Uniting Church apologises to victims of sexual abuse, Jehovah's Witnesses defend treatment

by NikL 32 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Vidiot

    Thank you, leaks.

  • honest

    How does that matter Richard??? There are elders who are employed by watchtower who have and are abusing children. Regardless of setting and wages, elders are employed by watchtower to direct the congregation. Even congregant members are considered as preachers. Even FAQ on jw.borg claims all congregants are preachers including women, therfore even a publisher should be under the same scrutiny. If a Preacher publisher is a pedophile, that pedophile is employed by watchtower to represent them. Justice McClellan stated quite harshly that watchtower will not squirm out of it because they merely don't pay a wage or because some of the offenders were only publishers. He knows the jw structure. And don't think the Australian royal commission has no power that nothing can be done, the Australian government is watching very carefully at organisations who don't comply.. There will be changes and if Jehovahs witnesses don't comply they will be punished. This horrid cult should be recognised for what it is and that is that's a high control group that causes distress and denies basic human rights to its congregants, something that should not happen in Australia. Leaving a religion should never entail such harsh Consequences. The shunning policy ls the biggest hurtful policy that causes distress to child abuse victims because they are threatened if they talk against the organisation, many are afraid to seek compensation because they may be branded as an apostate and going against The organisation and consequently will be disfellowshipped. I know many who keep quiet because they can't bear losing their families. Now that's control and no organisation has the right to do that.

  • never a jw
    never a jw


    You are just like your leaders, a complete asshole, who would find any irrelevant argument to excuse the inexcusable. It's obvious that the Watchtower's main goal is to hide child abuse at any cost, especially at the risk of harming and endangering innocent children.

    The reason the Watchtower doesn't have employees is because they want to exploit instead of paying rightful wages. The reason the Watchtower doesn't have school is because they don't care about teaching practical and useful skills. They just want to exploit.

    The bottom line is: who cares about the types of relationships of trust, There was a relation of trust in both cases, the Watchtower's and the Uniting Church's. The difference is most other religions have hearts and compassion, while your leaders... well... should I repeat it....why not ....they are callous assholes.

  • steve2

    Justice McClellan had little patience with O'Brien and Spinks line of reasoning echoed now by RO. Justice McCllellan broke into Counsel Angus Stewart's meticulous questioning and directly addressed both men.

    He reminded them that JW organization definitely met the terms and conditions of the ARC definition of "institution". Validly, even though JW organization does not have paid employees who "work" in a schooling or counseling relationship with children, it still includes children in its organization with whom adult members have contact, supervised or unsupervised.

    Of course, if JW organization were a Masonic-type organization whose membership excluded children and was confined to adults over a specified age, it would not be within the terms of the ARC. In that very specific case, O'Brien's, Spinks's and RO's comments would have unarguable foundation.

  • EdenOne

    RO, I wonder how can you look in the mirror every day and be able to live with yourself.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I can live with myself because I can understand and accept the complexity of the situation. And yes how people are labeled is important to the law. Even the commission in Australia recognize that. While speaking of a compensation scheme. You are correct the commission did decide that watchtower did fall under their definition of institutional abuse that they were investigating, but they also said not all cases are such. That the cases would be handled and determined on a case by case basis. Or did no one hear that because it wasn't a complete damning of watchtower.

  • OrphanCrow
    RO: Or did no one hear that because it wasn't a complete damning of watchtower.

    I heard that. But I didn't hear it the same way you did. You seem to think that in some of the cases the WT won't be held responsible. That is clearly wrong.

    Even if the abuse isn't "organizational abuse" per se, the WT is still responsible because they stuck their nose in business that should have been turned over to secular authorities to deal with. The WT did NOT handle the cases that wouldn't be considered institutional abuse" in an acceptable way. The WT themselves made those cases into institutional abuse through their deficient policies.

    This is what was said:

    MR O'BRIEN: Okay. So with regard to the finding of the

    Royal Commission, with our bringing in all of the case

    files that we had, because of their being investigated, the

    finding was that that makes all of them institutional

    abuse, even though the greater majority of them were not,

    actually, according to the terms outlined in the redress

    scheme as being institutional.

    So there are two implications for that that I would

    see. One of them, for us as an organisation, if the number

    of case files is the basis for determining maybe our share

    in a redress scheme, we would feel that would be not in the

    interests of being fair and adequate, because --

    THE CHAIR: You need not worry about that. Your

    organisation came clearly within our terms of reference

    because we are required to look at the response of your


    MR O'BRIEN: Certainly, which we don't contest.

    THE CHAIR: And that response, of course, when inadequate,

    will cause damage to people. You understand that?

    MR O'BRIEN: We understand, yes. That's the response.

    THE CHAIR: And from the evidence that we have had, that

    is likely to have happened. You may not be an

    organisational abuser as such, but the response of your

    organisation may have compounded, indeed, very much

    compounded, the damage to that individual.

    As far as the redress scheme is concerned, if it takes

    the form, or roughly the form, the Commission has

    recommended, your liability will be determined on

    a case-by-case basis and you will be contributing on

    a case-by-case basis.

    There is no where in that exchange that would lead a person to conclude that the "case-by-case" basis has anything to do with whether the WT is at fault. That has already been determined. Beyond question.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver


    I don't see how a case by case basis does not mean that there are some that would not be organizational abuse cases. Clearly, there are some that aren't just by the simple fact that some of those cases the abuser was not a member, that is just one example. There are going to be other examples too.

  • OrphanCrow

    *hits head against wall*

    ALL of the cases are institutional abuse.

    It doesn't matter shit if the abuser was member or not - the case was handled by the WT policies!!!! The WT involved themselves.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver
    Neither the commission nor the chair said "ALL of the cases are institutional abuse." What the chair said was "Your organisation came clearly within our terms of reference

    because we are required to look at the response of your organisation." Notice that the chair did not say that all of the cases are institutional abuse nor are all of the claims fall under that. The chair said that the organization came under their right to investigate.

Share this