by AndersonsInfo 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
It sounds like thelaw was new and there was a new agency getting its hands around the law. The websites talk of 'phasing' it in. I know governments are, generally, super slow and want another department or division to handle soemthing they never have ("not my department"). Perhaps the WT wanted to drag its feet, and coud do so because it was a new law?
I, too, woner how all of this will play out! Time will tell.
Scripture classes are where a school has a religious session for students. Usually the class will break into groups, so each child is educated by a religious teacher regarding their own beliefs. For instance, all the Catholics get together and have a lesson from a Catholic trained religious teacher. Australia is just starting to introduce an ethics class for children that do not want to be taught about religion. JW's generally will go and wait in the library whilst scripture class is being conducted.
Pioneers used to take Scripture classes, or one of the children's parents. I used to take a class sometimes when I was pioneering and really enjoyed it - far better counting time for that than slogging the pavements.
know governments are, generally, super slow and want another department or division to handle soemthing they never have
I think that is the issue here. I spoke with the Working with Children Check Unit, and they explained that whilst they issue the notices it is not their jurisdiction to prosecute for failure to comply. That belongs to the Victorian police. When Steven went to the police they basically ignored his requests. Steven had to threaten in writing to sue the Victorian police for failure to investigate the matter before they agreed to take this issue further.
Perhaps, Steve2, if you set time aside and read the 664-page "Submission 2011" you will find Mr. Unthank's discussion about the police taking no action against the Watch Tower for non-compliance. It's a very interesting read. In fact, in my first post on this topic, I included remarks of a high-ranking police official who showed indifference to the issue when he said:
"If any members of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned about the [sexual or physical] safety of their children then they should leave the church."
- direct quote from Sergeant Ralph Walker, Victoria Police liaison officer, March 2011, in relation to criminal breaches of the Working with Children Act 2005 being committed by the Watch Tower Society.
For what it's worth it has been my experience that it is wise to have a wait and see attitude before passing judgment. No one is saying that Mr. Unthank's action is a slam-dunk but it looks as if he is stirring up a hornet's nest and it will be fascinating to see who will get stung. One thing I do know is that we definitely don't know all the facts because Mr. Unthank hasn't revealed them all yet. I understand that he's keeping many items to himself for the time being.
We will continue to follow this story with interest.
The Australian government is a liberal democratic one, not prone to bashing minorities, cultural or religious. No one in government circles wants to be seen openly criticising religious groups who in the main are considered law abiding, tax-paying citizens. The only oomph the court action would ever get is from individuals hellben on axe grinding. I am no champion of JWs, but I would not be alone in stating that if the government came down on them hard and fast, the JWs would win vast support from a wide range of groups in Australia who believe the government already meddles in too many affairs.
Besides, any sane person who reads Steve Unthank's proposal on what the Watchtower Society should be forced to sign has got to be just a little unhinged. Having said that, nothing convinces like action...but I won't be holding my breath.
This is off topic, and I apologize in advance. I did just performed a search of "watchtower" on an Australian legal database. I have access to foreign databases through my school. This is off topic, but you guys must see this. It is regarding JWs and adoptions in Australia. They felt they were being discriminated against in adoptions because of the blood ban on children. What is interesting is their defense.
They basically argue that JWs shouldn't be discriminated because of the blood issue because a doctor can just order the kid to take blood anyway. Here it is:
The wishes of birth parents
Religion
6.80Jehovah’s witnesses. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, the organisation representing Jehovah’s Witnesses, has submitted that adoption practice has discriminated against Witnesses, at least in part because of their refusal to agree to accept blood transfusions for their children. The suggestion is that adoption policy has been based on the fear that a child adopted by Jehovah’s Witnesses could be placed in a dangerous or life threatening situation because of the refusal of the parents to consent to a transfusion, and that the child is at an increased risk of losing one or both parents by their refusal to submit to such treatment themselves.
6.81 The Society has submitted that such discrimination is unjustified because blood transfusion therapy is merely one of many available forms of medical treatment, and that doctors possess statutory authority to administer a transfusion in an emergency, which includes the power to override the possible objections of the parents concerned. 49 In regard to the risk posed by one or both of the parents dying through the refusal of a transfusion, the submission argued that there are other behaviours, such as smoking and driving a motor car, which are far more likely to cause death, and which are not subject to adverse assessments where adoption selection is concerned. The submission also referred to the ADB’s 1984 publication, Discrimination and Religious Conviction, which criticised the double standard by which some religious groups were forced to meet more exacting standards by requiring them to account for “remote hypothetical possibilities.” 50
6.82 Adoption law and practice should proceed on the basis that children are entitled to proper medical advice and treatment, and the merits of blood transfusions should be considered medically in each case. The Society’s point is well taken that the law provides for blood transfusions without parental consent in life-and-death emergencies, 51 and in other cases it is possible to seek a court order allowing the transfusion. The Commission’s provisional view is that the law and practice should not distinguish between Witnesses and other people, although it is entirely reasonable that the assessment of all applicants should take into account, among other things, their willingness to provide appropriate medical care to children they might adopt. The Commission is inclined to agree with the ADB that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be required to sign a form stating their agreement to blood transfusions. {That's too bad they didn't make them do this}
I had a discussion with a witness friend inAustralia about the child abuse situation there. I looked it up and apparently it is not mandatory to report child molesters where she lives. She did say however that a Brother read a letter at their hall that said that they wanted all child molestors reported , even though the law didn't require it..I later found out that the brother that gave the talk, his daughter had been molested. She didn't say if it was a witness or not that did it. Just thought, did it take something to hit home before they bothered to do anything about it?
I am going to ask her if they know or have discussed the "Working with Children Act 2005"...
Snoozy
Coming back to this tonight...
two things are certain:
1) the Watchtower considers itself above the law
2) they will drag it out as long as they can and try to destroy Steven Unthank.
oz
Your work is included in the WWC Check if you are:
To help you answer this question, you should discuss the nature of your role with your employer, agency or volunteer organisation.
‘Direct contact’ is any contact with a child that involves any of the following:
Direct contact does not include telephone, email or internet contact with a child.
To be considered ‘directly supervised’, your supervision must be:
Direct supervision does not require constant physical presence. For example, a person who is directly supervising a worker may leave the room in which they are engaging in the work to make a phone call.
Snoozy
jwfacts: I remember hearing about the scripture classes but not taking any real notice at the time. Did they give any reason (other than the truth) as to why they stopped doing this? I seem to remember asking, but didn't get that answer.
