Excerpt from article linked below:
“The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled against two congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses that tried to argue their religious freedoms were infringed when the information and privacy commissioner ordered them to turn over records containing personal information about two former members.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-jehovahs-witness-privacy-battle-1.7079252The article may be a bit confusing so here’s my (relatively informed) summary of the case:
Two ex-JWs who had voluntarily left the church had asked for records the JW organization (The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society - WTS) kept on them, the Society refused, the men took it to court, the court ruled against the JWs, the WTS appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court and the SC judge just concluded that the church records concerning them must be revealed to the two former members – the petitioners in the case. Yay – a victory for the little guy!
Excerpts from the January 10/24 CBC article:
“… two men [former JWs] independently asked the [two separate] congregations for records containing their personal information in 2020, and both were told they could not see documents concerning their disassociation from the Jehovah's Witnesses.”
NG comment: “Disassociation” is the word JWs use to refer to people who have left of their own accord; i.e., they haven’t been kicked out by their congregation but have disassociated themselves. However, they treat former members the same whether they have chosen to leave or are forced out by being exxed - kicked out by the men in charge in local congregations).
Article:
“Wall and Westgarde [the former JWs] turned to the OIPC [Privacy Commissioner] [because they couldn't get records pertaining to themselves], but the congregations told an adjudicator that the record at issue was "a confidential religious summary prepared by a committee of three congregation elders pertaining to spiritual status decisions," the judgment says.”
“On Monday, Justice Steven Wilson upheld an order requiring the Coldstream and Grand Forks congregations to disclose records concerning the ex-members' breaks with the church to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).”
“The Jehovah's Witnesses had argued that the sealed records contain confidential religious discussions between church elders about membership matters, and releasing them would violate their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“But the judge disagreed, saying that any violation of the congregations' religious freedoms in this case was reasonably justifiable in a free, democratic society.”
“He pointed out that the order did not require the congregations to release the records to the former members who'd requested them, but only to the OIPC to determine whether they should be released under the Personal Information Protection Act. The law regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by private organizations like churches.”
"The requirement to disclose information is a tool available to individuals to hold organizations accountable for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. It also serves as a deterrent to misuse and allows individuals some measure of control over their personal information," Wilson wrote.”
"The judge said the duties to disclose imposed by the law are meant to give British Columbians some measure of control over their personal information."
“The B.C. Humanist Association intervened in the case, and is applauding the outcome.”
This is an interesting comment by the JW men in charge:
“The Jehovah's Witnesses had also argued that if the documents were disclosed, they might be published more widely "for the purposes of mocking either the petitioners or elders, causing unnecessary embarrassment."
I know their job is to protect the organization but, in my opinion, they have an unholy fear of outsiders seeing anything about how they conduct business. What is it, I wonder, that they think would be embarrassing to the elders/church about this situation? And why do they perpetually fear that outsiders will mock them? (Whether it’s true or not that it occurs). Them claiming to be concerned about the petitioners (the ex-members involved, I assume) is a bit of a laugh because all they care about, decidedly, is their privacy to run the organization their own way. It’s much better for them (I believe is their thinking) if they can indicate/hint that the leavetaker sinned or was kicked out than that members get to know that they made an independent personal choice to quit. Because in the latter case members may ask why. And ‘why’ is a question the leaders don’t welcome.
It would be so very interesting to see what the elders included in the records of these men. I'm assuming they take pains to put blame on a former member, in writing even, so there could be a defamation lawsuit there if derogatory information was recorded to try and explain away a member's voluntary leavetaking. My impression/experience is that they always blame the former member and never the church or its leaders or other adherents.
I had the unpleasant experience of people I had considered friends walking away from me in the street - not even being allowed to say a courteous hello. That strict rule ensures two things, at least - one, it reinforces what a terrible human being you are and two, it ensures (or tries to) that even people formerly close friends will not hear the true reasons for your departure. You are viewed as lower than the lowest, as a major sinner, dangerous to even greet in the street. It's horrible when it happens to you. And you'd think it would be bliss if they completely ignore you but often people find the shunning to be exceptionally painful and humiliating.
The organization tells the tale that the leavetaker is unworthy and sinful and dangerous. That tends to keep the majority of members in line. If they have to sacrifice a friendship, or just common courtesy, they do so in my experience.
Their "love" is absolutely conditional. Stay in line or we'll brand you as garbage. I was fortunate to get out quick and easy. When I was younger and more shy I felt humiliated at times to think about what they were saying or thinking about me but I don't care at this point. I pined for a while over a JW guy I kinda liked but what a lucky escape. It was easy as a single relatively new follower to just walk away.
Oh yeah. And you're not supposed to say "lucky", just one of their stupid rules. Strangely, I adhered to that for the longest time, even wondering if the synonym "fortunate" was OK to utter.
What a total crock.
The bottom line with the Watch Tower Society is that you can't leave without consequences - you are automatically disfellowshipped (aka excommunicated) if you dare to extract yourself. They say something appalling like it's to keep the congregation "clean" - being exxed means members aren't allowed to speak to you, at all, because you're a total undesirable for committing the unforgivable sin of leaving. Really, of course, it's to try and prevent you somehow influencing other members to also leave. Even people I had thought were my best friends shunned me totally when I decided to leave. It's pretty shocking and hurtful at the time but fortunately, for me anyway, it didn't convince me to return - quite the opposite because how appalling is that type of behaviour? Masquerading as the word of a loving god.
NB: The Watch Tower organization doesn’t refer to itself as a church and doesn’t like it when everybody else does because they don’t want to be associated or confused with all other churches on the face of the earth that they consider to be “wrong” and sinful and doomed, but outsiders – understandably – think of them as a church, albeit an offshoot and a secretive one. I still usually avoid doing it myself (it’s ingrained in me not to I guess) but it’s a whole lot easier than saying or writing Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society – their formal organizational name - over and over again!).
So yeah, my analysis is more tortured and far lengthier than the actual article (what a surprise!) but first, it can be difficult to try and explain some things in an easy-to-understand way and also it still really bugs me when I read their spin on absolutely everything to do with their church – err organization. So sometimes I just go on and on about it.
And the reason I bring it up every once in a while is because I find a not insignificant number of close parallels with Mormonism. I know it's different being BIC or being a "convert" (especially a very short term one like me) but my experience with LDS was not terribly unlike with the JWs in several ways. For one thing, "friends" evaporated.
All righty then.