FindLaw Article by Marci Hamilton on Child Abuse w/ JW Update

by Justitia Themis 2 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20070125.html

    Clergy Abuse Developments, in Denmark and California, Regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church, and an Oscar-Nominated Documentary
    By MARCI HAMILTON ----

    Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007

    The Jehovah's Witnesses religious organization is rightly credited with establishing important free speech precedent in the United States. Among other landmark cases, the organization secured decisions recognizing the right to avoid having the government force one to say the Pledge of Allegiance, in West Virginia Board of Ed. v. Barnette, and recognizing the right to peaceably proselytize in Cantwell v. Connecticut. The recent documentary "Knocking" focuses on their contributions in this arena.

    It is extraordinarily ironic, then, that the Jehovah's Witnesses have recently, in Denmark, taken the position that speech, including speech by the press, should be punished and suppressed. It appears that when the topic is alleged clergy abuse within the organization, its position on freedom of speech makes a 180-degree turn. Apparently, the Jehovah's Witnesses support free speech for themselves, but not for their critics.

    The Facts, Allegations, and Outcome in the Denmark Case

    The case began when, in Fall 2004, one of Denmark's largest newspapers, Ekstra Bladet, ran a series of newspaper articles regarding credible allegations of sexual molestation within the Jehovah's Witnesses, and of a cover-up. The articles' titles (as translated) included "Jehovah-Leader Hides Child Molesting," "Keep Quiet About Sexual Molesting," and "Jehovah-Order: Keep Quiet About Child Molesting," as well as others.

    The newspaper reported that those who very credibly claimed they were victims of childhood sexual abuse within the organization were compelled to keep their claims secret. Like the Boston Globe's series on the Boston Archdiocese's cover-up of clergy abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, which ran five years ago, this series focused not only on the actions of individuals, but on the organization-wide policies that led to institutional secrecy about child abuse allegations. The series focused, as well, on the impact of the policies, and the underlying alleged abuse, on victims and their families.

    The local Jehovah's Witnesses Branch Office Committee, composed of seven members who govern the organization, sued the newspaper, Ekstra Bladet, and its Chief Editor, Bent Falbert, for slander. They demanded 350,000 kroner and that the Chief Editor be criminally charged with slander. Last December, Judge Anne Grethe Stockholm rejected all of their claims, and ordered them to pay the other side's legal fees, which amounted to 50,000 kroner.

    The court reasoned that the topics addressed were newsworthy, and a matter of public interest, and that the stories discussing these topics contained legitimate legal analysis.

    Rulings in the Proceedings Against the Witnesses and Others in California

    Meanwhile, in California, the Jehovah's Witnesses there are facing lawsuits brought by alleged child sexual abuse victims, as well - and also losing on key issues. In an October 2006 ruling, for example, a Napa court ruled that the clergy-penitent privilege does not cover communications within the organization regarding alleged childhood sexual abuse.

    Column continues below ?

    Ads by Google
    Online trading account CyberTrader Active Trading -- Buy Stocks thru Powerful Trading Tools www.cybertrader.com
    Forex Investments Open An Account & Start Trading Now Register for Free Practice Account. www.FXSol.com
    OptionsHouse Flat Rate Options Trading $9.95 per Trade + $0 per Contract www.optionshouse.com
    E*TRADE Securities Open an Account Online at E*TRADE for Trading & Investing. ETRADE.com
    $2.05 Per Side All-In No Account Minimums $400 Daytime Margins www.jrfutures.com


    Meanwhile, the Catholic Church in California has made the same argument, and has also lost. Rightly so: Discussions of crimes allegedly committed by organization members are hardly the kind of religious communications the priest-penitent privilege is meant to protect.

    A Well-Deserved Oscar Nomination Emphasizes the Role of Free Speech in Ending Clergy Abuse and Gaining Justice for the Victims

    Meanwhile, California is currently important in the fight against clergy abuse in another way, as well: In Los Angeles, recently-announced Oscar nominations included a richly-deserved one for the stark and disturbing documentary, "Deliver Us from Evil." As I discussed in a previous column, the film features troubling interviews with a priest child-abuse perpetrator, one Fr. O'Grady -- who was under the watch of L.A.'s Cardinal Mahony. This film has so much power, it truly deserves to win the Award.

    Free speech and a free press - as well as open civil discovery - are key to vanquishing clergy abuse and giving justice to victims. When the Boston Globe broke the Catholic Church scandal in the U.S. five years ago, very few even knew about clergy abuse outside the Church. Thus, it's unclear whether a shocking film like "Deliver Us from Evil" more likely would have been treated as an exception, rather than evidence of a deep, appalling institutional problem.

    Now, not only has the Church proved to be incapable of keeping its ugliest secrets, but its public relations campaign has utterly failed. The long era when no one would have dared portray the Church in the light that "Deliver Us from Evil" casts upon it, is gone for good.

    The Jehovah's Witness lawsuit in Denmark shows the same internal dynamic as in the Catholic Church, and based on the allegations, the institutions have adopted matching strategies: hide as much as possible and when exposed, go on the offensive. Somehow, these institutions came to believe that they have a right to an internal, secret sphere where they cannot be held accountable for their culpability in the suffering of children. Fortunately, both Danish and California courts, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, are proving them to be very wrong

  • metatron
    metatron

    Watchtower Defeat in Denmark Court!

    metatron

  • sf
    sf

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/01/31/3491006-cp.html

    B.C. seized 3 of surviving sextuplets By STEVE MERTL

    VANCOUVER (CP) - B.C. government social workers seized three of four surviving sextuplets on the weekend so they could receive blood transfusions over their parents' religious objections and Supreme Court of Canada precedent, the family's lawyer says.

    But the province abruptly handed control of the infants back to the parents Wednesday when they challenged the seizure in court. The parents, who cannot be identified under a court-ordered publication ban, are Jehovah's Witnesses whose beliefs forbid blood transfusions even to save a life.

    The sextuplets were born the first weekend in January almost four months premature and two had died before the province's director of child, family and community service stepped in last Friday.

    Lawyer Shane Brady said the parents did not oppose "mainstream" medical treatment. But they expressly ruled out blood transfusions for the struggling babies, indicating they wanted to seek medical alternatives.

    The government got a provincial court judge to issue an unchallenged seizure order for one of the babies Friday at B.C. Children's Hospital.

    Social workers seized two others over the weekend after doctors indicated they too should receive blood transfusions, according to a court affidavit by the babies' father.

    "The family is very upset that the government treated them in the way it did," Brady said outside court. "It's like a hit and run."

    The family got wind of the government's plans last week. The babies were seized in spite of the parents' pleas for a hearing, Brady said after Wednesday's hearing in B.C. Supreme Court.

    The government withdrew the seizure order at the hearing but the court has scheduled another hearing Feb. 22-23 so the parents can challenge province's conduct.

    "The family appealed what the government did and has brought an application for judicial review, saying that the government violated what the Supreme Court of Canada said 10 years ago," said Brady.

    He said a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1995 gave parents the right to present evidence at a hearing in such matters. In 1999, the high court affirmed that, saying it is a fundamental right of Canadian society.

    "Parents are entitled to a fair hearing," said Brady. "It may be abridged but they're entitled to a fair hearing.

    Children and Families Minister Tom Christensen refused to discuss the case specifically, citing privacy law.

    But he said doctors have an obligation to go to ministry authorities when they believe a child is in danger.

    "We don't take any such action without a great deal of forethought, recognizing that it's a significant step for the state to interfere in a family," Christensen said.

    "But we want to ensure in every case that children are receiving the attention they require."

    A child's welfare trumps a family's religious beliefs, Christensen indicated.

    "Our obligation to protect children is paramount," he said in Victoria.

    Apprehending a child is a last resort, Christensen said.

    "The ministry will always take the least intrusive option that we have," he said.

    Brady said the transfusions made little difference in the medical state of any of the children, who remain in stable condition.

    Brady has represented several Jehovah's Witness children in the courts in recent years, including 17-year-old Bethany Hughes of Calgary, who died of leukemia in 2002 after her father battled his daughter and her mother for her to have blood transfusions during her treatment.

    The first of the six B.C. babies were born Jan. 6 with the rest born Jan. 7. They were premature at 25 weeks and each was not much bigger than an outstretched hand.

    Hospital president Dr. Liz Whynot said at the time the babies were in fair condition after their births.

    Doctors said babies born at that stage have an 80-per-cent chance of surviving to leave the hospital and still could face major health problems due to the immature development of their organs and immune systems.

    Brady said the government's action in recent days was even more inexplicable given the babies' odds of survival.

    In his affidavit, the father said doctors suggested early in the pregnancy that the fetuses could be selectively aborted.

    And just before they were born, doctors told the parents to decide if they wanted the infants to have help breathing - that without resuscitation they would die.

    "The parents respect the sanctity of life - that's their religious views - and they chose resuscitation," said Brady.

    "Two weeks later the government completely turns around and says we're going to take the children away from you.

    "Two weeks ago, if the parents were so inclined, they could have refused resuscitation. It was their choice. Today, the government wanted to interfere. It doesn't make sense."

    ___________________________

    Bradys blatant hypocrisy and con-traDICK-tions are absolutely ridiculously funny, in a very sad and dangerous way.

    May he reap the blood he sows.

    sKally

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit