Maui wrote:Do you know if there is some kind of duty of care mandate?
You write "mandate" as a legal relationships beyond the simple responsibility between any two human beings.
I don't know which country you are in -
and there may be national variations - but, on the basis of various legal constitutions I have seen the simple answer is ... as a BK you have absolutely ZERO rights.
The get out clause they habitually use is that the BKWSU or BKWSO "has no members".
There are the directors (who, in essence, are allowed to be paid or 'kept' and have legal rights) and are generally the senior Sisters; and the trustees (who are not eligible for any income and are suppose to keep the directors in check but rare do).
But no members.
You are a donor, or a member of the public, a recipient of their grace, but within the legal structures they use you have no rights. You basically don't exist.
This is absolutely true of the BKWSO, for example. You can give them all of your money, all of your property, all of your time and energy ... and tomorrow they can lock you out of their centre at their whim.
Now, every developed nation has legal protections from abuses of power, usually under an "undue influence" mandate. Even
India does (Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872) -
in theory - adopted as much of their legal system is from the English (
see also). But it's a different kind of legal situation where victims would have to start legal action against them, prove damages and so on. It's not the same kind of protected position as, say, an employee of business or a member of a political party or even club has.
Hence there are no formal procedures for dealing with complaints.
I am not sure what the legal position of "surrendered souls" within BKism is. Again, it's not written into their legal documents. I suspect they would strictly be employees and, hence, protected by all sorts of workers' rights if they should want and have the courage to pursue them. It would be an interesting challenge to the Kirpalani Klan's power structure but, obviously, "destroy their status" within BKism.
In short, far from being a progressive movement, or even a feminist movement, the Kirpalani Klan has exported a medieval power structure worldwide, one in which the serfs and indentured servants have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
To underline how backward it is, I was once a member of nothing more than a motorcycle club. Probably amongst the least enlightened level of organizations in the Western world. And yet, once I had paid my membership fee and annual subscriptions, I had inalienable rights; I had rights of access to the club's facilities, I could not be thrown out without good reason and after a due process had been completed, I was guaranteed whatever it was that the club promised to provide, and the directors/trustees of the club were bound to follow the rules and do whatever the club was set up to do, and I had a right to raise at an Annual or Special General Meeting any greivances I had. They had to be elected and could be voted out.
That is not special, or high minded, that is the simple basic norm in the West.
In BKism ... ZERO. You are back in rural 19th Century India, with even less power and rights than you would have had under a local headman and panchayat.
Now, legally, if you or anyone has been exploited for money, property or labour -
and I think there is a very good case to say that the Kirpalani Klan with their bogus history, failed End of the World predictions, and all sorts of other 'undue influence' - then the law is in your favour.
For example, if you - as I was - were misled to give your time and money on the basis of the End of the World being in year
xxxx and they did not warn you about the previous failed predictions; or if you - as I was - were misled to give your time and money on the basis of God being Shiva, but they did not tell you that for the first 20 odd years Lekhraj Kirpalani told everyone that he was god and to take third party legal advice - then the law is in your favour.
Generally, in an undue influence case, the party accused must prove their innocence. Guilt is sort of assumed as it is an exploitation of power. They are used in situations where there is a great imbalance of power, e.g. priests, doctors, bank managers, husband/wife and so on.