Judge orders stay of Jehovah's Witnesses constitutional claim on privacy of records

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/346544/Judge-orders-stay-of-Jehovah-s-Witnesses-constitutional-claim-on-privacy-of-records

Who gets to decide the constitutionality of privately held church records is at the centre of a court and privacy commission battle being waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses and two former members.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered a stay of proceedings in a case in which the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada sought to challenge British Columbia's privacy laws, saying the matter is best decided by the privacy commission.

The church had refused to turn over personal records sought by former Jehovah's Witnesses Gregory Westgarde and Gabriel-Liberty Wall.

Justice Janet Winteringham gave her decision in Vancouver on Monday.

It involves former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Coldstream and Grand Forks who wanted their personal records turned over to them after they left the church.

The congregations refused the requests, claiming the records were confidential and that compelling production violated their constitutional rights.

Church elders John Vabuolas and Paul Sidhu have proceedings underway before B.C.’s privacy commissioner on the matter, and Winteringham wrote in her decision that the court challenge versus B.C.'s attorney general be stayed pending the outcome of the privacy inquiries.

Vabuolas is an elder in the Grand Forks congregation, where Gabriel-Liberty Wall requested disclosure of his personal information in March 2020. Wall was baptized in February 2012, moved to the Grand Forks congregation in 2014, and formally resigned from the church in 2017.

Sidhu is an elder in the Coldstream congregation, where Gregory Westgarde requested his records in October 2020. About August 2009, Westgarde "made known to the elders he no longer wished to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."

Sidhu described Westgarde’s departure from the church as "unequivocal," despite a trio of elders offering spiritual guidance.

"Based on our internal canon law, a brief summary of this decision, our efforts, and (Mr. Westgarde’s) response was placed in a confidential file under lock and key," Sidhu wrote in a deposition.

According to the litigants, "As a part of their spiritual duties, elders may create records about their congregants, particularly as it relates to their religious standing as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The plaintiffs allege B.C.’s privacy legislation does not recognize or respect the confidentiality of these records created in relation to the elders’ spiritual duties and as such violates their constitutional rights."

The Watchtower sought to stay the privacy inquiries and let the court decide the matter, but the judge disagreed, staying the civil suit against the attorney general's ministry, pending the outcome of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner hearings.

The elders maintained that PIPA "violates their constitutional rights of religious freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of association because the legislation fails to protect confidential religious communications and records."

It seems to be all about power and control, but I would have thought a person should be entitled to have their records as why would the Elders still need them anyway ? 

Yes I know it's all about diferent laws in different places.  Perhaps I should ask for my personal information here in UK, and see what result i get  

[Space Merchant]

If it is the PIPA constitution the article is referring to, then yes, they're practically under Alberta Personal Information Protection and Privacy Act (PIPA). So they are right, to go around it is unconstitutional. PIPA applies to all organizations and to all personal information held by organizations unless the Act says that it does not apply (section 4(1)). Different types of non-profit organizations are fully subject to Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, while others are only subject to it in respect of information collected and or data, used or disclosed for their activity, even commercially. Religious societies, etc, even housing, federally incorporated not-for-profits, and or organizations incorporated by private Acts are fully subject to the Act and have the same obligations in respect of privacy as do other organizations.

It does have some similarities to that of the US when it comes to the 14th amendment and or HIPPA, etc. The UK has something also comparable, such as GDPR; The Data Protection Act. Although an EU regulation, anyone operating in the UK is in subjection to it, mandatory to comply. Other than that UK's type of constitution is a bit convoluted, granted it is sort of a a union state.

That being said, castanet looks like an odd media source, reminds me of 4chan a little bit.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Here in England I used the Data Protection Act to get printed documents concerning ME, that of my Medical Records from my GP, and that of my personal information concerning my time (in the 1960's) in a Children's Home that was government run.

I wanted more information concerning the employees and management of the Children's Home, and I was told to use the Freedom Of Information Act, to gain more information. However I was told that this extra information would not be mailed to me, and that I would have to visit an office and read through a large amount of files to be able to gain the information. Even then I would not be allowed to take photos or take notes on the files I read.  

[Space Merchant]

On 9/24/2021 at 10:24 AM, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Here in England I used the Data Protection Act to get printed documents concerning ME, that of my Medical Records from my GP, and that of my personal information concerning my time (in the 1960's) in a Children's Home that was government run.

I wanted more information concerning the employees and management of the Children's Home, and I was told to use the Freedom Of Information Act, to gain more information. However I was told that this extra information would not be mailed to me, and that I would have to visit an office and read through a large amount of files to be able to gain the information. Even then I would not be allowed to take photos or take notes on the files I read.  

But you are an individual. Works differently with institutions and or cooperate, and or those within, etc. There are records that are specific of which you as an individual cannot obtain in the United Kingdom. Therefore, some data you won't be able to obtain, mainly sensitive critical data, i.e. they won't give you the history of and or medical records of child A, B and C to you directly, but they will give it to someone who is of a higher authority or position in that Children's Home because they are the ones manage these records, and keep it private, even in the respects of that child's guardian. This goes for other forums of data, even in the realm of media. Likewise with any Data in connection to you, in the wrong hands if given out can destroy your life and the live of those in the crossfire.

That being said, when it comes to Data, passing of Data, it can prove to be useful or destructive leaving some type of scar regardless of which direction it takes.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

14 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, when it comes to Data, passing of Data, it can prove to be useful or destructive leaving some type of scar regardless of which direction it takes.

Yes and because of such I can understand people wanting to have their own personal information.

As an example, I left the JW Org of my own choice, but since then an Elder has phoned my wife and told her that I was disfellowshipped.  Now I told those Elders the reasons I was leaving, so I had not been removed by them. However that Elder said I had been disfellowshipped. So, what do they hold on record about me ?   Do they have truth, that i left, or do they have a lie, that i was disfellowshipped ? 

Hence I can understand why Ex-JWs would want their personal records. I would now like to have my records from my ex-congregation. 

[Space Merchant]

31 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Yes and because of such I can understand people wanting to have their own personal information.

As an example, I left the JW Org of my own choice, but since then an Elder has phoned my wife and told her that I was disfellowshipped.  Now I told those Elders the reasons I was leaving, so I had not been removed by them. However that Elder said I had been disfellowshipped. So, what do they hold on record about me ?   Do they have truth, that i left, or do they have a lie, that i was disfellowshipped ? 

Hence I can understand why Ex-JWs would want their personal records. I would now like to have my records from my ex-congregation. 

They can still hold records even if you are no longer in their faith community, you may have said or done something that resulted in grounds of excommunication if they had you listed as such, also depends on those involved.  Granted this is private data, it is still stored by them. Due to under such constitutional like arrangement.

This is the same with all institutions, mainly businesses, even schools, for anyone removed from said institutions, their record is still there. In IT you cannot delete a former employee's record, be it if they left on their own accord or they are disgruntled against an institution and got themselves terminated.

Religious institutions hold records for the main reason of keeping excommunicated folks out of their community if they pose a problem.

Records most of them usually hold is equal to that of a school record to some degree, person's name, address, birth date, age, sex, etc, even email and with it various notes and or accolades, if so and so got injury at some point, etc. Usually the bigger and higher the institution, the more complex these records get, and the more sensitive they are. Even more complex if the institution in of itself has the legitimate data in it's heart, so to speak, meaning if the heart is compromised, with even a small KB of someone's data being leaked or given out, outside of what is deemed constitutional, the institution can be essentially brought to ruin and or damaged badly.

Moreover, even those in Law sometimes do not realize they are fighting against or going around the constitution itself and or anything similar to it, i.e. the events of January 6th in the United States whereas Leftism attempt to break constitution to enact an end game.

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I would now like to have my records from my ex-congregation. 

 

9 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

They can still hold records even if you are no longer in their faith community,

I am of the opinion that it is completely legal for a person to have the right to inspect all documentation concerning him personally. In fact, the institution is obliged to provide the person with any documentation it has made concerning that person. For example, the institution makes decisions in which period employees will take annual leave. The document which is the decision on the beginning and end of the annual leave must be signed and certified and one copy/sample delivered to the employee. If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.

Since this is about WTJWorg and special rules, within this religious institution, that are not completely clear even to its own members, because many things are not even told them how the internal system works, then complications are possible and inevitable, that our friend @Patiently waiting for Truthtalking about.

[Space Merchant]

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I am of the opinion that it is completely legal for a person to have the right to inspect all documentation concerning him personally. In fact, the institution is obliged to provide the person with any documentation it has made concerning that person. For example, the institution makes decisions in which period employees will take annual leave. The document which is the decision on the beginning and end of the annual leave must be signed and certified and one copy/sample delivered to the employee. If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.

Since this is about WTJWorg and special rules, within this religious institution, that are not completely clear even to its own members, because many things are not even told them how the internal system works, then complications are possible and inevitable, that our friend @Patiently waiting for Truthtalking about.

This alone shows the unawareness of what is constitutional and what is not. Even those in Law can make a mistake in anything related to and or equal to things in the realm of Constitutional like restrictions.

Actually when it comes to all religious institutions under such a thing, they're identical, it only becomes complex the bigger and more sensitive the data is in institutions that have very little to do with religion, as is, vs the individual who seeks said data of where they are position, i.e. a common working man vs a doctor, police officer, someone in government, FBI seeking data from someone's phone, device, etc.

 

That being said, critical and sensitive data can't really be requested by someone to a degree, i.e. an Ex-Employee (out of the company for 6 years) cannot ask for his data on the active directory and or anything pertaining to it on the server, it is held by said cooperate business.

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.

 

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

This alone shows the unawareness of what is constitutional and what is not.

No SM. Present or ex-employee or third person have right to put request. It is up to the company or institution to decide whether to meet and provide information. Some information or certificates that are official records of an institution about a particular individual who was/is former or current employee, the same institution is obliged to provide based on the request of a party. For example, i come to the school where I completed my education before 20 years and request confirmation that I had a mathematics subject in all four years of education. The school is required to give me certification/confirmation on the basis of the Archive Books containing this information. Or to give confirmation to a former employee that he or she once worked on particular job for a certain period of time.

The institution may reject the party's request, but must have a legal basis for rejecting it. For example in case I come to an XY firm and ask who has worked at the XY firm for the past five years. Or to look for the address of a former colleague I worked with. Or whether the person XYZ was convicted of theft in my neighborhood. In such cases, they can refuse my request.

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, critical and sensitive data can't really be requested by someone to a degree, i.e. an Ex-Employee (out of the company for 6 years) cannot ask for his data on the active directory and or anything pertaining to it on the server, it is held by said cooperate business.

Ex-employee, regardless of passing time, has the right to request information relating to him. If the company does not want to give it to him, he can initiate an administrative dispute, if the former employee considers that his rights have been violated.

[Space Merchant]

@Srecko Sostar Seems as though you need to read up more on what is constitutional and or anything similar to it, as is with data tracking within an AD or anything similar to that effect. within said fields.

[Matthew9969]

Speaking for myself, I don't care what info my previous congregation has on me, so I'm still a bit perplexed on why these former elders want what type of information is in there?

[Space Merchant]

4 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Speaking for myself, I don't care what info my previous congregation has on me, so I'm still a bit perplexed on why these former elders want what type of information is in there?

It isn't just them either. From the day you are born, your information is spread like a fire in a forest, extends from all areas, even government, etc, even some information you do not realize is being spread around for years without you knowing vs those who secure it. You are effectively in the system. As for religious institutions, they too have records of data, but not to a degree of higher level institutions like that of a bank or cooperate, even big pharma. Likewise with websites, your ISP has data on you being on this website, as with other websites, even knowing possibly your device.

The only way to evade that is to be born off grid, or you yourself go off grid, and or if there is a major collapse. Also when something is passed, that can prove to be another factor.

Data in the realm of collection and security has a lot of complexity in it, even when laws and acts are involved.