CESNUR - Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni diretto da Massimo Introvigne
www.cesnur.org

A paper presented at the CESNUR 2006 International Conference. Please do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author

Abstract

 Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses have fought fervently for the freedom to practice their religion. This report analyzes allegations of human rights abuses committed by the Jehovah’s Witness religion before the UN, The European Court of Human Rights, and abuses of international human rights conventions. Jehovah’s Witnesses have contributed more than any other religion to human rights and freedom of religion with over 50 cases in the United States documented. Cases before that European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee demonstrate this faith community’s commitment to human rights. The legal cases documented demonstrate that allegations of human rights abuses by the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion are not as prevalent as is claimed by the anticult movement while the anticult movement has continued to infringe on the human rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other faith communities. This article concludes by demonstrating how such issues transacted within a human rights framework. This article includes correspondence with Steve Hassan and Randall Watters, and an extensive list of Jehovah’s Witness jurisprudence

Introduction

Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses have fought fervently for the freedom to practice their religion. Recently Jehovah’s Witnesses have been accused of human rights abuses. Anticult activists such as Norman Hovland allege that the Jehovah’s Witnesses leaders are or will be responsible for torture, genocide and other forms of degrading treatment.[i] These claims of human rights abuses are not credible.  This article will examine why many of these allegations that are not credible.

The Human Rights of Excommunication

Some Anti-cult activists riddle the Jehovah’s Witness religion with accusations of Human Rights abuses.[ii] Amongst these alleged abuses is the practice of disfellowshipping. Disfellowshipping is Jehovah's Witnesses description of excommunication, and is practiced as a form of discipline pronounced by a special tribunal called a judicial committee[iii].  Disfellowshipping removes all privileges that a Jehovah’s Witness had as a member, and includes social boycotting.

Disfellowshipping alone is not a human rights abuse. The sentence of disfellowshipping is not a human rights abuse unless human rights principles or laws, as defined by international human rights declarations and treaties, are breached.

Social boycotting as a part of disfellowshipping is not alone a human rights abuse. Social boycotts have been an effective form of nonviolent resistance.[iv]^{, [v]} Some anticult activists[vi] have interpreted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to mean that disfellowshipping is a human rights violation. Disfellowshipping is not “torture cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment" as some anticult activist have claimed. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)[vii] defines what is meant by “torture cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.” CAT defines torture and similar treatment as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

When a judicial committee is initiated to investigate a member’s sin, there is no arrest or detaining, no one is brought before a tribunal to answer for their crimes. The member is invited to the judicial committee[viii]. The member can leave anytime he or she wants to.

  It has also been claimed that judicial committees also violate article 10 of the UDHR, which states “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 13 clarifies the meaning of these other documents about courts and tribunal as being those established by the government.[ix]

When making allegations of human rights violations another document needs to be considered: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). UDHR, ICCPR and one other international human rights document comprise what is called the International Bill of Human Rights.[x] Besides outlining what inherent rights a person possesses, the ICCPR also commissions the Human Rights Committee. In 1993 the Human Rights Committee issued General Comment 22.[xi] General Comment 22 outlines what human rights principles apply to faith communities

According to General Comment 22, Coercion to get a member to confess, convert or recant a religious affiliation or sin are not compatible with human rights. Policies that restrict access to education, medical care, employment, and the rights contained in the ICCPR are not compatible with human rights. Taking human rights assessment of faith communities in light with the UDHR, ICCPR, and other human rights conventions and declarations will help determine their “human rights temperature.”[1]

 

The Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Bulgaria: Correspondence with Lee Elder For the past several years, “Lee Elder”[2] has been organizing protests of the blood transfusion doctrine. He founded the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for the Reform on Blood (AJWRB). The AJWRB web site states the AJWRB “[xii]is a diverse group of Witnesses from many countries. Some members are presently serving as elders and Hospital Liaison Committee[3] members or have previously served in that capacity. Additionally, other members are from the medical field or have friends or relatives who are Witnesses. All have volunteered their time and energies in an effort to bring about an end to a tragic and misguided policy that has claimed thousands of lives, many of them children.”

The Government of Bulgaria denied the Jehovah’s Witness organization legal status in Bulgaria. The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria took their case to the European Commission on Human Rights in 1996[xiii]. The author recently had a series of correspondences with Lee Elder about the issue that erupted in Bulgaria. These correspondences occurred between 21 November & 26 December 2005. Lee Elder alleges that the Jehovah’s Witness leaders in Bulgaria perjured themselves before the Commission[xiv]

Brown Correspondance to Elder

            Hi Lee,

Are [you] sure this issue with Bulgaria before the UCHR is perjury? I have read 

legal documents pertaining to it, and I do not see an indication of perjury. 

Have you let an attorney review that information?

I am not saying that the JWs do not have human rights issues; they indeed do 

have some, but I am not sure I want to publish inaccuracies, or things that 

have not been adequately researched by other experts.

I have contacted the Registrar of the ECHR to ask for advice on this issue.----

John

 

Elder Response  to Brown 

The issue of perjury is our opinion - not a matter of fact. When the WT 

states that there are no sanctions it was as a matter of policy disfellowshipping JWs who questioned the blood issue much less took forbidden types of blood transfusions. Even now, to argue that there are no sanctions for a JW who accepts a blood transfusion is non-sensical.

Best regards,

Lee Elder[xv]

 The facts according to the European Commission on Human Rights are “the case concerned the refusal to re-register the applicant association pursuant to a 1994 law, and the alleged suppression of its activities and those of its members. In a settlement, the Government agreed to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for civilian service for conscientious objectors, as an alternative to military service, and to register the applicant association as a religion. The Jehovah’s Witness leaders in Bulgaria aggreed to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.”[xvi] According to the report to the commission, both parties agreed to a “friendly settlement.” [xvii] The case transcripts state that the Bulgarian government considered blood transfusions a threat to public order. The Jehovah’s Witness organization in Bulgaria affirmed, “There are no religious sanctions for the individual concerned.” [xviii] This affirmation appeared contradictory because a Jehovah’s Witness press release informed that the decision did not “reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses.[xix] Jehovah’s Witness policy had been to expel and social boycott a member that willing receives a blood transfusion and does not ‘repent’ for the act.[xx] According to Jehovah’s Witnesses Public Affairs, the “amicable agreement” includes an acknowledgement that the individual member has a right to choose his or her own medical treatment.[xxi] There are now no official sanctions because of the amicable agreement. 

 Although there is no official action taken against a member, according to Lee Elder the current policy is to consider the member not a Jehovah’s Witness if a blood transfusion is received,[xxii] but there is not judicial action pursued by a judicial committee.

 

Correspondences with Randall Watters & Steve Hassan

            Listed below are correspondences with Randall Watters and Steve Hassan. The correspondence with Watters was a clarification about his involvement in deprogrammings. The correspondence with Hassan was a concern that he may be still promoting involuntary deprogrammings.

 

Watters’ Clarification  to Brown

“John, 

I have worked with Steve on interventions, but no longer do them for various reasons, among them ethical. You call them deprogramming, I do not. Alcoholics Anonymous does interventions; too, they do not do deprogramming.” [xxiii]

Brown’s Letter to Hassan

Dear Mr. Hassan:

I am very concerned about a comment that remains in your book Combating Cult Mind Control, page 114. The comment is “Forcible intervention can be kept as a last resort if all other attempts fail.” I do know that a recent book you published contains material about the trauma associated with forcible intervention, but the fact the older Combating contains this comment I believe that you still believe in forcible interventions as a last resort. Why else would it still be in Combating? Why has Combating not been updated to reflect the information the more recent Releasing the Bonds? Charities and other facilities, such as International Cultic Studies Association, and Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center are selling Combating. In addition, Combating has been published in Japanese, a country with rampant issues with forcible interventions until outlawed recently according to US Department of the State Religious Freedom Report. Since you claim to be a human rights activist on your web site I implore you to update the book Combating, removing the comment about forcible interventions being a viable strategy. I also implore you to speak out against forcible interventions. Although you claim to have spoken out against them on your web site, you remain silent about the issues in Japan and the rest of Europe. Those issues are clearly violations of human rights.

I thank you for your time

Sincerely,

Rev. John B. Brown, II

Arizona State Chair

Regional Director, Mountain Region

Pagan Unity Campaign [xxiv]

As of May 2006 Hassan has not responded to this letter            

             

Future Research Topics

            This research paper and a previous one by the same author[4] have pointed out several human rights issues by several popular anticult activists and organizations. Future research papers will continue to focus on several issues involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. Planned future research topics include:

1. Jehovah’s Witness tribunals (i.e. judicial committees),
2. The excommunicating of minors (possible human rights issue),
3. Exhaustive history of jurisprudence outlining the contribution the faith community has made to human rights
4. A study of the historical development of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.

Appendix 1

Jehovah’s Witness Jurisprudence

United States Supreme Court Cases

Coleman v. City of Griffin (1937)

Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)

Schneider v. The State [New Jersey] (1939)

Cantwell v. State of Connecticut (1940)

Minersville v. Gobitis (1940)

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

Jones v. City of Opelika (1942)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Busey v. District of Columbia (1943)

Douglas v. City of Jeannette (1943)

Jamison v. State of Texas (1943)

Jones v. City of Opelika (1943)

Largent v. State of Texas (1943)

Martin v. City of Struthers (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

Taylor v. State of Mississippi (1943)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Follett v. Town of McCormick (1944)

Falbo v. United States (1944)

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944)

Estep v. United States (1946)

Gibson v. United States (1946)

Tucker v. Texas (1946)

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

Cox v. United States (1947)

Saia v. People of the State of New York (1948)

Niemotko v. Maryland (1951)

Poulos v. New Hampshire (1953)

Dickinson v. United States (1953)

Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953)

United States v. Nugent (1953)

Gonzales v. United States (1955)

Sicurella v. United States (1955)

Simmons v. United States (1955)

Witmer v. United States (1955)

Gonzales v. United States (1960)

Jehovah's Witnesses v. King County Hospital (1968)

Hart v. United States (1968)

Holmes v. United States (1968)

Pryor v. United States (1971)

Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

Thomas v. Review Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div. (1981)

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002)

State Appellate and Federal Cases           

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Haring (1955)
Clark v. Review Bd. of Dept. of Employment and Training Services (1983)

Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (1987)

Rasmussen v. Bennett (1987)

Kentucky Com'n on Human Rights v. Lesco Mfg. & Design Co., Inc. (1987)

Dobrican vs. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1996)

State Cases

Nicholls v. Lynn (Mass. 1937); Leoles v Landers (Ga. 1937)

Hering v. Board of Education (N.J. 1937)

 Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker (Cal. 1938);

People ex tel. Fish v. Sandstrom  (N.Y. 1939) 

State ex tel. Bleich v. Board of Public Instruction  (Fla. 1939)

United States v. Catlette (1942)

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Haring (New York - 1955)
Johnson v. Johnson (Alaska - 1977)
Waites v. Waites (Missouri - 1978)

Osier v. Osier (Maine - 1980)

Felton v. Felton (Massachusetts - 1981)
 In re Marriage of Short (Colorado - 1985)

Shorter v. Drury (Washington - 1985)

In re Brown (Mississippi - 1985)

In re E.G. (Illinois - 1989)

S.E.L. v. J.W.W. (New York - 1989)
Fosmire v. Nicoleau (New York - 1989)

Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Wons (Florida - 1989)

Haig v. Everett (Arkansas - 1989)

Vauls v. Lambros (Maryland - 1989)

 Fosmire v. Nicoleau (New York - 1990)
Norwood Hosp. v. Munoz (Massachusetts - 1991)

Pater v. Pater (Ohio - 1992)

Matter of Dubreuil (Florida - 1993)

Alaniz v. Alaniz (Texas - 1993)

De Luca v. De Luca (New York - 1994)

St. Mary's Hosp. v. Ramsey (Florida - 1995)

Garrett v. Garrett (Nebraska - 1995)

Latshaw v. Davis (Florida - 1997)
Mesa v. Mesa (Florida - 1995)

Williams v. Bright (New York Supreme Court- 1995)

Palmer v. Palmer (Nebraska - 1996)

In re Brown (Illinois - 1997)
 In re Rena (Massachusetts - 1999)

Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al. (Maine Supreme Court - 1999)

Abrams v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York  (Illinois - 1999)

Decorso v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (Connecticut – 2003)

Gillet v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (2004)

Berry v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York ( New Hampshire - 2004)

United States Government Hearings.

Record Group 228, Committee on Fair Employment Practice, Hearing Records

Misc. Case.

People v. Martin (1998)

European Court of Human Rights

Hoffmann v. Austria (1993)

Kokkinakis v. Greece (1993)

Efstratiou v. Greece  (1996)

Manoussakis and Others v. Greece (1996

Valsamis v. Greece (1996)

Georgiadis v. Greece (1997)

Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova"   (Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses) v.  Bulgaria (1998)

Pentidis and Others v. Greece (1997)

Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece (1997)

Tsavachidis v. Greece (1999)

Thlimmenos v. Greece (2001)

United Nations Human Rights Committee

Communication No. 295/1988: Finland. (1990)

Communication No. 397/1990: Denmark. (1992)

Communication No 402/1990: Netherlands. (1993)