by NikL 32 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Richard, you clearly don't know how to read transcripts and how to link information from previous hearings, etc, into what is being said at this point.
That's too bad - you seem to have a fairly decent memory for details and such...but your comprehension score is way low. You can't put the big picture together. You don't really understand what it is that you read or hear. You think you do...but you don't
Please tell me where either the chair or the commission said that all of the cases are institutional abuse.
And OC.
Compensation is a form of redress for liability or culpability. So by saying that compensation will be on a case by case basis, that would indicate that liability and culpability is not certain in each case either to the same degree or at all. If that was not the case then the chair would not state that the compensation would be handled on a case by case basis, he would have stated that the compensation would be the same across the board.
the commission aren't only looking at institutions - they are also looking at institution like organisations like football clubs and such like.
as for Jehovahs witnesses all I can say that they are making the terms of their inquiry even broader to accommodate inquiring into Jehovahs witnesses. I wonder if this was because of the work of activists against jehovahs witnesses.
I think JWs come into the category of organisation like methods employed in dealing with child abuse. the big thing is that Jehovahs witnesses do not separate children from parents so watchtower may have a case against the Australia royal commission
edit: Jehovahs witnesses differ from institutional organisations in very fundamental ways according to the criteria of the commission. the closest they come is as I said to football clubs and additionally music clubs and such like. but even here they differ fundamentally in that children are not separated from their parents for lessons.
just reading it now - family and community are outside of the purview of the ARC
so I'm becoming quite certain that it is the work of activists that has made the commission look into Jehovahs witnesses. If the commission find that some of this is not true then this doesn't bode well for activists in the long run or for those claiming some sort of redress
edit: be cautious and don't build your hopes up too much
@Ruby456:
Youtube dot com - Search for
Day 1 Part 1 Child Sexual Abuse Within Jehovah's Witnesses - Australia: 2015-07-27
This way you will learn about how the ARC decided to include the Jehovah's Witnesses in the investigation of institutional responses to child sexual abuse.
There was a case used as an example of how Jehovah's Witnesses responded to learning of abuse in a family. The elders who were involved with the case, are seen answering questions about the disastrous mess and the horrendous damage done to the victim as well as her siblings, by her father and his cronies, the elders.
The consecutive sessions are marked and easy to watch in order; like Day 1 Part 2, Day 2 part 1, etc.
Your certainty that activists made the ARC look into Jehovah's Witnesses is misplaced.
When watching the Salvation Army issue a formal and unreserved apology a while ago, and now the Uniting Church doing the same thing, it made me ashamed to be associated with an organisation that holds itself up as morally superior to both those organisations, yet cannot bring itself to make a simple apology as they have done. I know an apology is only words and it's the follow up actions that count. But those words are very important, especially to the victims. And the actions will not happen without the state of mind that those words express coming first.
When discussing redress it was made clear by O'brien and friend that they were more concerned with being treated "fairly" in any redress scheme, than they were about the victims. They made the statement that they had not acted to help a single victim via compensation or redress, because they had not received any official legal claims or requests to do so! Well that speaks volumes in my mind about, about 1. The fear victims have of seeking help, and 2. The heartless & legalistic approach taken, instead of true "good samaritan" type compassion that they espouse. I don't remember the "good samaritan" only acting because he was legally obligated to, or because the victim lodged an official request? No, wait, that's because that was the attitude of the two Jewish passers by...
@doubtfull - RIGHT ON!!!
I think Richard Oliver is a lawyer wannabe.
I think Richard Oliver is a lawyer wannabe. --Vidiot
And how does that confute what Richard Oliver posted to OC?
