NEWS - VICKI BOER CASE - Canadian Press - Sep 24

by hawkaw 18 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Just released from the Canadian Press

    hawk

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/020924/6/p5hm.html

    Tuesday September 24 4:18 PM EST

    Lawsuit against Jehovah's Witnesses should be dismissed, defence says
    By JAMES MCCARTEN

    TORONTO (CP) - A civil suit against the Canadian wing of the Jehovah's Witnesses and three of its elders is based on petty grudges, dubious evidence and a loose interpretation of the law, a lawyer argued Tuesday.

    Colin Stevenson, who represents the defendants in the $700,000 civil suit filed in 1998 by former Witness Vicki Boer, spent much of the day punching holes in the case built by her lawyer. Boer, now 31, alleges the defendants failed to get her adequate treatment for the abuse she suffered between the ages of 11 and 14 in the family home in Shelburne, about 100 kilometres northwest of Toronto.

    Rather than immediately notify the Children's Aid Society and allow Boer to seek counselling outside the church, she was required, according to Biblical principles, to confront her father in 1988 and allow him to repent his alleged sins, the suit alleges.

    But none of the defendants - not elders Steve Brown, Brian Cairns and John Didur, nor the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Canada - forced her to do anything she wasn't willing to do, Stevenson said.

    "I imagine that going to a confessional in the Catholic church can be very traumatic, given the confession one needs to make," Stevenson told Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy.

    "But at the end of the day, it's an issue of religious beliefs and religious principles, and if someone acts in accordance with that belief or principle, so be it."

    For two weeks, Molloy has been getting a crash course in the ways of the Witnesses as Boer squares off against the church that shaped her life for more than 20 years.

    As she did Monday with Boer's lawyer Charles Mark during his closing, Molloy sparred with Stevenson throughout his final arguments, posing what-if scenarios and debating the finer points of common law as it applies to the dealings of a religious body.

    If the religious act in question is extreme, such as a rabbi urging someone to seek a divorce, she wondered aloud at one point, does that advice constitute negligence on the part of the rabbi?

    "That would be an unreasonable intrusion into the religious offices of the church," Stevenson replied. "The courts in the United States have said clergy malpractice suits cannot be maintained."

    Because they're acting solely as spiritual counsellors, he continued, religious figures such as priests, rabbis or church elders have no duty of care to their congregation members.

    Stevenson also pointed out for Molloy a litany of contradictions within the evidence heard over the course of the two-week trial.

    He said Boer's own recollections of the events were cloudy and often stood in contrast to the testimony of other witnesses. For example, several witnesses, including the defendants, told court they urged Boer to seek medical and psychological help, contrary to her claims.

    Indeed, Frank Mott-Trille, one of several Witness elders who resigned over the case, made an appointment for Boer with a counsellor which she opted not to attend, much to Mott-Trille's embarrassment, Stevenson said.

    He also took issue with witness claims that Boer was suicidal when she first went to Mott-Trille with her story of abuse and her fears the church was going to force a "so-called" confrontation.

    At one point during that conversation in 1988, Mott-Trille testified, he told Boer he was tired and asked her to come back the next night, and she agreed, Stevenson said.

    "This is not the mark of a woman at serious risk of suicide or suicidal urges," he said. "It doesn't make any sense."

    Stevenson also noted that Mott-Trille has been embroiled in a long-standing legal dispute with the church over Boer's case and other matters and has an "axe to grind" as a result.

    And he savaged the expert evidence of psychiatrist George Awad, a "hired gun" put on the stand by the plaintiff to bolster suggestions that her treatment at the hands of the church caused more damage than the abuse.

    Stevenson has argued throughout the trial that it was the abuse, not the ways of her church, that sent Boer down a rocky path in her adult life, one rife with job insecurity, sexual dalliances and emotional turmoil.

    At one point during his testimony, Awad told the court childhood sex abuse doesn't always lead to traumatic disorders later in life, Stevenson noted.

    But during cross-examination, he refused to concede that the trauma of confronting her father might have also had no impact.

    "It's an opinion that warrants little credence whatsoever," Stevenson said. "It's incredible."

    Eventually, some six weeks after the allegations first surfaced, the case was reported to Children's Aid and the police, although no charges ever ensued.

    Palmer, 58, continues to live in Shelburne.

    While victims of sexual abuse normally aren't identified in public, Boer has agreed to allow her name to be publicized as part of her effort to promote what she alleges in abuse within the confines of the church's congregations.

    As part of their beliefs in a strict interpretation of Bible teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses reject anything political or "worldly" that distracts from their focus on Christ and the second coming, which they consider imminent.

    Anyone who runs afoul of the religion's strictest tenets will find themselves excommunicated, often to such an extent that they're shunned by their own family.

  • cruzanheart
    cruzanheart

    Now, it seems logical to me that if religious figures have no "duty of care" to their parishioners, then the parishioners should not suffer if they don't take the advice of the religious figures, i.e, shouldn't be shunned. Yet that is what happens. Here's hoping that the judge is still sufficiently steamed about the "wifely due" remark to make a decision in favor of Vicki even if that weak-assed defense holds water.

  • Dia
    Dia

    Regarding her 'free will'.

    She could never have looked into 'just leaving'. She would not be permitted to know anyone who ever left. Or even to find out any single thing about them.

    She would be pressured to assume that Satan had taken them over completely and might her, too, if she got too inquisitive about them.

    She would not be permitted to even begin to ASK anything about it.

    The 'free will' of JWs is inhibited even to the extent that they are not permitted to even THINK, or to even ask questions - about anything.

    It's gone in the same direction as their right to 'freedom of speech'. It's gone, US Constitution, US Laws, discerning Judges or not. JWs don't have any.

    If you wish to claim your rights under the Constitution, you abandon your rights to be a JW. And that's the whole story.

    It's an 'all or nothing' thing and to even lean in the direction where you might hear something contrary is just about as good as dead, as far as their concerned.

    She needs to know this.

    *****

    Ooops - edited

    I was speaking to and about Canadians, wasn't I? Well, almost the same points, I'd guess.

    Only you Canadians would know for sure.

    Edited by - Dia on 24 September 2002 19:20:3

  • SloBoy
    SloBoy

    Thanks Hawkaw for the updates,

    If the R&F witnesses could only hear how their spiritual shepherds are catagorized by WBTS lawyers. So different than the message troweled-on at the local K.H.

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Here is the key to the whole god damn mess ...

    Because they're acting solely as spiritual counsellors, he continued, religious figures such as priests, rabbis or church elders have no duty of care to their congregation members.

    Note Stevenson's words and remember this is his area of expertise!!!!

    What the judge has to do is figure this. Did the process of the elders going after Gower Palmer harm Vicki? And during this process of determining his guilt did the elders owe Vicki a duty? The standard of care is easy - the elders should have reported the abuse forthwith to Children's Aid as stated in s. 72 of the Act. They didn't - easy enough.

    But the duty ..... do those f__ing b_stards owe Vicki the duty as good old Mad Apostate/Angry XJW/Erie Guy brought out some moons ago before he was unfortunately and sadly deleted off the board.

    Keep in mind the judge can't rule on whether a doctrine is right or not. All people are freely allowed to believe what they want as stated in section 2(a) of our Charter. A judge cannot even rule if shunning is right or wrong as long as the participant was aware of the shunning and agreed to the term when he/she joined. Something I think that others trying to start lawsuits have yet to comprehend.

    But this case is all about the process.

    I suspect that the elders owed her a duty because she wasn't aware of what was going to happen unlike the shunning policy. She relied on them not to hurt her but to go after the dad. Also they admitted that they f__ked up when they did the confrontations. Was she forced to do it. You and I know she was .... but the judge has to understand the "fear tactic" of shunning.

    Tough isn't it ...... But I am damn proud that Vicki has gotten this far on a shoe string budget and one lawyer compared to an unlimited budget and 8 lawyers. I don't know if she was able to take that abuse today - it must have hurt - hope you make it buddy.

    hawk

  • outnfree
    outnfree
    none of the defendants - not elders Steve Brown, Brian Cairns and John Didur, nor the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Canada - forced her to do anything she wasn't willing to do, Stevenson said.

    According to Had Enough's notes, the Toronto elder after consulting with the Society, told Vicki she must confront her abuser invoking Matthew 18 up at the Shelburne congregation.

    Also, Vicki did NOT want to face her father in a meeting with the JC, but was told she must. If she had disregarded the elder's demands, nothing would have been done to keep the Shelburne congregation "clean" -- which was her motive according to that same Toronto elder's note, apparently. No action would have been taken against Palmer. There was only ONE way to get the incestuous Palmer reproved or disfellowshipped -- the WT way. Which meant the victim had to face her abuser and then recount (relive) the abuse by answering the elders queries, and then watch her father minimize the abuse she endured for years.

    Because they're acting solely as spiritual counsellors, he continued, religious figures such as priests, rabbis or church elders have no duty of care to their congregation members.

    I cannot ABIDE how the Watchtower can call their elders untrained volunteers out of one side of their mouths and then try to invoke clerical privileges out of the other!

    And, of course, the obvious, the elders in Shelburne were NOT approached by Vicki for spiritual counselling per se, but as administrators of JUSTICE. There was NO QUESTION that incest was a SIN and a CRIME, the problem was that the sinner was still being treated as a member in good standing. Vicki may have feared that Jehovah's Spirit was impeded from properly operating in the Shelburne Kingdom Hall?

    The other problem was that Vicki needed help to heal -- in the form of professional counseling -- and help to get the CRIME reported. As administrators of congregational justice (even as good citizens?) the elders had an obligation under the law to report "forthwith" the allegation of child abuse to the Children's Aid Society.

    "I imagine that going to a confessional in the Catholic church can be very traumatic, given the confession one needs to make," Stevenson told Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy.

    This is a false analogy. Vicki cannot be likened to a sinner who goes to a confessional in the Catholic church with a difficult confession. SHE didn't do ANYTHING WRONG!!!!! What would SHE confess? She's the VICTIM!!!!!

    By going to the elders, she was hoping to make Mr. Palmer acknowledge HIS heinous crimes and sins against God in front of God's appointed representatives on earth -- the Shelburne elders and, by extension, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada.

    "That would be an unreasonable intrusion into the religious offices of the church," Stevenson replied. "The courts in the United States have said clergy malpractice suits cannot be maintained."

    I know it doesn't happen very often ( Path) but let's hope the Judge is a patriotic Canadian and Stevenson's citing US case law didn't sit well with her!

    He also took issue with witness claims that Boer was suicidal when she first went to Mott-Trille with her story of abuse and her fears the church was going to force a "so-called" confrontation.

    At one point during that conversation in 1988, Mott-Trille testified, he told Boer he was tired and asked her to come back the next night, and she agreed, Stevenson said.

    "This is not the mark of a woman at serious risk of suicide or suicidal urges," he said. "It doesn't make any sense."

    So, Mr. Mott-Trille could not have talked Vicki down from her suicidal urges during the course of that conversation, right? Nobody's ever calmed someone seriously at risk of committing suicide down enough so that they are willing to postpone their plans until the two can speak again about the distraught one's case?


    Ah, well, it's almost all over now, isn't it?

    ((((((((Vicki))))))))

    My best wishes for a successful outcome.

    out

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Well folks I do have some quick news I want to pass on.

    I had to talk to Vicki about TV interview stuff and we quickly discussed the case. What was not reported in the above press report is that the entire afternoon was spent on trying to figure out what damages Vicki should be awarded. Both counsel had to argue a number of case laws on the subject. Even Charles Mark seemed to be up on the damages aspect of the case. Vicki also indicated that the Judge didn't seem to overly convinced at Colin's summary since the entire afternoon was taken up with what damages to award at the judges request.

    The decision will not be until early 2003 due to the complex nature of the case according to the judge. This is good news in my opinion. Means it wasn't as cut and dry as Colin Stevenson said it was. It also seems it was difficult for the judge due to what damages to award Vicki more than the "duty" end of it.

    If I was the WTS I would be sweating this one out.

    I originally started at 40 percent and then went to a 45 percent chance of a win. I think I am now at 60 percent.

    One other note CBC french did an interview with her today. So I would turn on the french news cast in Ontario to see it.

    hawk

    p.s. - again thank you Vicki for your courage. You have touched millions of Canadians and I for one am very proud

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Thanks hawk for posting this article:

    ...Molloy sparred with Stevenson throughout his final arguments, posing what-if scenarios and debating the finer points of common law as it applies to the dealings of a religious body.

    I wish I could have been there again today to see just what points she "sparred" with Stevenson about. Hopefully it was also on correcting the inaccuracy of his statements as well as the "what-if" scenarios.

    And thanks also for your summary describing the areas of law the Judge has to consider. She seems like such a sharp lady in keeping all those facts, dates, who said what and when, straight...straight enough to catch an error whenever anyone mistated a fact already presented in evidence.

    ((((Outnfree)))): As always, a fine dissecting and analyzing of the facts. I wish we could have had someone present the reality of methods used to exact trust from the r&f, the strict obedience demanded and the resulting shunning for non-compliance...someone or many who have gone through it to describe it in detail.

    It would have been fun to have you in the gallery and in the halls throwing searing glares at the WTS reps. I can see it all now

    (((((((Vicki)))))): I hope you were able to bear up through this today. I truly wish I could have been there with you. You made us all proud to stand behind you and beside you throughout this ordeal. You'll have some well-deserved time now to spend with your wonderfully supportive husband and lovely girls even though the wait might be difficult. We'll be back again with you when the Judge does issue her decision...so hang in there.

    Had Enough

  • mouthy
    mouthy

    Thanks Hawkaw -I was sitting on tenderhooks waiting to hear from you. John said theire was only two for our side today...I wish I could have been there to give Vickie some support.

    Vickie You have been WONDERFUL -I am so proud of the way you conducted your self.

    Go home & enjoy the gift you have in your kiddies & wonderful Scott. You have really done what the Watchtower of Jan 15th 1974 ( I copied it from ay Franz book)

    "When persons are in great danger from a source they do not suspect or are being mislead by those they consider to be their friends,is it an unkindness to warn them?They may prefer not to believe the warning .They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning?"

    Think of all the folks in the Court! all the folks that have read the write ups in the papers.

    You deserve a medal. God bless you.

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Well, it is a tricky case. The society and their oily lawyers are once again playing the "religion" card.

    Inside the congregation, the elders rule with an iron fist and the authority of God himself. In the court, they are just simple men, trying to help, and can't be held responsible for their own incompetence. Their feigned innocence makes me ill.

    The long wait for the verdict is a good sign. It indicates that the case is a tough decision - in other words, a close one.

    But, win or lose, I hearby declare victory for Vicki.

    Newspaper, radio, and TV reports have covered the country. The PR damage done to the organization is invaluable. Many people who have already read news reports may never even hear of the verdict. In many ways, the verdict is anti-climactic. The society has been dragged through the mud.

    Congratulations and thanks to Vicki and all of the others involved in this case.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit