fisherman: OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
yeah, sorry...I got it mixed up/backwards and it was too late to edit
Distracted - making candies again
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
fisherman: OC, who is the appellant in the related SCC case?
yeah, sorry...I got it mixed up/backwards and it was too late to edit
Distracted - making candies again
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
cha ching: The WT said (basically) "we are just a religion, we are not a 'court' or taking over the judicial process"...... What do they call this 'spiritual process to help this poor man to see his errors?'
A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Typical Watchtoweresque language twisting.
The Watchtower tries to twist under the language limbo bar whenever they have to address secular authorities. What is important, I think, in this case and in many situations like it, is that the congregant views the process as a judicial one. They do not view the JC as a "pastoral visit" where the elders are meeting to comfort and guide them. They know and understand that a JC is for discipline and not for pastoral care meeting.
This would be similar to how an application to the courts for a restraining order is approached. The decision as to whether to grant such an order will hinge on whether or not the one applying for that order views another person as a threat. It is the applicant's view of the matter and their understanding of what constitutes a threat that has the most bearing.
Likewise in this situation. It isn't the WT's interpretation of JCs that should have the most bearing - it is the appellant's interpretation of the JC hearings that should carry the most weight.
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: the consideration that the member gets is the association of other members
I think they get more than just that.
What about the HLC support? That is available to baptized JWs and their children. And only available as a benefit of JW membership. You have to be a JW to receive HLC support.
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.
Fisherman: You will not believe this OC but as I turned to read your post on this thread, I was speaking with a man (not JW) that had a problem with his bowel when he was born but this man showed me a horrific scar from the surgery he received as a baby. I mean horrific. Broke my heart. Besides such a scar- indescribable, he also suffers from incontinence.
After reading your post, I understand....
Aw, Fisherman, I will believe you.
To this day, babies with smooth, clean perfect little bellies appear quite odd to me. I am most familiar with the twisted line of scar tissue that disfigured my perfect baby's belly. Haha! I had surgery myself at 40 years of age or so. When I got out of the hospital, my son and I compared our belly scars. Mine was longer - 11 1/2 inches compared to his of 9 1/2 inches. Only thing is - he got his when he was a baby - sliced wide open and laid out on the operating table like a fish.
My son didn't suffer long term effects (not really, just sort of...) because he was, and still is, a gifted athlete with fearless abilities.
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.
problemaddict: I was being groomed to be part of the HLC as a young guy. Most of what we did, was go through the hospital and visit JW's from other places registered as JW's. The guy "training" me now in hindsight, was not qualified in the least bit to understand and advise on complex medical issues. I found this to often be the case with the boots on the ground guys that show up to the hospital.
They were more focused on being a "presence" of sorts, to make sure what they called the patients wishes were respected.
TD: ...and two JW elders (HLC?) showed up at the hospital. They seemed like decent enough men although they were not qualified to give medical advice of any sort.
They politely left after a brief conversation.
Yes, the 'bottom level' of the HLC hierarchy. You both describe what the initial pool of special pioneers are like that the WTS draws their noblood 'experts' from. Or rather, the pool of volunteer medical support people that either couldn't or didn't move up the HLC ladder to bigger and better positions.
In the HLC hierarchy, the lowly special pioneer member is the one who simply visits hospitals when congregants need support. Actually, though, the support isn't direct - it is directed towards the hospital personnel. The HLC is there to ensure that the hospital follows the noblood order. And to arrange for alternative procedures if needed. Patient interaction is generally done by the elders et al - the patient visiting team. They are the ones whose job it is to ensure that the patient remains steadfast in their refusal of blood - or, if convenient, changes their mind to fall in line with what the HLC 'recommends'.
Those 'recommendations' come from up line. From the HLC guys who climbed the ladder. There is another layer of special pioneer class HLC. The ones who travel to seminars and give presentations at hospitals etc to medical professionals, promoting the WT brand of 'blood management'. And make calls on doctors, evangelizing to them about the virtues of blood management etc., leaving noblood literature etc with them.
Then there are the HLC guys who write and publish papers in medical journals, presenting arguments and rationale for no blood treatments and recommendations on how to "manage the JW patient".
And there are the noblood guys who, on their way up the WT noblood ladder of success, find niche spots to make noblood pursuits their livelihood. Because, right at the very top of the HLC pinnacle, at the heavenly elevated spot of disengaging from the WT network, an HLC man can hold an international position that allows him to make decisions that impact everybody's blood supply.
Whew...I need more coffee. I will try to return with actual names and people to stick on the rungs of that HLC ladder so that it doesn't seem like I am just pulling this "theory" out of where the sun don't shine.
The HLC starts at the level of congregational special pioneer and ends at the level of global influence on the world's blood supply. It is a long ladder and a profitable one.
the supreme court in the breakaway south ossetia has ruled that jehovah’s witnesses is an extremist organization and banned its activities.. when the ruling comes into force in a few days, jehovah’s witnesses members will face up to 10 years in jail for any religious activities such as assembly and distributing literature.. http://dfwatch.net/south-ossetia-jehovahs-witnesses-49295.
darkspliver: It would seem that if any organization/country dealt directly with, or had direct dialogue with, South Ossetia, they would be lending a certain amount of legitimacy to this breakaway state.
Yes, you are right. South Ossetia sits in political limbo land. Not quite independent but sort of. A post-Soviet "frozen conflict zone".
The JWs never did have official status in South Ossetia and they never would have been able to own tax free property there.
And, of course, the Org wouldn't want to get involved in anything political, now, would they?
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
whatnow: Gnams testimony on the meaning of “disfellowshipped” is completely misleading.
Gnam's testimony on a lot of stuff was misleading. Very Watchtower-esque.
I might have to listen to the webcast again - I was making candy yesterday while I was listening and I know I missed a lot. What I did pick up was that the issue of "contract" was on the table.
Question: is not the act of baptism a contractual one? Mr. WT Gnam brought up the baptism "handbook" as a diversion away from the elders' "handbook" but is baptism itself not a contract? A contract between the candidate (who has been given all the "rules", according to Gnam) and the Org itself?
The BOE only calls JCs for those who have entered into a contract with the org - JCs are only for baptized JWs. Of course there is a contractual relationship. And that relationship is a clear contract between a baptized congregant and the org (represented by the elders). The Org has clearly laid out the rules around their contract with the congregant - once you are baptized, you are in a contractual position with the org.
http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=37273&id=2017%2f2017-11-02--37273&date=2017-11-02.
Fisherman: What exactly was the ruling of the lower Court?
You might find what you are looking for in this article from Oct 2016:
https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/1725/court-backs-judicial-review-of-church-ruling
This is the 2016 filing:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca255/2016abca255.html
the supreme court in the breakaway south ossetia has ruled that jehovah’s witnesses is an extremist organization and banned its activities.. when the ruling comes into force in a few days, jehovah’s witnesses members will face up to 10 years in jail for any religious activities such as assembly and distributing literature.. http://dfwatch.net/south-ossetia-jehovahs-witnesses-49295.
So this is what happens when the Org doesn't own property in your country. They don't bother to go to court for you, They don't even show up. No letter writing campaign for the South Ossetians. Maybe the Org doesn't consider South Ossetia a "land" worth saving.
Was there no appeal?
- No. I think they are influenced by the fact that the same actions were taken in Russia, where their activities are also prohibited. If the ban began with South Ossetia, there would be indignation, they would receive some kind of help from their brethren in the north of Ossetia, in Russia. But now they have no place to wait for support. Therefore, I think that the lack of appeal is natural. You can not keep in the Republic such an organization that is subordinate to the United States. Their center is located there and all that they propagate, works not in the interests of our state. Such people can not be patriots of their country.
- During the trial, did their representatives have any arguments in their defense?
- They did not come to the meetings, refused to participate in the court sessions, although they were invited. The case was heard in the Supreme Court.
No letter writing. No fluff pieces submitted to news outlets. No special lawyers sent out from Glen How and Associates. Nothing.
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.
Fisherman: Do you know that blood would have been a better choice for your baby?
Yes. I do know that a blood transfusion choice would have been, by far, a better option. I have zero doubts about that. Zero. *to add - my baby didn't need blood - he just needed surgery that may have required a blood transfusion
The surgery was not an especially complicated one and it had a very high rate of success during those times. Instead of my son undergoing a simple, probably short, surgery to correct a small obstruction of the bowel, he was subjected to a very lengthy, hours and hours long, alternative procedure that drained a lot of the blood from his wee tiny body, stored that blood, and in the meantime, kept his body at really low temperatures. And, not only that....but 6 weeks later, he had a horrible side effect from his blood being re-transfused back into his navel. His bowel became gangrenous. None of that would have happened if he had simply been given the routine, standard surgery that may, or may not, have required a blood transfusion.
*there is so much more to this story. It gets really ugly. Really ugly. Like Lee said, I need to write it all down.
The really really ugly part happened when my baby had his second surgery. I was on my own for that one - no mother to interfere with my baby's medical decisions. I made it very clear to the surgeon that I wanted my baby to get blood if he needed it. The surgeon promised me he would get blood.
But, that didn't happen. The surgeon lied because he knew that blood wasn't going to be used. The surgery had already been set up to go ahead with the alternative procedure (hemodilution) and the specialist had already been brought in from a different city. I spoke to the pediatric anesthesiologist on the telephone after the 9 hour surgery and I asked him if my baby had needed blood and if he had got it.
This is what the doctor yelled at me over the phone:
"Of course he didn't get blood!! You don't use blood in this procedure. What is WRONG with you people?? Nobody, nobody ever, should ever have to go through what that baby did!"
And then he told me that he didn't understand why I wanted to come over to the hospital to see him because "he probably won't live through the night. Little guys like this don't usually make it. His chances are about 3 percent. But, you can come see him if you want."
I went to see him.