And they are "blanket" claims. While half of them are easily proved by presenting the WTS' own literature, how does he intend to "prove" "forcing its members to work in slavery...?" In fact, they are volunteers. "...turned out on the streets when old..." is a bit of a stretch without examples, and "deaths of tens of thousands..." is hyperbole unless you have a list of names.
Thus, when the JW spokesman denied "blanket claims" he appears (I said appears) to have the high moral ground. The courts deal in facts and demand proof. If you're going to fight this fight, you have to be on solid ground. If not, you lose, and a "loss" sets the "movement" back. Not only that, but dubs who read this stuff will point out the flaws and use that as an excuse to dismiss the rest.
I don't want to be critical, but this kind of overkill has to be moderated, at least when making public pronouncements, before the media and the masses will really listen.
########
i agreee, by focusing on so many NONISSUE related to his daughters health, it becomes very easy to get lost in the shuffle-
blanket statements make good sound bites and get the media, but in a court of law where each issue is taken apart one at a time- it is very difficult
the issue of "Slavery" is a legal and practical mistake- the court can work with phyical restraint in terms of making someone work without pay
but for a person to volunteer and not be paid is very difficult to fit the legal definition of slavery-
he should focus on one issue and work that to death, but to be all over the board only weakens his case in my exp
