The case was actually settled: no admission of guilt, but $19,500 (nearly two thirds of the highest possible penalty) were to be paid by the congregation and two elders collectively, and the elders agreed to participate in a special training. More info on http://jwsurvey.org/child-abuse-2/jehovahs-witness-elders-fined-for-failure-to-report-child-abuse-watchtower-settles-with-Delaware
Corney
JoinedPosts by Corney
-
4
Anyone know of update on Delaware legal case?
by careful indoes anyone know of any updates on this case about the clergy-penitent privilege?.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/lawsuit-against-jehovahs-witnesses-elders-for-not-reporting-child-abuse-continues-443003903.html.
this was the latest thing (last sept.) i could find in a google search.
-
-
Corney
-
-
-
Corney
TD
"Countries like Russia" as I used the term would be countries who have either refused to recognize Jehovah's Witnesses and/or questioned their legitimacy as a Christian religion. I gave the example of Bulgaria. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?
Firstly, Bulgaria is a bad example because:
- it's a 20+-year-old example; JWs a recognized in Bulgaria as a religion since 1998;
- post-Communist Bulgaria didn't prosecute Witnesses for their belief;
- in 1990s, there was a campaign against "non-traditional" religions at all, including Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists as like as Orthodox and Muslim communities outside state-supported organizations. For example, "[u]p to July 25, 1994, the Council of Ministers accepted three decisions which affected 62 [religious] communities and foundations. Only 23 of them, mostly with Christian-Orthodox orientation were permitted to register and re-register. The remaining 39 communities were denied permission. These had mainly Protestant orientation, two Muslim and one Christian-Orthodox organization" (Human Rights in Bulgaria in 1994, p. 5). So, it is possible to conclude the government's decision was driven by bias against religious minorities;
- the decision refusing registration for national JW association (as like as many other religious associations) was adopted by executive branch with irregularities incompatible with the rule of law - it contained no reasons and a judicial review was not available;
- in 1990s, Bulgaria was a poor state in its first post-totalitarian years.
Second, I think governments have not power to decide whether a religion is true, truly Christian or a heresy and whether a belief is "legitimate". That's not their business.
As to mentioned problematic practices. Firstly, I cannot comment on the Bulgarian case since I'm not persuaded by your accusations. Where are complaints from the government or allegations from CoE Committee of Ministers (the body supervising execution of such settlements)? Or maybe you have knowledge about the situation in Bulgaria and enforcement of blood doctrine by national JW association?
Secondly, ok, you've mentioned these issues - we all know about them and what the org is (apart from my partial disagreement with the chosen wording), but what's next? Do they justify the discussed persecutions? Or would they justify an apartheid, concentrations camps or beheadings for JWs? If not, why do you continuously mention them in this thread?
As to allegations of hypocrisy, I don't care about them at all. It is not so difficult to accuse almost any victim of human rights violations of ethically problematic views or behavior but such accusations are irrelevant.
Finally, it is necessary not to oversimplify the question of harmful and controversial practices, not to forget about how such practices and improper influence are widespread in human society (incl. mainstream churches); about the fact that, on one hand, JWs are not zombies or slaves and can chose to obey or disobey their leaders, on other hand, there is strong pressure from the org; about difficulty of distinguishing between proper and undue influence. This is so easy to list blood doctrine, shunning etc. but it's far more harder to come to fair and reasonable practical conclusions.
-
-
-
Corney
@TD
Here in the U.S. we're willing to recognize almost anything as a religion, but that's not the case in countries like Russia. If the JW's want to be recognized as a religion on human rights grounds, then I think they're going to have to start behaving more like a religion (as in being fundamentally benevolent and charitable) and less like a group that abuses the whole concept of human rights.
This opposition between the US and "countries like Russia" (what are they? Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, China, Singapore, Syria?) is false. I think you know that JWs are fully recognized as a religion in countries like Austria, Hungary, Germany, France, Romania, Spain, UK, even Belarus and Kazakhstan, not only in America. They can freely practice their religion in almost all states (including all democratic and almost all developed) with exception of some Muslim, Socialist and post-Soviet ones. And there are only two countries that incarcerate people merely for being active Witnesses - Eritrea (where it is common to detain people for years without charges) and Russia. Even in Singapore, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc. it is not a crime to be a JW. In Russia, it is.Again, in Russia (and "countries like Russia") appeals to freedom of religion are useless since Russian authorities and their pocket "courts" don't respect human rights at all.
So, that's not about different visions of religious freedom but about respecting it or not.
And Russian government doesn't dislike religion in general. Russian Orthodox Church is now like Communist Party in the Soviet Union - it is almost impossibly for government officials and people in similar positions and for state-controlled media (incl. all major TV channels) to criticize it. Doors of schools, universities, hospitals, Army barracks, and prisons are open for Orthodox priests (but not ministries of other religions), and many school, college, hospital etc. buildings were transferred to ROC. The Church is directly and indirectly sponsored by state. Finally, many staffers of the Church (believing in hypnosis and tithe in the org and JWs delivering data collected during D2D ministry to CIA) are "experts" in the field of religion for state security and law enforcement agencies. And that's all despite the fact that only very small percentage of the population (nearly 2-4%) are practicing Orthodox believers.
-
-
-
Corney
Do you mean "the Great Tribulation"?
-
10
News from Court in Europe
by asp59 in.
basically the same as prohibiting house to house preaching?.
https://europe.easybranches.com/finland/european-court-of-justice-rules-jehovah’s-witnesses-illegally-gather-personal-data-455622.
-
-
Corney
For example, it will be difficult to make return visits without such records, as like as to collect data about foreign-language speakers. -
10
News from Court in Europe
by asp59 in.
basically the same as prohibiting house to house preaching?.
https://europe.easybranches.com/finland/european-court-of-justice-rules-jehovah’s-witnesses-illegally-gather-personal-data-455622.
-
-
Corney
The headline "European Court of Justice rules Jehovah’s Witnesses illegally gather personal data" is misleading, as I've shown here, and it will possibly enough for JW organization to instruct publishers not to collect data mentioned in art. 9 of GDPR and to invoke art. 6(1)(f) of the Regulation in respect of other personal data to comply with data protection law. There will be changes, but it unlikely will be necessary to eliminate door-to-door preaching.
-
-
-
Corney
@steve2, Scientologists and Mormons are not banned in Russia.
@Finkelstein, these persecutions (100+ armed raids at homes, 50+ are prosecuted and 20+ are detained for the first 10 month merely for practicing their religion) have nothing about real or alleged victims, they don't help anybody and only ruin and will ruin hundreds and thousands lives.
@eyeuse2badub, "criticizing, predicting, and even looking forward to the destruction of a government" are not crimes, taking into account that JWs don't commit, incite for or justify any anti-governmental activities.
@Perry, @LongHairGal, poorly founded speculations about higher state expenses and dubious charges of deception are bad justifications for criminalizing entire religion, aren't they?
-
25
JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities
by Room 215 ina newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .
(translated from the italian) .
source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.
-
-
Corney
@sir82, I think your conclusions are premature. Yes, ECJ has decided that EU data protection law is applicable to door-to-door notekeeping and JW entities are responsible for compliance with that law.
But it should be noted that, for example, art. 6(1)(f) of GDPR allows processing of personal data, with the exception of data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, data concerning health, sex life or sexual orientation and other sensitive data, without consent of data subject when "processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject". Taking into account that The Article 29 Working Party mentioned exercise of the right to freedom of expression or information, conventional direct marketing, other forms of marketing or advertisement, and unsolicited non-commercial messages, including for political campaigns or charitable fundraising, as possibly being legitimate purposes of data processing (Opinion 06/2014, p. 25), it will likely be necessary for national supervisory authorities and courts, CJEU and other national and international bodies to determine whether and to what extent that provision is applicable to JW door-to-door ministry and similar activities (e.g., political canvassing).
As Steve Peers (University of Essex) wrote,
But while we know that EU data protection law applies to such activities, and that responsibility is shared, we don’t know how to apply the law in such cases, as the Court wasn’t asked. (The earlier ruling on home security cameras similarly leaves such possible questions unanswered). On what grounds can the data be processed? Must homeowners give their consent to the processing for specific reasons? One can imagine that those who are already reluctant to discuss their faith with Jehovah’s Witnesses will be even more reluctant to discuss the minutiae of data protection consent with them too. Can the legitimate interest of evangelists or political canvassers justify the processing of data? Or can a statute validly regulate this issue? (One suspects that politicians will be particularly keen to find time to legislate to justify their own activities, if necessary).Finally, I don't think that not-at-home and do-not-call data are personal data and protected by EU law.
-
25
JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities
by Room 215 ina newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .
(translated from the italian) .
source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.
-
-
Corney
On Wednesday, Jehovah’s Witness spokesperson Veikko Leinonen declined to comment on the ECJ’s ruling on the organisation’s information-gathering practices.
He told Yle that the community is taking the ruling very seriously, but wants to examine it thoroughly before adopting a position on it.
“At the moment we are in waiting mode. We are looking into what to do about the decision. We have nothing further to say on the matter,” Leinonen added. However he said that at a glance, he would describe the court’s ruling as “complex.”
“When you read the ruling, there are many arguments for and against. It is quite impossible and unnecessary to consider the matter on the basis of all these issues,” he declared.
The organisation has continued its door-to-door ministry.
-
25
JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities
by Room 215 ina newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .
(translated from the italian) .
source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.
-
-
Corney
Some interesting blogs about the judgment:
https://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/knock-knock.-whos-there-the-data-protection-directive-95-46
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-data-protection-coming-home-cjeu-on.html
https://verfassungsblog.de/die-zeugen-jehovas-und-das-datenschutzrecht/ (in German)