Just to name a few:
1) Brown states: "You have been told that here in the United States we have compiled a list of 23,720 names of child abusers. That is false. First of all, the total number of names in our records is considerably lower."
What does "considerably lower" mean? That is a very vague phrase, wide open to interpretation.
For instance, perhaps the person who gave Bill Bowen that number made an error in calculation, and the actual number is 22,720.
Playing games with semantics, Brown would thus be able to state that the number was "considerably lower": "Well, it's a THOUSAND less than Bowen said! How dare he exaggerate in such a fashion!" But as we see, the Society doesn't want to give out a specific number: "In addition, it is not meaningful to focus on the number of names we have in our records." So in other words, *they* have decided for everyone else that it is not meaningful. Others will beg to differ.
2) Brown states: "This is because our figures include the names of many persons who have only been accused of child abuse whereas the charges have not been substantiated."
At least from this we get the interesting tidbit that the Society has "many" names on file. It's also interesting that Brown says these "many persons" have "only" been accused of child abuse. The "only" serves to minimize the significance of the accusations. Obviously innocent people are charged with abuse in some instances, but the point is that the accusations should be taken seriously, not played down.
3) Brown keeps on repeating that their policy is based on the Bible, as if this were obviously a good thing. To the contrary, I think this will put them in quite a pickle.
It's obvious that the "two witnesses" rule does not work for child molestation cases. Even if they expand the definition to permit two separate accusations to stand as valid, as they now have done, this still does nothing to stop the father who secretly abuses his child but only that child, which certainly is not unheard of. A criminal investigation with modern forensic or surveillance techniques might nail the offender, but the Society's method of asking "Did you do it?" will shed no light.
We also know that the Society heavily indoctrinates Witnesses against going to the police or court system, and that trend will certainly continue overall. They're not going to start actively recommending it just because of the bad publicity they are receiving over child molestation.
So if the authorities start to crack down, they will either have to:
A) Admit that the "two witnesses" rule was not Scriptural and be prepared to take action in cases where there are NOT two witnesses.
Or:
B) Keep insisting that the rule is Scriptural and suffer the consequences from the judicial system.
To me, this is one of the most graphic and powerful examples of why trying to rigidly follow a 3,000-year-old book written by men for men is foolish.
comment