by AndersonsInfo 38 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Great news . . . thanks for the update Barbara.
It's starting to look like a back-down and damage control . . . no doubt they will try for discharge without conviction on the basis they have now complied.
The HRC complaint is even better news I believe . . . this could have far reaching effects.
WAY KOOL!
A question for JW Elders: Why the following instructions?...... "contents are not to be made public or shared with members of the congregation."
What does Mother have to hide that she doesn't want you (Elders) to tell your flock? Hmmmmmm.
Amazing! I could see a regime change come from this! This is the time to expose them as misleaders of their flock! If the Witnesses have a backbone they need to kick put these corrupt religious leaders to the curb and disallow them of having any power over children's lives forever!
-Sab
Thanks Barbara for clarifying about your information source. It is appreciated that you do report in a clear and concise manner and obvious that in your own research you aim to do this.
__________
The Victorian WWC check is not just a check on whether the applicant has engaged in pedophilia in the past but is more comprehensive, it is a criminal check and goes beyond just a police check. It includes:
"Broadly, the criminal offences of most significance for a WWC Check are:
It is possible that there would be elders in their position which have committed crimes in the past and have not informed the organisation and will not pass the WWC.
It is great legislation and means that instead of the org claimining that what they didn't know about an elder in the past couldn't hurt them but now it does and they will need to be more responsible.
Would the letter to the BOE be available during the discovery process of the court case? It seems to me that if the publishers were to see this "top secret" direction from the branch that it would case quite a few to wonder about why the organization refused to comply for years and then suddenly reversed course in secret. What a bunch of jackwagons.
SIAM
Seriously? $144,000 fine? Is there ANY real links for documentation for this?
The OP said, "Each of the 35 charges carries a fine of up to Au$144,000 and a criminal conviction."
If that fine was assessed on all 35 charges, that's over 5 million Au dollars in fines! ($5,040,000)
Would be nice to see the WTS have to explain that expenditure to the followers. But 35 criminal convictions would be would be nice too.
Following the topix.com link from above, poster "UGETTHAT" wrote:
As I have found out, a seperate letter was sent to ALL Elders in Victoria telling them that they HAVE to get the WWC. Makes for an interesting Criminal Court Date, October 11 when WTBTS have to show for round 2 of being Criminaly Charged? Mr Unthank spoke to me today and is prepared for WTBTS to plead Not Guilty for not having their members comply with the WWC.
Poster "wasdeceivedonce" followed:
Do those dumbass Watchtower lawyers think complying with the WWC is retroactive?
And the redhorsewoman wrote:
Typical ploy by the WTS...blame the elders and try to paint themselves as following ALL the rules themselves, but those rebellious elders just ignored them. Did they back date the letters?
If the WTB&TS attempts to push it off on the elders, I can't help but think that at lease one of the elders (with a criminal charge against him now?) would wake up and realize that he was royal screwed up the ass, break away from the WT and tell all. It would get out pretty fast that AU elders were thrown under the bus...
MeanMrMustard
I am a registered teacher in Western Australia and I have a Working with Children's card, as is mandatory for all who work with children in most Australian States, i.e. Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia.
The WWC is more strict than the National Criminal History Check which many employers in Australia now insist on. The WWC considers not just convictions for child-related crimes, but also allegations, acquittals and spent convictions (where one is found guilty but no penalty is imposed). A worker with children who has had an allegation made against him/her is not necessarily denied a WWC card. But if there is a pattern of allegations, or "not guilty" verdicts, then the accused would almost certainly be denied a WWC and then could not work with children who are not their own in that State. The rationale is that the protection of children is paramount, and overrides the normal "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
The problem for the Watchtower is that Victoria (like Western Australia and presumably those other WWC States) has legislation that makes it mandatory for doctors, nurses, teachers and police officers to report to the relevant Department for Child Protection any instances of abuse (especially sexual, but also physical and emotional) against children that they become aware of, or have grounds to suspect, even when off-duty. Failure to do so carries major penalties.
So any doctor, nurse, teacher or police officer in an Australian State with WWC laws, who becomes aware that a JW child may have been abused, will have to report it, and then there must be an investigation of the allegations. A JW body of elders which then tries to cover that up, is going to find itself facing criminal charges and if found guilty, even if they escape a fine or prison term, will probably not be able to come in contact with children again who are not their own.
If child-beatings, emotional bullying, and sexual abuse are features of life behind the Australian "Watchtower curtain," then it is difficult to see how this `time-bomb' will not eventually explode into public knowledge. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the future!
Stephen E. Jones
