Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community

by Anders Andersen 85 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Sanchy

    You first mentioned that they were "hanging their hats on 30 year old cases", which would place the victims, assuming they were 5-15 at the time of the crime, in the lower 40s age range max.

    So, even by your assumptions, we are not talking about 60 year olds here.

    As mentioned previously, children of JW parents are likely not going to go to RV. Therefore, the pool of victims likely to speak up will mostly be adults, and out of that pool only those with enough courage to speak up against the holy org. So the apologist excuse that the typical victim is an adult and likely exJW is neither surprising nor a valid argument against the systemic issues plaguing the religion's handling of child abuse within it's ranks.

    Over the years, Watchtower has reacted to the backlash and somewhat revised some of it's policies for the better (two witnesses can be of different events, don't force victim to personally confront abuser), but as the ARC found, there are still troubling problems. More investigation is needed indeed.

  • Doubter

    Of course, my 60 year old point was an extreme and an obvious hypothetical, obviously.

    Still, organizational structure, who the abuser is/was (a Witness or not) where the abuse happened, etc, goes a long way in proving who is responsible for what, and who ISNT responsible for what.

    Anyone who doesn’t think those details matter doesn’t care about fairness or justice.

    Victims deserve to have the right person penalized. It doesn’t help anyone if innocent people take the fall for something they’re not guilty of. That’s injustice.

    But the way to deliver justice is to ascertain those details.

    If people are so-called “afraid” to speak up, then that’s RV’s problem. They have insufficient evidence, then.

    It’s on them to provide this evidence. That’s how the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” works.

  • Sanchy

    You are going around in circles.

    They did provide evidence in the form of nearly 300 victims. If the evidence is comprised of mostly 30 to 40 year old exJWs, it really makes no difference.

    Yes, victims are indeed " so-called afraid to speak up", which is in itself one of the problems that has plagued the religion for decades and continues to do so.

  • john.prestor

    I don't honestly think we should bother with this guy, he has no counter-evidence of his own to discredit the investigation, just an obvious desire to exculpate Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm bowing out.

  • Doubter


    What makes no difference? Is it...

    Who the abuser was?

    Where the abuse happened?

    When it took place?

    If that’s what you mean, then why does it not make a difference?

  • Doubter


    “Investigations” are done in a detective-like fashion. These questions (and many others) are asked in true investigations. Questions are a necessary part of investigations. Investigators want, or at least should want, the truth. The facts change their opinions, their opinions don’t change the facts.

  • Sanchy

    In the case of this investigation, as it was with the ARC, the most important details would be:

    -How did those in charge of the congregation respond to the accusations?

    -Are the religion's policies adequate to protect minors within it's ranks?

  • ThomasCovenant

    How did those in charge of the congregation respond to the accusations?

    Probably, and I'm just assuming, of course,

    very poorly

    and with a view to prioritizing protecting the good name of the organization concerned whether that be the Scouts, Oxfam, the Catholic Church, or even Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower.

    -Are the religion's policies adequate to protect minors within it's ranks?

    See answer to first question and take a guess.

  • Doubter

    Sure sanch, but...

    The allegations will have to be legitimate first before you can even ask those questions. You can’t properly handle something that either didn’t happen, or what you’re not responsible for.

  • Doubter

    Look, all jws know that RV (and those here) wants the government to presume guilt, kick down doors, and pry files from our cold, dead hands.

    Also, the local branch knows this.

    Jws are excellent litigators when their rights are violated.

    So as long as things are done within the framework of law, it’s all good.

Share this