For those who have asked the question, "Why did the WTS seek and obtain 'NGO associative status' with the UN-DPI", it seems that such is just one element of a much larger plan to involve itself in the worldly quasi-political affairs so as to proactively affect global public opinion about JWs/WTS sufficiently to obtain as much freedom as possible to carry on "the kindom work".
Here is an excerpt from a October 1999 "human rights" conference conducted by the Australian government. My excerpt only includes WTS's comments which seem to explain what the WTS is up to. (I suggest reading the entire portion of the transcript which relates to the WTS. There are some "nice" comments from one of the Aussie politicians indicating that the WTS stand on blood atually violates human rights, etc. Here is the link: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:IkJ8-ub0ZAk:www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j2444.pdf+ngo+australia+jehovah%27s+%22human+rights%22+quebec&hl=en )
MacLEAN, Mr Donald Howard, Director, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia
TOOLE, Mr Vincent Joseph, Legal Officer, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia
CHAIR-On behalf of the subcommittee I welcome representatives of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The subcommittee prefers that all evidence be given in public but should you at any stage wish to give evidence in private you may ask to do so and the committee will give consideration to your request.
Although the committee does not require you to give evidence on oath, I should advise you that these hearings are legal proceedings of the parliament and therefore have the same standing as proceedings of the House itself. I invite you to make a short opening statement if you wish and we will then proceed to questions.
Mr MacLean-I would like to express appreciation for coming before the committee. Most religions espouse principles of tolerance and morality and thus the free practice of religion can promote stability within a community.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights show that the international community believes religious freedom to be of very considerable importance. Nevertheless, throughout the world religious intolerance continues and is increasing.
As far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, the intolerance is exhibited by both secular authorities and religious groups. So we must, at the outset, say that much of the discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses by governments is supported or instigated by other religions. While Jehovah's Witnesses stay clear of politics and do not try to use religious influence to steer or control governments, this is not the case with many major and minor religions.
In our submission we directed attention to some conspicuous examples of discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses. We did so to highlight failings within the systems in which they occur. For example, a parliamentary inquiry into dangerous religious sects in France obtained its information about Jehovah's Witnesses from those who oppose us, and they did not seek or accept information from the Witnesses themselves. Thus the published report was based on misinformation.
We believe that discrimination seldom occurs in a vacuum. Thus, to eradicate religious intolerance, the climate for religious tolerance must first be improved. There also has to be an international and unbiased source of reliable information on religions, on their beliefs and practices.
Religious discrimination and persecution is often based also on fear. Fear is often based on inaccurate information. For example, one hears of the Jonestown mass suicide and the Waco Texas massacre and assumes that, because Jehovah's Witnesses are zealous in their
religious worship, they promote blind loyalty and members would commit suicide.
Despite the guarantees of religious freedom contained in the Constitution of Singapore, Jehovah's Witnesses are under a ban in that country. Their religious and morally up-building literature, including copies of the authorised King James version of the Bible published by the Watchtower Society, and publications that are freely distributed throughout Australia and much of the rest of the world, are considered `undesirable publications´.
This action by the Singapore government is based on the stand taken by the Witnesses to remain neutral in military and political matters. In most countries, authorities have come to realise that the Jehovah's Witnesses' position in this regard poses no real threat to national security. Individuals have been imprisoned-some have lost their jobs-and the courts have not upheld their rights under Singapore's constitution. So that is Singapore.
Despite the guarantee of freedom of religion found in article 28 of the 1993 Russian constitution, Russia has recently enacted legislation restricting the activity of religions considered to be `foreign´ or `new´. While Jehovah's Witnesses have been accepted for registration recently as a recognised religion in Russia, attempts have been made to close meetings and disrupt religious activities, and the clergy of the traditional faiths support and vigorously advocate these measures in Russia.
Several criminal investigations have been brought against the Moscow congregation but each investigation has been closed because the allegations were demonstrated to be false. At this time a civil prosecution is continuing and seems to be putting non-orthodox theological beliefs on trial rather than adhering to the rule of law or allowing freedom of belief in that country.
In France and throughout Europe there is a move to impose crippling taxes on Jehovah's Witnesses. We have been in France now for over a hundred years and we are the third largest Christian religion in that country. The French government is currently attempting to impose a 60 per cent tax on all donations made to Jehovah's Witnesses. The tax is imposed
on no other religious organisation. This action is based on a report which classified Jehovah's Witnesses as not being a religion but rather a sect-and this is the land of liberty, equality and fraternity, as you know.
From time to time we have received support from non-government organisations, particularly in exposing the persecution. We have also received support from the American embassy, the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the President's wife, Hillary Clinton. However if any international steps taken by Australia in support of religious freedom are to be truly effective, Australia needs to consider whether it is upholding the principles of religious freedom at home. I just give two examples highlighting something in our submissions to the committee. Firstly, we notice that the present Australian state laws permit blood transfusions to be administered to minors without parental consent and, secondly, we note the discriminatory manner in which adoption laws are applied to Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia.
In summary, we believe that at home the Australian legislation should be amended to permit parents to obtain medical treatment for their children without violating their conscience and to prevent religious discrimination in child adoption. This may include clarification of section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Abroad, we believe that Australia could be actively aware of religious discrimination and be prepared to make representation and speak out against violations of freedom of religion. Perhaps we could see non- government organisations supporting this work, particularly as a watchdog of religious freedom, but we believe the Australian government must at least voice strong objections to these violations.
way. Perhaps Mr Toole might like to make some comments about that.
------------
........Lengthy comments.........
------------
Senator PAYNE-The serious question is in relation to your detailed submission on violations against your religion in various parts of the world-France in particular, but you go on to mention Eritrea, Armenia, Singapore and so on. There are a number of human rights organisations and human rights activist organisations in the world, such as Amnesty, with whom we met earlier this morning. When you put forward to this committee examples like this of violations of religious freedom, do you work with organisations like that in countries? Do you approach them for support to assist your members or your associates with these problems, or do you campaign alone to look after them and help them?
Mr Toole-We will take all the help we can get-anybody at all that is prepared to stand up and be counted. For example, in those court cases in Singapore, Amnesty, as I understand, came and sat down in those cases and listened to all that was presented there. They came to us for information. We supplied every bit of information we possibly could to try and assist. We feel that at the end of the day that is probably one of the means that could be promoted to a much greater degree to try and address these issues, because what ends up happening, as Mr MacLean's opening highlighted, is that you end up with a lot of misinformation and disinformation about things. If I wanted to know about you, I would not go and speak to someone who has got some other agenda that is opposed to you.
Senator PAYNE-There would be many who would help you with that.
Mr Toole-But I think it would be appropriate to come to you and to people who can look at your situation objectively. So an organisation like Amnesty International, who one would think does not have a hidden agenda or some other agenda, is prepared to objectively look at what is the position and then can make a report to those various organisations that are, in fact, working difficulties on our people and other religious groups as well. It would be considered a non-partisan group who would be very much in a position to be able to have a real input.
We have this situation in Europe where we are categorised as almost something out of a science fiction movie in some of these places, in some of these newspaper articles. People are happy to take that aboard and then act on that basis even at governmental level. It is an extraordinary proposition. Yet we feel that organisations like Amnesty should be approached and should be fed information, for want of a better word, so that they can then make representations to those governments as an objective body that really is just objectively endeavouring to present the facts.