The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience


Original Message ----- 
From: "Rod" <>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Alison Marshall's account of her legal battle

Susan Maneck <> wrote in message
> > But the monetary cost to the NSA ($NZ56,000), the admissions it
> >has had to make in its submissions to the court, and the judge's
> >rejection of key arguments it was making, means that I personally
> >treat the result as a victory.

> So you are proud of the fact you cost the NSA a lot of money.

I believe the point would be that it was an avoidable waste of the
Friends hard earned and contributed. Had there been any fair due
process the outlay would have been avoided. The expense is also
a portent for the future...for no civilised organisation can afford to
expect to wait until it is "running a country" (Susan) before it implements
basic justice procedures within.

>. The judge did not reject the 'spiritual' nature of these determinations,

He did not have the opportunity given the case (on technicality) fell
outside the courts jurisdiction. But we, none the less, are granted the opportunity
to see the " nature of these determinations" and there is nothing
"spiritual" about them.
One only has to read the NZ/NSA's submission to the court to observe
the farcical and abhorrent nature of their 'non case'.
Any defence of such a document is an embarrassment to the Baha'i Faith
and would constitute the very worst kind of blind apologetics.

> etc. He simply noted that if there were something
> non-spiritual involved, such as a job, then that argument would not stand.

In the circumstances what the judge noted is of little consequence...what is
noteworthy and of concern is the revelation of Baha'i AO procedures and
mindset contained in their very own submission. Who cares what the judge
thinks when it is so starkly revealed what the AO thinks? Not bloody many
of us will come up against the NZ courts but most of us have and will
to come in contact with the AO and its "all-embracing way".

Sure puts a whole new slant on Institutes and Deepenings....everybody gets
to sit there and hum "Who could it be now"?

> Removing people from the rolls in the manner in which Alison was removed
is an
> extremely rare occurance anyhow.

With any semblance of fair due process 'all' such occurrences would be far
far less
likely. Nor is the issue at hand confined to removal from rolls, one must
look to the
prevalence of loss of voting rights and similar sanctions and realise that
they are based
on exactly the same make it up as you go along-"at the discretion of the
administrative body to act as it sees fit" procedural vacuum.

> The best thing which came out of this suit it is that it recognises the
> ultimate and incontravertible authority of the Universal House of Justice
> these matters

By revealing that the NZ/NSA did not follow the UHJ's instructions?-
"but NSA had not even arranged to meet with us before the UHJ instructed
the NSA to disenrol me".

>and sets a precedence making it unlikely there will be more cases
> in the future.

That's a probability...this 'precedent' will greatly diminish the
credibility of
the Baha'i community as one that holds any regard for justice...let alone
holds it as Best Beloved.

The Monty Python absurdities of the NZ/NSA court submission are

> You wouldn't be trying subtle means to shut me up would you?

Heaven forbid! We love to stand back and watch someone dig a hole...
especially when it is a septic pit or a grave for a long dead and useless

> After all, what these documents show is that the House of Justice told the
> truth to begin with.

What these documents show is that the AO would go to desperate comic
lengths to cover, conceal and excuse a lamentable and abhorrent absence
of any fair due process. No sane adult with a passing interest in justice
provision can read the NSA's court submission and not laugh, cry and
shake their head in dismay.
It is an abhorrent, stupid and nasty bit of call it 'spiritual'
is to
piss on all things Holly.

> It is only by changing words like 'counsel' to 'warn' that you can argue
> weren't telling the truth.

That does not appear necessary-
"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". Alison.

Whatever whichway you run the Newspeak semantic obfuscation's Susan
you are left with "efforts" that 'preceded the issue/concern and "subtle
ways" that are unrecognisable to the justice seeking eye.

"There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal
proceedings in the community at large" NZ/NSA

Due Process, Fair Hearing, Prior Notification, Justice....not in the
Baha'i lexicon.

"My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the
National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used
members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants".
 The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha'i Faith."
Dennis James Rogers

"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" NZ/NSA

"Comrade Stalin did not give any clear directive. This is what a
person does when they don't want to leave a clear trail".
Leningrad Nurse.

Could someone please hit post reply so that this missive may
penetrate Susans plasticine killfile armour against reality.