Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks 343 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  cedars

  jamesmahon

  Cedars. Have you read the NSPCC report?

  I can go one better than that. I've actually consulted with the NSPCC over JW policy, so you can drop the patronizing attitude.

  If you're seriously suggesting for one moment that extracting and publicizing the paedophile list will not serve to prevent children from being molested in the future (with DT's last comment being just one example of how this would be so) then you are on your own, my friend.

  Like I said, sometimes your arguments are lucid, but on this one you seem to be existing in another reality.

  Cedars
• 

  jamesmahon

  Flipper. Are the NSPCC child abuse apologists? You know you really have a witch hunt when someone can't say this is a witch hunt without being called a witch. Why don't you go full hog and accuse me of being a child molestor? Tell you what, I will just be a sheep like everyone else and say this is great. Sure the evidence says at best this will make sod all difference to protecting children and at worst make children more at risk plus leading to a load of people being tarred as molestors when they are not but hey, who cares? The watchtower may get a bashing and that is all that matters right?

  DT. Your argument might hold water but if it does then what about the ones that have been removed as elders because there activities are known by the rest of the congregation. Because of that knowledge the community may have been safer (which is what I believe you are all arguing here - knowledge results in the offendor not being able to offend). Now this list does one of two things. Either everyone shrugs their shoulders and goes 'huh, so what. We knew anyway' or some new people in the cong find out and go ballistic wanting the man out of their midst. Fair enough. Except now he goes to another congregation where they don't know who he is and finds he is able to abuse again. And please, the idea it takes years for a child molestor to groom a child is ridiculous. Especially in a religion where adults are encouraged to go door to door with children.

  To be honest all this speculation is moot. Argue with the NSPCC about their findings. I was pointing out that the evidence is that releaing this list is counterproductive. The logic is that this is counterproductive. There is a good chance that innocent people and their families will be harmed for the rest of their lives because of its release. And that anonymous should be far more intelligent about their target if they want to bring it down. If that makes me an apologist of any sort than so be it. I can live with that if it means standing up to people I respect if I think they are wrong.
• 

  cedars

  jamesmahon

  I was pointing out that the evidence is that releaing this list is counterproductive. The logic is that this is counterproductive. There is a good chance that innocent people and their families will be harmed for the rest of their lives because of its release.

  If the info is released it will cause a HUGE media storm surrounding the child abuse policies of Jehovah's Witnesses that will...

  • Force the Governing Body to at least consider FINALLY bringing their policies in line with the law, thereby resulting in future cases of child abuse being handled properly and THEREFORE more child molesters being prosecuted after the first offence and THEREFORE sparing countless victims from ever being molested
  • Seriously damage the credibility of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion, resulting in less people joining the religion and therefore less children being put at risk

  As DT mentioned, the data may name and shame some paedophiles who are currently serving in positions of "trust" within the organization and force them away from these positions, thus compromising their ability to ensnare JW children. Yes, they will always be paedophiles, but their ability to act with impunity in a community setting will be severely compromised.

  For God's sake man - just think it through before you go mouthing off. Regardless of the NSPCC report - nothing of this magnitude has happened to any organized religion before, so there simply isn't a precedent to be considered as "evidence", as you describe it. Your assertions are based on nothing.

  Cedars
• 

  jamesmahon

  Cedars

  You know I was not being patronising. This from the preface of the NSPCC report on Megan's Law (making the names of convicted child molestors known to the public)

  There is no evidence that Megan’s Law reduces reoffending. However, there is some evidence that it may have unintended negative consequences for children.

  About as unambigous a statement you can get. Which is why I was wondering if you had read it. The whole report is full of evidence that would seem to contradict what is common sense. The authors acknowledge this and that the message about what really stops child molestors needs to be better set out to the public.

  I appreciate having spoken to the NSPCC that they will say the whole WTBTS policy around child abuse protects offenders and does not protect children. I have not argued against this at all. I have merely continued to reiterate that releasing this list - the existence of which is public knowledge anyway - will not protect children and will result in some innocent people having their lives ruined. Perhaps you should ask the NSPCC if they think that such a list should be made public over the internet. I am guessing they would say no. But each to their own opinion.

  I do resent the suggestion that I am somehow either an idiot or an apologist for molestors for suggesting that the evidence says this is counterproductive.
• 

  Soldier77

  The point is that bad publicity in any form will help take down the WTBTS. Once they go down the members are no longer in an environment to abuse children. No, this will not eliminate abuse on the grand scheme of things, but one less cult around the better.

  There are other things that Anonymous could go after as well.Once you get into their system, you can mine it for anything, scandals, money transfers, financial backers, investments, documents that are "top secret" and they wouldn't want the rank and file to know etc.

  Look at the big picture, stop focusing on just one type of attack. The more holes in their ship, the faster it will sink.
• 

  cedars

  jamesmahon

  You keep comparing issues surrounding Megan's Law with the leaking of names held on the Watchtower database by Anonymous, but I put to you that they are NOT the same.

  Here is the definition of Megan's Law as descibed in the report...

  ‘Megan’s Law’ is the term used to describe the use
  of compulsory ‘community notification’ for convicted
  sex offenders in the United States. The law
  enables police forces to provide members of the
  public with information about known sex offenders
  who are living locally. The law aims to promote
  public and community safety by increasing awareness
  of sex offenders who are thought to be at high
  risk of re-offending. Megan’s Law is not an evidence-
  based policy but was adopted in the US in
  response to a series of high profile crimes against
  children.

  Much of the report describes scenarios in which pedophiles are forced to comply with legislation aimed at exposing them, for example...

  A clear example of this is where sex offenders
  decide to ‘go underground’ in an attempt to evade
  the notification and supervision requirements associated
  with Megan’s Law. This problem has been
  widespread in the US with non-compliance levels
  for states such as California as high as 30 per
  cent.2 When offenders have absconded they can be
  extremely difficult to locate, even when an arrest
  warrant has been issued. Offenders who have
  gone underground are a greater threat to children
  as they cannot be monitored, nor made subject to
  treatment and supervision.

  This is describing the requirement for registered offenders to observe "notification and supervision" requirements. It has nothing to do with elders etc who have thus far evaded the law thanks to the protection of a religious organization being "outed" by the actions of a rogue element, such as Anonymous.

  What is proposed is a one-off release of information that will cause insurmountable damage to an umbrella religious institution that allows pedophiles to molest children repeatedly without the authorities being alerted. This will unquestionably hinder the organization's ability to continue with its policies and/or retain credbility for attracting new converts and potential victims. The direct comparisons with the NSPCC's response Megan's Law (which you call "evidence") are therefore highly misleading and frankly absurd.

  What is your problem? Why can't you think of the potential victims who will be spared in all of this?

  Cedars
• 

  jamesmahon

  Cedars.

  It seems you are dismissing the findings of the NSPCC report that this activity is likely to harm children in the hope that it will cause terminal damage to the WTBTS. I'm afraid you are dismissing the report and don't understand why. Releasing the names of child molestors has been done before and does not stop molestation. The evidence is clear. Just because this is a list of religious people we happen not to like does not make that any different. And as said ad nauseum the evidence is on convicted molestors. People who are monitored regularly (hopefully) by police. Somehow because these people are only accused and not convicted they are going to behave more responsibly? You have lost me there.

  You have latched onto DTs one suggestion how this may stop child molestation and ignored all the reasons I have given that it will increase the risk of molestation. Reasons that are supported by evidence.

  You have already talked of 'casualties of war'. Some of these casualties will be children who either are abused by molesters going awol or simply the children of wrongly accused men. I think maybe you should have a good think through whether these casualties are acceptable for your aim. Even if it is acheived. I just think they could cause more damage and have fewer casualties if they went to the source of the policies, which anonymous may well be doing.

  I really do not mean to be patronising. This is clearly a very serious and emotive issue. My own personal view is that child molestors should be executed on the grounds that they are never going to be safe to have in the community and so the only alternative is permanent incarcaration. I care as deeply about these issues as anyone and not sure why anyone would suppose because I have said - "look, this is not going to work and may make things worse" I am being pounced on. I would just ask that people do read the NSPCC report. If you disagree with it and the conclusions they draw and I take from it than fine. Lets talk about that. Or if you disagree with my logic of what will happen then please do so as well. Like I said from the outset I am happy, as always, to be wrong on this. Simply saying my assertions are based on nothing when, to be fair, that is clearly not the case is not helpful. Why do you think the NSPCCs' findings are not translatable? Why do you think that the types of people I listed as being named will stop offending because the list has been published?
• 

  blindnomore

  James,

  I am not talking written theory nor statistic. I am talking real affair that involves real human victims and real human predators and general laws that designed to protect criminals than victims. That is a hard reality!

  Why should anyone like Anonymous after the Watchtower? It's Watchtower's long overdue homework not mine.

  In the US, I understand it's illegal to posting victims(regardless of their ages) identities in public without their consent. I don't see where your concerning of victims being publicized coming from.

  I once upon a time had your sentiment until I was faced with the real truth. Do you know how many days and nights I weep over potential innocent young victims that I don't even know of? The predator who hurt my child is very much capable of hurt anyone who he come across just to fulfill his desire. Absolutely no remorse or any regard toward another human being! My child and I will come out publickly if we can stop this human parasite and his compliance, the Watchtower, from futher hurting other children. My concerning is toward helpless victims not the system.

  If you have a problem with my number, it's really your problem. It's not hard to figure. Do you doubt at least 1000s of sexual crimes would take place annually in the US alone? Appox. about 1 percent of those will eventually see their days in court. Convicting the perpetrators is another story.
• 

  flipper

  JAMESMAHON- I didn't SAY you were a child molester, just a child molester/ WT / JW apologist. Unless I'm hitting a nerve that's getting a bit too close for comfort for you. You seem to be getting quite in the uproar about defending this list of 23,000 alleged pedophiles. I'll ask you this : You state that most all on that list have NOT been convicted of child abuse . How do you know ? Have you seen the list ? Do you have access to the list inside Bethel ? There have been plenty of convicted child molesters who have served years in prison , then have been let out after doing time for the crime- who re-offend again committing child molestation crimes again ! Including a number of current Jehovah's Witnesses still freely attending meetings stalking new potential victims.

  I know people on this board who have told me this and have brought it to elders, Circuit Overseers, and Bethel legals attention - and you know what response they have received ? " Wait on Jehovah " , " don't concern yourself with it sister, you need to attend meetings and make your faith in the organization stronger " . How in the hell does a person do THAT when it's the WT organization committing the crime hiding, protecting, and not reporting child abusers ?

  So Mr. James- the only way to force the WT society to cough up the evidence is to FORCE them to cough it up by lawsuits like Candace Conti's and Anonymous organizations infiltrating and seizing any and all evidence of crimes being committed. Unless you'd rather it be buried under the rug and innocent children go on for decades being sexually abused ? I hope that's not what you desire
• 

  cedars

  jamesmahon

  The evidence is clear.

  Where have I heard that kind of absolutist terminology before?!

  I don't disagree with the NSPCC report. It's just talking about something almost completely different than what is being proposed. It's a shame you can't see that. I wonder why you can't.

  Here is a link for anyone who wishes to read the report for themselves...

  http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/policyandpublicaffairs/sexoffendermanagement_wdf50066.pdf

  Yes, there are legitimate reasons for concern about the proposed intervention by Anonymous, the radicalization of our cause being one of them. I just don't think you have a hope in hell of convincing people with your bizarre "no children will be spared from abuse as a result of this" assertions. I consider quite the reverse will be true, for the reasons expressed above which I notice you choose not to address in any detail.

  Cedars