Child Sexual Abuse and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Rules – Part 1 of Gumshoe’s Royal Commission Series

by OrphanCrow 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    Child Sexual Abuse and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Rules – Part 1 of Gumshoe’s Royal Commission Series

    This is a fairly lengthy article describing and examining the Royal Commission in Australia.

    The author ends the article with this:

    In general, we see, from Watchtower Australia, how depriving a person of Fellowship was seen as a severe punishment. Indeed, ostracism from the group has always been a standard means by which a society attempts to control the behavior of members.
    I point to an important obstruction of justice in this group’s protocols. If only one individual complained, with no witness to the act, the elders did not form a judicial committee to investigate. Since when does intimate sexual behavior have witnesses?
    I hope the Royal Commission, in its summing up, will not just say “OK, we have located the stumbling block. It was the bit about unwitnessed acts not earning a judicial committee.” I would want them to think about the possibility that such a rule was purpose-built for sexual abuse.
    As I have said elsewhere, I smell a rat, or a racket, in the entire phenomenon of church officials shielding the child abuse. Let me stick my neck out and say that we should inquire into the possibility that that the harming of children was a policy.
    Personally I suspect it was so. Hurting children was a goal, not a byproduct of some priests’ sexual addiction. At the moment that appears to be the best explanation for the very peculiar testimony that the commission is receiving from church officials on the witness stand.
  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    I found this very interesting:

    The reason it appears to have a strong hand is that it can do what a court does in terms of subpoenaing witnesses. They must answer any questions asked, on penalty of a fine or imprisonment if they refuse. If they lie, that is perjury, a crime. (This non-court can’t try them for that crime, but it can recommend such.)
    The commission also has power to search for documents or other evidence and to seize it. The search warrant can be carried out by the Australian Federal Police or state police assisting the commission. Section 4 of the Act says they may enter the premises and “3(c) seize any of the relevant things.”
    The current Royal Commission, for which Letters Patent came from the Queen, has two justices, Peter McClellan and Jennifer Coate. They have wide discretion. For instance, they have ordered the names of survivors (i.e., victims) to be kept private. Testimony from those persons is entered with a three-letter pseudonym, such as BKA.
    On December 11, Justice McClellan refused Cardinal Pell’s application to give his testimony by video link from Rome, instead of having to appear in the Melbourne court. Some of the survivors, attending as spectators, showed delight that the Royal Commission did not bow to the cardinal’s wishes.
  • LevelThePlayingField
    LevelThePlayingField

    Well isn't that interesting. People are awake and they have been awake the whole time. The world has always been awake to this mess, but not the JW's. Here we see in this news article just how sickening they see it, and for what it really is.

    Will the Royal Commission really put some laws in place that will really protect the children of the JW's? I hope so. I also hope it will force them the conform to a more acceptable and practical practice of what is really right in society. But I really have my doubts. Time will tell.

  • deanxxx
    deanxxx
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the ARC has never suggested that the WT had a policy intentionally, proactively designed to harm children as the above article suggests. I'm no fan of 'the truth' but I am a big fan of truth. The truth about WT policy is damning enough without this kind of extrapolation. What are your thoughts?
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    "...we should inquire into the possibility that that the harming of children was a policy..."

    Weird to hear it at fist...

    x

    ...but...

    x

    ...considering that it was the late Ted Jaracz who both hammered home the woeful policies that have caused the WTS so much trouble, and was well-known for his heavy-handedness and zeal for using DFing as a retaliatory action...

    ...not to mention that there is evidence that many sex offenders do what they do specifically to hurt/"punish" their victims...

    x

    ...I don't think this line of inquiry can be simply dismissed out of hand.

  • flipper
    flipper
    This is a very interesting thread. Thanks for posting it Orphan Crow . WT Society has so much liability to it's abused children- the crimes go up to the heavens. This deserves a definite bump up to the top. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    dean: Correct me if I'm wrong but the ARC has never suggested that the WT had a policy intentionally, proactively designed to harm children as the above article suggests. I'm no fan of 'the truth' but I am a big fan of truth.

    You are right - the ARC never suggested it - this author is suggesting it.

    The author at no point claims that the ARC "suggested that the WT had a policy intentionally, proactively designed to harm children". What the article does do, though, is extrapolate that information from the testimony given.

    The author is saying "...It looks like that is the unspoken policy...". In other words - that is the impression given.


    *you are welcome, Flipper.

  • Mephis
    Mephis

    Still mulling over the very provocative question it poses. In effect, what we've seen from churches is willfully negligent, at best. If you're being told there is a major problem but handwaving it away, then, yeah, it is fair to ask what the reason is behind it. I'd be more inclined to think that for some institutions those harmed by their policies are nowhere near as important as their attempts to prevent damage to the 'brand'. Certainly historically that seems to have been a clear motivation. Children and women are the second-class citizens within some groups, and I wonder whether that is what we're seeing demonstrated by policies. Not that the aim is to harm, but that the institution really doesn't care that they are being harmed.

    Thanks for posting OC.

  • freddo
    freddo

    What Mephis said.

    I don't believe JW's as an organisation want to harm children though I accept that it it quite possible at least one of the GB since the 1970's might have been a pedo.

    It's always been about protecting "the name" and now losing the money is just as important.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit