of police in the applicant’s district. Some trades, for example, the sale of food, are exempt from the need for a licence.

Englishman

Scully

Kenneson:

Glen How is the same lawyer that Shunned Father wants to take to task. See items k through r in the court action at
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/54060/1.ashx

Shunned Father is going after the law firm Glen How & Associates itself. The lawyer who represented Bethany Hughes is employed by Glen How & Associates. His name is David Gnam. No doubt Mr. How was consulted and involved in the background, but he did not do any "lawyering" in court, if memory serves. I wonder who is footing the bill for Bethany's legal representation by this firm? Love, Scully

Kenneson

Scully,

Thanks for the clarification.

DJ

I am wondering if jw's would be pressured to go door knocking with a fury during those two months out of the year. That might be worse! They will absolutley see it as persecution. I think that the rank and file would like this to pass. They get 10 months off. I don't see this as the best solution at all.

KGB

I think they should make each one personally pay the $100.00 do you think that they would all apy that to knock on our doors ? Or would the borg pay it for them ?

I live in a mobile park and I was told the other day by the owners that we were going to have a JW family move a mobile into the park. The owners told me that they told this family that if they were caught knocking on any doors that they would be evicted....I wonder how this will work with the freedom of speach act or the right to religion ????

I personally was glad to hear that but then I would love for them to come to my door so I can drill them....I want it I don`t want it I want it I don`t want it.......bzzzzzzzzzz

No Apologies

Not to be a dub apologist, but I have a tough time agreeing with the idea of needing a permit to discuss religion. Its one of those "slippery slope" type issues, I think. This is not something else the government should have to be involved in.

But I do find this comment by the JW to be ironic:

"Freedoms have always been very, very important to us, especially the freedom of speech, not just religion."

I think we all know JWs could care less about the freedom of speech and religion, unless it gets in their way. There is no freedom of speech inside the Kingdom Hall.

hawkaw

I had some long long conversations with the legal counsel who represented the Town of Blainville when the original court decision came out a while ago. I have given him a lot of American Court decisions that upheld similar town permits as well as the recent SCOTUS decision that basically said Permits are a no go (except for the Chief justice).

FWIW some of you should know that I am not the biggest fan of the JW leadership and I am very upset that they would let a convicted child rapist come to my door - accompanied or not. But I personally think that what Blainville is doing is legally wrong and unconstitutional when it comes to any religious group or person who wishes to freely express their religion or conscience under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

In the eyes of the law, I don't think they are selling things (even though obviously I know JWs are trying to recruit us worldly people and want a "donation" for their stupid magazines) and also in the eyes of the law, the JWs are considered volunteers. They are only, in the eyes of the law, expressing their religion and as such I just don't see Blainville winning, just like how that little town in Ohio lost at the SCOTUS.

The Province of Quebec has had a long running battle with the JWs. It would be nice if they would spend sometime and focus on the abuse issue that we raised rather than this.

But having said all that and from a strictly OPTICS point of view, Scully or Expat - you would be wise (if you get a free second) to send one of our "special" letters to the Mayor and counsellors of Blainville - hint, hint.

hawk

BluesBrother

Well done Hawkaw.

If it did go through, I bet that every park, shopping mall and open space would be full of dubs doing informal street work.

Scully

Monday » June 23 » 2003

Jehovah's Witnesses lawyer cites 1959 landmark ruling Warns of Duplessis-style persecution. Blainville taken to court over summonses for soliciting door to door without permit


HARVEY SHEPHERD
The Gazette

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

A veteran of legal battles for the Jehovah's Witnesses was in a Montreal courtroom yesterday, revisiting his landmark civil-liberties victories of decades ago.

However, Glen How, 84, and other members of a Jehovah's Witnesses legal team received a skeptical hearing from three Quebec Court of Appeal judges for some of their arguments.

How wanted them to make an example of Blainville Mayor Pierre Gingras, as the Supreme Court did of Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis in 1959.

In November 1997, the town north of Laval began issuing summonses to 14 Witnesses for soliciting door to door without a municipal permit.

"The fundamental liberties of the people don't require a permit from anybody," How argued.

How, a resident of Georgetown, Ont., said the court should crack down so public officials won't "start trying to renew the persecutions of the Duplessis era."

The town and the Witnesses are appealing against different parts of an April 2001 decision by Quebec Superior Court Judge André Crépeau.

Blainville is appealing against Crépeau's decision to quash the 1996 bylaw as it applies to the Witnesses, as a violation of democratic freedoms. The Witnesses are appealing against Crépeau's refusal to order the mayor to pay $3,500 in "moral" and "exemplary" damages to each of the 14 Witnesses summonsed.

How recalled a 1953 decision in which the Supreme Court decided that a Quebec law prevented the province from interfering with Witnesses' distribution of pamphlets on the streets.

In 1959, the Supreme Court ordered Duplessis to personally pay damages to Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurateur. Duplessis had caused Roncarelli to lose his liquor licence after Roncarelli posted bail for Witnesses.

Judge Benoît Morin, presiding yesterday, said the appeals court will release its decision soon.

[email protected]

minimus

JW's LOVE the thought of being "persecuted". This "proves" that they are real true Christians. Anytime a Witness is "persecuted", the overall effect is that the group bears down even more and the "us against them" mentality becomes their mantra. This stuff keeps them focused. The leadership loves this.

Town says ban on Jehovah's Witness canvassing reasonable

Just found this at the Citizens Advice bureau:

Pedlars and hawkers

Pedlars and hawkers who sell door to door may need an annual certificate granted by the chief officer of police in the applicant’s district. Some trades, for example, the sale of food, are exempt from the need for a licence.

Share this