WT PR Statement - silentlambs march

by silentlambs 84 Replies latest jw friends

  • abbagail

    LOL Undf'd! That's a good one, and very recent, too. I get a very funny vision of three elders with their fingers in their ears.

    Of course, their "out" from following that advice is the word "legitimate," which, to them no doubt, is subjective, i.e., since they decide what is or is not "legitimate," they may or may not still "stop up their ears."


  • UnDisfellowshipped

    I just re-read the New WT March Statement -- makes me want to PUKE!


    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 2 October 2002 5:59:22

  • SYN

    What is sickening about this "marvellous" piece of disinformative propoganda emitted by the Tower is not what they say, but what they DON'T SAY!

    1. They don't say that children are forced to face their abusers and recant their entire story.

    2. They don't apologize for ANYTHING, not even when they were clearly in the wrong in the past. More history-rewriting occurring here, friends!

    3. They omit the fact that their policy on rape is about as "progressive" as my great-grandfather's tophat!

    4. They don't mention the TWO WITNESSES rule anywhere!

    5. They don't say that in non-reporting states, all the responsibility for handling the abuse falls on the ELDERS, and we all know how good they are at handling molestation cases don't we?

    GRAAAAAAA! Somebody hand me my pointy stick!

  • abbagail

    It's nothing but the usual Schmoooze Job for the public and the press, saying basically, "WE'RE the BEST, and FORGET the rest1"

  • abbagail

    The above post showed up twice, so I'm deleting one of them.

    Edited by - Grits on 3 October 2002 1:10:31

  • Dia

    Regarding the 'right of the victim to report', they could at least offer to help her reach the telephone. I mean he or she is probably too little!

    Regarding the molester never being unaccompanied....don't ALL JWs ALWAYS travel in pairs?

    Who ever heard of anyone not being allowed to witness alone - beyond this usual day-to-day 'policy'?

    Who ever was asked to accompany a witness in service or told that it was essential or why?

    Edited by - Dia on 2 October 2002 7:8:7

  • Trauma_Hound

    Hey guys, this is what they said in they're latest press release, looks like they admit it, but are putting it off to local congregations.

    " Mr. Brumley: There are instances when a situation that should have been reported is not. Or

    where care should have been extended and it was not. But to say that the policy is

    not followed perfectly is a far cry from saying that there exists a policy to

    affirmatively minimize, or hide, this problem. The policy that Jehovah's

    Witnesses have on how to handle cases of child molestation is without equal in

    the religious community."

  • hawkaw

    Someone said ... I think it was Scott, what is on paper doesn't necessarily mean reality. I have seen this in the Berry case, the Erica case and of course the Toronto (Vicki Boer) case.

    I think I say it about a hundred times a day - The one thing that is really needed is a check and balance system both inside and outside the Borg. Without it, people in the Borg from the leadership down will abuse the system and of course the innocent little kids.

    They have work to do and they need to do it fast.

    One final point about Cygnus. I always enjoy and pay attention to his posts. He is a good dude but we just disagree sometimes on things.


  • Cygnus

    Hiya Hillary,

    : Murder does not require the two witness rule to be adhered to. A confession of murder is immediately handed over to the 'secular authorities' to deal with regardless of the reporting laws within that state. Child abuse is a crime and yet the process is treated quite differently. Why is this?

    According to WTS policy, person who confesses to molesting a child is not immediately turned over to the authorities?

    Okay, I read in a PR statement that, regardless of the BIBLICAL INJUNCTION to have two witnesses before any CONGREGATIONAL judicial activity will take place, if there is an accusation against a person by even ONE witness, that the elders will in fact report if they law requires them to. Now is there anything that says that they are prevented from reporting on their own if they conscientiously choose to do so? I hear about oral instructions and so forth, but what would the WTS officially say (and so what would an elder be able to fall back on) if they were asked what would happen in a state that does not require reporting and an elder went to the authorities anyway?

    Also, I still think the main function of the elders is not to decide whether to go to the police for the parents/guardians, but to watch over the congregation and provide spiritual assistance. If they don't do a proper job of this, then why? I don't see that the WTS has recently been negligent in trying to provide instruction and support for elders as some claim.

  • hillary_step

    Hello Cygnus,

    According to WTS policy, person who confesses to molesting a child is not immediately turned over to the authorities?

    That has been true in the past. As an elder in the 1980's I uncovered evidence that another elder in a local congregation had sexually abused a fourteen year old girl. He denied it and subsequently no action was taken against him. I became extremely concerned about this individual and telephoned the Branch for further direction. They informed me to leave the issue well alone. I then told them that I was going to call in the authorities to investigate the situation. In turn the Branch threatened to take congregational action against me for slander. Regardless of this I called the authorities and eventually the person was jailed for four years. The Branch took no action against me though I was rebuked by the DO for not 'following direction'. Incidentally when I had asked the Branch to put their verbal instructions in a letter to me they refused. Why do you think that they did this?

    The way the WTS in now presenting policy is that the WTS have never stopped a person reporting a molester to the police in the past unless the reporting laws allowed non-reporting. Cygnus, what the WTS says in its PR notifications is hardly likely to expose their past mishandling of the child abuse issue. Read all the BOE letters, especially the earlier ones. I know that Simon has copies of them that I am sure he will let you see.

    Also, I still think the main function of the elders is not to decide whether to go to the police for the parents/guardians, but to watch over the congregation and provide spiritual assistance.

    My argument Cygnus is this. What would those same elders do if a JW was accused of murder? Would they provide spiritual assistance and only call the authorities if the reporting laws inisisted on it? I hope not! Child-abuse is a criminal offence - why would they treat this crime as any different to that of murder? If they wanted to 'watch over the congregation' in care they would surely immediately seek to protect its members from danger.

    As to the elders, well they are just the soft targets that thw WTS has set up. I can assure you that in every case of child-abuse that I have handled and that I knew about, the elders realizing the seriousness of the scenario were always absolutely fanatical about following instructions from the Branch to the letter. Vicki Boers case is one in point at which the elders were vehemently divided over WTS policy and the doing the right thing.

    The child abuse problem within the WTS has been a worry to many well before Bill Bowen stepped forward and led the battle. Many of us tried for years to change the system from within and were met with brick walls at every turn and failed miserably. Hopefully things will now change. Judging from the leanings of the PR letter, change is afoot.

    Best regards - HS

    Edited by - hillary_step on 2 October 2002 11:48:43

Share this