ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle 80 Replies latest jw friends

  • LoveUniHateExams

    O' Brien: "we have never had a practice of not reporting".

    This is a bare face lie. An untruth. An incorrect statement. A terminological inexactitude.

    The arrogance of the Society - to send these janitors in suits to bullsh1t the Commission with evasiveness, dissembling, half-truths and lies.

    I hope the Australian government comes down on them like a ton of bricks.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Thanks for putting up the morning session, Cofty.

    I've tried looking on youtube and the ARC website for the afternoon session but no luck.

    Can someone who's more tech-savvy than me help me find the afternoon session?


  • dubstepped

    @Pubsinger - Your concern about what can really happen is warranted. However, every exposure of who JWs really are helps. It helps other governments take note. It builds cases against them. Maybe more importantly, these videos wake people up. Round one helped me tremendously, and others as well, to leave the cult. If that is the only power it has, it was worth it.

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters

    It also looks like WT won't budge on their utterly stupid, heartless "two-witness" rule -- even when Stewart/McClellan tried asking about TRAUMA of the child (emotional and PHYSICAL) being a "witness" to their experience, Spinks and O'Brien couldn't wrap their head around that and couldn't accept it.


    Spinks also repeatedly saying things like, "That's a good point.. I'll take note of that, take it onboard, bring it up (to whomever)..." -and that they (he and O'Brien) could not change policy - It makes one wonder why the hell wouldn't WT send someone to the Royal Commision who can change policy?? Stupid WT!! -- bumbling, secretive, idiot, clueless cultists.

  • UnshackleTheChains

    Just watched the hearing. Absolutely no empathy shown towards victims of child abuse who initially received no justice from the organisation and therefore feel so traumatized that they later decide to dissacociate.

    Justice McLennan and Angus Stewart pressed spinks and O'Brien on this and they both say that the person (victim) has shunned the congregation????

    No empathy

    No understanding

    No consideration in taking into account the trauma caused to the victim or background as to why they chose to dissacociate.

    Justice McLennan rightly stated that this policy is very cruel to the victim given what they have been through.

    This hearing exposes the heartless nature of the Watchtower Society and what individuals will now know what to expect if they try to leave 'officially'.

    This policy is NEVER discussed when new recruits are studying to become witnesses.

    It will continue to be a CAPTIVE high control religion.

  • OrphanCrow
    jwleaks: Don't be fooled by Watchtower's strategy. They knew it was a short hearing and they merely tried to run down the time. Their strategy failed. Did you notice that every single time the Watchtower was caught out on a dumb reference, or some unrelated out-of-date reference, they had a reply already prepared. Spinks and O'Brien already had the answer to the error and mumbled on for as long a possible. Neither Spinks nor O'Brien needed to use the Ringtail to review the reference under discussion. This is no coincidence. They knew the answer because they had rehearsed.
    Watchtower merely presented in their statements, submissions and letters as a string of red herrings. They wanted the ARC to focus on these red herrings. The ARC was not fooled but gave them enough rope.

    Point taken. You are right. Their supposed stupidity is just a reflection of their disdain for everybody not of their special circle.

    The strategy seemed fairly clear. Walk in to the hearing with an incomplete procedure manual in hand and then get the commission all bogged down in the little details that they didn't finish properly. The WT duo did the predictable - they floundered around, flopping and squirming, and tried to drown everyone in minutiae and legalese. But you are right - a lot of their blubbering around was designed to stall and not say anything at all.

    Not once did the WT reps offer a single word of apology. Instead, O'Brien insisted that the WT did not accept the commission's evaluation that the WT did, indeed, fall within the terms of reference of the Commission. He kept insisting that the WT was going to pay out redress if the claim was "institutional abuse". So we already know what their defense for resisting a redress scheme is - they are going to claim the WT was not responsible in cases of "familial abuse", in spite of the commission already addressing that in their final report.

    The WT must be the only institution so far that hasn't offered a word of apology to the victims and have turned up, after two years, with basically nothing in hand other than a couple letters from headquarters to deal with the numerous deficiencies that were revealed after the first hearing.

    Two witness rule - the WT is standing like a rock on that one. Totally disregarding the scriptures that allow for cases without that rule

    Shunning - Blame the victim for that one. It's their fault. The victim is choosing to shun the congregation

    Women - no. no. no. no. no. And did we say no? NO.

    Victim facing the accuser - oh. okay. In special circumstances. Maybe.

    Transparency - we're working on it. We have a handbook almost ready - can you tell us what to put in here? You know...take up valuable time ironing all the tiny details we haven't done yet

    Redress: Sure. But only if the case is defined by us, the WT, as falling in the terms of reference. The WT will decide if they are to blame

    Reporting: we will tell the victim they have the right to do so

    Apology to victims: ....huh? what? an apology?

  • Muddy Waters
    Muddy Waters

    So true, Orphan Crow. The indoctrinated JW has such an implacable hardness of heart and they don't even realize it. They don't even see it.

    The JW mindset is to think: poor worldly people, they don't understand our shunning policies, how it is a "protection" and that making a "stand" isn't easy, but necessary to uphold Jehovahs righteous principles...

    When McClelland repeatedly said it was CRUEL, there was no getting through the JW fog. The JW brain cannot or will not accept that shunning is cruel, they believe they are righteously upholding Jehovah's principles, however difficult that may be for them.

    Same thing for the 2 witness rule. The scripture whch says, "At the mouth of two witnesses, let every matter be established." is taken as gold, and that includes the heinous crime of child sexual abuse.

    The organization is held up as God, and all its policies (man-made/man interpreted) are held to be also inspired/divinely directed and thus to be followed as if the organization's crap policies are also the word of God. And "God's Organization" must be protected and kept above reproach - for a fine witness - !! -- to all the nations.

    It's a sad and despicable way they treat their most vulnerable, trusting members of all, their *children*....

    The only thing WT ultimately understands is their bottom line, their profit margins, so I say, hit 'em where it hurts. Make them redress financially the utmost needs of these people and children who have been hurt, damaged, and betrayed by WT policies and crap interpretations.

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    If I were a JW living in Australia...I'd go find me a rock to crawl under! :) :)

  • poopie

    Stall stall stall shell game

  • poopie

    Did he just say the person shund the cong wow that is almost unbelievable.

Share this