not true 1981 at days must be df.
In 1981, Adultery was a crime governed by the Penal law and so were other sex conduct criminal between consenting adults. It ain't the case today.
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie 106 Replies latest jw friends
-
Fisherman
-
poopie
but restraint order has to based on concrete evidence is harm danger etc.were not talking about a person causing harm to another.
-
poopie
1981 wt
-
poopie
a 15 Yr old child Df causes no harm but yet she can't play with her oh friends
-
Fisherman
but restraint order has to based on concrete evidence
No it does not. It can be granted before there is trial or a conviction and only based on allegations - that can even latter on be falsified.
But It doesn't even matter. Point is that communication is forbidden.
-
poopie
IF you can prove to me that saying a friendly greeting to someone will cause them to receive a restrainting order please let me know what state or country I can file that restraing order In
-
TerryWalstrom
http://drache.ca/articles/disfellowshipping-is-hard-to-do/#_ftnref1
Don't know if you have seen all these or not. So, for those who haven't.
-
poopie
I don't know what country you live but there had to be some reason to why you want a restraint order. you can say hi 200 feet away from person and not be in violatiin. -
poopie
Wikipedia restraining order get your facts straight.
-
John Davis
Yes poopie stopping someone from talking can be a violation of civil rights, but it isn't that easy to make the comment that it is a violation of civil rights. First depending on the country civil rights can only be violated by the government and not a private person or private organization. To give an example if you work for a company and they say you can't go on social media and speak disparagingly against the company as they deem it, that they will fire you. That is preventing freedom of speech but that is perfectly legal, at least in the US. Different countries may or do see it differently but that is why details matter.
The second thing you have to realize is you can't sue because someone else's rights are being violated. Look at the US during the civil rights movement, a Caucasian person couldn't sue the government because an African American's right was being violated. That Caucasian person wouldn't have standing to fight that violation, only someone who has the right to remedy could file the claim. So in this case if another member of the congregation felt their freedom of speech right was being violated , that person would have to file the claim, not Mr Walls. Mr Walls would assist or even pay for it but he can't initiate the claim for that person.