You did not answer my question :
".....who's moral code......."
Obviously their code. It could be influenced by how other organisations choose to act but the WTS chooses not to change the culture and mindset.
If you want to argue that it's actually someone else's code (e.g my code or my perception of what others' codes may be) then fine but it's missing the point IMO. Repeatedly the actions and more critically, the cultural and organisational framework surrounding how allegations have been managed, have received repeated negative analysis.
When subjected to critical questioning all the WTS seems able to do is whine "yeah but" like a teenager being called out on their childish behaviour. Worse than that, it seems incapable of going away, reflecting and then coming back to the table with some meaningful change and progress.
TBH, some of the defence of the WTS on here has been far, far better than anything the WT lawyers have presented. I may not agree with every point but at least there is a logic to the argument.
(You have already conceded that wt is operating lawfully)
mmm - yes and no. In the main there is little chance that the WTS can actually act unlawfully in a jurisdiction with no mandatory reporting requirements since no other laws typically apply. This of course does not in itself remove any potential liabilities in a civil case.
Where laws do apply, which is essentially mandatory reporting, then there is still the question as to if individuals and the organisation have always operated within the appropriate laws applicable to them. I don't think it has always been 100% clear if specific laws have been applicable and followed.