60 MINUTES Jehovah's Witnesses Divorce Program Transcript

Leslie Stahl: When a judge decides which parent gets custody of a child in divorce, the welfare of that child is paramount. But suppose the welfare of the child is in conflict with the mother's freedom of religion, and the religion is "Jehovah's Witnesses".

Stahl: (Voiceover) Take the case of David Scott and his six year old daughter, Ashley. Scott separated from his wife, Donna, when she became a Jehovah's Witness. His wife won a bitter custody battle over Ashley and now Scott feels that the Jehovah's Witness lifestyle is isolating his daughter.

David Scott: (Voiceover) She has no friends at her mother's house at all and she will not have any school friends through the rest of her life now. My daughter wants to be a cheerleader; she won't be allowed. No social activities. No dances. No dating. So that's her whole life's ruined completely -- academically, socially. What they want her to be -- they want her to be one of Jehovah's Witness robots.

Stahl: (Voiceover) And Scott feels that the organization is changing the way his daughter feels about him.

David Scott: (Voiceover) They are getting her to hate me because I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. They think I'm the enemy. They think I'm Satan.

Stahl: You really think that you're about to lose your daughter? Do you really think that?

David Scott: I think there's a possibility that Dave Scott will lose his daughter in the future. There's no question about it. They're brainwashing her against me.

(Footage of Emilio Barron's Ex-wife and their son going door to door for Jehovah's Witnesses)

Stahl: (Voiceover) Or take the case of Emilio Barron, whose ex-wife turned Jehovah's Witness, and now takes their son door to door trying to get new converts.

Emilio Barron: They put a little suit on, a little tie, and -- they basically go door to door. And he comes - when he's with me -- he can't stand it. He tells me, "I hate it."

Stahl: (Voiceover) He felt there was nothing he could do as a family without approval of the church Elders.

Emilio Barron: We decided to go camping. And just before she went camping, she says, "Wait a minute, I've got to make a phone call." And I said, 'Well, what are you doing?" She said. "I've got to call, you know, my Elders." I said, 'Why are you calling your Elders?' 'Well, I've got to tell them where I'm going." "Well, why do you have to tell someone where you're going?" And I'm here saying, "Why is she doing this? Why is she ... ." -- it's almost like reporting.

(Footage of Mrs. Barron and her son, Mrs. Scott and Ashley, and Watchtower magazines being published.)

Stahl: (Voiceover) Emilio Barron's wife declined to be interviewed, and so did David Scott's wife, as did the officials of the Jehovah's Witness organization. Jehovah's Witnesses have been around for over a century. There are 4 1/2 million throughout the world, almost a million in this country alone. The organization is run from an impressive real estate complex in Brooklyn New York, right across from the world's most-famous skyline. It is here that the signature magazines, Watchtower and Awake, are published. They have a circulation of 28 million a month. Virtually every member of the church takes several copies to study and to pass out to potential converts.

Unidentified Jehovah's Witness Woman: It's Bible-based information -- beats the newspaper. And it actually tells the future.

(Footage of Jehovah's Witnesses walking on the street while Duane Magnani talks to Leslie Stahl)

Stahl: (Voiceover) What they're preaching door to door is that the end of the world is coming, and coming soon, and only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved on earth. That the earth today is ruled by Satan and they must live their earthly lives as far removed from the Satanic world as possible. Former Jehovah's Witness, Duane Magnani, who's in disguise, now runs Witness, Inc., a group that condemns what it considers Jehovah's Witness abuses.

Duane Magnani: Back in the mid 1970's they predicted the end of the world for 1975 and they lost around three-quarters of a million people. It wasn't just 1975. They predicted the end of the world in 1914; 1918 was supposed to be Armageddon; 1925, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were supposed to rise from the dead and there was supposed to be paradise; World War II was the end of the world and finally 1975.

Stahl: When you're taught about Armageddon, only Jehovah's Witnesses are going to survive.

Stahl: Wh--what are you taught about that? Is that supposed to be a -- a wonderful thing or a tragedy?

Duane Magnani: Well, you don't think about the other people. They're of Satan's World. It's -- it's time to play. It's time to pick out your home. It's -- you know, you can build a mansion.

Duane Magnani: Yeah. When I was a kid, for instance -- when we went out knocking on doors, we'd go through some richer neighborhoods and pick out the homes we wanted.

Stahl: And of course no one would be living there, so you could just go and have it.

Stahl: (Voiceover) Today [Jehovah's] Witnesses still go door to door. You've probably seen them in your neighborhood, often with a child in tow.

Duane Magnani: Only associating with Jehovah's Witnesses is allowed. It's an exclusive, communal-type organization.

Duane Magnani: You go to public school. But when you're at public school -- when kids stand to salute the flag, you're not allowed to.

Duane Magnani: The country is run by Satan. All countries are run by Satan so there's no allegiance to this country. And so there's no Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag.

(Footage of Pennsylvania JW Attorney Stephen Eugene Langton (deceased 2009) talking to Stahl)

Stahl: (Voiceover) Stephen Langton is an attorney and a Jehovah's Witness. He is the only member of the organization who would go on camera. He represented Mrs. Scott at the custody hearing and is speaking for her. ... ... ... David Scott says that Ashley is discouraged by her mother from participating in holidays at school and that it's isolating her. It...

JW Attorney Stephen E. Langton: Well, I realize Mr. Scott says that, but on direct examination of Mrs. Scott in court I asked her specifically on those questions, and again, it's a personal decision. Now Ashley...

Stahl: I mean, that -- that's too much of a stretch to say that a six-year-old has freedom of -- of choice in that kind of case, isn't it?

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: Now what the mother is telling her is -- yes, the mother's instructing her as far as what she believes. The mother has the right to say, "Ashley, this is how I feel. These are my religious teachings. I don't think that's right. This isn't how your dad feels though."

Stahl: (Voiceover) Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to have blood transfusions. David Scott's biggest fear is that if his daughter were in an accident and needed a blood transfusion, she wouldn't get one.

David Scott: She actually told me that she would let my daughter die if she needed a blood transfusion. She said, "That would be a test of her faith to Jehovah God."

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: She would not want her to have a blood transfusion; that's correct. However, the final decision is going to be with Mr. Scott, according to the court order.

David Scott: The court has given me medical veto power. But the problem lies, will the [ex-]wife ever tell me if there's an emergency? That's the big problem.

Stahl: (Voiceover) The problem for the judges who have to decide these custody cases is to try to separate the lifestyle, which is so removed from mainstream America, from the right of a parent to practice his or her religion and to raise the children the same way. But Judge Samuel Payne of Chattanooga, Tennessee, who's heard several of these cases, says that if the decision were based on the lifestyle alone, the custody decision would always go against the Jehovah's Witness parent.

Judge Samuel Payne: Well, if we have two people who are divorcing who are of mainline theologies of America -- if one of the parties says, "I want custody of the children, but I am going to discourage him from college, they can't belong to any clubs at school, can't participate in any school functions, cannot salute the flag," and the other says, "Look, I want this child to develop it's full potential and become a productive member of society." In that case, I have no problem. It's black and white.

Stahl: ... Say the father, and the other, mother, maybe is Jehovah's Witness. Now what happens?

Judge Samuel Payne: Now you're in a real problem. The Jehovah's Witness lifestyle is constitutionally permissible so your problem is, I as a judge, cannot hold that religion against them. So sometimes the best interest of the child then pales and you have to look outside of it.

Stahl: (Voiceover) In other words, the First Amendment's freedom of religion takes precedence over the welfare of the child. ... ... ... I want to ask you a personal question. You're a Jehovah's Witness.

Stahl: But do they have friends? Do they play after school? Do they have activities?

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: I think that's a very appropriate question. Both of my daughters take ballroom dancing lessons, and they -- they go to dances regularly and perform and we engage in sports. We have get togethers, we have parties. [LANGTON DECEIVED LESLIE STAHL. SEE BELOW.]

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: Generally that's true. Now there again, most lawyers will associate with the Bar Association, with other lawyers, rather than with other doctors, correct?

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: Well--well, what I'm saying is that you'll--you'll associate with people that you have common interests with. And with regard to Witness children, they'll associate with other Witness children because of their common interests.

Stahl: So that the ballroom dancing is with other Witnesses, and the band is also with other Witnesses?

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: No, actually their -- they take ballroom dancing lessons with their mother and father (that would be Stephen and Sandra Langton themselves), because we take lessons too, and we all do it together. And it's nothing that is religiously motivated.

Stahl: But they don't take it at school, and they don't go to school dances. This is separate.

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: Whether Jehovah's Witnesses go to school dances or not, that's a personal decision for Jehovah's Witnesses. My children don't, but I do feel that it's important to safeguard their associations so that -- that they're protected and -- as much as possible and still allow then to have choices.

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: Well, certainly I think we've got to agree that there are a lot of bad influences out there.

Stahl: (Voiceover) One of the things that made David Scott the angriest was the charge of sexual abuse directed against one of his expert witnesses. The charge was made by his own daughter, Ashley, against Dr. Kenneth Ley, the psychologist that Scott had hired to evaluate his daughter's condition. ... ... She said that you had touched her.

(Footage of David Scott talking to Ashley and of Stahl talking to Emilio Barron)

Stahl: (Voiceover) David Scott testified that Ashley told him her maternal grandfather -- a Jehovah's Witness -- coached her to say it. ... ... ... And in the middle of Emilio Barron's custody hearing, the charge was suddenly raised against him.

Emilio Barron: Went to court and then--then she dropped the big one. She dropped the big one when the judge asked her what was -- what was going on. And she basically said that I had sexually abused my son. And that was terrible. That was awful. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that she was capable of doing this -- never. And it's all organization-motivated. In my -- you know, my eyes and my thought and my head knowing the organization, they've done it before and -- and they're -- going to continue to do it.

Emilio Barron: Well, there was never any police charges filed, but basically after the -- you know, the court-appointed report -- psychologist report -- I mean it -- it was clear, it was evident that I wasn't -- you know, I wasn't doing this.

Stahl: It's been brought to our attention that it's peculiar that it keeps coming up in Jehovah's Witness custody cases.

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: I -- I don't think that it's just with Jehovah's Witness custody cases. With the cases that I've been involved with, I feel that sometimes allegations of sexual abuse have risen. However, it's not generally a pattern.

(Footage of WATCHTOWER SOCIETY HEADQUARTERS in Brooklyn, New York, and a sign with the word "Watchtower" on it)

Stahl: (Voiceover) What he [Langton] does concede is a pattern that when a Jehovah's Witness parent goes to court in a custody battle, the organization in Brooklyn comes to the rescue with attorneys and expert witnesses, all free of charge. ... ... ... David Scott spent around $30,000.00 in this suit. Can you tell us how much Mrs. Scott spent?

Stahl: And he spent $30,000.00? That was your -- your bill was only $200 to $300?

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: No, my bill wasn't $200 to $300. It was substantially more than that. However, Mrs. Scott is unemployed. She doesn't have the money, so to this point I have been financing the case.

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: No the church isn't paying it. The Watchtower organization --Society came into the case at my request once the religious issue was raised, and they agreed to assist in the case.

JW Attorney Stephen Langton: They -- both of those attorneys live at the worldwide organ --worldwide headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses and their not paid. This is volunteer work. So they--they live there for room and board.

Emilio Barron: I've paid over $30,000.00 in legal fees, and it's just --when -- when you have an organization like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who gave my ex-wife total support ...

Emilio Barron: Free legal advice, free time. And the -- the resources are unlimited. I could have--I would have liked to have seen her eyes if I would have been able to pick up the phone, call the Pope, and said, "Let me have an attorney."

Stahl: (Voiceover) But even if Emilio Barron and David Scott had the money to go forward on appeal, the issue still wouldn't change. As long as there is freedom of religion in this country, their children will continue to go door to door preaching the word of Jehovah's Witnesses, and there is very little that they can do about it.

************************ ************************

Readers should understand that the following 2019 Kenya court case was initiated and orchestrated by the worldwide headquarters of the WatchTower Cult in New York USA, as evidenced by the multiple "slick" legal maneuvers of having only one single student being expelled, thus keeping to a minimum the negative effective on all nine JW students, as well as the selected "timing" of this lawsuit, etc. Readers also should know that there were two or more JW students at this Catholic school whose parents did not join this lawsuit. An appeal of this trial court's decision was filed, but we could not find the outcome -- thus, we assume that appeal was either denied, or lost. Readers also should be aware that the WatchTower Cult had LOST a similar lawsuit against an Anglican school in Zimbabwe, in 2016. See: AMOS MAKANI, MBIRI SHIRIPINDA, PLAXEDES CHIPANGURA, and DANIEL SAKUPWANYA v. ARUNDEL SCHOOL.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION

SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

PHILLIP OKOTH (SUING AS THE NEXT FRIEND OF AURA ADOYO, LA, BA, FA, GO, SN, IO, WT, & PS) ET AL versus BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, ST. ANNE'S PRIMARY SCHOOL, AHERO, KENYA.

ASSOCIATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN EAST AFRICA, INTERESTED PARTY

JUDGMENT

This Petition was brought by Philip Okoth [father of Aura Adoyo] in his capacity as the "Next Friend" of nine [Jehovah's Witnesses] children who were all students at ST. ANNE'S PRIMARY SCHOOL, in AHERO, KENYA. ... The Petition was triggered by the decision which the Board of Management of the school made, in response to a request by the students; who had asked the school to exempt them from all interfaith activities. The nine students were [JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES].

One of the nine students [Aura Adoyo] had refused to attend a compulsory Catholic Church Mass which used to be held every Friday morning at the school. Following her said refusal, the student was expelled from the school. Following intervention by the Board of Management, it was resolved that the student would be re-admitted to the school if she and her father agreed to abide by the school routine, which included the attendance of Mass every Friday morning at 7a.m.

The Petitioners moved the court seeking "... to enforce the rights of [Jehovah's Witnesses] children at the school not to be indirectly discriminated through a forced 'one-rule-fits-all' Friday Mass attendance."

The Petitioners sought "... reasonable accommodation through appropriate exemptions, which takes into account the rights of the children ... to education, ... freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination."

[INTERESTINGLY], at the time the petition was filed, in April 2018, the students were due to be registered as candidates for the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education Examinations. ... As the Petitioners were due to be candidates in the national examinations, it was obviously important to resolve some issues as quickly as possible. The parties worked out an agreeable arrangement, so that the Petitioners were able to continue learning and the Petitioners eventually wrote their KCPE Examinations.

Meanwhile, the ASSOCIATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN EAST AFRICA sought and were granted leave to be enjoined to the Petition, as an Interested Party. According to the Interested Party, there were about 30,000 members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who live in Kenya. It was the intention of the Interested Party to assist the court to achieve a result that protects the rights of the parties, as well as the rights of its other members throughout Kenya. ...

The Petition sought the following reliefs;

"(a) A declaration that the 1st Petitioner's expulsion from school on the basis of her religious views amount to an indirect discrimination; and constitute a violation of the 1st Petitioner's right to education, right to dignity, and was therefore null and void.

(b) Damages for violation of the 1st Petitioner's fundamental rights and freedoms.

(c) A declaration that the school rules and regulations that provide for a mandatory 30-minutes Mass every Friday morning for all children is indirectly discriminatory, unconstitutional, and invalid.

(d) That the [MINISTRY OF EDUCATION and ATTORNEY GENERAL] be compelled to provide a directive and or regulations for schools in Kenya on the exercise of freedom of conscience, religion, belief, and opinion."

It was the Petitioner's case that their faith, as [Jehovah's Witnesses], forbids inter-faith activities. Therefore, the Petitioners submitted that;

"by imposing attendance of non-classroom inter-faith activities, the school interfered with the Petitioners' [Constitutional] rights ... to manifest their religion as Jehovah's Witnesses, including through worship, practice, teaching, or observance." ...

The Petitioners acknowledged that the freedom of religion was not absolute, but submitted that it only be limited by legislation. Furthermore, if any such legislation were to limit the freedom of religion, the said limitation had to be reasonable and justifiable in an open democratic society. In this case, the Petitioners pointed out that the limitation in issue had not been provided for by any legislation.

In any event, the Petitioners believe that the limitation in issue does not serve any legitimate aim. The limitation being referred to here is the mandatory attendance, by all students, of the Friday Catholic Mass, for a duration of 30 minutes. Although the Petitioners concede that that is a uniform rule that is applicable to all the students, they insist that the rule is indirectly discriminatory against non-Catholic students at the school.

But the Respondents reason that the uniform application of the school rule provides an orderly and predictable way of running schools. It was pointed out that in any learning institution, it is important that students should be at a particular place at a particular time. When that happens, the Respondents believe that it becomes easier for the institutions to monitor the students, for the sake of their own safety.

The Respondents also pointed out that whilst the Board of Management had been ready to explore the possibility of finding a workable compromise, the Petitioners had taken the position that on the issue at hand there could not be any compromise. It was the Respondents' case that when the Petitioners moved to court, they were inviting the court to perform the duties of the Board of Management, which is the organ lawfully tasked to find solutions to grievances raised by the students. ...

The 1st Respondent submitted that there is trouble when parents agitate against prayers in school. In this case, I do not understand the Petition to constitute an agitation against prayers in school, per se.

(Despite this IGNORANT JUDGE'S assertion, the WatchTower Cult is against prayer in schools, and other public places, and forbids its Jehovah's Witnesses members to join in common prayer with non-JWs.)

The Petitioners have expressed no objection to the Holy Catholic Mass. What they are saying is that they should not be compelled to attend the said Mass, as it was against the teachings of their faith. (HUH???)

The Board of Management of St. A Primary School, Ahero, has invited the court to find that it respects religious diversity, and that it consistently grants opportunities to children of different faiths to manifest their respective religions. By virtue of the fact that the school admits students who profess faiths other than those of the Church which sponsors the said school, it can be said to respect religious diversity. It may also be true ... that the school consistently grants opportunities to children of different faiths to manifest their respective religions.

Nonetheless, the one issue which the Board stands accused of is the insistence that each student, regardless of his or her religion, must attend Mass on Friday morning. ...

Indeed the school made it clear that "... before admission of any pupil, including those of the 1st to 9th Petitioners, at the school, the Parents and the pupils are made aware of the rules and regulations of the school, including the Friday mass at 7.00am."

Considering that the Petitioners AND their parents all signed the school rules and regulations at the time when the students were getting admission into the school, that implies that when they later sought an exemption from inter-faith activities, that constituted an afterthought on the part of the Petitioners. They have not explained why they initially accepted the rules and regulations, but were now complaining that the said same rules and regulations constituted a violation of "the tenets of our faith of pure worship as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."

By their letter dated 26th September 2017, the Petitioners gave "Notice of Prohibition of Interfaith Activities for Jehovah's Witness Pupils". By the said letter they stated as follows:

"We, the parents of the pupils listed below, hereby direct that they be perpetually exempted from all interfaith activities: worship of any kind, prayers, hymning, church attendance, religious instructions or discourses (those extraneous of the academic curriculum)."

[That letter] was a Notice informing the Board that the parents had directed ... their children ... to keep off all the listed activities. In other words, the parents of the students had laid down the terms upon which their children would continue to attend school. ...

It must be emphasized that "the right to education does not entail education on the terms set by the students", and I would add that the parents cannot simply declare to schools or other institutions, the terms under which their children are to be given education.

In this case, the Petitioners have not asserted that there was any attempt to coerce them to adopt a religion or belief which was not of their choice. They have also not asserted that they had been coerced to do something which would impair their freedom to manifest their religion or belief. ...

The school, in this case, says that the rule requiring all students to attend Mass on Friday mornings is reasonable. The school says that the rule has absolutely no intention of compelling any student who was not a Catholic to convert to that religion. ...

... the court appreciates that the Holy Mass is a very integral part of life of a Catholic. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Mass takes a central place at a Catholic sponsored school. But the said school does not discriminate against students who are non-Catholics. To that extent, the school can be applauded for showing respect and tolerance to other religions.

In order to ensure that any potential student and his or her parents appreciate the rules and regulations governing the school, it is a requirement that every student and his or her parents sign the said Rules and Regulations. One of the rules makes it clear that it was mandatory for all students to attend Mass at the school on Friday mornings. Therefore, every student who accepts the said rules ought to comply with them. ... it cannot be overlooked that from the outset, the Petitioners indicated their readiness to comply with the school rules. It is almost as if the Petitioners and their parents were deliberately misleading the school in order to gain admission to the said school. ...

In this case, however, none of the Petitioners complained about any attempt to indoctrinate them, forcibly, or at all, with the theological predisposition of the sponsor of the school. The Petitioners simply do not want to participate in interfaith activities. ...

In the final analysis, I find as follows:

(a) As the 1st Petitioner confirmed having sat for the KCPE Examinations in 2018, her right to education had not been violated.

(b) Not only did the 1st Petitioner sit for her exams, she and her parents had originally accepted the school rules and regulations, which included the requirement that all students must attend Mass on Friday mornings.

I find that the 1st Petitioner was not entitled to any award of damages for the alleged violation of her fundamental rights and freedoms.

(c) Pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Constitution of Kenya, no person should be compelled to act or engage in any act that is contrary to the person's belief or religion. If there is any such compulsion, it would be unconstitutional.

(d) In this case, the Petitioners had accepted the rules by appending their signatures and by their parents also appending their signatures to the same; thus signifying acceptance of the said rules.

(e) As this is a public interest litigation, I order that each party will pay his or her own costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

FRED A. OCHIENG, JUDGE

************************ ************************