In this case anyone can have an opinion and it maybe valid for them and how they feel. But in reality in this case the only opinion that actually matters belong to the 9 justices. There can be as much speculation as people want but they will make the final decision.
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie 106 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Fisherman
I speculate that Respondent's attorney persuaded the majority of the justices to have a trial Court review the "proceedure" JC's follow and ultimately impose a standard of natural justice and require JC to follow its own rules.
40 years or so ago, it was an open an shut case in favor of religious freedom but not today; there is a different ambience in the Courts towards religion.
-
Ruby456
I agree that there is a different ambience in the Courts relating to religion. I think that where religions seem to come out of the private sphere to legislate in what can be clearly described as the public sphere then they are going to have to present good arguments for doing so.
Some ideas that would need investigating, imo, is the extent to which JWs were encouraged to do business with JW members rather than with outsiders. Can Mr Wall provide evidence from literature that this was the case. The problem here is that discussion of secular business is forbidden at KHs. But one could still ask if any elders were clients or if the elders who sat on his judicial case were clients of his and if the disfellowshipping announcement was made by a client and if so then was Mr Wall given notice that his business would be affected.
-
Ruby456
John Davis
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.
but the disfellowshipped person is also told not to speak to members of the congregation if they want to return to Jehovah. Mr Wall followed the JW appeals procedure so I think he would fall into the category of someone who is told not to speak to other witnesses if he wants to be re-instated. While I get that only governments can violate an individual's civil rights, if Randy Walls followed how the Conti Lawyer argued from what the plaintiff understood as the rights she was granted by watchtower and how watchtower violated their own laws to disadvantage her, then I think he may be able to argue that a violation of his civil rights led to the loss of business because watchtower restricts necessary business transactions to between family members only and anything more than this (carrying on business with business associates who are disfellowshipped and are outside of family) are considered wrong. so I think Randy Wall's argument that he was not given due warning that his business transactions would be affected may stand up in court although the judges would need to be amenable to this kind of reasoning.
Apart from the above if we bring this discussion out of the religious sphere and into a more economic sphere we can clearly see that Watchtower is exercising property rights though a controlling ancestors way of doing things while the congregation itself may think that they are in a giving spirit type of relationship with the organisation. But I'm only offering this as way of getting our heads around the issues. For more on such thought experiments take a look here
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/environmental-challenges-property-rights?lr=3
-
OrphanCrow
Ruby: watchtower restricts necessary business transactions to between family members only and anything more than this (carrying on business with business associates who are disfellowshipped and are outside of family) are considered wrong.
When did this change?
It must have been post-early 70s because when I was still 'in', business dealings were the only thing that a JW could engage in with a disfellowshipped person. You could do business with a shunned one but, once you walked out of his place of business, you couldn't go and have coffee with him/her. You were restricted from "fellowship" with them but definitely not from business dealings.
During Rutherford years, and even during the Knorr years, it was okay to continue business dealings with a disfellowshipped person regardless of his/her spiritual standing in the congregation. There are several incidences documented where both Rutherford and Knorr continued their business associations with disfellowshipped persons. Business was always protected.
-
search
But one could still ask if any elders were clients or if the elders who sat on his judicial case were clients of his and if the disfellowshipping announcement was made by a client and if so then was Mr Wall given notice that his business would be affected.
It is very ironic that you post this. In Appeal Court, I applied to have additional evidence submitted. Part of that evidence was a list including some of my JW clients, MANY of whom were elders and MS's.
The Appeal Court declared that they did not need to consider admitting the additional evidence, due to the fact that they dismissed Highwood's appeal.
The greatest irony is that the Judicial Committee chairman, Vaughn Lee, was one of my clients (he solicited me, as had all of my JW clients), and was essentially arguing in court that I should not have had any JW clients.
You can draw your own conclusions.
(He was also the one that made the announcement)
-
poopie
wt says if it's business only activity shunning rules do not apply that's in writing . That's not the point the question is does a citizen of canada religious or not have the right to force or coerce another citizen to not do business under the threat of expulsion from the group. It's a violation of human rights it's a violation of natural law.
-
poopie
so the judicial review would find wt did not follow its own rules in regard to business relationships. I have a friend that is a Jw he called the service dept and ask them same question a month ago .He was in a business relationship with a Df person and service dept said no problem.
-
poopie
so if the elders sneakily told publishers not to do business with mr wall then they crossed the line they did not follow there own rules this would be part of the judicial review as a citizen not religious.
-
poopie
at 81 Sept 15 23 and 24