Tras un largo viaje desde Barcelona
(España/Spain, Europa), llegamos a Spokane (WA, USA) y, durante tres semanas del pasado mes de agosto, hemos
podido confraternizar con unos amigos que viven en una de las cinco colonias/comunidades
que especifico más abajo. Gracias a ellos, también hemos podido visitar el resto de
dichas colonias, donde viven sus familiares y amigos. Todas ellas son empresas agrícolas importantes de la zona,
siendo la patata – de extraordinaria calidad – su producto estrella.
Pero yo no he cruzado toda España,
todo el Oceano Atlántico y todo USA para visitar unas empresas agrícolas,
modernas y rentables: yo estoy pagando plazos mensuales al Banco para ir
pagando la gran cantidad de dinero que para mí supone haber realizado dicho
largo viaje, porque es en el seno de
dichas empresas donde se está perpetuando un tipo de vida que comenzaron a
poner en práctica Jakob Hutter y sus seguidores cristianos anabaptistas en la zona
del Tirol, desde las primeras décadas del siglo XVI.
Pero no lo hicieron por motivos de índole material, sino para poder así potenciar su fe, fortalecer su vida espiritual en el día a día.
Pero no lo hicieron por motivos de índole material, sino para poder así potenciar su fe, fortalecer su vida espiritual en el día a día.
MÁS INFORMACIÓN: Quien quiera información complementaria a la que aquí se expone,
puede ver también mis otros artículos publicados en este blog:
“VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: HUTTERITAS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA. ASOCIACIÓN RELIGIOSA Y EMPRESAS EN USA Y CANADÁ (I)"
“VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: HUTTERITAS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA. PRESENCIA EN FACEBOOK (II)”
“VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: HUTTERITAS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA. SUGERENCIAS PARA FAVORECER LA VIDA INTERIOR (III)”
http://matiasvargaspuga.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/granjas-y-colonias-comunistas_10.html
"VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: HUTTERITAS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA. MI OPINIÓN (V)"
http://matiasvargaspuga.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/vida-alternativa-hoy-hutteritas.html
"VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: HUTTERITAS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA. MI OPINIÓN (V)"
http://matiasvargaspuga.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/vida-alternativa-hoy-hutteritas.html
Derivados de los
hutteritas, los Bruderhof, movimiento cristiano anabaptista con infuencias anarquistas, surgido en Alemania en las primeras décadas del siglo XX, complementando las informaciones anteriores:
"VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: BRUDERHOF O SOCIEDAD DE HERMANOS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA "PROGRESISTA" (I)"
"VIDA ALTERNATIVA HOY: BRUDERHOF O SOCIEDAD DE HERMANOS, CRISTIANOS DE VIDA COMUNISTA "PROGRESISTA" (I)"
LOCALIZACIÓN GEOGRÁFICA: La zona central de la parte
oriental del Estado de Washington se caracteriza por sus extensas llanuras:
hasta llegar casi al límite con el Estado vecino de Idaho, lo que podemos
contemplar son sus campos cultivados de patatas y cereales. Hay pocas granjas,
porque muy extensos son los dominios de cada una de ellas. Lo que aquí llamamos
calles, allí son carreteras locales asfaltadas, pero a ambos lados no se ven
casas, sino campos sin árboles. Pequeñas localidades situadas a 15-20 minutos
en coche, permiten todos los abastecimientos y servicios necesarios. Las cinco colonias
distan entre sí una media hora en coche. Spokane (con aeropuerto internacional)
y Moses Lake, son las ciudades importantes más cercanas, ambas situadas en la
carretera interestatal 90.
Circulando por dichas carreteras
hemos visto coyotes, conejos y ciervos. Pasan pocos coches. Las vacas pastan
tranquilamente todo el día al aire libre. Llanuras inmensas...con unas puestas de sol impresionantes, en la compañía nocturna del silencio y las estrellas...
Es en estos apartados y
peculiares parajes donde nos encontramos con las grandes empresas agrícolas en
las que viven los hutteritas que hemos visitado, LAS CINCO COLONIAS/ASOCIACIONES RELIGIOSAS DE LA IGLESIA CRISTIANA HUTTERITA EXISTENTES EN EL ESTADO DE WASHINGTON, USA:
- SCHOONOVER FARMS INC.
2194 N. Schoonover
Rd.
Odessa, WA 99159
(Manager: Wally
Walter) (Teléfono: 509 982 2257, ext. 243)
(Minister: Herb
Walter) (Teléfono: 509 982 2257, ext. 247)
- STAHL FARMS
1485 N. Hoffman Rd.
Ritzville, WA 99169
(Manager: John Jr.
Stahl) (Teléfono 509 659 0108)
(Minister: Eddie
Stahl) (Teléfono: 509 659 0108)
- WARDEN
1054 W. Harder Rd.
Warden, WA 98857
(Manager: Jake
Wollman) ( Teléfono 509 349 8045)
(Minister: Walter
Wollman)
- MARLIN
21344 Road 18 NE
Marlin, WA 98832
(Manager: Peter
Gross) (Teléfono 509 345 2113)
(Minister: Henry
Gross)
- SPOKANE (“ESPANOLA”)
3610 N. Wood Rd.
Reardan, WA 99029
(Manager: William P. Gross ) (Teléfono 509 299 5400, ext. 221)
(Minister: Sam Gross) (Teléfono 509 299 5400, ext. 226)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTA: Puede encontrarse el
directorio completo de todas las empresas hutteritas de USA y Canadá en el
siguiente enlace:
Tanto la Colonia Espanola como
la Colonia Warden suelen recibir visitas abiertas y guiadas a todos aquellos
que así lo soliciten, previamente concertadas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LA VIDA EN LA
COLONIA:
A) VIVEN POCAS FAMILIAS: Todas las colonias tienen
entre 50 y 100 habitantes, lo que se traduce en una cantidad de familias que
van de entre unas siete u ocho hasta el doble, más o menos. Pero en dicha
cantidad hemos de tener en cuenta que hay padres e hijos casados, que ya tienen
una familia independiente, así que, en realidad, hay muy pocos grupos de
familias, pues hay vínculos sangíneos directos: son mínimos los apellidos
diferentes existentes en cada una de las colonias.
Y es que
es muy difícil que alguien no hutterita llegue a serlo e ingrese en una
colonia, porque las jovenes dicen que sólo pueden casarse con hombres
hutteritas, bien de la colonia, bien de alguna otra, aunque esté muy distante:
el teléfono, las cartas y ahora internet, son los medios habituales de contacto
entre los solteros. Y no olvidemos un detalle importante: el matrimonio debe
ser autorizado por los responsables de la colonia. Aunque puede darse el caso
excepcional: así el jardinero de la colonia Espanola era antes un joven
cristiano no anabaptista de Spokane que tenía estudios de Agricultura y que
pidió integrarse en dicha colonia, siendo admitido su ingreso por mayoría de
votos de los hombres (las mujeres no tienen derecho a voto y están supeditadas
al marido y a trabajos auxiliares, pero es normalmente aceptado por ellas este
rol y estatus). Llegaría a casarse con la hija del “Minister”, uno de los
prohombres importantes en la colonia, porque es quien bendice los alimentos que
se consumen en cada comida (en la colonia Schoonover se come en el comedor de
la colonia a las 7 de la mañana, a las 11 y a las 6 de la tarde todos los dias
laborables, retrasándose una hora los domingos: cada persona tiene un sitio
asignado, en función de si eres hombre o mujer, responsabilidades, edad, etc.)
y quien tiene la dirección de las reuniones religiosas del fín de semana,
normalmente dos ratos a lo largo del domingo, en las que procede a la lectura y
comentario de la Biblia y a unos escasos y breves cánticos. El idioma utilizado
para ello no es el inglés, sino el alemán que se hablaba en la época en que
surgió el movimiento. Y es que no tienen ni sacerdotes ni predicadores ni
tampoco hay ninguna imagen, ni siquiera un crucifijo. No se persignan. No se
ora ni a la Virgen María ni a los santos, ni hay confesión ni comunión en la
celebración litúrgica, por utilizar términos que se entiendan. Cada persona
sabe cuál es el sitio donde debe sentarse, dependiendo de si es hombre o mujer,
su responsabilidad, su edad. No hay sacerdotes ni predicadores ni líderes o
intermediarios religiosos de ningún tipo entre el creyente y Dios. Se sigue la
tradición.
B) SE SIENTEN SATISFECHOS Y SEGUROS: Normalmente, los colonos se
encuentran satisfechos con su vida en la colonia. A más edad, más se sienten
seguros, tanto en la seguridad material como en la propia seguridad física
personal. La colonia les provee de todo, incluyendo si se jubilan o pasan a
estar en una situación de incapacidad. Basta con limitarse a realizar el
trabajo que cada cual tiene asignado. En la casa que les provee la colonia, con
todas las comodidades, haciéndose cargo de todos los gastos corrientes y
habituales en la vida cotidiana hogareña, cada colono tiene lo que en lenguaje
vulgar y coloquial definiaríamos como “la paz del hogar”. No tiene que pensar
en nada, no tiene que comprar nada, no tiene que procuparse de nada: de todo se
ocupa la colonia. Es decir: la empresa. Todas las casas que se construyen son
iguales, todas están también igualmente equipadas, en todos los aspectos. Todos
tienen lo mismo: la misma educación hasta la adolescencia (se incluye el alemán
y la lectura de la Biblia, además de la práctica cotidiana de realizar todo en
común, ya desde muy pequeños), la misma indumentaria, los mismos coches, la
misma conexión a internet (mediante red local interna, cuyo administrador
procede a un “control parental” de los contenidos y páginas web que cada colono
puede visitar), la misma falta de televisión, el mismo autocontrol para evitar
escuchar música no adecuada y, por supuesto, en un volumen adecuado para no interferir
en el silencio habitual existente – a cualquier hora del día – en la colonia.
Su trabajo (hay muy poca variedad, porque son granjas: tareas de campo, con la respectiva maquinaria moderna; chófer de camión; mecánico; carpintero; etc.) será siempre el
mismo, salvo razones justificadas para pedir un cambio a los responsables de la
colonia. Así que tampoco tiene la más mínima preocupación por dicha cuestión a lo largo
de los años. Sus aficiones, preparación y relaciones familiares fueron claves,
cuando era jovencito, para llegar a tener un trabajo concreto en la colonia. Y
las mujeres ya saben qué tipo de trabajos van a realizar siempre: cocina, auxiliares, etc. Tras alcanzar una determinada edad, las mujeres ya no realizarán las actividades de cocina.
Los principios básicos son la
igualdad en todos los aspectos y ámbitos, el no destacar en nada, la no
competencia, la sencillez, la austeridad, la simplicidad, el trabajo, el
autoabastecimiento, el ahorro...la vida personal de cada persona limitada a la
vida cotidiana de la colectividad, del conjunto de la colonia. No se fomenta el consumismo ni todo lo que suponga el aumento del ego de cada colono.
Y es que cada colono vive su
vida en función de cómo va “la vida” de la colonia, de la empresa. Tanto que,
no recibe dinero, no tiene bienes, no puede tener una cuenta corriente en el
Banco: la empresa no reparte beneficios, sino que tan sólo le da cada mes a
cada colono una cantidad de dinero simbólica, mínima, con la que podrá adquirir objetos de carácter "personal" o similar, sin importancia económica. En Navidad,
le da el doble. Así como nadie le restringirá su libertad personal respecto a qué puede adquirir con dicho dinero "personal" ni tampoco en sus salidas de la colonia con el coche que cada familia tiene a su disposición (también provisto por la colonia), evidentemente, deberá "ser prudente" en su conducta para no ser un mal ejemplo para el resto de los colonos y para que la vida tranquila del resto de la colonia no se vea alterada sustancialmente. Es decir: lo mejor
que puede hacer su mente es limitarse al descanso y a la tranquilidad hogareña,
apacible, allí, en el silencio de esas grandes zonas casi despobladas. No
obstante, siempre puede haber alguna persona que tenga algún tipo de
iniciativa, que le haga llevar una vida personal algo diferente a la de los
demás (por ejemplo: tener contratada una línea propia de internet móvil;
ahorrar para comprarse libros; ir a la biblioteca del pueblo, donde sí hay
libertad para navegar por internet o, simplemente, ir libremente al pueblo o
donde se quiera para cualquier cuestión que uno quiera y pueda).
El vestuario es siempre del
mismo tipo, sin complemento alguno (joyas, bolsos, cinturones, etc.) que haga
destacar de los demás. Podrán
hacerse ellas mismas muchos vestidos, pero todos tienen el mismo patrón, las
mismas características...y los mismos colores apagados, el mismo diseño, para
no llamar la atención, para no destacar, para ser iguales a las demás. Ni
siquiera en las bodas. Tan sólo hay que mencionar que los domingos y en las
celebraciones especiales sí que los hombres llevan una vestimenta negra
impecable y elegante y que las mujeres llevan un vestido que destaca del
que suelen llevar el resto de los dias de la semana. Es normal: se acude a la
celebración de la reunión religiosa, es día de fiesta.
Los esposos saben que tienen
esposo/a para toda la vida. En el matrimonio, cada uno sabe perfectamente su
papel, no hay lugar para dudas ni para atribuirse competencias que son del
otro/a. En la relación previa, no habrá habido prácticamente roce físico
alguno. Entre otras causas, porque normalmente viven bastante lejos uno de
otro, en colonias bastante distanciadas entre sí. Cuando se casen, tras la
autorización correspondiente de los responsables de la colonia, vivirán en una casa nueva que les proveerá la colonia en la que la nueva familia va a vivir. Cuando tengan algún hijo, la madre será ayudada por alguna
mujer de la colonia, estará un tiempo sin trabajar y recibirá de la colonia
todo el mobiliario auxiliar y enseres necesarios para cuidar del nuevo colono
que acaba de nacer.
Siguiendo las normas (ver la
siguiente web, al comienzo de su apartado titulado, en español, “Práctica
cultural”/”Cultural Practice”, en su página 8: http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/courtsandcolonies/chapterone.pdf) , respetando las decisiones que
toman los hombres responsables de cada ámbito fundamental de la vida de la
colonia (que se escogen por votación mayoritaria de los hombres), todo va bien, todos viven tranquilos y apaciblemente. Si te llevas
bien con ellos, seguro que no habrá problema alguno. Suelen ser tres: el
“Minister”, el encargado “de las cuentas” y el encargado “de las tareas de
campo” (enla colonia Warden tienen también un “Manager Administrador”) (Ver
páginas 8 y 9 de la web: http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/AgBio_Publications/articles/B717.pdf). Todos ellos trabajan también
en otro tipo de tareas, no están ociosos (por ejemplo, el ”Minister” de la colonia
Schoonover trabaja en “la tienda”, en la Shop Office) (A veces también los
responsables cometen delitos y actos fraudulentos, véanse las siguientes webs: http://harvardcrcl.org/2012/01/30/hosanna-tabor-helps-resolves-hutterite-colony-dispute/
y http://www.perefound.org/gibbarch.html). Elegidos en la reunión anual
de los colonos (hombres) por mayoría de votos (pero no por votación secreta y formal), sus decisiones son claves tanto
para la marcha de la empresa como para la tranquilidad de la vida colectiva en
la colonia y el buen ánimo y predisposición de todos los habitantes de la
colonia (Sobre esta estructura de los cargos de responsabilidad de la colonia,
puede verse la siguiente web: http://www.hutterites.org/day-to-day/structure/).
No obstante, siempre hay algún
díscolo, alguna persona “un poco diferente”, algún joven que “se aburre” en
alguna que otra ocasión...
C) SON EMPRESAS AGRÍCOLAS PRÓSPERAS, RICAS: Cada colonia tiene plena
autonomía en la forma de hacer y entender todas las cuestiones de su vida
cotidiana, en todos los aspectos de la marcha de la empresa, de la colonia. Lo
normal es que tras unas décadas más difíciles y limitadas, el esfuerzo común,
el trabajo bien hecho, la producción y el ahorro, lleven a que haya empresas
ricas, en las que hay prosperidad y bonanza (Sobre la condición de no
trabajadores de los colonos, pues son socios voluntarios de una asociación religiosa, véase la siguiente web: http://www.workcompwriter.com/montanas-hutterite-colony-seeks-review-by-u-s-supreme-court-of-decision-requiring-it-to-provide-workers-compensation-coverage-for-colonys-workers/). Se busca la colaboración, la
fraternización, el no despilfarro, el autoabastecimiento en todos los productos
posibles, la utilización de energías alternativas, la conservación de
alimentos, el automantenimiento de las instalaciones, etc. Por ello, todas las
empresas tienen también sus correspondientes animales de granja y sus huertos
para el autoconsumo durante todo el año; sus flotas de camiones de transporte;
sus maquinarias más modernas para el trabajo agrícola; su gasolinera; su taller
mecánico; su taller de carpintería; sus oficinas; sus depósitos y almacenes
varios; su lavandería común, con modernas lavadoras y secadoras, a la que
acceden todas las familias cuando tienen su turno semanal; su comedor común y
su zona de reuniones común (algunas colonias tienen un salón específico para
las reuniones relativas a la marcha de la empresa – normalmente, sólo suele
relizarse la reunión anual correspondiente - y en los que también se celebran
las reuniones religiosas, basadas en la lectura de la Biblia, o, eventualmente,
las de carácter extraordinario); su cocina común, despensas, frigoríficos,
salas de preparación de los diferentes productos, de la carne y embutidos, etc.
Sólo se contrata a servicios externos (como los jurídicos) cuando no es posible
realizarlos por los propios medios de la colonia.
Y también tienen allí sus
escuelas de educación primaria y secundaria, donde los niños aprenden no sólo
los estudios propios de su edad, sino también alemán (el idioma originario de
este movimiento cristiano, muy importante, porque se trata del idioma, en su
versión del siglo XVI, que se utiliza no para hablar entre ellos normalmente,
sino para la lectura y comentario de la Biblia y para algunos breves cánticos,
en las reuniones religiosas que se celebran en cada colonia, normalmente, en
dos ratos a lo largo del domingo), buena caligrafía y a vivir de forma
comunitaria. El trabajar y vivir cada día de manera que no se perjudique a la
colonia sino que se beneficie a la misma, no es sólo algo teórico, sino algo
que se practica desde pequeños.
Como una peculiaridad, la
colonia Warden tiene un gimnasio cubierto polivalente que sirve también para la
realización de todo tipo de actos, actuaciones musicales, etc.
Evidentemente, las
características específicas de cada una de ellas y la gestión de sus
responsables conllevan a que haya diferencias entre las mismas, tanto en su
patrimonio, como en las comodidades de que disfrutan sus respectivos colonos
como en que haya más o menos satisfacción psicológica personal en la mayoría de
ellos, en su vida cotidiana. (Sobre los casos en que los hutteritas han acudido
a los tribunales para dirimir sus diferencias, véase la siguiente web, sobre un
libro que aborda en profundidad dicho tema:
http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/esau205.htm).
Y es que no siempre todos “están
a gusto”: a veces hay colonos que realizan conductas fuera o dentro de la
colonia que no son “bien vistas” y, en consecuencia, reciben los reproches y
censuras correspondientes; hay personas que quieren más libertad personal; hay
quienes también consideran que los responsables de la colonia y sus familias
tienen más privilegios que los demás o que tienen un trato injusto con ellos.
Así, alrededor de un 5 % de los colonos
suele abandonar las colonias. Van quejándose y al final se acaban marchando,
pero hay que tener muy clara dicha decisión, porque quien se marcha no se puede
llevar nada, no tiene nada, no es propietario de nada. Me dicen que, en última
instancia, se puede acudir a un Comité que es elegido por los responsables de
las colonias, pero lo que me han comentado del mismo es más para asuntos
económicos, de que preste dinero sin interés a la colonia que tenga dificultades,
más que no por otros motivos (aunque colonos “de a pié” no tienen ni la
dirección de los integrantes de dicho Comité, ni saben quiénes lo integran, ni
saben nada en relación con el mismo, aunque creen que debe estar en Manitoba,
Canadá); me hablan de que hasta las mujeres pueden acudir con sus problemas a
los “Hutterite Elders”, en Canadá (ver la siguiente web: http://www.hutterites.org/split/), pero parece que no sea fácil
en la práctica acudir a ellos. Están muy lejos...y cada uno vive con sus
vecinos y familiares de sus vecinos...
Siempre puede haber algún caso
de difícil solución, que aparezca algún colono que no obedezca adecuadamente,
que no se comporte adecuadamente...más en las personas jovenes que no en las
personas mayores, que, progresivamente, por razones obvias, dependen
personalmente cada vez más de la colonia. Como el que se produjo no hace mucho
tiempo, cuando un joven de una colonia de Dakota fue golpeado por varios
miembros de su propia colonia (entre ellos, por el “Minister”), y decidió
acudir a los tribunales (también hubo un caso de división flagrante en el seno
de una colonia que posibilitó una posible disolución, se trató de la colonia
Hutterville, en Stratford, Dakota del Sur, en 2010, ver webs: http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2012-01-27/news/30672844_1_johnny-wipf-hutterville-colony-hutterite
y http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/s-d-high-court-refuses-to-decide-leadership-of-hutterite-colony) . También ha habido casos de
hombres y mujeres jovenes que tienen unas características personales que los
hacen un poco diferentes a los demás (por su inteligencia, inquietudes,
sensibilidad, etc.) y, tras los choques pertinentes continuados con los
responsables de sus respectivas colonias, las dejan, se van entonces, sin nada,
al “mundo exterior”. Los colonos “normales” les suelen calificar como
“enfermos” o “caídos de la fe”.
Nadie me ha hablado de que en
alguna ocasión los responsables de las colonias hayan contratado los servicios
de psicólogos especialistas en la resolución de conflictos o de otros
profesionales similares. También parece que esa última instancia a la que se
puede acudir en ayuda para resolver los conflictos, de la que me han hablado,
se encuentra muy lejos, muy poco accesible para la mayoría de los colonos. Es
curioso darse cuenta de que, efectivamente, la mayoría de los colonos no sabe
nada de las normas que regulan tanto la colonia como la propia Iglesia
Hutterita en su conjunto, como tal asociación religiosa, y que, por supuesto,
no las tienen en sus casas, en su poder (se trata de las siguientes: los
Estatutos Sociales de la Asociación voluntaria religiosa que es en sí la
colonia y las normas básicas generales para todas las colonias hutteritas “Act
to Incorporate the Hutterian Brethren Church , SC 1951” y “Constitution
of the Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of Property “, de 1950). Sí me han hablado, en cambio, de una
colonia de Montana que llegó a disolverse porque la mayoría de los jovenes
dejaron la colonia, lo que supondría, evidentemente, una grave problema para
los colonos mayores, que se vieron, de noche a la mañana, sin la cobertura de
su empresa...
Véase una sentencia muy
interesante del Tribunal Supremo de Canadá, que puede descargarse en formato
PDF, sobre conflictos internos en la colonia Lakeside, en Manitoba, Canadá, en
1992, que acabaron con la expulsión de la colonia de un colono y sus hijos
menores, en la que salen a relucir los conceptos de asociación voluntaria
religiosa, las empresas de la colonia Lakeside Holding
Co. Ltd., y Lakeside Colony Ltd y el problema de fondo que dichas expulsiones
comportan: http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/923/index.do.
Como considero de mucho
interés la posibilidad de que cualquier colono o interesado en el tema de las
colonias hutteritas pueda conocer el contenido de las principales normas que
regulan su modo de vida, copio litearalmente, en su versión original inglesa,
aquellas que aparecen en dicha sentencia:
“A. The Constitution of
the Hutterian Brethren Church
A convenient starting point is
the Constitution of the Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of
Property. This document is in the form of
Articles of Association, and was executed by the representatives of 60
Hutterite colonies across Canada on August 1, 1950. Membership has since grown to
include many more colonies, some in the United States. The preamble recites that the
Hutterite Brethren Church has continuously existed since the 16th Century, and
that there are at present many widely scattered colonies, for which reason it
is deemed advisable to reorganize the church.
Article 1 defines the name of
the church as the Hutterian Brethren Church. Article 2 defines the objects
and purposes of the church as follows:
(a) To obtain for its members and their dependent minors, as also for
the novices, helpers, children and persons in need under its care, without
distinction of race, class, social standing, nationality, religion, age or sex,
spiritual, cultural, educational and economic assistance based upon the life
and mission of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the spirit and way of the
first Christian community in Jerusalem and of the community re-established by
Jacob Hutter in 1533 at the time of the origin of the "Baptisers'
movement" in such a way that the members achieve one entire spiritual unit
in complete community of goods (whether production or consumption) in perfect
purity in mutual relationships, absolute truthfulness and a real attitude of
peace, confessing and testifying by word and deed that Love, Justice, Truth and
Peace is God's will for all men on earth. All the members, and especially
the Elders, are responsible for carrying out the objects of the Church by
following exactly the spontaneous direction of the Holy Spirit and by mutual
stimulation and education.
(b) Complete dedication in the work for the aims and objects of the
Church is expected from all members thereof.The capital and surplus produce and
surplus funds of each individual congregation or community of the Church is to
be used by such community for social work to which the Church is constantly
dedicated, helping poor, weak and sickly persons who need, ask for and accept
this help, especially children, and for the purchase of lands, stock and
equipment for the use of such congregation or community in order that the
members thereof may maintain themselves and acquire funds for the purposes of
carrying out the aims of the Church.
Article 2 also defines the
powers of "congregations or communities" of the church, which are the
colonies. The powers of the colonies
include the power to hold property of any kind. Article 2(f) gives each colony
the power to make rules, regulations or by-laws so long as they are not
contrary to the Constitution or the law.
The remainder of the
Constitution sets up three levels of authority: the church, the conference and
the colony.
1. The Church and the
Board of Managers
Articles 3 to 18 define the
organization of the church. It is composed of all the
colonies signing the Articles and all those later admitted to membership
pursuant to the Articles. The head office of the church is
in Wilson Siding, Alberta. The church is divided into three
conferences, the Darius-Leut, the Lehrer-Leut and the Schmied-Leut.Each
conference is to select three persons to form a nine-member Board of Managers. These managers then select from
amongst themselves a Senior Elder, an Assistant Senior Elder, and a Secretary. The date of an annual meeting,
later amended to be bi-annual, is established. Provision is also made for
special meetings, on seven days' notice.
Article 6 sets out the powers of
the Board of Managers:
6.The Church dogma and Church discipline and the affairs, powers,
privileges and all matters affecting and pertaining to Hutterian Brethren
generally, shall be administered, managed, exercised, transacted, conducted and
controlled by a Board of nine managers, three of whom shall be appointed by
each of the said Conferences, provided, however, that except as to matters of a
purely administrative nature, no resolution or decision of the said Board shall
be binding or effective until approved, ratified and confirmed by each of the
said Conferences.
2. The Conferences and
the Conference Boards
Articles 19 to 32 set out the
organization of each of the three conferences referred to earlier. The powers of the conference are
to be exercised by a Conference Board, consisting of two delegates from each
colony. These conference boards are to
select from amongst themselves a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. It seems that in practice the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman are referred to as the Senior Elder and Assistant
Senior Elder, as is the case with the Board of Managers of the church. Provision is made for an annual
meeting, and special meetings on four days' notice.
Article 29 sets the quorum as
two thirds of the total members of the Conference Board. The powers of the conference are
set out in Article 23:
23. The Conference Board shall
exercise control over the Church dogma and Church discipline within their
respective Conference, and shall have charge of all matters pertaining to
Hutterian Brethren generally within their respective Conferences, and shall
have power to take such action as they deem meet in respect to matters
affecting or pertaining to the Hutterian Brethren within their respective
Conferences.
3. The Colonies
Articles 33 to 47 set out the
organization of the colonies, referred to as "congregations" or
"communities". Each colony's affairs are to be
governed by its own rules, passed pursuant to Article 2(f). Article 35 sets out two criteria
for membership in a colony. To be a member of a colony, a
person must be a member of the church, and must be elected to membership in the
colony by a vote of its members.
There are a number of Articles
dealing with the ownership of property. No member of a colony owns
property of any kind. All property is owned by the
colony, for the common use and benefit of its members. Upon leaving a colony, or upon
expulsion, a former member is not entitled to any of the colony's property.
According to Article 34, each
colony is a separate economic entity, not being liable for the obligations of
any other colony.
The rights and duties of members
are set out in a number of Articles. The most important of these are
Articles 40, 41 and 43:
40.Each and every member of a congregation or community shall give and
devote all his or her time, labor, services, earnings and energies to that
congregation or community, and the purposes for which it is formed, freely,
voluntarily and without compensation or reward of any kind whatsoever, other
than herein expressed.
41.The members of a congregation or community shall be entitled to and
have their husbands, wives and children, who are not members thereof, reside
with them, and be supported, maintained, instructed and educated by that
congregation or community, according to the rules, regulations and requirements
of that congregation or community, during the time and so long as they obey,
abide by and conform to the rules, regulations, instructions and requirements
of that congregation or community.
43.The husbands, wives and children of each and all of the members of a
congregation or community, who are not members thereof, shall give and devote
all their time, labor, services, earnings, and energies to that congregation or
community and purposes for which it is formed, freely, voluntarily and without
compensation of any kind whatsoever other than as herein provided, and obey and
conform to all the rules, regulations and requirements of the congregation or
community, while they remain in or with the congregation or community.
The expulsion of members is
specifically dealt with in Article 46:
46. Any member of a congregation or
community may be expelled or dismissed therefrom at any annual or general
meeting of that congregation or community upon a majority vote of all the
members thereof, or upon the request of such member, or by his or her having
left or abandoned the congregation or community, or having refused to obey the
rules and regulations and the officers of the congregation or community, or
having refused to give and devote all his or her time, labor, services,
earnings and energies to the congregation or community and the purposes
thereof, or to do and perform the work, labor, acts and things required of him
or her by the congregation or community or to attend and engage in the regular
meetings, worship and service of the members of the congregation or community.
B. The Articles of
Association of Lakeside Colony
The Lakeside Colony's Articles
of Association were originally entered into on November 12, 1987. The preamble recites that the
signatories have associated themselves into a community based on their
religious beliefs, and that they have agreed to enter into the Articles for the
purpose of regulating the affairs of the community.
Article 13 establishes a Board
of Directors which shall have from three to seven members. The Minister of the Congregation
chosen by the church is the President, and the Steward chosen by the
congregation is the Secretary-Treasurer. According to Article 21, the
President is the chief executive officer and head of the colony, and has the
active management of its affairs.
Article 42 establishes that
title to land owned by the colony is to be held by a holding company in trust
for the colony.
The meetings of the colony
members are governed by Articles 4 to 11. Quorum is set at four fifths of
the male members of the Colony, and it is only the male members who may vote. An annual general meeting is
established, of which no notice is necessary. Special meetings may be held on
the order of the President. Notice of a special meeting may
be given by announcement at any church meeting of the colony.
Articles 32 to 35 deal with the
rights and duties of members in the same manner as does the church constitution
quoted above, with minor variations. The question of property
ownership is also dealt with in Articles virtually identical to those in the
church constitution.
The matter of expulsion is dealt
with explicitly, in Article 39:
39. Any member of the Colony may be
expelled or dismissed from the Colony at any general or special meeting of the
Colony upon a majority vote of the voting members thereof for his or her having
left or abandoned the Colony or having refused to obey the rules and
regulations of the Hutterian Brethren Church or of the Colony; for having
refused to give and devote all his or her time, labor, services, earnings or
energies to the Colony and the purposes thereof, or to do and perform the work,
labor, acts and things required of him or her by the Colony, or to attend and
engage in the regular meetings, worship and service of the members of the
Colony.
Any member may resign or withdraw from membership voluntarily.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any member who shall
cease to be a member of the Hutterian Brethren Church shall leave the Colony
and shall have no claim to any property of the Colony. We acknowledge that all
Canadians have the right of freedom of religion, but we hereby covenant,
promise and agree that if any of us shall change his or her religion and shall
cease to be a member of the Hutterian Brethren Church, that he or she shall
leave the Colony.
In the event of any group of members leaving and ceasing to reside in
the Colony, for the purpose of forming a new Hutterian Colony or "daughter
Colony," then those persons moving to the new Colony shall cease to be
members of Lakeside Colony and shall be members of the new Colony.
C. The Act
A corporation named "The
Hutterian Brethren Church" was incorporated by a private Act of Parliament
entitled An Act to Incorporate the Hutterian Brethren Church . This legislation took effect on
May 31, 1951. Section 1 recites the names of
the petitioners for the Act, and incorporates the church. Section 2 establishes the
nine-member Board of Managers. Section 3 establishes the Head
Office at Wilson Siding, Alberta.
Sections 4 and 5 establish the
objects of the church and the powers of the Board of Managers:
4. The objects of the Corporation shall be to engage in and carry on the
Christian religion, Christian worship and religious education and teaching and
to worship God according to the religious belief of the members of the
Corporation.
5. The church dogma and church discipline and all the temporal affairs of
the Corporation shall be administered, managed, exercised, transacted, conducted
and controlled by a board of nine managers.
Section 6 provides for the
enactment of by-laws:
6. The Corporation may, from time to time, make by-laws, not contrary to
law, for
( a )the administration, management and control of property, business and
other temporal affairs of the Corporation;
( b )the appointment, functions, duties and remuneration of all officers,
agents and servants of the Corporation;
( c )the appointment or deposition of the board of managers, or any special
committees or boards from time to time created for the purposes of the
Corporation;
( d )the calling of regular or special meetings of the Corporation of the
board of managers;
( e )fixing the necessary quorum and the procedure to be followed at all
meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph;
( f )determining the qualifications of members;
( g )defining the faith and dogma of the Corporation;
( h )generally carrying out the objects and purposes of the Corporation.
Sections 7 to 15 deal with
various corporate powers.
D. Hutterite Custom and
Practice
Much evidence was lead as to
Hutterite custom and practice in the governing of their affairs, and with
respect to discipline in particular.
1. Discipline Patterns
Evidence was lead that
discipline amongst Hutterites follows a characteristic pattern. When someone discovers that
another is acting in an improper manner, the offending person is to be told
that such action is improper, and asked to desist. If the offending person refuses
to do so, then the aggrieved person is to discuss the matter with a few other
persons, and jointly approach the offending person. If the offending person still
refuses to change his ways, the entire community is called together to consider
the matter, and a form of punishment is imposed.
Forms of punishment in the
Hutterite community are all based on the exclusion of the offending person from
the community, to a greater or lesser extent. The offending person may not be
allowed to sit with the others in church or at meals, or there may be some
other form of exclusion. At its most severe, the
exclusion may be almost complete, so that the colony members will not speak or
listen to the offending person for a time. This is referred to as shunning.
The reaction of the offending
person to the punishment is supposed to be one of repentance and eventual
reconciliation. Indeed, it is said that the
punishment is "offered" to the offender, and the offender is expected
to accept it. If the offender does not, he is
said to excommunicate himself, since the possibility of reconciliation is
spurned.
2. The Role of the
Senior Elder and the Conference
Evidence was lead concerning the
role of the Senior Elder in disputes between a Hutterite and his colony or
between colonies. Apparently it is possible for
any Hutterite to bring a grievance before the Senior Elder, and the Senior
Elder will then decide whether it is a matter which deserves inquiry. If so, the Senior Elder will ask
a number of ministers to investigate the matter, and a further meeting of
ministers may be held to resolve the matter finally.How many ministers will be
involved is at the discretion of the Senior Elder, and depends upon how serious
the matter is.
Aside from this more formal
process, the Senior Elder is often consulted by colonies with respect to any
matter on which they wish advice. In such a case, the advice of
the Senior Elder is not binding on the colony in question.
3. Voting
Evidence was led that Hutterite
meetings tend to operate in terms of reaching consensus rather than always
taking formal votes. Therefore, when the chair of a
meeting indicates a certain position, and no objection is taken, this is seen
as demonstrating a consensus.
E. The Relationship
between the Sources of Authority
The relationship amongst these
various sources for the institutional framework of the Lakeside Colony deserves
some further discussion.
1. The Relationship
between the Constitution and the Articles
From the point of view of the
church Constitution, the Articles of Association are rules contemplated by
Article 2(f) of the Constitution, and are therefore valid only in so far as
they are consistent with the Constitution. While the members of the
Association have contracted amongst themselves with respect to the Articles, they
have also contracted amongst themselves and with other colonies with respect to
the Constitution. Both the Articles and the
Constitution are therefore the source of legal obligation between the members
of the local colony. The same reasoning applies to other
organizations with local associations that are themselves associated, as Blair
JA observed in Organization of Veterans of the Polish Second Corps of the Eighth Army
v. Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada (1978), 20 OR (2d) 321 (CA), at
p. 341:
The relationship between national organizations and their incorporated
local units is contractual. By adherence to the national
organization, the members of the local association are taken to have accepted
its constitution as a contract binding on them and all the members both of the
local and national organization: see Carrothers, Collective
Bargaining Law In Canada (1965), pp. 515-9; Brian G. Hansen, case note 61 Can. Bar Rev. 80 (1978), on Canadian Union of
Public Employees et al. v. Deveau et al.(1977), 19 NSR (2d) 24.
Since both the Articles and the
Constitution create binding obligations, the agreement in Article 2(f) of the
Constitution that the Constitution governs in case of inconsistency must simply
be given effect according to its terms.Therefore, a provision of the Articles
would be invalid if inconsistent with the Constitution.
2. The Relationship
between the Constitution and the Act
The relationship between the
Constitution and the Act is a vexed question. The defendants have argued that
by virtue of the Act, only the nine-member Board of Managers of the church has
the authority to expel a Hutterite. This argument receives some
support from the comprehensive language of s. 5 of the Act, which provides
that church dogma and discipline shall be "administered, managed,
exercised, transacted, conducted and controlled" by the Board of Managers. It is argued that any
unsupervised authority given to the conference or the colony by the
Constitution or the Articles is a subdelegation not authorized by the Act, and
therefore invalid.
However, it is quickly apparent
that for the Act to have such a consequence is quite absurd. It is hardly realistic to expect
a nine-member Board of Managers to supervise actively all matters of discipline
throughout the hundreds of Hutterite colonies in question. This is especially so since
there are real divisions amongst the three conferences, reflected in the fact
that decisions of the Board of Managers, other than those of a purely
administrative nature, must be ratified by each conference. Indeed, as I have noted above,
it is not the actual practice of the Hutterites for the Board of Managers to be
involved in individual cases of discipline.
If the true effect of the Act
were to reserve to the Board of Managers all questions of discipline, then
perhaps such absurdity as this occasions could not be avoided. As Ogilvie pointed out in
"The Legal Status of Ecclesiastical Corporations" (1989), 15 Can. Bus. LJ 74, at p. 81, the law of Parliament would
presumably take precedence over the actual practice of the institution:
Finally, with respect to ecclesiastical law, it should be noted that
there are some private Acts of incorporation which contain provisions at
variance with the principles of church government of the religious body as
incorporated. In these instances, presumably
the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that the provisions in the
private Acts override any internal church law, regardless of the poor
legislative draftsmanship which produced the difficulty.
As Professor Ogilvie notes in a
footnote to this passage, the private Acts in question are typically drafted by
the religious organizations themselves, so that if an absurdity is created, it
is not imposed upon them by the government:
Since private Acts are typically drafted by the religious bodies
themselves, they must take full responsibility for the results of poor
draftsmanship.
However, the true effect of the
Act may not be to reserve all matters of discipline to the Board of Managers. In the Court of Appeal, Huband
JA suggested that the statutory corporation and the association created by the
Constitution were simply not the same entity (at p. 209):
This statutory entity was formed by the Canadian colonies of the three
branches of Hutterianism in order to deal with matters of common concern, and
in particular to resist governmental regulations or restrictions which might be
imposed upon Hutterites. The federal corporation,
however, is not involved in the operation of the Schmeiden-Leut or of the
individual colonies. The federal corporation is
misnamed, for the real Hutterite Brethren Church exists quite apart from the
statutory entity.
This is in accordance with a
brief reference by Pigeon J. to the Act in Hofer v. Hofer , supra , writing in dissent (the
majority did not address the issue of the statutory corporation). Pigeon J. said at p. 982:
It is clear that the Church in this provision of the Articles means the
unincorporated religious community. This is not to be identified
with The Hutterian Brethren Church, a corporation incorporated by the
Parliament of Canada (1951, 15 Geo. VI, c. 77).
This observation echoed the
conclusion of Dickson J. (as he then was) at the trial level in that case (at
p. 8 of the unreported portion of the reasons):
The function of the association is largely to represent the Hutterian
Church whenever matters of common concern, like the introduction of restrictive
legislation in a province, present a common danger. The association has no power in
matters affecting the internal organization of the three component groups.
If the statutory corporation and
the voluntary association were in fact distinct, this would solve the problem,
as the Act would not apply to the association. However, the claim that the two
entities are distinct does not sit comfortably with a number of features of the
Act and the Constitution. The name of the organizations is
the same. They have their head offices in
the same town. They both have a nine-member
Board of Managers, which is given largely the same powers. Most of the initial members of
the boards seem to be the same persons, and the fact that the membership is not
completely identical could be accounted for by the differing effective dates of
the Act and the Constitution.
All this might lead one to
believe that the Act and the Constitution in fact refer to the same
organization. The Constitution would then
presumably have the status of by-laws under the Act. However, this view has its
problems as well. The Constitution is not
expressed in terms of by-laws, but rather as Articles of Association. Indeed, the Constitution was
adopted before the Act was passed.
The minutes of the first meeting
of the Board of Managers shed some light on the matter. The meeting was held on November
7, 1951. The Act was read to the meeting. The church Constitution was also
read, and unanimously "adopted" with certain amendments. New congregations in Montana
were admitted to membership in the church.This was provided for in the
Constitution, but not the Act. General by-laws were adopted,
which dealt largely with matters of a procedural nature.
It is clear from this meeting
that the Constitution does not have the status of by-laws. It is also clear, however, that
the Board of Managers was purporting to act according to both the Act and the
Constitution in the same meeting.This pattern has continued in later meetings,
to this day. For instance, the minutes of the
October 8, 1987 meeting of the Hutterian Brethren Church refer to the
corporation as having been created by a "constitution" and by
"legislation":
1. It was acknowledged that the
name of the Hutterian Brethren Church had been styled the Hutterian Brethren
Church of Canada from time to time and it was resolved by the meeting that any
reference to the corporation in future herein would be properly styled the
Hutterian Brethren Church in accordance with the original constitution and
legislation creating the corporation . It was recognized that there was
no prohibition against any colony in the United States or any place else in the
world becoming a member of the Hutterian Brethren Church. [Emphasis added.]
The statutory corporation and
the association created by the Constitution thus seem neither wholly identical
nor wholly distinct. In analyzing the relationship
between the Act and the Constitution, it is readily apparent that the Act casts
only the top layer of the structure established by the Constitution into
legislative form. This is consistent with the view
that the purpose of the corporation was to deal with external threats that
affected each Hutterite conference equally. To this end, only the top level
of the institutional structure needed to be formalized in the statutory
corporation. Why it was thought that a
statutory corporation was necessary to this end is unclear, but this seems a
logical conclusion.
The church corporation and the
church should therefore be seen as technically distinct entities which in
practice have the same members, and are governed by the same managers at the same
meetings.
The authority within the church
to expel would therefore not be limited to the Board of Managers, since the
statutory corporation governed by the Act is a distinct entity from the church
governed by the Constitution.
3. The Question of Tradition
and Custom
The use of tradition and custom
and the relationship between these and the other sources of authority is
another vexing question. For instance, the defendants
argue that the custom by which the Senior Elder refers questions to a small
group of ministers for binding determination is an impermissible sub-delegation
of the power given to the Conference Board by the Constitution. It is argued that the full
Conference Board must exercise authority of this nature, not a smaller ad hoc
committee appointed by the Senior Elder.
However, to rely exclusively on
the written documents without reference to the tradition and custom of
Hutterites would seem unwise. From a point of view inside the
Hutterite society, it seems probable that tradition and custom are in fact the
highest source of authority, and the written documents are merely imperfect
attempts to capture these sources. Indeed, the Senior Elder of the
Hutterite Church testified to this effect (at p. 537 of the Case on Appeal):
We have our individual practices, could be unwritten reasons of custom
flowing from the origin of the church of the 15th century, and it still is
going on like that. It is not written out, the
ruling laid out with the greatest legalities that are today in the country.
It is only from an external
viewpoint that the written documents and the authority which they outline seem
primary.Indeed, it is difficult for a court to come to a firm conclusion as to
what the tradition and custom are, and correspondingly easier to analyze the
formal legal documents. This is especially so when the
tradition or custom is in dispute, as it will often be when a court is called
on to intervene. Especially in interpreting the
tradition and custom of religious societies, the court is in great danger of
falling into what Professor Chafee called the "Dismal Swamp of obscure
rules and doctrines" (in "The Internal Affairs of Associations Not
for Profit" (1930), 43 Harv. L. Rev. 993, at p. 1024). In this regard, Professor Chafee
makes this observation (at pp. 1023-24):
In very many instances the courts have interfered in these [church
controversies], and consequently have been obliged to write very long opinions
on questions which they could not well understand. The result has often been that the
judicial review of the highest tribunal of the church is really an appeal from
a learned body to an unlearned body.
However, as Professor Chafee
also recognizes, the difficulty of understanding tradition and custom is really
one reason to avoid assuming jurisdiction in the first place. Once the court assumes
jurisdiction, there is no alternative but to come to the best understanding
possible of the applicable tradition and custom. Even in other contexts it has
been held that a sufficiently well-established tradition or custom may be
considered an implied term in the contract making up the Articles of a
voluntary association. For instance, in John v. Rees , [1970] Ch. 345, Megarry J. suggests at p. 388 that long usage can provide
sufficient authority for a set of rules even if they have not been formally
adopted:
In the case of a club, if nobody can produce any evidence of a formal
resolution to adopt a particular set of rules, but on inquiry the officers
would produce that set as being the rules upon which it is habitual for the
club to act, then I do not think the member would be free to reject those rules
merely because no resolution could be proved.
In that case, the rules in
question were written rather than a matter of pure tradition, but the real
question is the authority of rules which have not been formally adopted,
whether written or unwritten.
A long-standing tradition
provides a kind of notice to the member of what rules the association will
follow. We also must remember that
voluntary associations are meant largely to govern themselves, and to do so
flexibly. Therefore, tradition or custom
which is sufficiently well established may be considered to have the status of
rules of the association, on the basis that they are unexpressed terms of the
Articles of Association. In many cases, expert evidence
will be of assistance to the court in understanding the relevant tradition and
custom.
The tradition that a group of
ministers appointed by the Senior Elder can finally decide issues referred to
them by the Senior Elder is a valid rule on this standard. No one disputes that this
tradition exists. The Constitution does not
expressly forbid such delegation. It merely gives the conference
board a certain power without specifying how it is to be exercised. The undisputed tradition is
sufficient to authorize the further delegation of this power.
III. The Requirements for
Expulsion
A. The Applicable Rules
1. Who May Expel ?
It is clear from Article 46 of
the Constitution and Article 39 of the Articles that the colony may expel a
member of the colony from the colony. It also seems logical that
Article 23 of the Constitution gives the conference the power to expel a member
from the church, which would mean that he was automatically expelled from the
colony by virtue of Article 39 of the Articles. This view was expressed by
Ritchie J. in Hofer v. Hofer , at pp. 970-71:
I think it to be implicit in these provisions and in the preamble to the
Articles of Association that no one who was not a member of the Hutterian
Brethren Church could remain a member of the Colony, and that expulsion from
the Church carried with it automatically expulsion from the Colony.
Indeed, what was thought
implicit in the Articles considered by Ritchie J. in that case has been made
explicit in s. 39 of the Articles in this case.
2. The Requirements for
Expelling a Member
In Article 39 of the Articles
and Article 46 of the Constitution, there is reference both to a vote to expel
a member, and various reasons for which a member might be expelled, such as
disobedience. In the Articles, it is
reasonably clear that both these requirements must be met. That is, a member may be
expelled upon a majority vote for various causes. Of course, while a cause is
required, the court will not ordinarily review the merits of the cause.
The Constitution is curiously
inconsistent with the Articles on this point. Article 46 of the Constitution
provides that a member may be expelled upon a majority vote, or upon various causes (as opposed
to for various causes). While this is only a minor
difference in wording, it implies that expulsion may be automatic following
certain causes, without the requirement for a vote.
This implication would be
consistent with the Hutterite understanding that a member expels himself. However, it would be too strong
to say that this implication is entirely in accord with Hutterite practice. For instance, no one has
suggested that there are certain things which automatically bring about
expulsion in any mechanical sense. Indeed, even if the Hutterite
understanding is that the colony does not expel a member but rather that the
member expels himself, the colony must still decide whether a particular member
has in a given situation in fact expelled himself.
The policy of the law on this
point is clear: a vote is normally held to be required unless it is clearly
stated that certain conduct automatically brings about expulsion. This precise point arose with
regard to an Alberta Hutterite Colony in Hofer v. Waldner , [1921] 1 WWR 177 (Alta. SC). Walsh J. dealt with the argument
in the following manner at p. 182:
It is suggested in argument that the plaintiffs have by leaving the
colony at Raley and asking for a part of the church property broken the
condition by which they became members and have therefore ceased to be members. I was rather surprised to read
this argument because of the attitude taken on this question by and on behalf
of the church authorities throughout the trial. The impression left upon my mind
by it was that though the plaintiffs had by their conduct in this matter broken
the rules of the church and laid themselves open to exclusion from membership
in it nothing to accomplish that end had been done by the authorities and the
plaintiffs though offenders against the discipline of the church were still
regarded as having interests which the authorities always had, and were still
willing to, recognize. The frequent form of expression
was that they had not been put out of the church but had put themselves out. I do not think that the
forfeiture of all rights incidental to their membership followed automatically
upon their commission of this offence but that some action to that end was
necessary on the part of the proper authorities and that action has never been
taken.
While the Constitution does
imply that certain causes are sufficient to warrant expulsion without a vote,
it does not state the manner in which these causes are to be determined. Therefore, the Articles are not
inconsistent with the Constitution when they demand a vote in order to
establish cause. In demanding a vote, the
Articles merely fill in a lacuna in the Constitution.
Therefore, a vote is required in
order for a colony to expel a member. Whether a vote has been taken is
essentially a question of fact, and need not be formal. Given the Hutterite preference
for operating by consensus rather than by formal votes if possible, it will be
a question of fact in any given situation whether a consensus has been reached
that is sufficiently unambiguous to qualify as a vote.
I should note that it is
possible to resign from a voluntary association through conduct evidencing an
intention to resign, but it is not suggested that the defendants' conduct in
this case pointed to such an intention.
3. The Requirements for
Expelling a Non-Member
Article 39 of the Articles and
Article 46 of the Constitution deal with the expulsion of members from the
colony.These articles do not apply to the physical expulsion of non-members
from their residence on the colony.
Initially, the expulsion of
non-members does not raise an issue for the court to determine. However, Article 33 of the
Articles and the equivalent Article 41 of the Constitution give members the
right to have their spouse and children, who are not members, reside in the
colony, but only "during the time and so long as they obey, abide by and
conform to the rules, regulations, instructions and requirements of the said
Colony."
Non-members
may therefore only be expelled for failure to abide by and conform to the
rules, regulations, instructions and requirements of the colony. The Articles and Constitution
are silent as to who should make this determination. It is not necessary for the
purpose of this case to resolve that point.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Con todo nuestro agradecimiento y
sincero afecto a nuestros amigos hutteritas y a todos sus familiares y compañeros por todo
lo que de ellos hemos recibido y aprendido en este viaje inolvidable, grabado ya
en nuestros corazones: que la fe siempre os acompañe hasta el fin de vuestros dias
terrenos. ¡GRACIAS!/THANKS!
