Posts by hawkaw

15

Nevada Supreme Court Rules Against a Jehovah's Witness Couple

by Gerard in

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared/health/ap/ap_story.html/health/ap.v8763.ap-parental-rights.html

by brendan riley .

associated press writer

hawkaw

mindy72,

As nasty as you sounded, I couldn't say it better myself.

FWIW, the Nevada ruling continues to uphold the theory that your free to practice whatever religion you want but don't be harming the kids.

hawk

22

Help please: how to transfer scanned reply from U.N. letter campaign...

by sf in

jw
friends

darn.

okay, i've scanned it yet how do i transfer the scan onto this forum?

thanks, skally

hawkaw

sf,

I finally got my letter but the scanner and computer I had were ripped off. So I will be in a holding pattern for it to be put up on the db.

Gee, Hoeffel signed this one in blue instead of black. Note: I'll be sending it off by facsimile to someone shortly.

As for the opinion that the letter on the UN web site is coming down off the UN web site. Its not. In fact a number of the UN departments are directing people to the DPI web site to view the WT letter via letters or telephone calls.

Take care,

hawk

11

The documentary has legs

by morrisamb in

can't reveal details just yet, but the family secrets documentary that aired across canada this past monday will be pitched to an american channel in the near future...wish it luck!.

the documentary on my sexual abuse story for the w network has just won some awards: for the first season of the series, family secrets is being awarded a remi from worldfest houston international film & video festival.

whether it's for television series or television directing - i don't know yet.

hawkaw

Donald,

You

ROCK!!!!!

hawk

20

Brooklyn is off the hook in the Amarillo TX case

by Nathan Natas in

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/040404/new_abusecase.shtml

web-posted sunday, april 4, 2004 .

abuse case going to trial .

hawkaw

Texas: it doesn't put up with crime.

Well I still remember when the prison system in Texas like other states was over way over crowded and that parole board and the legislators thought is was a good isea to save money by doing the "revolving door theory" and thus let all those murders etc. go in Texas. And that one guy in particular whose name escapes me killed again. Of course they did smarten up after that.

Texas has some of the best law enforcement in the world. Top notch. As for it judicial system. Its not bad and has been fair in the past.

As for this Court decision, I still think this is a loss for the team. The intent is to hit the pocket books of the rich corporations so that it gets them to change their ways or else more financial hardship will occur. Slapping a congregation that can easily close down and re-start under another name and taking out a few elders home along the way does NOT send a hard hitting message to the main corporation where all the money is. How the Judge could not connect the dots between the main corporation and the local congregation is beyond me.

hawk

158

JW's BANNED IN RUSSIA - 04-01-04

by 4JWY in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses banned from moscow by russian court.

is the heading of the article in the religious section of our newspaper yesterday.

moscow (ap) a moscow court has banned the religious activities of jehovah's witnesses from the russian capital in a move that critics called a step back for democracy and religious freedom.

hawkaw

In Russia, they just got a straight up NO!

Hmm .....

Unless I am mistaken, I think the Court made an order for the Moscow area and NOT the entire country of Russia. And of course I think the decision of the Court can be appealed.

hmmm ....

It is a free choice. People make the choice to become or stay a JW. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't have been able to make the free choice that I did to not follow the WT anymore and to go ahead and TAKE a blood transfusion if needed. It required no action on my part besides making that resolution or choice in my head. That's free choice.

Another problem with blood transfusions is that the Watchtower fails to fully inform people about the blood issue. They create fear by lying to people about the dangers, and they use obfuscatory language to make it difficult for most JWs even to understand what they're supposed to believe. Should government dictate to a religion what its beliefs should be? Should government mandate "truth in advertising" for religions? I think that a real threat of banning over issues like this would force changes -- all for the protection of people too dumb to think for themselves -- once again, a basic activity of government.

I'd agree with this and it would nice to see the gov't this involved with ALL organizations, but it will never happen, they don't care that much! However rather than banning, if this did happen, they should be given the opportunity to comply. In Russia, they just got a straight up NO!

I guess it is not so much about a "free choice" but about the consequences for making the choice that is very agonizing since the JW person does lose something they cherish deeply - their family and friends. And that my friend, does require a huge amount of "action" on the part of the person.

When someone who is in a position of power over another (just as the JW leaders are over their flock) it puts a lot of pressure on a person to make a life and death decision that has nothing to do with the medical condition. When a coporation who is in a position of that power does not provide all of the facts to make an "informed decision" (such as happens in the blood doctrine) and threatens consequences (ie. shunning and loss of God) for not following the party line, then obviously the corporation with the power is being wreckless and deserves to be banned until its Directors change their ways.

Lets all remember here, the only reason why the Watchtower and John Burns want to be recognized in Moscow as a religion is so they can get their little tax exemption claim and make money off the flock and their magazines. Like this is a new huge "market" for the Watchtower and they know it. If you think the Watchtower is going to waste its time over religious rights because it is the right thing to do, you got another thing coming to you.

Thus, I think you should be very careful how you "parse" your words in this.

hawk

11

Canadian JW's Sue Over Blood Transfusion

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses have lost a case in nevada over an administered blood transfusion to a child, as announced today.

now, also, they are suing a canadian province over their son's forced blood transfusions.

wonder if the nevada supreme court ruling could have any effect in a canadian court???

hawkaw

BTTT

20

Brooklyn is off the hook in the Amarillo TX case

by Nathan Natas in

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/040404/new_abusecase.shtml

web-posted sunday, april 4, 2004 .

abuse case going to trial .

hawkaw

WTF!!!!!

Did not the Judge understand that the congregation elders do NOT make a move unless they are directed to do so by policy or actual direction from Brooklyn.

Get the appeal or leave to appeal forms out!

11

Canadian JW's Sue Over Blood Transfusion

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses have lost a case in nevada over an administered blood transfusion to a child, as announced today.

now, also, they are suing a canadian province over their son's forced blood transfusions.

wonder if the nevada supreme court ruling could have any effect in a canadian court???

hawkaw

No no.

Its actually "hawk". the "aw" are my intials of my first and second name.

I originally tried to get "hawk" on this db but somehow I goofed getting the password setup back in March 2001. So I took my old H2O handle hawkaw.

Take care,

hawk

6

Jehovah's Witnesses appeal son's care

by ignored_one in

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=bda552d3-2cc2-4650-9d58-1479f9b20efc

maria cantoncalgary herald.

april 7, 2004. jehovah's witness parents became victims of "religious profiling" when the alberta government apprehended their son and gave him a blood transfusion they say was not only against their beliefs, but not medically necessary, lawyer shane brady charged tuesday.. the couple, who cannot be named to protect the identity of their son, is appealing an august 2001 treatment order issued in provincial court that gave a social worker temporary custody of their infant son to allow for the blood transfusion.. representing the family, brady argued before court of queen's bench justice adele kent that the province's director of child welfare was "closed-minded" when she failed to do a thorough investigation into the situation surrounding the baby's bowel infection.. furthermore, brady said, the director didn't question dr. douglas mcmillan's assertions that it was urgent the three-week-old, premature baby be given a transfusion, nor did she call the parents to ask for their input or any other doctor for a second opinion.. "it would have taken very little time for her to have spoken to another doctor," said brady, a toronto lawyer who previously represented the mother of calgary teen bethany hughes, who died from leukemia after receiving blood transfusions against her will.. "there is no evidence that demonstrates this was an urgent situation, no evidence to suggest the parents couldn't be given their fundamental rights," he said.. a lawyer for the director of child welfare, however, said not only is the director not qualified to discuss complex medical issues, but obtaining second opinions would have been untimely in a case in which mcmillan felt the child's life was at risk and the parents knew the treatment hearing was imminent.. brady maintains the parents, both of whom were in court with their now two-year-old son tuesday, were denied their right to a lawyer, to disclosure (access to other legal parties' material) and to call evidence at the treatment hearing due to the swiftness of the hearing.. "it is the constitutional right of the parents to a fair hearing and the state has interfered in the parent/child relationship," he said.. the boy developed the bowel infection on aug. 9, 2001.. according to testimony, mcmillan was aware of the parents' religious beliefs and even waited a day before going to the courts to ask for permission to give the transfusion.. on aug. 10, family court judge sharron prowse-o'ferrall ruled the transfusion could proceed.. tests determined it was a bacterial infection and the parents wanted it treated with antibiotics.. this, said brady, was well within the medical range of treatment for the diagnosed infection.. "the parents were not refusing an indispensably medically necessary treatment," he said.. at that point, mcmillan should have either treated the boy without a blood transfusion, asked another doctor to take over the case or asked the parents to find another doctor, said brady.. kent will hear arguments today from both sides pertaining to the federal charter of rights and freedoms.. the family is also suing the province, for the same reasons, claiming $50,000 in damages, alleging the blood transfusion was contrary to their legal rights and religious beliefs.. [email protected] the calgary herald 2004.

hawkaw

[email protected] April 8, 2004 Dear Ms Maria Canton: Thank you for your April 7, 2004 story on the JWs and their blood transfusion ban. http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/index.html This has been an ongoing issue with the JWs and exJWs for many years. I am not a JW but I am very interested in their ways due to my many exJW and JW friends that I have. I know Lawrence Hughes very well with respect to this issue and the many who work at AJWRB ( http://www.ajwrb.org ) who try to act as a "check and balance" to the JW leadership's ever changing blood doctrine. The "so-called" blood transfusion ban has "evolved" since the 1940s when the JWs first started their ban and 1961 when the JW leadership made it an excommunication (disfellowship/family and friends shunning) offence if a JW took a blood transfusion. I assure you that the family lawyer will never tell you of the 1939 Golden Age magazine article by the JWs that showed support for blood transfusions. Oddly, during this time frame the JW leadership began to remove their ban on vaccinations. Back in 1961 the leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (JWs main corporation) banned all types of blood transfusions. They even banned organ transplants later that decade. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, they allowed for organ transplants and then allowed for different "parts" of blood to be transfused into JWs. In June, 2000 the leadership decided to even allow the blood part called hemoglobin to be transfused into Jehovah's Witnesses (this is important therapy in trauma occurrences since a lot of new alternate blood based products that are made from hemoglobin are slowly going through FDA approval). In this time frame, the leadership came up with a unique doctrine that whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma are not to be transfused. If blood is broken down further, JWs are allowed to take it as a matter of conscience (just like vaccinations). Think about that for a second. If doctors can spilt all the parts of blood into what the JW leadership call "blood fractions", and then transfuse all those parts separately at the same time into a JW, the leadership will allow it. But, if the JW takes whole blood, the JW is kicked out of the organization. Of course the leadership will also not publically tell the flock that white blood cells can be taken through an peripheral auto stem cell transplant (which is a type of a white blood cell transfusion) or through drinking breast or cows milk or through organ transplants. So how on the one hand can a leadership say it bans white blood cell transfusions but allow white blood cell transfers to be taken in these other forms. They will tell you that their whole doctrine is based on a couple of Bible passages. That is only partially true. Look deep into their writings of the 1990, 1994 and June 15, 2000 editions of the Watchtower magazine (which publishes the JW leadership's official doctrine). You will note that the blood doctrine ban is based on the combination of bible verses, science and medical information (NOT just the bible). The articles stress that if a blood part "naturally" passes between two individuals with separate blood systems (such as a mother and a fetus during gestation) then, the leadership believes that Jehovah God is allowing this to "naturally happen" and Jehovah God is telling the leaders that it is okay to take that specific blood component. This is why albumin (part of the plasma) and hemoglobin are now allowed to be taken by JWs. Of course what the leaders will never tell you and the world is that red blood cells do move natural between mother and fetus as well as "natural" whole blood transfers take place between many "individuals" (as defined by the leadership) during the gestation of identical twins (monochorionic gestation). The JW leadership also enjoys explaining that blood transfusions are extremely dangerous to take. They explain to their flock of all of the dangerous medical stories and diseases involving blood transfusions. Of course they don't tell the world that there has been a huge improvement in our blood system or provide the true statistics of a million to one shot of getting AIDS and the likelihood of the person having more of a chance of having a bad reaction to a vaccine (which is allowed by JW leadership) or death during an organ transplant (which is also allowed by the JW leadership). My point in explaining all of the above is that in order for two adults to make a decision about their child's medical health, their decision has to be an "informed decision". With all the leadership's teachings ingrained in the heads of the JWs, the threat of excommunication/shunning and lack of understanding of what the blood doctrine is about, there is no way for the parents to make an "informed decision" on the JW leadership's blood doctrine ban and the health and welfare of their child. Thus, the Province has to step in and protect the health and welfare of this innocent little child. I do note that the lawyer was telling you and the court that the young child did not need a blood transfusion or at the least should have gotten a further review by another doctor. I believe most doctors will tell you that bacteria and viruses spread extremely fast through very tiny children because their immune systems are not up to the same level of yours and mine. If it is at all possible could I ask that you please alert your readers to the fact that the lawyer who made these statements does NOT have a medical degree. It is one thing for a medical doctor to make a statement publically on this but this lawyer's credibility should be called into question if he does not belong to a College of Physicians and Surgeons in Alberta or Ontario. Finally and for your information, this is just NOT a Toronto lawyer representing the family. He actually works for or assists a law firm run by Glen How that represents the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada Inc. (the main Canadian corporation for the JWs). I know it is tough but would it be at all possible for you to actually provide the true background of counsel when you do your next story? Again thank you very much for this article and the dangers faced by young Jehovah's Witnesses children. xxxxxx

11

Canadian JW's Sue Over Blood Transfusion

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses have lost a case in nevada over an administered blood transfusion to a child, as announced today.

now, also, they are suing a canadian province over their son's forced blood transfusions.

wonder if the nevada supreme court ruling could have any effect in a canadian court???

hawkaw

[email protected] April 8, 2004 Dear Ms Maria Canton: Thank you for your April 7, 2004 story on the JWs and their blood transfusion ban. http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/index.html This has been an ongoing issue with the JWs and exJWs for many years. I am not a JW but I am very interested in their ways due to my many exJW and JW friends that I have. I know Lawrence Hughes very well with respect to this issue and the many who work at AJWRB ( http://www.ajwrb.org ) who try to act as a "check and balance" to the JW leadership's ever changing blood doctrine. The "so-called" blood transfusion ban has "evolved" since the 1940s when the JWs first started their ban and 1961 when the JW leadership made it an excommunication (disfellowship/family and friends shunning) offence if a JW took a blood transfusion. I assure you that the family lawyer will never tell you of the 1939 Golden Age magazine article by the JWs that showed support for blood transfusions. Oddly, during this time frame the JW leadership began to remove their ban on vaccinations. Back in 1961 the leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (JWs main corporation) banned all types of blood transfusions. They even banned organ transplants later that decade. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, they allowed for organ transplants and then allowed for different "parts" of blood to be transfused into JWs. In June, 2000 the leadership decided to even allow the blood part called hemoglobin to be transfused into Jehovah's Witnesses (this is important therapy in trauma occurrences since a lot of new alternate blood based products that are made from hemoglobin are slowly going through FDA approval). In this time frame, the leadership came up with a unique doctrine that whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma are not to be transfused. If blood is broken down further, JWs are allowed to take it as a matter of conscience (just like vaccinations). Think about that for a second. If doctors can spilt all the parts of blood into what the JW leadership call "blood fractions", and then transfuse all those parts separately at the same time into a JW, the leadership will allow it. But, if the JW takes whole blood, the JW is kicked out of the organization. Of course the leadership will also not publically tell the flock that white blood cells can be taken through an peripheral auto stem cell transplant (which is a type of a white blood cell transfusion) or through drinking breast or cows milk or through organ transplants. So how on the one hand can a leadership say it bans white blood cell transfusions but allow white blood cell transfers to be taken in these other forms. They will tell you that their whole doctrine is based on a couple of Bible passages. That is only partially true. Look deep into their writings of the 1990, 1994 and June 15, 2000 editions of the Watchtower magazine (which publishes the JW leadership's official doctrine). You will note that the blood doctrine ban is based on the combination of bible verses, science and medical information (NOT just the bible). The articles stress that if a blood part "naturally" passes between two individuals with separate blood systems (such as a mother and a fetus during gestation) then, the leadership believes that Jehovah God is allowing this to "naturally happen" and Jehovah God is telling the leaders that it is okay to take that specific blood component. This is why albumin (part of the plasma) and hemoglobin are now allowed to be taken by JWs. Of course what the leaders will never tell you and the world is that red blood cells do move natural between mother and fetus as well as "natural" whole blood transfers take place between many "individuals" (as defined by the leadership) during the gestation of identical twins (monochorionic gestation). The JW leadership also enjoys explaining that blood transfusions are extremely dangerous to take. They explain to their flock of all of the dangerous medical stories and diseases involving blood transfusions. Of course they don't tell the world that there has been a huge improvement in our blood system or provide the true statistics of a million to one shot of getting AIDS and the likelihood of the person having more of a chance of having a bad reaction to a vaccine (which is allowed by JW leadership) or death during an organ transplant (which is also allowed by the JW leadership). My point in explaining all of the above is that in order for two adults to make a decision about their child's medical health, their decision has to be an "informed decision". With all the leadership's teachings ingrained in the heads of the JWs, the threat of excommunication/shunning and lack of understanding of what the blood doctrine is about, there is no way for the parents to make an "informed decision" on the JW leadership's blood doctrine ban and the health and welfare of their child. Thus, the Province has to step in and protect the health and welfare of this innocent little child. I do note that the lawyer was telling you and the court that the young child did not need a blood transfusion or at the least should have gotten a further review by another doctor. I believe most doctors will tell you that bacteria and viruses spread extremely fast through very tiny children because their immune systems are not up to the same level of yours and mine. If it is at all possible could I ask that you please alert your readers to the fact that the lawyer who made these statements does NOT have a medical degree. It is one thing for a medical doctor to make a statement publically on this but this lawyer's credibility should be called into question if he does not belong to a College of Physicians and Surgeons in Alberta or Ontario. Finally and for your information, this is just NOT a Toronto lawyer representing the family. He actually works for or assists a law firm run by Glen How that represents the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada Inc. (the main Canadian corporation for the JWs). I know it is tough but would it be at all possible for you to actually provide the true background of counsel when you do your next story? Again thank you very much for this article and the dangers faced by young Jehovah's Witnesses children. xxxxxx