TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN AUSTRALIA (page 2)

izobcenec

minimus, you are saying that this is a fake letter right?
I mean, scanned letter can also be fake you know, with
a little help of photoshop...

What I'm saying is that this letter doesn't have certain things that a Society letter has. It may be a copy of a letter with the same basic information as a original sent to the bodies of elders .But what was put up is not the real thing....p.s. Why aren't the scriptures identified.?

izobcenec

I have requested original scan from Silentlambs...
minimus: what do you mean with this: "Why aren't the scriptures identified.?"
(my bad english :)

minimus

I just reread your edited version. I was looking at the original posting. All looks well....got to go to work.

hawkaw

Just some points that few seem to even think about on this board and else where.

All baptized publishers are considered "ordained ministers" by the WTS. The law requires ALL clergy to forwith report the abuse to the authorities. But what happens?? The ordained ministers or baptized publishers must report to the elders first and then the elder reports - clearly breaking the law of "forthwith reporting".

All parents must report to the authorites. JWs who are parents are taught not to go to the authorities as required by law but are taught to go to the elders first and then if they wish (only since Feb. 2002) they can go to the authorities - again clearly breaking the law of "forthwith reporting".

This delay in reporting can cause problems - may it be more abuse during the delay or it may "tamper the evidence" as in the Vicki Boer case.

Another problem - few releaize is just who are the authorities. In Canada .... the WTS NEVER goes to the police. They only go to Children's Aid or Children's Services. The police are only brought in by the case workers. The WTS also attempts to prevent any judicial hearing minutes from getting into the hands of the Police and it has taken precedent setting cases (Regina v. Connell, 1996 and Regina v. J.P.P., 2000/1) to get the Judicial Committee hearing notes released.

And here is a real kicker that few recognize .... if the rape occurred when the victim is a child but that child reported it when she/he was an adult ... the WTS elders WILL NOT REPORT the abuse.

Why??? Well in their beloved WTS legal mind, the "bozos are us guys" think that since the reporting victim is now an adult (over 18) .... there is no need to report a historical "child incident" of rape to Children's Services (examples are Regina v. Tom Connell, Brockville, Ontario, 1996, Vicki Boer v. Watchtower, Toronto, Ontario).

The problem with WTS legal's thinking is that the statute (Ontario's Child and Family Services Act) does not have an age limit on reporting. Any case of child rape, no matter what the present age of the victim is, must, by law, be reported to Children's Aid in ontario, Canada because there may be other children in the home at risk or in the neighbourhood at risk.

What a bunch of legal numskulls.

hawk

ozziepost

G'day izobcenec,

Got your two emails. Many thanks.

Cheers, Ozzie

hippikon

other Bible principles that must be weighed against the need for confidentiality. - Since when was fear of being sued a bible based principle

bluesapphire

These letters containing flat out lies from the society have got to be weighing a toll on current elders if they have a conscience. Imagine being told something by the society that you KNOW is not true. I think the society continues to dig itself deeper and deeper. And I hope it continues.

Buster

I still get a jolt out their reasoning: If the state requires reporting, they report. Though I have never seen a WT publication say so, if the state doesn't require reporting, they don't.

So, it is a Chistian act to report in a state that requires it:

regardless of whether there are two witnesses,
regardless of whether the accused denies the charge,
regardless of the existance of corroberating evidence

Yet it is also a Christian act to not report if the state doesn't not require it:

even though you may have more than one witness
even though the accused may admit the charge
even though you may have further evidence

It just depends on whether the state requires it?

Thats a tough one to swallow.

A Paduan

Apart from all the horseshit that makes up the body of the letter, it basically amounts to the conclusion:

"If an elder learns of some serious crime..........."

That isn't about allegations:

By this letter, even crimes are up for debate of confidentiality.

Instruction for allegations is addressed at the start.

August 25, 1989 "they should contact the Society's Legal Department immediately"

November 1, 1995 "the elders should contact the Society immediately"

paduan

Edited by - a paduan on 5 November 2002 22:39:24

TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS IN AUSTRALIA

Share this