by darkspilver 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Richard Oliver
Confidentiality? B.S. What a bunch of crap! Three elders put together, victim, perhaps parents, and perpetrator and then the Watchtower legal services (multiple people) is involved too. As far as I know this business of confidentiality involves two persons only: the spiritual advisor and the "sinner". That's it. No reports, no judicial committees, no interrogations.
Never a JW:
Steve2 even highlighted that confidentiality can also involve other people. If he has to get the rest of his team along with supervisor and ethics committee. So there are more than one person involved in the confidential communication.
if the abused tell the eldera the elders should report it but if the accused tells the elders they enter into a legal area where they need legal advice and depending on the statutes of the law may not be able to report.
I'm not sure of law in the US, but in the UK the elders don't enjoy the clergy privilege of confidentiality.
"So Steve2, there are cases where confidentiality is important".
"Steve2 even highlighted that confidentiality can also involve other people".
Richard Oliver, I do not know whether you have a genuine difficulty comprehending terms or you are determined to "win" an argument or both. Prime examples: you state on two different occasions that I said or implied "confidentiality is important" and that "confidentiality can also involve other people."
To be very clear: I did not state that. Read my latest reply again: I said safety including that of others is important.
I do not give a tinker's cuss what secular law says about client-counsellor "privilege". You specfically asked me what I would do. I answer - and you pounce, subsequently quoting something I never said.
This is about children's safety - which by the majority of codes of health professionals overrides confidentiality. That is the focus of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry - a focus that JW organization has yet to show it "gets".
As I and others have said on numerous occasions, this is not about which religious group is the worst in terms of child safety policies. This for me has always revolved around JW organization's egregious claim to be the sole channel of truth on earth. They claim much - so they are expected to be above reproach in terms of their policies, not lagging behind most other religious groups and making appalling excuses for their policies and practices.
UPDATE Tuesday 7 February 2017
NOT GUILTY - jury returns unanimous not guilty verdicts
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/man-cleared-sexually-abusing-three-12571878
Man cleared of sexually abusing three young girls during 1990s
Paul Shields, 57, was found not guilty of seven charges of indecent assault
A man has been cleared of sexually abusing three young girls during the 1990s.
Paul Shields, 57, was found not guilty of seven charges of indecent assault against the girls, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Mr Shields, who has been a Jehovah’s Witness since birth, told a jury that although he had regularly put the girls on his lap, he had never sexually assaulted them.
Following the accusations, he had been ostracised from the church and become a pariah in Jehovah’s Witness circles because of its policy to shun those accused of such crimes.
Mr Shields, who was living in Guisborough at the time of the alleged incidents, said his 80-year-old mother, who is also a Jehovah’s Witness, and other family members of the same faith had not spoken to him since the allegations arose.
The married father-of-two said that church elders had even told his two sons not to talk to him following the accusations, which he insisted were untrue.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/man-cleared-sexually-abusing-three-12571878
Now that this man is found innocent. What is everyone's opinion should be his relationship with Watchtower and the local congregation. Since he is not a child molester should he be allowed to be reinstated and appointed?
Actually, his being df'd or not does not depend on his being found guilty by the congregation.
In the Berry and Fitzgerald case, the abusers went to jail for a period of time, but neither man was df'd from the congregation.
Correction: his being df'd DOES only depend on his being found guilty by the congregation.
In the Berry and Fitzgerald case, the abusers went to jail for a period of time, but neither man was df'd from the congregation.
Richard Oliver - What was this guy D.F./shunned for? The article talks of the JW policy of shunning those accused of this type of crime but I do not think that is accurate...
"I am so glad that these women decided to come forward and have this man face the terrible actions and heavy memories he burdened them with." - cha ching
Are you still glad you judged this man with only a newspaper article to go on?
Now that this man is found innocent. What is everyone's opinion should be his relationship with Watchtower and the local congregation. Since he is not a child molester should he be allowed to be reinstated and appointed?
I'm not sure what the WTS guidelines are in this situation - I suspect they treat the JC as totally independent of the court case and that he will stay disfellowshipped.
That said, according to the article and what the girls said he did, I'm not sure that fits the category of the 'gross sin' as regards the WTS.
