Recommended Posts

bruceq    725

DOES ANYONE HAVE A PDF TO SHARE OF THE TRACT FROM 1946 ENTITLED "QUEBEC'S BURNING HATE FOR GOD AND CHRIST AND FREEDOM IS THE SHAME OF ALL CANADA". THANKS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Joao    0

Hi, download isn't working. 

Could you please re-send?

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
bruceq    725

If it does not work you can purchase a reproduction of it on ebay at only $9.99 with free shipping on archaic paper to look like the original. I like it much better than printing out a pdf on regualr paper as this one looks like the original and not a copy. However if you do not care about looks and just want to read the material then pdf is the way to go.

Find it here 

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
TrueTomHarley    295

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.

As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.

Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.

You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 

Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 

What will their response be?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
TrueTomHarley    295

I WAS FURIOUS AFTER THE MEETING THURSDAY AND I HANDED IN MY RESIGNATION!!! JTR HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!!! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SUCH A FOOL??????

THE BROTHERS TAKING THE LEAD ARE INCOMPETENT LIARS!! THEY ARE IMPOSTERS!!! THEY CARE NOTHING FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! THEY LAUGH AT THEIR WOES!!!

FROM THE 'KINGDOM RULES' BOOK: "ON THAT MEMORABLE DAY IN 1943, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WON 12 OF THEIR 13 CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!" [!!!!! MINE]

IF THEY WEREN'T SUCH JERKS, THEY WOULD HAVE WON ALL 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

(What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Eoin Joyce    695
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

That'll be Douglas v. City of Jeannette 

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post
TrueTomHarley    295
16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not a clue.

I suggested a mom who homeschools her two teenage kids assign them this one, and suggested it would not be easy - they would likely have to go to Supreme Court records. She replied that her boy would be enthralled and dive right into it, but her daughter would say ... this is too much....'if it was important, it would be in the book.' (the girl grinned when this was brought to her attention)

I'm with both. There are some things that I dig into with relish. And there are some things about which I say: "who cares?"

The girl's anticipated answer reminded me of a brother, likely the dumbest person I ever met, as fleshly as a brother can be and still be a brother, who likely came into the truth simply to placate his wife, as course as he could be, but nonetheless loved by all for extreme generosity and unfailing good humor ....okay? ....got the picture?....cornered me when I was saying something zealous, with: (as if from Moses on high) "a man can only stand so much religion!"

As to the thirteenth case, how could anyone possibly know that one?

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

That'll be Douglas v. City of Jeannette 

    Hello guest!

 

It is as the Eagles sang: "There's a new kid in town." Eoin's star rises, mine continues to sink fast.

Share this post


Link to post
ARchiv@L    902
16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

even @JW Insider, who knows a lot

:D:D:D:D:D:D  ... now I know that I am with the right / correct internet forum / team !!!

the best team !!! :D

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Nicole
      On April 13, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada granted, to the Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision on the availability of judicial review over their disfellowshipping of Mr. Randy Wall.
      As assessed by my colleague Adam Aptowitzer in one of our earlier newsletters, the appeal court’s decision is of interest to “other Church and religious organizations that must discipline their members and now must worry that the Courts will reach in and review those decisions.” He stressed the importance that “decisions to discipline members be taken with utmost regard for the traditional concept of procedural fairness and a consultation with a lawyer that can advise them of these issues.”
      Let’s revisit the facts. Mr. Wall is a real estate agent whose episodes of drunkenness (including a consequent instance of verbal abuse of his wife)—or rather, his insufficient repentance for these episodes (as deemed by the elders of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses)—brought about his disfellowshipping from the congregation. Disfellowshipping, in this case, involved Mr. Wall not only not being admitted to the congregation’s services, but also being officially shunned by other members. Wall’s shunning further impacted his relations with family members, and also, he alleged, his business prospects.
      The Alberta Court of Appeal majority decision ruled that the courts had jurisdiction to review the Congregation’s Appeal Committee’s decision, and that the assessment of any economic loss incurred by Wall due to the disfellowshipping could be made by on the eventual application for judicial review.
      The Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). On the SCC website, the case summary[1] prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) points to the issues to be argued:
      Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Religious freedom – Freedom of Association – Courts – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – How do the fundamental freedoms of religion and association protect membership decisions of religious communities and other voluntary associations from state and judicial interference – What are the boundaries between what is and is not justiciable with regard to membership and other disputes between members of voluntary associations – Whether the public law remedy of judicial review applies to membership decisions made by voluntary associations such as religious communities?
      The granting of leave to appeal by the SCC is supported by the invoking of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the raising of a constitutional question. However, it also seems warranted given the public importance of the legal issues raised in this case—an essential basis of SCC involvement. In particular, the availability of the public law remedy of judicial review to a private actor such as Mr. Wall is a matter of serious relevance to private organizations. Properly of the realm of administrative law, judicial review is a tool with which the courts can hold to account government agencies, boards, commissions, etc., which wield delegated executive power , but it has also been granted against private bodies in certain cases.
      In the common law tradition, the court is loath to intervene in the internal decision-making of private organizations, especially when they follow their own constitution and bylaws. However, among other reasons, a court may claim jurisdiction where a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged, or where the organization’s internal appeal process has been exhausted. The majority decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal found for Mr. Wall on both these bases. Another of Mr. Wall’s allegations, of consequent economic loss, could then be considered during the eventual judicial review.
      The ABCA minority opinion was against the availability of judicial review in this case under Alberta law, stated that the private organization’s expulsion of a member did not raise a justiciable issue, and argued that a court cannot force members of the Congregation to bring their real estate matters to Mr. Wall—any economic loss he might prove does not stem from anything potentially subject to the Court’s power.
      This case should be of interest to all private organizations, but it takes on special importance with the layering in of the Congregation’s invoking of Charter rights of freedom of religion and association. Parties interested in potentially intervening in this case are invited to contact us if they have something to add to the argument.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By TheWorldNewsOrg

      via
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. World News
    • By TheWorldNewsOrg

      via Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. World News
    • By TheWorldNewsOrg

      via
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. World News