Narkissos,
Are you able to give us any more details of the European case you refer to? I am wondering whether it may have any relevance to something I've been thinking about quite a lot recently...
The WT has published numerous articles supporting human rights in general, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in particular.
***
w93 9/1 p. 30 European High Court Upholds Right to Preach in Greece ***
Article 9 of the Convention reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
***
g98 11/22 pp. 9-10 Human Rights and Wrongs Today ***
Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion. ?Article 18. [of the UDHR]
Of course, WT has often sought to rely on these rights when governments have objected to JW activities in their countries, and have claimed the right to proselytise as part of their 'freedom of religion.'
What WT has evidently forgotten, however, is that these rights work both ways. The 'freedom to change your religion or belief' applies not only to those to whom JWs preach, but also to those wishing to leave their religion.
WT, using their draconian 'apostasy' laws, are abusing the very rights they rely on to exist, and denying them to JWs who no longer want to remain in their religion. According to their definition of apostasy in the Insight book, it is " used primarily with regard to religious defection; a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith." The Reasoning book goes further, by stating that some apostates " claim to believe the Bible but reject Jehovah?s organization." And in a letter dated September 1, 1980 to all travelling overseers, the GB further tightened the screw by stating that "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views," but "if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the "slave class" then appropriate judicial action should be taken." (Welcome, Thought Police.)
As a result, if a JW no longer believes that the GB are the "faithful and discreet slave" they must either lie to the body of elders and pretend that they have lost their faith (or some other self-abasing excuse--anything but make the organisation feel their authority is being questioned) and then try to do a fade (with the knowledge that they may still try to take action against you years later, if they ever learn of your true motives), or else they either get disfellowshipped or write a letter of disassociation, both of which result in shunning. Whichever, there is no way to leave this organisation with your self-respect intact.
By their practices of disfellowshipping, disassociation and shunning, they are effectively holding as hostages the families of those JWs who no longer believe in their religion and who want to leave, but are afraid to do so or tell anyone their reasons why, for fear of being branded an 'evil apostate' and thus having severed all future contact with their families.
The GB seem unable to grasp that their policy is counterproductive, as it has the effect of 'trapping' within the organisation persons who are unhappy and disaffected, and who are more than likely to give 'outsiders' the 'wrong' impression of the organisation, never mind stirring up doubts and questionings within the remaining 'loyal' JWs.
The sad reality is that, even if they wanted to, WT dare not voluntarily ease these restrictions on freedom of thought within the organisation. They are only too well aware of the irrepressible torrent of criticism that would be unleashed if they even opened the floodgates an inch. The GB does not take kindly to criticism.
Thus, external pressure has to be brought on the WT, and I believe this issue of their abuse of their own members' human rights is a serious--if not fatal--weakness in WT defences. It is readily proved by the innumerable testimonies of former members who have been abominably treated and who would, I've no doubt, happily testify in court.
There is, however, one problem, though I hope it's not insurmountable. Both the UDHR and ECHR are designed to regulate the relationship between governments and their subjects. It is governments who sign up to these charters, not individuals or religious bodies. Just because each European government is bound by the ECHR doesn't in turn require every private organisation to also be so bound. Thus, I don't think it would be possible for an aggrieved ex-JW to directly take a case to court simply claiming damages for WT's abuse of their human rights, or even asking the court to require WT to change their practices.
However, I am presently making enquiries with some human rights lawyers as to ways round this problem: perhaps you can also ask yours if they have any thoughts?
Regards,
Ken
