Perhaps you are right, Pfizzy. I know far less about European law than about American law. Usually these human rights acts only apply to the actions of public bodies, however.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
75
DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?
by Terry in>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.
human equality.
-
-
-
75
DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?
by Terry in>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.
human equality.
-
-
Chaserious
I understand, but it's not like some person on the street can register a religion and then start breaking laws. What if I made a religion that taught it was OK to drive recklessly? Would I then be able to use my religion against the traffic cop that pulls me over? I don't see how the Watchtower can get away with essentially the same thing, but for twelve decades. I really don't understand how they can be so lawless out in the open. It's dumbfounding to me.
You could not break generally applicable laws. And neither can the Catholic Church or the Watchtower society. Whether it's a religion of one or of a billion, you cannot break a speeding or murder or robbery law because of religious belief. But there is no law that says you must love your family. None that says you must be on good and loving terms with your parents and your children. None that says anyone as an individual has to be respectful of the beliefs of anyone else.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you think you have discovered violations of is simply a declaration. If you are American, you are familiar with The Declaration of Indepenence, a document that talks about everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet you know that it's not the law. You cannot go into a court and make a claim against your neighbor for a Human Rights violation under the Declaration of Independence because his dog poops on your lawn and interferes with your pursuit of happiness.
The UDHR is not the law in the United States or anywhere else. It's a set of principles that forms the basis for international law. Those principles apply to governments. Do you really think it applies to everyone and everything? If your wife won't screw you unless you don't talk about religion to her, has she committed a crime by restricting your freedom of religion? If your mother doesn't want to be close to you anymore because you are a homosexual, or a drug user, or a Republican, or of some other group that she doesn't approve of, is she a Human Rights violator?
A corporation can't shun anyone. People shun because they subscribe to its dogma. And when they realize that shunned status and everything else is just a bunch of meaningless BS, they can leave and flip the org the bird, like so many of us have. I have. My parents haven't spoken to me for years. No one is holding a gun to their head. Human rights violations over run of the mill DFing and DAing is nonsense.
-
42
DUI Defendant Tries to Place Awake With My Prosecutor Daughter
by Justitia Themis inyep.
you read the title correctly.. my daughter is a prosecutor who right this moment is prosecuting a dui crash with major injuries.
the defendant--the drunk driver--just tried to place an awake magazine with her while both of them were in the courtroom.. .
-
-
Chaserious
What a great story... maybe he wanted to get his revenge for being persecuted so he was making sure she is 'taken care of' at the big A. You know, since she can't say she didn't have a chance to hear the good news now.
-
12
companions and carers.
by zeb inyesterday i had the duty of care to take our feline companion of 20 years to the vet to be euthanized.. i took a tin of his fav tuna and gave him a last meal at the vets to settle him as the needle and medication did its work.. he died peacefully and in no pain.
my wife and i buried him in the garden next to a another older moggie.. i had the duty to email this sad news to the family who have largely grown up with him.. i sat in my back room and cried bitterly.
i will miss him terribley and his head rubbs him checking on me once i was in bed and all his ways.. sleep well..... time for another cry..
-
-
Chaserious
So sorry.. I know how you feel. Just lost one suddenly a few months back. Every time my wife and I return home and he isn't there to eagerly greet us like he always was, I miss him. They are part of the family. Best to you and your wife in dealing with your loss.
-
75
DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?
by Terry in>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.
human equality.
-
-
Chaserious
Let me see if I can sum up this thread thus far:
1) Terry suggests that actions like labeling people "goats," disfellowshipping announcements in general, declaring that people are going to die at Armageddon, teaching followers to hate apostates, and calling them mentally diseased is not only morally despicable on the part of the Watchtower organization, but also constitute defamation of character and human rights violations from a legal perspective.
2) Some agree fully.
3) Others agree with the morally despicable part but point out that these things are not defamation or human rights violations from a legal standpoint.
4) This having been shown, Terry brings in an entirely new scenario, where now he is talking about children being kidnapped and raped. Even though no one has had the opportunity to respond to this new set of facts, Terry implies that only people like him have the "moral fiber and backbone" to stand up for these victims.
Is that about the size of it?
-
30
THIS got WT Leaders thrown in Jail
by Tallyman inhow many of you were aware that watchtower leaders were .
charged with, tried and convicted of sedition.
during world war i ?.
-
-
Chaserious
Also, they have claimed in the literature that Rutherford was "exonerated" when that wasn't the case. His conviction was overturned on legal procedural grounds and the Justice Department decided not to try the defendants again since the war was over and there was somewhat of a policy of amnesty toward those accused of sedition during the war. Even some who were not successful on appeal, like Eugene Debs (a socialist leader who had denounced the war) had their sentences commuted after the war.
Although the conviction doesn't count and he is presumed innocent since not proven guilty, "exonerate" means to affirmatively prove innocent, such as might happen with DNA evidence. Rutherford and his cronies could have been tried again and people get tried again and convicted all the time after an appeal. The way the WTS has related the history of this is somewhere on the spectrum from misleading to an outright lie and probably closer to a lie.
-
66
Hello. I am new here :)
by StevenJB inhello all.. my name is dteve and i live in the uk.
i hope i can make genuine friends here and not pretend friends.....like that among jw's.. i left, went back, and have left again, but this time it is for good.
so i tried to work things out, but she carried on.
-
-
Chaserious
Welcome Steve! It's not a very tall order to hope to find better friends here than on the inside, like the elder who "helped" you. I hope your expectations are far surpassed in that regards. Best wishes with your new lady friend!
-
75
DFing....Human Rights Violation and DEFAMATION of character?
by Terry in>>>>>>>>>no one can allow human rights to be violated--not even inside the insular confinement of relgious policy>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
what are "rights" and where do the stem from?.
human equality.
-
-
Chaserious
There are a lot of valid points here about the moral culpability of the leaders of this organization. But the reality is that it doesn't amount to defamation. You can't look at what the words mean as defined in the rest of their literature and then apply that to the mentally diseased quotes in yet some other piece of literature and patch it all together to amount to slander or defamation. You have to look at what they directly say about you, and they don't say boo about anyone except that you are no longer part of the org.
Besides, as someone pointed out an another thread recently, you have to be careful what you wish for. If you want it to be so easy to make a defamation case, how do you know that you wouldn't be liable to the WTS for defaming them? I have certainly seen material posted on this site accusing the WTS org of things that are impossible to verify and in many cases almost certainly false. Sue them for molestation, sue them for swindling Aunt Mildred out of her savings. But when you try to restict what others can say and teach, you are endangering the democratic right of free expression in the public squares of a free society.
-
11
Canada : Supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech
by yalbmert99 infeb 27, 2013 canada : supreme court : freedom of speech does not allow hate speech.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-gay-flyers-violated-hate-law-supreme-court-rules-1.1173807.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-supreme-court-whatcott-free-speech.html.
-
-
Chaserious
Good point, JeffT. I am not a big fan of the decision. I hate hate speech, but I hate censorship more.
-
4
Is Information from the "Flock" Book generally admissible in a court of law ???
by RubaDub inso as not to hijack the other "flock" thread, i have always wondered if information in the flock book could be used in court cases especially of child custody and other family issues ?
issues like education, extra-curricular activities ?.
or can the elders use some sort of defense that the information is not for the public ?.
-
-
Chaserious
No, corporate documents get admitted in civil cases all the time. It generally doesn't matter what kind of case when determining admissibility, with a few exceptions. But the exceptions tend to admit less in a criminal case, not more.
I think many family court judges would like to keep this material out, so it doesn't become a religion on trial. The most likely way the elders book would come in is if an elder testifies as a witness and testifies inconsistently with what is in the book. Then it could be admitted to confront the elder with what the book actually says.