Alison Marshall
"I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration secretly
watches, reports on and records the activities and views of members it sees as a
threat. This spying can go on for years without the member knowing and despite
general assurances to the contrary. When it suits the administration to act, it
can summarily disenrol the person at any time and without any notice. In such
circumstances, 'counselling' will comprise any communication that member has had
with the institutions, whatever its nature, purpose and timing. This action will
be accompanied by a backbiting campaign designed to destroy the member's
reputation in the community."
"I think members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating joining it,
have a right to know how the Baha'i administration behaves." [2002]
From: Alison Marshall <alisonz@c...>
Date: Wed Mar 29, 2000 3:48pm
Subject: removal from membership
Well, my dear friends, I write to tell you that the House has asked my
National Assembly to remove my name from the New Zealand Baha'i
community membership list. As you will see from the letter below, they
have decided that over the last 2-3 years my statements, behaviour and
attitude have not met the requirements of membership. I can only
conclude that the decision is based largely on my Talisman messages, for
that is the only place I have lived over that time.
I want to make it clear that I am not upset about this decision at all.
In 1998 I had a dream about my mystical death and described it on
Talisman. Since then, it was in the back of my mind that I was preparing
for this day. And now that it has come, I feel deeply honoured. The
reality is that I am a nobody; what do I have to give that is worthy of
my beloved? A registration card? If I had a thousand cards, I would
gladly give them up. But Baha'u'llah has accepted this small token for
my sake and I am overwhelmed by his kindness. Surely, the House has
acted as God has instructed it to, and I thank them for playing their
part that I might be so blessed.
Alison
-----------------
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
EMAIL MESSAGE (CONFIRMATORY COPY TO FOLLOW)
28 March 2000 Our Ref: 2/10/156
Dear Mrs Marshall,
The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on
the basis of an established pattern of statements by you and behaviour
and attitude on your part over the past two or three years, you cannot
properly be considered as meeting the requirements of membership in the
Baha'i community. Accordingly, we have removed your name from our membership
rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned.
Sincerely
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE BAHA'IS OF NEW ZEALAND
From: Steve Marshall (asmarsh@es.co.nz)
Subject: Alison Marshall's account of her legal battle
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Date: 2003-10-03 20:27:22 PST
Here's Alison's account
ka kite
Steve
-----------------
March 29, 2000, was the day I received notification that I had been
summarily disenrolled from the Baha'i community. This is the third
anniversary of that day and I am now in a position to show the world
Baha'i community what happened and why. A couple of weeks ago, the NSA
was successful in having my case for judicial review struck out. This
means that the court hearing I was originally after will not take
place. It also means that the evidence is no longer sub judice and it
is possible for me to tell the story from my point of view.
I have put the judgement up on my web site. You'll see that it is full
of legal jargon and argument, so I'll try to explain the guts of it
here. In essence, I was trying to get the court to "review" the
decision of the NSA, to determine whether it was legal under New
Zealand law. Before the court can do that, it has to determine whether
the decision is one the court can review. The court decided that it
could not review the decision to disenrol me because it was made by
the UHJ not the NSA - and, of course, the UHJ isn't a party to the
case, given that it is located in Israel. The judge's interpretation
of the NSA/UHJ constitutions was that the NSA must do as it's told by
the UHJ. The flip side of this, however, is that if a decision is made
by the NSA, it would be reviewable by the court.
The NSA tried to argue that all its decisions are spiritual in nature
and therefore not reviewable. The judge did not accept this. He held
that if an NSA decision affects a person's rights, eg to do with
money, property or even voting (such as in my case), then the decision
is reviewable. But he did accept that decisions about purely
ecclesiastical matters would not be reviewable. The judge also
rejected NSA's argument that, because membership in the community is
voluntary, NSA decisions would not be reviewable. In other words,
although Baha'i community membership is voluntary, NSA still
has a recognised legal duty to act in accordance with members' rights.
The judge also rejected my request for it to review the NSA decision
because it thought I should have asked the NSA/UHJ to reconsider the
decision first, before bringing the matter before the court. The judge
argued that the constitution gave me the right to have the decision
reviewed/appealed. The trouble with that argument is that the
constitution only gives right of review/appeal from decisions of the
NSA, not the UHJ. Review/appeal is from NSA to UHJ. Under the
constitution, there is no remedy if the UHJ makes the original
decision.
As the judge notes, he gave me the opportunity to have the NSA/UHJ
reconsider the decision, but I did not take him up on that. I was
never interested in being reinstated or having the decision reversed.
What I wanted was to prove that I was never counselled and that the
NSA had grossly misled the New Zealand Baha'i community in asserting
that I had. If the court had seen fit to review the NSA decision, then
it would have looked closely at the issue of whether I was counselled.
This is what I was hoping to achieve. In the event, however, the judge
did not think that proving I was treated unjustly was a good reason to
be seeking a remedy from the court. At this point, I think the judge
lost a grip on what courts are for.
But it's OK. Getting the courts to look at the issue of whether I was
counselled was always the icing on the cake. I can show what happened
anyway, and that is the next step. I have written a "Chronology of
events" and put it up on my web site. It begins in late 1996, because
the disenrollment was the culmination of a lot of little, separate
events that took place over several years. The chronology is 20 pages
long. This isn't because I have included a lot of detail, but because
I have provided documentary evidence of what happened. Most of the
evidence comes from personal correspondence between me and Steve (as
individuals, not as a couple) on the one hand, and various
administrative bodies on the other. Evidence also comes from NSA
minutes and NSA correspondence with the UHJ. At relevant points, I
have noted where NSA relies on an event as constituting part of my
'counselling'. It is easy, therefore, to get a clear idea of what
exactly my 'counselling' amounted to.
The chronology reveals that the NSA minutes began including 'Alison
and Steve reports' as far back as December 1998. We never knew that
NSA was keeping an eye on us and recording our activities. In
September 1999, the NSA became seriously concerned about us after a
meeting was held in our local community about the April 7 letter. At
that meeting, several local Baha'is expressed concern about the
letter. This meeting caused the NSA a great deal of consternation.
After this, the NSA met to discuss the 'Alison and Steve problem' and
sent a report to the UHJ about us. This included four pages detailing
things we'd done and said since 1996. The NSA was particularly
concerned about Steve, who was much more outspoken locally than I was.
The minutes give an indication of how the NSA viewed us and our
activities. The UHJ responded to the report by asking NSA to do two
things: hold another community meeting and have an NSA member meet
with us. As it turned out, the community meeting was held, but NSA had
not even arranged to meet with us before the UHJ instructed the NSA to
disenrol me.
In the minutes from the NSA meeting held to discuss how it would
inform me of my disenrollment, the following is recorded: "A question
was raised about the fact that the National Spiritual Assembly had not
yet implemented the instruction of the House of Justice to visit the
Marshalls, and that the House of Justice must have received
information from other sources." After the disenrollment, the NSA
wrote to six local assemblies stating that: "Efforts have been made to
clear up her misunderstandings, but these have been unsuccessful,
hence the Supreme Body's decision".
When I saw that the NSA had told six local assemblies that I had been
counselled, giving the impression that I had at the very least been
contacted about the administration's concerns, I asked the NSA to
correct this statement. The NSA refused to do this. Even though I took
the matter before the Privacy Commissioner, still the NSA steadfastly
refused to accept that the statement was factually incorrect or at
least highly misleading. Instead, in a letter to me dated 15 August
2000, the NSA argued that the word "efforts": "does not indicate that
all such efforts necessarily involved direct approaches to you by
representatives of the institutions on the specific matters in
question." This letter ends with a list of the "efforts" the NSA
claimed it had made. These are noted on the chronology. You will see
that some of these 'efforts' were made years before there was ever any
thought that I be disenrolled. The NSA has simply reinterpreted all
interactions I have ever had with the institutions as constituting
'counselling'.
In its submission to the court, the NSA outlined what it argues is
acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member. It seems to believe
that there is no contradiction between this approach and Baha'i
principle:
"9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at
issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the
institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The
Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle
ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal
proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i
institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer,
and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the
individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign
to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i
administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the
Baha'i principles. ...
9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct
misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be
achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of
formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every
instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in
understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing
way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of
community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling
out individuals for specific attention".
I cannot see any adherence to principle in this testimony. The only
'principle' stated here is that the Baha'i administration reserves the
right to treat people exactly as it pleases and refuses to allow any
checks on its powers. However, I think the evidence shows that the
National Spiritual Assembly was initially concerned that I had not
been contacted, but later took the position that this did not matter.
I think the documentation illustrates how the Baha'i administration
secretly watches, reports on and records the activities and views of
members it sees as a threat. This spying can go on for years without
the member knowing and despite general assurances to the contrary.
When it suits the administration to act, it can summarily disenrol the
person at any time and without any notice. In such circumstances,
'counselling' will comprise any communication that member has had with
the institutions, whatever its nature, purpose and timing. This action
will be accompanied by a backbiting campaign designed to destroy the
member's reputation in the community.
I think members of the Baha'i community, and those contemplating
joining it, have a right to know how the Baha'i administration
behaves.
Link to judgement:
https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/strike.htm
Link to chronology:
https://home.clear.net.nz/pages/alisonz/Chron.htm
Alison
Rod regarding Alison Marshall incident
|