This is a weird video. It shows these strange floating balls that follow people around and identify them as being punished. I guess technology like that only exists in the twilight zone. The rest of the video is more down to Earth. It actually provides a fairly accurate imitation of the shunning practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and other extreme religions.
The Twilight Zone-To See the Invisible Man
12 comments:
I am a former JW too, but its sad that you did not consult with an attorney before accusing Jehovah's Witnesses of violating human rights, or violating the right to fair trial.
If you did, you would be told that they have not violated human rights law because international human rights law does not apply to private persons or groups, but governments.
The appropriate measure is to pressure your government to investigate any violations of law. If your government fails to do so, then you start the legal process until you reach international committees and tribunal that could hold your government liable for not upholding any human rights legal standards.
Although this does not means that people have not been injured, civilly or criminally, one things is for sure. The JWs have not violated international Human Rights law because it does not apply to them
And another thing, my friend, I too was a JW. That video does not accurately represent the JW judicial process
John B,
I'm a little confused by your comments because you address a number of issues that weren't in the post. I did not discuss international human rights laws or the judicial process of Jehovah's Witnesses, aside from their punishment of extreme ritualised
shunning.
The video is science fiction. It is not about Jehovah's Witnesses. It portrays the effects of extreme shunning. It's a coincidence that Jehovah's Witnesses and some other religions practice a similar form of extreme shunning. This video was brought to my attention by former Jehovah's Witnesses who think it makes a powerful statement
about the evils of ritualised shunning. I agree with them.
I agree that international human rights laws apply to governments. However, they have a responsibility to protect their citizens from anyone who would violate their basic human
rights. It is difficult to sue a religion, but it appears that the legal climate may be changing. Jehovah's Witnesses have recently settled multi-million dollar lawsuits out of court, concerning allegations about pedophilia in their organisation. Many other
lawsuits are pending that relate to human rights issues among Jehovah's Witnesses.
I should point out that your assumption that I have not discussed these issues with a lawyer is incorrect.
Hey dude,
I chose this post because it was at the top. More people would see it. This site is about JWs and human rights. Despite the use of the word by so many activist groups, human rights actually refers to international human rights law. So if you are using a term like human rights, you had better understand the elements of human rights and human rights law. Plus the only information out there about JWs and human right is how they violate the human rights of their members. They do not violate the human rights of their members within a human rights legal framework
Secondly, your description of the secret trials of disfellowshipping indicate you did not talk to an attorney. If you did, you would have not made the comment about representation in judicial committees. Your are going about this incorrectly. The JWs do not have to legally provide you with an representation. That only applies to governments.
Now that does not that a person should not have an advocate present. I believe that a person being disciplined before a non-public tribunals like ecclesiastical tribunals or employers should be allowed an advocate to assist them.
If you really believe that an advocate should be available in such a case, the place to start is lobbying for laws that grant such rights. These laws granting such rights must also protect the non-public group's right to association.
As it stands the JWs have the right to shun unless they specifically injure a person, as in some cases with the pedophile issue.
The statement "extreme shunning" is overkill. Shunning already means the complete avoidance of a person, as if there is such a thing as 'moderate shunning.'
Your comments on international human rights law are appreciated. I intend to discuss some of these issues in future posts. I disagree that any mention of human rights has to include international law, although there are numerous provisions in international law that appear to be relevant to the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. National laws and local laws also attempt to protect the human rights of it's citizens. It's also my understanding that international law might not always be directly enforceable within a country. The country has a responsibility to pass laws that ensure human rights within that country. This can make international law an unnecessary distraction in some cases that should be pursued on the basis of local laws.
It might help if I explain that the purpose of this blog is education. I agree with the idea
that lobbying for new laws can be helpful, however, I'm more concerned with education and the enforcement of existing laws. I would rather see people avoid the dangers and abuses of Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place instead of trying to legislate these abuses out of existence.
When I discuss things like lack of representation at a judicial hearing, I'm expressing my opinion that this is wrong. It is my belief that this shows a disregard for the human rights of Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether this could or should be pursued legally is another question.
With regards to shunning. I firmly support the right of individuals to shun whoever they want to. My objection is to an organisation that uses it's vast resources to try to force and intimidate it's members to shun friends and family. This is a complicated
legal situation and I hope to discuss it more in the future.
I would consider the shunning that is practised by Jehovah's Witnesses to be extreme. Shunning is a word that describes a broad range of activities. It can include some moderate forms such as generally avoiding a person, but not actually refusing to talk to the person if you do encounter him.
About the Shunning issue, it might be very well your experience that this kind of shunning happened, but when I was a JW I did not see that kind of shunning.
I knew JWs in "good standing" that would work with Df'd coworkers, and would interact with them, as coworkers. But that is as far as it went. I am not negating your experiences. You may have experienced or seen the kind of shunning you describe. I did not.
The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has one very unethical practice. Let me explain.
They intentionaly DO NOT inform new recruits that they will be dis-fellowshipped (shunned) for certain violations.
No new recruits are told they will be disfellowshipped for consenting to a blood transfusion for their children.
The Governing Body obviously is concerned that fewer people will join the group if informed of this rule.
This is dishonest and violates the Jehovah's Witness human and moral rights.
Again,JWs cannot legally violate human rights because they cannot legally violate international human rights law. When you accuse a someone of human rights "violations," that statement connotes that the country has violated international law. Non-public entities cannot legally violate international law (there are a few exceptions). It is each state's (i.e. country) responsibility to hold anyone or anything liable under its law
Morality is another issue. I personally believe that each JW and everyone else should have the right to choose medical treatment. When I joined the JWs I was informed what "sins" were DFing offenses. Besides if you are going to all the meetings, and read all their literature, you will know that blood transfusions are a DFing offense. Every Bible Study should know exactly what they are getting into. On the other hand, if certain elders did try to keep that truth from you, you may be able to sue them. Please consult with an attorney about that
I fail to see why consulting with an attorney is going to make any difference. Do you think that in the infitesimal chance you actually won your case (after spending thousands of pounds/dollars) that everyone would start talking to you, or that the world media would take a massive interest in a triumph over injustice. The answer no. You would end up looking like a mad eejit with an axe to grind and everyone would think even the jovies don't want him so there's something far wrong. It's far beter to educate people like friends, family ,work colleagues etc in a low key way . In my experience most people do not know that witnesses practice shunning when you put them in the picture they view them in a whole different light. By Kerry who is being shunned by her entire family.
He should consult with an attorney because I am not an attorney. That is where I got my information: from attorneys. Presenting information in a low key way? Why? What if the information you present is wrong? Some of the information about shunning is wrong. For example, Norm Havlond claim that DFing violates human rights when is does not. Some of these activists make legal claims when, their legal analysis is wrong.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment