My, my, what games you play, Bill. Talk about ambiguity! I guess no body should have thought asking for straightforward and unambiguous answers would elicit straightforward and unambiguous answers. Guess we’ll have to now ask that Bill interpret his responses so we can get answers.
Question 1:If presented with a situation where a minor comes to you and says they had been abused but persisted that they would not talk about their experience to anyone who would automatically report the matter to authorities, would you offer them help on the condition of leaving the prerogative of reporting to them or would you turn them away?
Bill’s response:Neither, I would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and I would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. That is what mature adults do when they wish to help children.
Should I interpret your response to mean:
A. Yes, I would help them in spite of the condition that I not automatically report, and later hopefully they will agree to remove the condition of not reporting, maybe even reporting the matter themselves.
Or:
B. Regardless of the child’s feelings I will report to authorities whatever I know of this child being abused, even if it means the child will not let me help them beyond the initial query to me.
For those concerned, in this situation I would go with B. Because children are not generally competent to understand or know what is or might be in their best interest, regardless of the child’s feelings I would report to authorities whatever I know of a child being abused, even if it means the child will not let me help them beyond their initial query to me. (Bill: this is an example of a straightforward and unambiguous answer)
Question 2:If the person were an adult victimized in childhood with the same request, what would you do?
Bill’s response:I would help the adult see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. If they then made the personal decision to not sign complaint papers then I would have done all that I can do other than warn anyone who I may know personally who has contact with the molester.
Should I interpret your response to mean:
A. Yes, I would help them in spite of the condition that I not automatically report, and later hopefully they will agree to remove the condition of not reporting, maybe even reporting the matter themselves.
Or:
B. Regardless of the person’s feelings I will report to authorities whatever I know of them being abused as a child regardless of whether they are willing to sign complaint papers, even if it means the victim will not let me help them beyond the initial query to me.
For those concerned, in this situation I would go with A. Because adults are generally competent to understand and know what is or might be in their best interest I would respect their decision to not report their victimization to authorities by agreeing to abide to the initial condition that I not automatically report it myself. I would probably not agree with an adult making a choice not to report, but I would respect their initial request and my agreement with it by virtue of going ahead and helping them as much as I could otherwise. (Bill: this is an example of a straightforward and unambiguous answer)
To avoid redundancy, the same set of requests for clarification is made in respect to the child and/or adult voicing request to an elder, assuming a change at some time in the future where WTS policy would require that elders always encourage victims to report criminal allegations to authorities, which has to do with the third question I asked.
Bill,
If you persist with your weasel worded answers then we can only conclude you do not want to be understood. For me that will be the end of trying to clarify my understanding of what you have to say. My efforts to help victims of child abuse among Jehovah’s Witnesses will then continue but without worry for how it might overlap, contradict or complicate your efforts. Indeed, how could I do different! Such a situation would be a pity, but so far it is unavoidable. No one can join efforts with a person who refuses to make themselves clear in the face of basic questions expressly for that purpose! Frankly, a person who refuses to make themselves clear usually has something to hide. Whether it is personal ego or failings of some other nature most will never know, or really care. The pity is that a stronger team to help child victims will have been defeated! And by what? Refusal to give straightforward and unambiguous answers! What a damn shame!
