Reading through my original post today reminds me of another point that was in my notes but which I forgot to type up.
Under the heading Implications for judicial files, I wrote:
What about the Society's position? The Service Department policy is not to destroy any judicial records, even when the subject dies. But if a person is disfellowshipped or disassociated, they are obviously not part of the religion, and the Service Department (or whoever is the nominated 'data controller') therefore commits the same criminal offences.
There is an interesting angle here: what about the situation where a publisher has been the subject of judicial action, say disfellowshipped then reinstated, then a few years later decides to 'fade'? Unlike one who is d/f or d/a and stays out, it is not obvious that the 'fader' is no longer part of the religion. (A necessity imposed by WT's cruel and inhumane shunning policies which clearly breach the human rights of those who leave: but that's another thread!)
The question then arises, for how long should this publisher's judicial records be kept? If, indeed, there is any justification whatsoever for keeping these records at all?
It seems to me that there are only two possible solutions:
- WT sets and makes public it's own time limit for what is "necessary" under principle 5, the reasonableness of which time limit can then be tested in court if needed.
- WT abandons it's whole policy of retaining judical records in the Service Department. This, however, is likely to be even more unacceptable than the first.
It seems WT has hoist itself on its own petard!