Corney

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 470 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Corney

• 
  13

  Legal fight over door-to-door notes continues: case goes to Strasbourg

  by Corney in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on 10 june 2019, the finnish jw organization lodged an application against finland with the european court of human rights.

  the case was quickly - by the court's standards - communicated to the finnish government on 10 december 2019. the complaint itself isn't available online but there is a brief summary (see the link above) prepared by the court:.

  the application concerns the jehovah’s witnesses’ religious activities in finland and their compatibility with the data protection regulations.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  The European Court (seven-judge Chamber) unanimously ruled for Finland, finding no violation of the freedom of religion in this case.
  
• 
  6

  UK Supreme Court decides Watchtower not liable for elder raping 29 year old congregant

  by Corney in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  background: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5684019822854144/vicarious-liability-court-appeal-dismisses-appeal-from-religious-organisation-following-sexual-assault.

  the judgment (unanimous): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf.

  press summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0089.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  Background: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5684019822854144/vicarious-liability-court-appeal-dismisses-appeal-from-religious-organisation-following-sexual-assault

  The judgment (unanimous): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

  Press summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2021-0089.html

  Vicarious liability is an unusual form of liability by which the defendant is held liable for a tort (a civil wrong) committed by a third party [1]. The law in this area has been subject to an expansive redrawing of boundaries in the 21st century [4]. There are two stages of the inquiry, both of which have to be satisfied to find vicarious liability [58(i)]. The same two tests apply to cases of sexual abuse as they do to other cases on vicarious liability [58(v)].

  In the vast majority of cases the tests can be applied without considering the underlying policy justification for vicarious liability [58(iv)]. In difficult cases it can be a useful final check on the justice of the outcome to stand back and consider whether that outcome is consistent with the underlying policy.

  Stage One

  The test at stage one is concerned with the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor (the third party, here Mark Sewell, who committed the tort) [58(i)]. Although not a point taken by counsel, the Supreme Court considers that a correct defendant for this claim was the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (the first defendant at first instance) [59-64].

  The first stage test is whether the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor was one of employment or akin to employment [58(ii)]. In applying the "akin to employment" aspect of this test, a court needs to consider carefully features of the relationship that are similar to, or different from, a contract of employment. The "akin to employment" expansion does not undermine the traditional position that there is no vicarious liability where the tortfeasor is a true independent contractor [58(ii)].

  The Supreme Court agrees with the lower courts that the relationship between the Jehovah's Witness organisation and Mark Sewell was akin to employment [65]. The important features here rendering the relationship akin to employment were: that as an elder Mark Sewell was carrying out work on behalf of, and assigned to him by, the Jehovah's Witness organisation; that he was performing duties which were in furtherance of, and integral to, the aims and objectives of the Jehovah's Witness organisation; that there was an appointments process to be made an elder and a process by which a person could be removed as an elder; and that there was a hierarchical structure into which the role of an elder fitted [66]-[67].

  Stage Two

  The test at stage two asks, whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected with acts that the tortfeasor was authorised to do that it can fairly and properly be regarded as done by the tortfeasor while acting in the course of the tortfeasor's employment or quasi-employment [58(iii)]. The application of this "close connection" test requires a court to consider carefully on the facts the link between the wrongful conduct and the tortfeasor's authorised activities.

  At the second stage of the inquiry, the courts below erred by failing to set out the correct "close connection" test and taking into account incorrect factors. [70-71].

  The Supreme Court decides that the claimant has failed to satisfy the stage two test for the following reasons: (i) the rape was not committed while Mark Sewell was carrying out any activities as an elder [74]; (ii) the primary reason the offence took place was that Mark Sewell was abusing his position as a close friend of Mrs B when she was trying to help him [75]; (iii) it was unrealistic to suggest, as counsel for the claimant submitted, that Mark Sewell never took off his "metaphorical uniform" when dealing with members of the Barry Congregation [76]; (iv) although Mark Sewell's role as an elder was a "but for" cause of Mrs B's continued friendship and hence of her being with him when the offence occurred, this is insufficient to satisfy the close connection test [77]; (v) the appalling rape was not an objectively obvious progression from what had gone on before but was rather a shocking one-off attack [78]; and (vi) other factors, such as the role played by Mark Sewell’s father, and the failure of the Jehovah's Witness organisation to condemn Mark Sewell's inappropriate kissing of members of the congregation when welcoming them, were not relevant except as background [79].

  As a final check, consideration of the policy of enterprise liability or risk that may be said to underpin vicarious liability confirms that there is no convincing justification for the Jehovah's Witness organisation to bear the cost or risk of the rape committed by Mark Sewell. The fact that it has deeper pockets is not a justification for extending vicarious liability beyond its principled boundaries [82].
• 
  10

  Leading First Amendment scholars intervene in CA loyalty oath case

  by Corney in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  brianna bolden-hardge, a mother of two, a devout jw and a career california civil servant, sues the office of the state controller which revoked a job offer after she objected to swearing a loyalty oath, even though three other state agencies she worked for "either did not insist on the oath or provided her a religious accommodation to it" (by allowing to submit a clarifying statement).

  she sued, and the case was dismissed by a district court.

  now it's heard by the ninth circuit.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  Yesterday, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled for the plaintiff, reversing the dismissal of her complaint and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings: "Although the state employer has asserted defenses that might ultimately prevail, none of them can be considered at the motion to dismiss stage."
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  The US supported the Chechens? Between 2004 and 2017? Laundered through Ukraine, which is hundreds miles away from Chechnya? Sounds like your GPT-3 is hallucinating again.

  Russian official claimed some Ukrainians (that had nothing to do with Ukraine military) fought in Chechnya. So what? Some Russians (I mean, by both nationality and ethnicity) joined the separatists too. Said Buryatsky, for example.
  

  I'm sorry, but your knowledge of the region is not just ("a bit of") minimal, it's negative.
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  AM, you are spreading nonsense.

  Ukraine's military actions perfectly fit within the scope of self-defence, and yes, this includes attacking legitimate military targets inside of Russia.

  No, Ukraine didn't invade Russian regions before the February 24, and some isolated incidents, mostly false flag operations, don't change this fact. Ukraine didn't support Chechen separatists.

  No, it's not just about retaining certain regions that were partly lost because of Russia's involvement. Ukraine is protecting its very existence and independence.

  I guess the conflict is less black and white, and Ukraine and the West were often wrong, but your claims still don't make any sense. And just because you heard something about the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic, you aren't less ignorant on this situation.
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  It would be great if a peace was made then. But it seems a bit far-fetched to state as a matter of fact that Russia was participating in those negotiations genuinely and in good faith, and that the parties were able to come to an agreement, and that Johnson's visit played significant role in the negotiations' failure, etc. The arms industry wouldn't be irreparably harmed by a peace deal since military spending would increase anyway due to threats posed by Russia (which not a single reasonable person would deny now), China and others.
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  So now it makes sense. Evidentially, Putin is just a puppet of the US military industrial complex
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  The West has given lots of military hardware to Ukraine, enabling it to stand up to the aggressor; that's called collective self-defence. In your opinion this is why the war still continues. How is this not tantamount to saying that Ukraine's continuing resistance is what prolongs this war?
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  No, LUHE, I didn't miss any point. The West must appease Putin and make peace for our time, cede the four regions Russia recently annexed (perhaps including areas under Ukrainian control), lift all the sanctions (how else to end this awful cost-of-living crisis?), expel Eastern Europe countries from NATO (because no way Russia will ever attack them AND they are not so important to risk a nuclear war), give Putin more time and resources to strengthen up Russian military and economy... This worked well in 2008-09 and 2014-15 when Russia was essentially allowed to get away with Georgia, Crimea and Donbas, so it certainly will be a viable peace. As Mr Medvedev said three days before the invasion,

  Here, I will give my personal assessment – ​​but after a while, with skilful management of the situation, and, I emphasise, I think we have learned how to do this under the leadership of the President – ​​the tension that is now vibrating around our country will subside one way or another. Not quickly, not all at once, but this is how human history works: sooner or later, they will get tired of this situation and will themselves ask us to resume discussions and talks on all issues of ensuring strategic security.

  Here, you know, it is like that line from the famous book by Bulgakov: never ask for anything, they will come to you themselves and offer everything. This is about how developments unfolded in 2008–2009. They came to us and suggested resuming relations across the board. Let us face it, Russia means a lot more than Ukraine for the international community and our friends in the United States and the European Union, and everyone understands this, including the Ukrainians.

  So why not to make them happy and give them what they want?

  I just want to say, "peace ASAP" and Ukraine's decisive victory are not the only options. What about peace on honourable and just terms -- which is impossible if "soon" is all you care about. After all, Putin and his clique are perfectly happy about continuing this war, it helps them to further solidify their power, enrich themselves, purge any dissent and disloyalty. They aren't under pressure to end it ASAP, so it's questionable whether a really good peace is even possible at this point.
  
• 
  62

  England v Ukraine

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  so nice to see thousands upon thousands of fighting-age ukrainian men managed to escape the war and reach wembley to support their national football team yesterday.

  things must be improving, eh?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Corney

  I can't believe reading that standing up to the aggressor -- which understands no language other than force -- "prolongs the war".

  And notwithstanding all the bullshit about "Russian land" and "Russian people", most people from the recently occupied regions didn't wait for the Russian army to "liberate" them.