Fisherman, the only reason the law exists in the first place is because of the law of the catholic church and similar bodies. But even if you broaden the definitions, the original purpose WAS the purpose. You let that go, and we could extend it to any conversation, with any group of people, with any crime, and allow people an expectation of confidentiality. The WTS doesn't have confidentiality in ANY part of that process. Not in this or any other case. The WT doesn't have to change the way it practices religion in order to qualify for 909, they have to recognize that the entire process of judicial committee meetings is in no way applicable to that law from its very foundation. If the WT wants to have a confessional system, no one is stopping them, but a JC isn't one and never will be. It is a court tribunal, not a confessional. There is no confidentiality, there is no privacy inherent in the process. Nothing about it relates.
If the WT (even without calling their elders "clergy" had a confidential system in the structure of the religion, we wouldn't even be discussing this. But they don't. They never will. Its not something we need to debate about whether it is a better or worse way, it is just so inherently DIFFERENT that it is not even related vaguely. Its like saying "you should call this blueberry muffin an omelet. It doesn't have vegetables or cheese or meat in it like an omelet, and its filled with flour and blueberries and sugar, but gosh darn it, it has an EGG in it, so it should get to be an omelet, by golly!" Its not logical and it isn't unfair to the blueberry muffin to say it is not an omelet. No one expects a blueberry muffin to be an omelet. Muffins are muffins. If you want to be an omelet, lose the flour, leavening, blueberries, milk and sugar. (If you start trying to argue that they are the same by your definition, I won't be polite)