Thank you, Tricked.
Yes, my baby survived. The doctors gave him a 3% chance of living. He lived because he was a tough little son of a bitch.
i have had greatly varied experiences with hlc members over the years.
i was never one myself, but i knew several of them personally.
most struck me as being generally decent human beings.
Thank you, Tricked.
Yes, my baby survived. The doctors gave him a 3% chance of living. He lived because he was a tough little son of a bitch.
i have had greatly varied experiences with hlc members over the years.
i was never one myself, but i knew several of them personally.
most struck me as being generally decent human beings.
Lee Elder: I would like to hear what your experiences with HLC have been like.
My experience with the "HLC" dates back to the days before they were known as such.
I had an encounter with those men in the days that the HLC was being piloted in Canada. 1974. The year after the "Alternatives to Blood Transfusion for Pediatrics" was published by all those devout and well-meaning 'interested' Jehovah's Witnesses down in eastern Canada. Published by all those interested JW doctors, pharmacists, etc. and distributed to hospitals across Canada.
I don't have very many memories of those JW men who were immediately called to the hospital and likely were waiting by their phones - they arrived lickety split after my mother signed the no blood order for my newborn infant son. I suspect that they had already been alerted to a potential blood transfusion issue with a JW baby. Only thing is...that baby (my baby) was NOT a JW baby.
Not only was my baby not a JW, I wasn't a JW and neither was my mother a JW. She had been disfellowshipped four years before that no blood order got signed by her. And the JW men that were called to the hospital? Neither my mother or I had ever seen or met them before. Of course we hadn't - neither one of us had stepped foot inside a Kingdom Hall for years and the congregation we had attended was way out in the rural country, nowhere near the big city where my son was in the hospital.
To this day, I do not know why the doctors and the hospital didn't step up to the plate and give me mature minor support so that my wishes for my baby were respected. I wanted him to have a blood transfusion if he needed one but the minute that the white shirts and shiny shoes turned up at the consulting room, I was immediately ushered out of the room and the negotiations that occurred happened between my mother, the doctors and the JW men. I sat outside in the hall while they decided to cut my tiny, newborn baby open and try alternative procedures on him instead of a simple blood transfusion.
My suspicions? The JWs had done their groundwork really, really well. The doctors at the hospital were fully cooperative, in fact so cooperative that a newborn baby was seen as a gold mine that had fell into their lap. A precious, tiny little guinea pig. One that could be used for those alternative procedures that the JW men had already promoted in that hospital.
My impressions of those pilot HLC men? Shiny shoes, white shirts, and the power to stop me from talking to the doctors. Me. The baby's mother. I was 16 years old and kicked out of the consulting room by those shiny shoes. I will hate them until the day I die. And beyond. Forever.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
JD: I still think that Mr. Walls attorney had a much steeper hill to climb to win before this court and the oral arguments but I think that the ruling will be a mixed bag
Yes, Mr. Wall's attorney, Michael Fedder, came late to the party. He fumbled a few times because of that and he did have a formidable task to address. And it should be formidable - this ruling has the potential to affect many organizations and it could have far reaching consequences.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
Smiddy3, this is a link to a Supreme Court hearing in Canada.
A news article concerning the case:
A link to the factums of the case:
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=37273
The webcast of the appeal hearing (3 hours 24 minutes long):
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=37273
I watched the webcast yesterday and was going to make a couple comments on the other thread that is posted about this, but it appears like that thread has somehow unraveled.
I want to watch this again because there is a lot to digest and process. But, a couple things about the webcast - the lawyer representing the Highwood congregation presents the congregation in terms that diminish the perception of the congregation's importance. Near the beginning of the webcast, David Gnam lowers his voice and in humble, small soft tones, presents the congregation as "a small, unincorporated religious organization". But, the elephant standing at the podium is this: David Gnam is a lawyer for Glen How and Associates - the big gun JW lawyers who travel all over the world representing the BIG organization that the "small unincorporated religious organization" takes their orders from.
Another spot that grabbed my attention occurs at 3:03 of the webcast. What is happening at this point is that Gnam is giving the reply for the congregation where he is responding to submissions by the other lawyers. At this spot, one of the Supreme Court judges questions Gnam about the elder's handbook.
Listen to David Gnam LIE at 3:04:21 and then try to shuffle around and make excuses for the secrecy of the elder's handbook. He goes into an explanation of the baptismal process and refers to the congregant's handbook of baptism. He never does give a straight answer. I don't think he was able to win that judge over.
And then...at 3:09. This is news to me. Apparently the "judicial hearing" the "judicial committee" and the resulting judicial action of the elders of the JWs, is "not a court". It is a "pastoral meeting".
Huh. Who knew. The things you learn from the learned David Gnam, the JW lawyer.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
JD: The case before the Canadian Supreme Court is actually whether civil courts even have the right and authority to hear cases and resolve disputes in voluntary organizations
JD, have you read the court documents and watched the video that Terry linked to?
Whether or not civil courts have that right and authority has already been established in previous cases. They do. And they have. It has already been done.
Have you not watched the video?? The lawyers specifically bring up and address points from the 1992 Lakeside Colony case.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Poopie, have you read the court documents and watched the video that Terry linked to?
because he was shunned by his customers?.
Thanks for posting that link, Terry.
Watching it now...
lawyer from canada watchtower branch reveals how the watchtower protects pedophiles.
he had the courage to speak up against the evil policies that protect pedophiles.
this video needs to go viral.
smiddy3: The OP video is a short excerpt from CBC's The Fifth Estate's "Spiritual Shepherds" that was originally broadcast on January 29, 2003.
OK that was now 14 years ago and this whistleblower is still hiding his identity ? in the year 2017 ?
Huh? How do you know that? How do you know he still hides his identity?
What is it that you expect from this man who has blocked out his identity 14 years ago? Would you be happier if he somehow, magically, made his identity known on a 14 year old video? And how exactly would you propose that would happen? Would he wave a wand and his face would appear on that old video? Or should he keep an eye on online content so that if and when this video pops up somewhere he can show up and say...Hey everyone! That is me! Joe Blow from Cocomo!
And besides, you (and me, and everyone else) know nothing about this man's personal life. Nothing. Nobody is in the position to judge why this man has chosen (14 years ago) to keep his identity protected.
And as far as respect and being believable goes, that is what comes from appearing on a television production such as the Fifth Estate. The tv show is respectable. The broadcaster is respectable. That is what makes this story believable.
Attacking the whistleblower for keeping his identity private is akin to shooting the messenger.
i'd like to show you a short video i made about exjw activism in poland.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt3qdtyxgd8.
i'm one of the people responsible for those information campaigns/protests, so you can ask me anything you like.
there's a lot i didn't show on the video because of the limited time i have for editing, i have tons of footage more.
dsp: Inadvertently? I never do anything 'inadvertently'
Cool
Fix your grammar please
"OK, if I have too to...."
"...actually proving the point they where were made in reference too to."
lawyer from canada watchtower branch reveals how the watchtower protects pedophiles.
he had the courage to speak up against the evil policies that protect pedophiles.
this video needs to go viral.
The CBC's Fifth Estate is a very respectable and credible television production.
The elder/lawyer would have been checked out for validity before being included in the broadcast. As far as his anonymity goes, isn't that to be expected and isn't it also to be respected rather than rejected? Not everyone is in a position that allows them the privilege of having an identity.
Protecting the identity of whistle blowers is a fairly standard practice. And more common than not when a television expose is done on sensitive material concerning a large corporation and/or religion.