LOOKING FOR PDF OF QUEBEC'S BURNING HATE TRACT

[Evacuated]

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=17842

@Adele said: The download link is not working

It is fine for me. Try above (Assume you have Adobe reader or something similar?)

[TrueTomHarley]

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?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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.)

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

Not a clue.

[Anna]

On 4/28/2017 at 5:01 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

1946 Quebecs Burning Hate.pdf

Thanks ya! 

[Evacuated]

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 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/157/

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/157/

 

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

[ARchiv@L]

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

even @JW Insider, who knows a lot

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

the best team !!! 

 

[Evacuated]

33 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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

Here's a redemption opportunity. Why did the book mention 12 out of 13 cases when only 4 decisions were handed down that day (apparently)?