Congratulations, Vicki!!! Your courage in instrumental in this precedent setting case.
LANDMARK DECISION - Vicki Boer vs Watchtower Society
by Uzzah 144 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Had Enough
I don't know what went wrong with my attempt at copying a quotation. It seems it was cut off in mid-sentence, so I'll try to paste it once more...If this doesn't work, sorry folks....
"The Judge also spent about 10 pages explaining why in Canada the freedoms given to religion are NOT absolute and damage to an individual supercedes the rights of a religion."
I have now re-typed it, so if that doesn't show the whole quotation, I give up. Editing is not working for me today.
H.E.
-
expatbrit
This is fabulous!
Vicki, my congratulations to you! You have taken on the corporate might of the Watch Tower and forced justice to be done!
The amount of $$$ is somewhat disappointing, yes, as is the individual elders not being held responsible. But the blow you have struck for child abuse victims is huge!
Expatbrit
p.s. When can we get a copy of the judgement, anyone?
-
shera
Congrats Vickie
Very happy for you!!!!
-
Uzzah
Here is one excerpt for you, found on page 34 of the decision.
[133] However, Canadian courts have held that freedom of religion is not absolute. Where the exercise of religious beliefs adversely affects the rights of others, the courts can and will intervene: R v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295; P. (D). v. S.(C), [1993] 4 SCR 141; Young v Young, [1993] 4 SCR 3
[134] ... Canadian courts have not been reluctant to find a fiduciary relationship between a minister or a priest and a member of the congregation, provided the usual tests for the existence of suca relationship are met. The fact that the relationsip arises in a religious setting has not been a seen as a bar to imposing a fiduciary duty of care. Deiwick v Frid, [1991] O.J. No 1803 (Gen Div); W.K. v Pornbacher [1997] BCJ No 57 (BCSC)
[139] The leading cases in this area have arisen when the religious values of parents have been found to be harmful to children. However there is no reason to restrict the principles established in these cases to cases involving children. Laws, both statutory and common law, whose purpose is to protect the vulnerable cannot be thwarted by a claim that the conduct harming the vulnerable person is permitted, or even mandated, by the perpetrator's religious convictions.In extreme situations, such a restriction on religious freedom is necessary to prevent violence against others in the name of religion. Further I can see no principled reason to restrict the protection to intentional torts; it should have equal application to other causes of actions such as negligence. My starting point therefore, is that a tort committed by a person in the course of what he or she sincerely believes to be a religious duty is not automatically shielded from the scrutiny by the courts by operation of the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. Where the rights of an individual are in conflict with the religious freedom rights of another, the courts can and will balance the competing rights in considering what if any remedy is appropriate.
[140] That is not to say that courts are entitled to disregard issues of religious freedom entirely in deciding cases of this nature. On the contrary principles of religious freedom will beintegral to such decisions. However, the fact that a principle of religious freedom may be involved will not necessarily be a bar to a litigant's right to a remedy before the courts. The extent to which the rights of the individual will take priority over the principles of religious freedom will depend on the circumstances of each case. As is demonstrated by the cases to which I have referred above, courts will commonly favour the health and safety of children over the religious values of their parents if their religious practices are harmful to their children. The same would hold true for other vulnerable persons who are harmed as a result of the religious belief of others. The free will of competent adults to choose their own religious faith must be recognized. Having chosen a particular religion or voluntarily elected to remain a member of it, a person will not be heard to complain later that he was injured in some way as a result of the application of the principles of that faith. Likewise, matters of a purely internal nature such as membreship or discipline within a congregation would rarely, if ever, be subject to review by the courts. In each case the court must consider the nature of the religious principle relied upon, the context in which it arises, the circumstances of the person harmed, and the nature of the harm in the course of determining where the rights of the Plaintiff should be recognized notwithstanding the impact on the religious freedom of the defendant.
[157] in the Jehovah's Witness faith, there is an even closer and more dependant relationship between members of the congregation and the clergy than is the case in most religions. For members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, religion is a pervasive and dominant influence in everyday life. Social contact with others outside the faith is discouraged and adherence to the instructions of the elders is required. Although the relationship between Ms. Boer and the elders of her congregation did not involve quite the same degree of control and dependency as described in FSM v Clarke (Uzzah: this was Anglican orphanage case) neither was it a mere counselling relationship between minister and parishioner where the parishioner returns home to theinfluence of family and others. Many of the aspects of dependancy noted by Dillon, J in FSM v. Clarke were also present here: eg a closed society isolated from outside influence, the pervasive nature of the religious influence and the requirement for blind obedience. It was within this context that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the defendents arose. Vicki Boer went to Sheldon Longworth because she was troubled and needed advice. She barely knew him. She consulted him solely in his capacity as an elder of her faith. She had been raised in her faith to put complete trust in the elders. Obedience was required. To the knowledge of the elders and Watch Tower she relied entirely upon the advice she was given and felt she had no option but to comply. Mr. Longworth was fully aware of her vulnerable emotional state. He was also aware that she dreaded the confrontation with her father which he counselled her was required. In this situation there was a close and direct relationship between the elders and the plaintiff in which there was every expectation that she would rely upon and follow the advice she was given. Further, given her emotional state, it was readily foreseeable that the course of action recommeded would likely cause further emotional harm to the plaintiff, the very type of harm which did occur. In these circumstances, I find that a duty of care did arise as between the elders and the plaintiff.
More to follow........
I am trying to give you the flavour of the decision as well as some of the interesting quotes in their context. I'm trying to avoid personal commentary on my part while doing so. But reserve the right to do so later
-
rocketman
Uzzah, thank you! I was hoping for some parts of the decision to be made available here.
Social contact with others outside the faith is discouraged and adherence to the instructions of the elders is required.
Right on the money.
Clarke were also present here: eg a closed society isolated from outside influence, the pervasive nature of the religious influence and the requirement for blind obedience. It was within this context that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the defendents ar
How true.
She had been raised in her faith to put complete trust in the elders. Obedience was required. To the knowledge of the elders and Watch Tower she relied entirely upon the advice she was given and felt she had no option but to comply. Mr. Longworth was fully aware of her vulnerable emotional state. He was also aware that she dreaded the confrontation with her father which he counselled her was required.
Again, right on the money.
Sorry, all I'm doing here is quoting, but this is an incredible excerpt - I think we've all been waiting for a long time to have someone realize what really goes on inside jw congregations with respect to the relationship between elders and the flock, and what the religion itself expects.
Thanks again Uzzah.
-
needs_lots
Iam still in shock. I don't know whether to celebrate or not. $5000.00 was such a small amount to cover the terrible past pain and present pain. One flight ticket to toronto cost that much, and I made at least 10. So Iam still not sure how much of a win this is. I know that money is not everything, but it definitly is something. I have 3 small girls who have suffered for 5 years of lawsuits, sometimes going without, knowing that when the judgement came down we would be able to pay off the legal debt, and live again. I feel like I have let my family down. iam the one who should have payed for their mistake, not them. But again, this is just how I feel today. Iam glad to hear how much of a difference this decision will make to fighting them in the future. We did win. I still have not seen the decision, and my lawyer still has not read it, I have only gotton this information from a 3rd party who was able to get it faxed. I will find out in the next few days whether or not the society pays all the legal bills. It would really be bad if we won the small amount and still had to pay legal.
I hope the does help other people. 5th estate will be following up with another story, and now that the decision has been made, we can say anything. Lets hope the jerks don't appeal. THey should be happy they got off so light. The thing that makes me most mad was when they lied on the stand the judge believed them. They said they would not have applied Matt 18 to an abuse case,(even though they did), and they never do. They lied, and the judge believed. Anyway.......I will let all know what happens when my lawyer finally gets a chance to read the bloody thing.
vic
-
Uzzah
[162] The second difficulty I have with the defendant's position is that it is valid only if the palintiff's decision to attend the December 29, 1989 meeting was truly an exercise of free will. The plaintiff says she was "forced" to attend the meeting by the elders, whereas the defendants say she "chose" to attend. In my view, this situation is directly analogous to ine in which the defence of consert is asserted.
[163] In December 1989, Vicki Boer was a mentally competent adult person, legally capable of making hre own decisions. In the absence of factors traditionally seen as vitiating consent (such as force, threat of force, or fraud) she is presumed to have attended the December meeting as an exercise of autonomy and free will. However the analysis of whether there has been genuine consent on her part does not end there. To determine whether the consent is genuine, one must also consider the power relationship between the parties nd in particular whether one party had the power to dominate and influence the other.
[170] In my opinion the power dependancy relationship between Vicki Boer and the elders of the Jehovah's Witness faith in 1989 was such that she cannot be said to have exercised free will in respect of directions given by the elders. Although she was legally of the age of majority (having turned 19 in November 1989) Vicki Boer was a naive and unsophisticated young woman who had led a sheltered life to that point. Furthermore it was a life dominated by the influence of the Jehovah's Witness faith. SHe had been forbidden to devlop relationships with anyone outside the faith and had been trained to obey the elders without question. Up until a few months before she had lived at home with her family in a rigidly religious household and within a small community in which everything in her life centered on her religion/ Refusal to follow the direction of the elders was not an option if she wished to stay within her religion; and abandoning her religion would also constitute an abandonment of her family, friends and community, at a time in her life when she was emotionally dependent and fragile. Disobeying the elders was literally inconceivable to the plaintiff at the time.
[171] As I have noted above, the relationship between Ms Boer and the Jehovah's Witness elders was not as dependent as was the case with the children in the residential school in FSM v Clarke supra. However, it was far closer to that sort of closed society than would be the case in the usual situation of a parishioner having regular contact with a clergyman but returning to home and the influence of others at other times. That is because of the pervasive nature of the Jehovah's Witness religion's presence in teh everyday lives of its adherents, the specific religious requirement of obedience, and the direction to avoid worldly ways and social interactions outside the faith.
[172] The plaintiff's dependence and powerlessness developed as a direct result of the teachings of the defendant Wath Tower. She was brought up in that faith to accept the word of the elders unquestioningly. Independent thought was not permitted. She was taught not to trust anyone outside the faith and she followed that direction. Thus when her employers noticed her distress in December 1989 and asked if they could help, she rebuffed their efforts, insisting that only somebody within her religion could help her. The elders were, therefore, not only aware of her dependence and vulnerability, they were responsible for it.
-
Uzzah
Vicki:
The judge at least got it when it came to how you were manipulated by the elders and made some damning comments about the nature of the jehovah's witnesses as noted above.
She believed the lies. John Didur lied. Nice example from a Branch Committee guy. She believed Longworth's back pedalling about what the Branch told him. I will have to digest her words more but in my opinion, it was the 'mishandling' of Matt 18 that actually got the $5,000. They forced you to attend a meeting that according to the church wasn't even required. And they gave no thought to potential harm resulting from that meeting. I got the impression that the award was not punitive in nature but due to the negligence of Longworth and the Branch to follow proper procedure which is what they lied about.
I am left wondering if she had believed such forced meetings were the recommended practice (which we all know they are and it is a damn shame that testimony wasn't illicited from one of your witnesses that was at Bethel) what the result would have been.
Between the Berry case and now yours, the Watchtower lies are getting bigger. Which to me tells me they are starting to sweat a little. Little subtle word battles are no longer effective for the Borg, they are now dealing in bold faced lies. I wonder what happens now when the media finds out that forced confrontations between abuser and abused are NOT the practice of the Borg? More lawsuits?? hmmmm
The offer still stands if you want me to fax the decision to you later today.
My thoughts are with you, Scott and your kids.
-
Simon
As they like to say:
Let this good news be proclaimed in all the inhabited earth, and then the end will come (for them )
Well done ((( Vicki )))