Canada’s Supreme Court is hearing only half the truth on Watchtower’s policy of shunning, receiving a highly sanitized and deliberately inaccurate representation of this coercive practice from the Watchtower’s lawyer. As Clement Mabunda, the Thinking Witness, reports in a recent article, Jehovah’s Witness Elder and lawyer David Gnam, is well aware that the actual practice of shunning is much different from the relatively benign experience that he is painting for the judges.
Gnam’s assertion before the court is that the practice of disfellowshipping is not all-encompassing, but merely a spiritual practice. He even purports that “normal family relations continue.”
Everyone who has seen the Watchtower’s internal policies and propaganda films on shunning are well aware that family members are urged to cease all communication with those who are disfellowshipped. This is further compounded with the threat of being disfellowshipped – and thus shunned – if the member does not comply.
Gnam’s duplicity, while falling short of actual perjury, is a sad illustration of an oft-used tool of coercive control. Lying to external authorities in order to benefit the interests of a manipulative organization is called “theocratic warfare” by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yes, when JWs are called upon to defend the indefensible – such as tearing a family apart – they will only speak half-truths.
Here is Clement Mabunda’s article in full.
What do you think about this article? Do you agree? Do you have a story about “theocratic warfare” that you’d like to share? We’d love to hear from you!