Please send. Thanks!
2020-10-Elders Meet With Regular Pioneers-Special Pioneers-Field Missionaries!
by Atlantis 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Atlantis
JWpomo:
Delivered! There you are JWpomo! And the coffee is still hot.
---------------------------
Petra!
-
Nitty-Gritty
Yes please Petra, and thank you!
-
Atlantis
Nitty-Gritty:
Delivered! There you go Nitty!
---------------------------
Petra!
-
Marcial
Atlantis, Petra,
les chocolats sont arrivés! Un peu d'infos sur ce lien
copiez-le dans le navigateur et demandez à google de faire la traduction dans la langue souhaitée
les chocolats sont arrivés! Un peu d'infos sur ce lien
copiez-le dans le navigateur et demandez à google de faire la traduction dans la langue souhaitée
Nous préparons les festivités à venir
Marcial
Nous préparons les festivités à venir
Marcial
-
Atlantis
Marcial:
Thank you very much, here is your article. I hope it will post alright.
---------------------------------------------------------
Disfellowshipping is a violation of human rights
Groundbreaking judgment on Jehovah's Witnesses in SwitzerlandThe Zurich District Court has made a landmark decision regarding criticism of certain practices by Jehovah's Witnesses. The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland reported an employee of the “infoSekta” department for “defamation” and sued them. She was accused of making untruthful and defamatory statements in an interview with the “Tagesanzeiger” and in a media release from the infoSekta department. Even if the judgment is based on Swiss law, it is also important beyond Switzerland because the court dealt with the individual allegations with a rare degree of thoroughness.
Specifically, it was alleged that the statements created the impression that the Jehovah's Witnesses “have a practice that violates human rights, violates human rights and the constitution, denies their members the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, their members because of their known position regarding the prohibition Let die of blood transfusions after traffic accidents or births, in the case of the exclusion of children and adolescents from the community, deny family love and care to them, and let the children of their community live in constant fear.
”Furthermore, it was about the statement,the system of Jehovah's Witnesses "promotes the sexual abuse of children and that the whole community willfully cover up alleged criminal acts" and the classification as "a totalitarian organization that manipulates its members and violates the physical, psychological and social integrity of its members . "(Judgment, p. 6, section 1.2)
The accused confessed in court to the content of the interviews and the media release, which she fully adhered to, and presented numerous pieces of evidence to prove that the points of criticism mentioned are correct and that no untruthful statements were disseminated.
Facts and honor
In the detailed 34-page judgment, the difference between value judgments and assertions of fact is explained. Only factual assertions or so-called mixed value judgments that have a recognizable reference to facts can result in defamatory statements. These are not punishable if they correspond to the facts ("proof of truth") or at least at the time of the statement it could be assumed with reasonable research effort that they are true ("proof of good faith"), unless the statements were made solely for the purpose of others to harm.
The court defines the concept of honor as being restricted to the human-moral area and relates it to “the reputation and the feeling of the person concerned to be an honorable person, that is, to behave as, according to general beliefs, a person of decent character tends to behave. ”(p. 11, 5.1)“ According to the general opinion, a person of decent character is expected, among other things, to fulfill his duties towards the state and his fellow men, not to commit crimes, to uphold human rights, family love and Not to refuse care, to stop the sexual abuse of children etc. "(p. 12, 5.2)
Factual statements or defamatory?
The court has now taken the trouble to check for each individual incriminated statement whether it is actually defamatory. This was denied by the court in 4 out of 10 accused statements. The statement, for example, that members die after traffic accidents or childbirth and that the community rejects blood transfusions are simple statements of true facts without a value judgment. The statement that there is hardly a Jehovah's Witness family without excluded family members is not in itself defamatory, because a person is not more honorable if he has a family from which no one has been excluded. The same applies to the statement that many Jehovah's Witnesses "have only limited knowledge about the world because worldly friends are forbidden and they were unable to make many social experiences".
Malicious Intent or Public Interest?
With 6 further statements, however, the court came to the conclusion that these do indeed damage the community's honor. The accused was well aware of this effect. Such statements, even if they are true, can be punishable if they are given without reasonable cause, primarily with the intent of accusing someone of evil. The court cannot see that here. In its reasoning, the court comes to a descriptive appraisal of the work of the infoSekta department:
“The tasks of the infoSekta department, which offers advice for those affected within the framework of its statutes and provides information in the sense of consumer protection on the world view market, sufficiently prove that the statements are upheld in the public interest. ... In addition, the InfoSekta department not only provides information about Jehovah's Witnesses, but also about various organizations and religious communities. It is a factually presented and argumentative criticism of beliefs and practices, as well as their effects on followers and their environment (which also took place in the exercise of fundamental rights ...) ... It bases its statements on scientific publications, original documents of Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower and Awake!) And specialist literature on the subject. She does not only get her information from conversations with dropouts who have left the community in an argument and in which there is a risk that they paint an overly negative picture. ... The accused is not concerned with speaking badly to Jehovah's Witnesses.
After this long approach, it comes to the core: The judicial review of the extent to which the other 6 defamatory statements correspond to the facts or had serious reasons to consider the statements to be true. Here the result - that much is anticipated - was disastrous for Jehovah's Witnesses.
Practice of ostracism ("disfellowshipping")
The term ostracism means breaking off contact with excluded people. Those who, from the point of view of the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses, commit a sin such as accepting a blood transfusion, having sex before marriage, political activity or not believing everything that the organization teaches can be excluded. The following statements from infoSekta were in court:
"We draw attention to the practice of ostracism, which is contrary to human rights." / "Ostracism is a type of bullying prescribed above. It violates human rights and the constitution. "/" Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - a right that Jehovah's Witnesses claim for themselves but do not grant their members. "
In addition, the court held that Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny that they use the practice of ostracism, but simply claim that this practice is not contrary to human rights. There is no doubt about the existence of this practice, known internally as "disfellowshipping". It is also documented in writing in various publications.
The practice of ostracism therefore turns out to be a type of "bullying" that is at least in the beginning a violation of human rights, rather than bullying being a violation of the personal integrity of a person. This type of bullying is also used when members of Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe or develop or have a different belief.
interacting with children
The following defamatory statement was objected to about dealing with children: “Saying something sweet, asking how the day was or hugging the child - that is no longer an option. Children experience permanent fear. "
Here, too, the religious community does not deny that the ostracism is practiced, but merely claims that children still receive loving attention. The court, on the other hand, found the references in the scriptures that one should "support" the outcast child but not very lovingly, when it immediately says, but then "instruct and discipline it with God's Word" and "conduct a Bible study". “Our love for Jehovah must be stronger than love for family members who are unfaithful to him” (Watchtower, 7/15/2011)
The child is thus “reduced to physical and spiritual needs, with no consideration being given to emotional needs. This is evidenced by a large number of reports from relatives and dropouts (...). Such emissions lead to a great deal of conflict and can leave psychological damage behind, especially for children and young people. It is a kind of emotional blackmail in order to induce the apostate persons to return to the religious community or to prevent them from leaving. ”(P. 25, 9.9b) The destruction of all unbelievers could cause fear, especially in children.
Sexual abuse
Regarding the criticism of the promotion of sexual abuse, the court confirmed that the two-witness rule exists: "So if no one except the victim can testify to the abuse and the alleged perpetrator denies the act, nothing is done." disputed in which context it is used. With reference to judicial investigations in Australia (Royal Comission, Final Report), the descriptions of those affected could be believed here (proof of good faith provided).
Psychological violence against children
The court states: “The analysis of Watchtower materials for children makes it clear that they are aimed at frightening children: whoever does not obey, who does not follow, who does not believe, who does not suffice has to be excluded from the community and then reckon with destruction in Armageddon.
Slow mills
The judgment has a longer history. The accused statements were dated July 2015. There were initially legal disputes over the eligibility of the complaint, so the indictment was brought in November 2018. The judgment described here was issued on July 9, 2019 and did not become legally binding until 2020 after the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland allowed the deadline for an initially announced revision to pass without result.
Conclusion
If all of these statements, which the court regarded as defamatory, relate to a true core of the facts, then the honor of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization is actually seriously damaged.
The court examined the statements on the points of criticism on the basis of extensive evidence and determined that the criticism was justified: The practice of the association of Jehovah's Witnesses violates the elementary rights of the members and their relatives. The verdict is also a praise for solidly researched educational work in the field of spiritual consumer protection. It remains interesting to see what consequences this will have for dealings in Germany.
-
overlap_great.crowd
hi Atlantis,
can you please sent to me?
-
Atlantis
overlap_great.crowd:
Delivered! There you go! Have a wonderful day!
---------------------------
Petra!
-
Diogenesister
Ooooo JWgonebadI’ve just learned how to make those chocolate bombs...got myself some moulds. Mines one with peanut butter
petra may I have a link please? Have good (hair) day!!!😄
-
msecodo
I would like a copy please. Thank you.
MSECODO