New Proposals to Criminalize Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “Shunning”:

[GeordieGirl]

I really like the fact that Bitter Winter, where this article comes from, really seem to do their homework on what they report about.

There is a lot more than I have C&P here and the whole article is worth a read if you have the time and the inclination.  

 

Some way down in the article there is this:

We note that two out of three authors of the article are not trained in law and that the first author Grendele described herself in her 2022 doctoral dissertation as an “inactive” Jehovah’s Witness. In the same dissertation, she both reported that she had posted her invitation to participate in her survey of “shunning” on social media groups operated by anti-cult and anti-Jehovah’s-Witnesses movements (dissertation, pp. 115–16) and that she had suggested to some of her interviewees to contact the same organizations, as well as others, if they “would need support after taking part to the interview” (dissertation, p. 378). Grendele’s possible conflict of interest is not disclosed in the article. 

 

The artice starts here: 

Two British psychologists and one criminologist venture onto a slippery road when they suggest extending provisions about domestic abuse to religion-based “ostracism.”

 

We are both sociologists who also have a legal training and have followed with interest for decades legal cases involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

Courts of law have repeatedly stated that “shunning” is a religious practice willingly followed by individuals and based on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of the Bible. Prohibiting it would mean interfering with the beliefs and internal organization of a religious body, thus violating the principle of freedom of religion or belief.

 

Opponents of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, keep trying, and exploring new legal avenues to prohibit “shunning”, or rather prohibit teaching it, since how a court of law can force those who refuse to associate with certain individuals to remain in communication with them is unclear. 

 

One dangerous way of prohibiting (the teaching of) “shunning” is to extend to religious communities the laws on domestic abuse or “coercive behavior” in the family. These laws exist in several countries and do mention “coercive control” and “psychological abuse,” .....

 

The United Kingdom is not the only country where proposals to extend laws on domestic abuse incriminating “coercive control” to religious organizations have been formulated. However, one of the few explicit proposals to single out the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their practice of “shunning” has now been presented in the last issue (38:2, pp. 290–313) of the “Journal of Law and Religion” by two British psychologist, ..... and one criminologist ...... They had already criticized the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “shunning” in a previous article published in “Pastoral Psychology” earlier this year.

 

The three authors would like to apply the U.K. Serious Crime Act 2015 and Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which extend the notion of domestic abuse beyond physical violence by including emotional abuse and “coercive control,” to the practice of “shunning” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. What they know about personal experiences of “shunning” derives from having interviewed disgruntled ex-members only (and “two Elders who were physically in but mentally out of the church” ..... ), which raises serious doubts about their methodology and scientific impartiality. 

 

Relying only on hostile ex-members leads the authors to present as facts very serious allegations ..... and to make generalizations that are demonstrably inaccurate. For example, based on the accounts made by “Rose”, the authors conclude: “Grandparents are not permitted to see their grandchildren if they are no longer members of the community” ... 

In fact, as clarified by clarified by “The Watchtower, [”https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1974565]  while the “shunning” policy prohibits “spiritual fellowship” with disfellowshipped non-cohabiting relatives, “if a disfellowshiped [sic] parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring.

 

A serious flaw of the article is its summary of legal cases about the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are some references to criticism of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses handled in the past cases of sexual abuse, with the usual reference to the Australian Royal Commission, .... but comments by other authorities and courts that the current policy of the organization effectively protects children are not mentioned. The findings of the England-Wales Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse are also reported in an incomplete way, ignoring the parts where they acknowledge the effectiveness of the child protection policy introduced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2018–19. ..........

 ..... the authors’ references to sexual abuse among the Jehovah’s Witnesses in a scholarly article are dangerously close to statements published by the Spanish newspaper “El Mundo” that a court in Spain recently declared unsubstantiated. It is also unclear what discussions about sexual abuse (and blood transfusions) have to do with the subject matter of the article, i.e., whether “shunning” should be criminalized.

 

While they claim that they do not want to see the Jehovah’s Witnesses banned in the United Kingdom as it was done in Russia in 2017, they still quote several unfounded allegations made by Russian courts as relevant references ....

 

https://bitterwinter.org/new-proposals-to-criminalize-jehovahs-witnesses-shunning-why-they-are-wrong/

[Pabo]

It would be interesting how they can enforce by law on a practice that is so common practice this day.

 

How many people use a call blocker on their mobile device, or some filtering/ignore program to clear out certain posters, images or references on website? Wouldn't this be deemed to be "shunning" a person(s) or organisation by using these apps and facilities? You are still in effect filtering out unwanted attention and staying away from such things.

 

So if governments tried to bring in laws in regards to shunning, it will have a catastrophic effect on a lot more things that people take for granted today in respects of not being harrassed by telemarketers etc if you either use a call blocking app or by ignoring their calls.

[GeordieGirl]

23 minutes ago, Pabo said:

It would be interesting how they can enforce by law on a practice that is so common practice this day.

 

How many people use a call blocker on their mobile device, or some filtering/ignore program to clear out certain posters, images or references on website? Wouldn't this be deemed to be "shunning" a person(s) or organisation by using these apps and facilities? You are still in effect filtering out unwanted attention and staying away from such things.

 

So if governments tried to bring in laws in regards to shunning, it will have a catastrophic effect on a lot more things that people take for granted today in respects of not being harrassed by telemarketers etc if you either use a call blocking app or by ignoring their calls.

Exactly.  Bitter Winter makes a similar point in the article when it says: 

.....  how a court of law can force those who refuse to associate with certain individuals to remain in communication with them is unclear. In our society many also “shun” and refuse to meet or even talk with divorced ex-spouses or former friends they have quarreled with, and courts cannot compel them to behave differently.

Edited October 31, 2023 by GeordieGirl

[Sheep]

Several years back, a prominent Witness in Western Canada was disfellowshipped. After that, he screamed and shouted how wrong the practice of shunning is, and tried to file a class-action lawsuit to get the courts to force us to accept them back in. During the preliminary hearing (in which a judge decides if the case has any legal merit), someone had given the judge a copy of our book, Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, which discusses, among other things, the disfellowshipping arrangement. The judge asked the lead plaintiff if he was familiar with the book. Of course, he had to say that he was; he had read it before becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The judge told him his case had no merit, that it would fail, and strongly recommended that he drop the case!

 

If anyone is not in agreement with the "shunning" policy, then why would he become one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place?

[BLEmom]

It’s fomented by those who want to do things their own way and then cry over lost business or upset their family doesn’t hang with them anymore. 
It’s like choosing to join the military but being all upset when you get kicked out for not following the rules. Guess what?  You can’t go on military operations with your buddies anymore. Duh. 

[-Chris-]

People can be 'cancelled' due to disgusting actions, social media posts, or even rumors and insinuation. They're tried in the 'court' of public opinion and often have no say in the matter. Other people 'go low contact' or 'no contact' with relatives or friends for a variety of reasons, some very valid.

 

What are the similarities between these actions and the disfellowshipping arrangement? More importantly, what are the differences? Look closely at how one can demonstrate humble repentance and be reinstated. Compare that with the above practices in our society.

[Jwanon]

So they want to force us to speak to people we do not want to speak to ? Isn't freedom of association protected by the law ?

 

And if shunning bothers apostates so much, why don't they simply repent of their sin ?

Edited October 31, 2023 by Jwanon

[GeordieGirl]

I find the whole saga interesting from the 'turning on religion' viewpoint. 

As is mentioned in the article, we are not the only religion who practice shunning but we are singled out by many people, and institutions, for a number of different reasons, shunning being a hot topic.  

John 15:18,19 

 

One of the main religions they would like to get rid of is us. For the last 100+ years we have stood up for ourselves, taking institutions to court for trying to force us into their mould and winning in the majority of cases. We  are in their faces, knocking on their doors, phoning them up, writing them letters and generally, in their eyes, being a nuisance. 

Yet when the time comes and they think they have won because religion has been destroyed, there we will be, still making a nuisance of ourselves, and still obeying our God, Jehovah, rather than theirs. 

Acts 5:29

[TJ]

19 hours ago, GeordieGirl said:

Exactly.  Bitter Winter makes a similar point in the article when it says: 

.....  how a court of law can force those who refuse to associate with certain individuals to remain in communication with them is unclear. In our society many also “shun” and refuse to meet or even talk with divorced ex-spouses or former friends they have quarreled with, and courts cannot compel them to behave differently.

 

And this is the root of it. It's so obvious that some of these 'experts' are educated far beyond their intelligence; do they really not consider any of the consequences of trying to force government's 'sword' to compel your form of speech and expression? To actually force you to fellowship with a person that you do not want to associate with?

 

Anyone is free to disagree with the (scriptural) practice of shunning, argue against it all day for all I care. But as soon as you try to try to force me to associate with someone I choose not to associate with, you really need to step back and consider, "Are we the baddies?"

 

 

[GeordieGirl]

1 hour ago, TJ said:

 

And this is the root of it. It's so obvious that some of these 'experts' are educated far beyond their intelligence; do they really not consider any of the consequences of trying to force government's 'sword' to compel your form of speech and expression? To actually force you to fellowship with a person that you do not want to associate with?

 

Anyone is free to disagree with the (scriptural) practice of shunning, argue against it all day for all I care. But as soon as you try to try to force me to associate with someone I choose not to associate with, you really need to step back and consider, "Are we the baddies?"

 

 

 

Thank you for the funny. I do enjoy DM & RW. 

[Esined]

12 hours ago, -Chris- said:

People can be 'cancelled' due to disgusting actions, social media posts, or even rumors and insinuation. They're tried in the 'court' of public opinion and often have no say in the matter. Other people 'go low contact' or 'no contact' with relatives or friends for a variety of reasons, some very valid.

 

What are the similarities between these actions and the disfellowshipping arrangement? More importantly, what are the differences? Look closely at how one can demonstrate humble repentance and be reinstated. Compare that with the above practices in our society.

 

Yes!! This. I have thought about this many times. Secular people totally shun others, including close family members, all the time. I've seen and heard people declare they will no longer talk to a parent or a relative because of their politics or who they voted for. And there are no guidelines, no support, no arrangement, no pathway back to a relationship or to participation in a community.

 

 

[hatcheckgirl]

What gets me, didn’t they know what they were “signing up for”? We are thoroughly taught before baptism. You know that disfellowshipping is in the Bible, and why we do it. Ok, so you don’t want to be a JW any more, but you want us to change to accommodate you? So you can have your associations? 🙄

[GeordieGirl]

4 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

What gets me, didn’t they know what they were “signing up for”? We are thoroughly taught before baptism. You know that disfellowshipping is in the Bible, and why we do it. Ok, so you don’t want to be a JW any more, but you want us to change to accommodate you? So you can have your associations? 🙄

 

It's not just us they want to change, it's Jehovah God. Just shows how far they've fallen. 

[BLEmom]

A little off topic but regarding cancel culture….interestingly enough this is a case the Supreme Court is trying to figure out now…

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-social-media-blocking-cases/
 

Can officials block people from their PRIVATE social media pages if they are talking about policy?  I don’t think they have even defined what a social media page is yet. 
 

It’s crazy out there!

[Frances Bennett]

I would say that its more likely that they could ban treating a disassociated person in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.

 

Most organisations are required by law to allow members to leave without fear of repercussions if they choose to.

 

Ejection for rule breaking is one matter, but choosing to leave is a protected right.

 

I think this might become the sticking point 🤔 

[BLEmom]

1 hour ago, Frances Bennett said:

I would say that its more likely that they could ban treating a disassociated person in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.

 

Most organisations are required by law to allow members to leave without fear of repercussions if they choose to.

 

Ejection for rule breaking is one matter, but choosing to leave is a protected right.

 

I think this might become the sticking point 🤔 

That’s the thing; you can’t mandate a response to an announcement. Those who choose to disassociate actually write a letter saying they don’t want to be JW’s anymore.  An announcement is made they are no longer JW’s which is what they want. And everyone knows how to react to that news. 

“I no longer wish to be a nun or Boy Scout or a marine”. Then you don’t get invited to things having to do with that and you don’t get newsletters or other info. And generally speaking people hang with the groups they hang with. You can’t tell the Boy Scouts they have to socialize with families that aren’t in Boy Scouts. You can’t tell marine families they have to hang out with army families. You can’t even tell Nuns they have to go to parties with their parishioners. It’s their choice who to socialize with. 

You might say but we tell people who to socialize with!  Well yes and no. We say this is what the Bible says about who to socialize with. People make their own decisions and there’s not exactly a hall monitor. It would have to be pretty flagrant for anyone to get in trouble for socializing with df’d ones or such. Family may or may not see their df’d relatives for various reasons. 
I’ve only known one person to get df’d because they chose to marry a df’d person after they were warned not to continue in contact. And they themselves brought it to the elders. 

[Frances Bennett]

@BLEmom Yep, I agree. I actually don't believe there's any need for the any direction to shun, anyone with a good relationship with Jehovah wouldn't associate with those opposing Jehovah anyway, out of our own free will and conscience and out of loyalty to Jehovah and their friendship with him. I do think there might be a tweak needed in the announcements between disfellowshipped and disassociated to comply with international law. Time will tell on that one. 

 

Also there are many reasons that people send disassociation letters, those close to such ones would know the reason and I think if the announcement was slightly tweaked it would mean that any that did have limited contact with such ones wouldn't cause a stumbling block for others in the congregation.

 

For example, there is a dear one in our hall who suffers horrendously with her mental health. She has psychosis and is paranoid. She has disassociated herself and then been re-instated a couple of times now. During the times she was out she had no concept at all that she should be treated as disfellowshipped. She merely thought she "couldn't cope" with the pressures of the congregation and was "taking a break" for her mental health.

 

She approached me a few times when she saw me on the street and wanted to chat. I have to admit I did treat her with kindness, compassion and love in the brief conversations I had with her during those times. I never sought out to spend time with her, but knowing her situation I responded accordingly. Strictly speaking I was going against written direction wasn't I. However having people in my family who suffer with psychosis I know that opposing them in their delusions can have dire consequences and can cause them much mental anguish and pain. People from the congregation who didn't understand her situation could have been stumbled by seeing me speak to her in the street (nobody did see me).

 

If the announcement was slightly different and the view was that disassociated ones might have chosen the course for many reasons and that caution should be used in how we respond to them - as opposed to encouraging blanket shunning, perhaps a little like the marking talks of old - I personally think this would be more appropriate - although I am happy to wait patiently and see if any such change happens, not pushing my opinion forward.

 

We live in very strange times. People are very broken. It's very similar to when Jesus was on Earth. Good people can behave in confusing ways when they are damaged by Satan's world. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Frances Bennett

[Jwanon]

1 hour ago, Frances Bennett said:

Strictly speaking I was going against written direction wasn't I.

 

It's on a case by case basis, obviously it would depend on the situation

[Dages]

2 hours ago, Frances Bennett said:

She approached me a few times when she saw me on the street and wanted to chat. I have to admit I did treat her with kindness, compassion and love in the brief conversations I had with her during those times. I never sought out to spend time with her, but knowing her situation I responded accordingly. Strictly speaking I was going against written direction wasn't I

If your conscience is troubled about this, discuss with your elders 

[Dolce vita]

2 hours ago, Frances Bennett said:

@BLEmom Ouais, je suis d'accord. En fait, je ne crois pas qu'il soit nécessaire d'éviter toute direction, toute personne ayant de bonnes relations avec Jéhovah ne s'associerait de toute façon pas à ceux qui s'opposent à Jéhovah, par libre arbitre et conscience et par loyauté envers Jéhovah et leur amitié. avec lui. Je pense qu'il pourrait y avoir un ajustement nécessaire dans les annonces entre exclus et dissociés pour se conformer au droit international. Le temps nous le dira. 

 

Il existe également de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les gens envoient des lettres de dissociation, les proches de ces personnes en connaîtraient la raison et je pense que si l'annonce était légèrement modifiée, cela signifierait que ceux qui ont eu des contacts limités avec ces personnes ne constitueraient pas une pierre d'achoppement pour d'autres dans la congrégation.

 

Par exemple, il y a une personne chère dans notre salle qui souffre horriblement de sa santé mentale. Elle souffre de psychose et est paranoïaque. Elle s'est dissociée puis a été réintégrée plusieurs fois maintenant. Pendant son absence, elle n'avait aucune idée qu'elle devait être traitée comme une exclue. Elle pensait simplement qu'elle "ne pouvait pas faire face" aux pressions de la congrégation et qu'elle "prenait une pause" pour sa santé mentale.

 

Elle m'a approché à plusieurs reprises lorsqu'elle m'a vu dans la rue et voulait discuter. Je dois admettre que je l'ai traitée avec gentillesse, compassion et amour lors des brèves conversations que j'ai eues avec elle pendant ces périodes. Je n'ai jamais cherché à passer du temps avec elle, mais connaissant sa situation, j'ai réagi en conséquence. À proprement parler, j'allais à l'encontre des instructions écrites, n'est-ce pas. Cependant, ayant des gens dans ma famille qui souffrent de psychose, je sais que s'opposer à eux dans leurs délires peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses et leur causer beaucoup d'angoisse et de douleur mentales. Les gens de la congrégation qui ne comprenaient pas sa situation auraient pu être trébuchés en me voyant lui parler dans la rue (personne ne m'a vu).

 

Si l'annonce était légèrement différente et que l'opinion était que les personnes dissociées auraient pu choisir cette voie pour de nombreuses raisons et qu'il faudrait faire preuve de prudence dans la façon dont nous y répondons - au lieu d'encourager un rejet général, peut-être un peu comme les discours de marquage d'autrefois - Personnellement, je pense que ce serait plus approprié - même si je suis heureux d'attendre patiemment et de voir si un tel changement se produit, sans avancer mon opinion.

 

Nous vivons une époque très étrange. Les gens sont très brisés. C'est très similaire à l'époque où Jésus était sur Terre. Les bonnes personnes peuvent se comporter de manière confuse lorsqu’elles sont endommagées par le monde de Satan. 

It makes me think, Frances, of all the times Jesus changed his behavior towards certain people, while the Law to which he was scrupulously faithful gave strict instructions: the Samaritan woman, the Phoenician woman... Of course, we must take no liberties with Jehovah's clear instructions in any matter. If that should change, we will let us know and we will line up as we will certainly do with joy on November 6th. But sometimes we can find ourselves in the same situation as Jesus. So what to do, how to do while keeping a clear conscience? It's with Jehovah that we need to discuss this, isn't it?

[Frances Bennett]

16 minutes ago, Dages said:

If your conscience is troubled about this, discuss with your elders 

 

Thanks - Nope it's not troubled at all. Plus I was in full conversation with the elders about my friend during that time and they knew the situation.

 

It's just the point that as the announcements aren't different anyone who might have seen me could have had a problem with it. Disassociation is not usually linked to wrongdoing, or that wrongdoing would have been dealt with by a judicial, so it seems like murky waters to me - which is why I think there could be further legal ramifications.

[Frances Bennett]

4 minutes ago, Dolce vita said:

It makes me think, Frances, of all the times Jesus changed his behavior towards certain people, while the Law to which he was scrupulously faithful gave strict instructions: the Samaritan woman, the Phoenician woman... Of course, we must take no liberties with Jehovah's clear instructions in any matter. If that should change, we will let us know and we will line up as we will certainly do with joy on November 6th. But sometimes we can find ourselves in the same situation as Jesus. So what to do, how to do while keeping a clear conscience? It's with Jehovah that we need to discuss this, isn't it?

 

Ooo what a lovely reply  

 

Our individual relationship with Jehovah has a huge baring on this entire thread I think.

[Paulo]

That is one of the 3 things I am expecting the legal system brings against us.

[Jwanon]

2 hours ago, Paulo said:

That is one of the 3 things I am expecting the legal system brings against us.

 

What does the government care who I want to talk to ? makes no sense.

 

They should focus on muslims, they're the ones with the law that says they must kill apostates. 

[Frances Bennett]

1 minute ago, Jwanon said:

 

What does the government care who I want to talk to ? makes no sense.

 

I think the issue will be that there is no way to leave the organisation without punitive measures being imposed on you.

 

This is actually illegal in some countries, I believe, as it encroaches on people's free will.

 

So if they make it that as an organisation we can't recommend shunning disassociated ones, then that clears that up.

 

It does mean that people can disassociate themselves to avoid judicials. 

 

But hey-ho, anyone that did that will answer to a higher source and would be making their stand clear anyway.