Borg nearly apologies child abuse victims in Finland
The attached picture is historical. The man on left is Ari Hakkarainen, representative of JW in Finland. The woman in middle is reporter Susanna Päivärinta and the lady at right is Josefina Pakomaa who was abused by family friend - a JW - when she was 11. A vicious apostate today. So we have a representative from Branch and an apostate in same picture. Apparently they even shook hands before program. Josefiina and Ari that is. Nevertheless in past "brothers" came to conclusion that she was the guilty one for her own abuse. She had seduced the poor man. So he had to apologise the man and afterwards serve coffee and cookies to him.
As a responsible journalist Päivärinta gave JW possibility to give their view of what has happened. Ari's interview starts around 18.45 and is full of surprises. In the very beginning Ari says that term "judicial committee is bit misleading" because the purpose of it is to give spiritual support and help. Well why is it called judicial committee then?
At 23.45 min Päivärinta asks a question about Josefinas case. Ari says "we are truly sorry that she has had to go through this ordeal..." that is not an official apology but probably a close as society can go. Further he mentions that he has familiarised himself with the case and contra what Josefiina says there was no judicial committee but two elders who had interviewed her. With other words he admits that society keeps files of cases like this.
But further Ari acknowledges that she is a victim and victims are never requested to be in judicial committee. Somehow I have difficulties to believe in this. Background for this comment might be that few weeks before this program the national broadcasting company in Finland made a big story where several women claimed that JW had required them to be quite what it comes to cases such as Josefiina's.
Then Päivärinta grills him further and refers to tv-program and asks about other women and their stories. Ari says that "he would like to say that it is not true" but points out that it might have happened in past with individual cases. Right after that he says that reason why society requests to contact juridical department first is that then juridical department can tell parents that "now your first thing to do is to go directly to authorities". But journalist Päivärinta continues and says "Ari I checked the instructions and it does not say go to authorities it says contact branch" Ari then replies "yes but in our publications there has been instructions to contact authorities during a longer period of time", "in what publications?" asks the journalist. "Watchtower" says Ari.
Please give me that Watchtower's year and date since haven't seen a single WT magazine with that information!
Then Päivärinta asks "what about these other women should they report these abuse cases to police" and looks like Ari is forced to say "Absolutely. We don't have any interests in covering up these kinds of activities".
Päivärinta then asks about two witness policy and Ari replies that he would "separate child abuse cases from this since there might not be a single witness". Is that now against what GB recently said in one of the broadcasting? What it comes to two witness rule and rape cases Ari instructs the victim to contact police and if there is a doom from court JWs can rely to that and take it into consideration if the case is to be taken up in congregation.
"We don't deal with crimes in congregation we deal with sins, police is there for crime investigations" well good if that is the case now but what comes to past I might have a different view. Further Ari denies that there would have ever been a culture of silencing victims but on the contrary a culture of "encouraging the victims to approach authorities" he also ducks Päivarinta's question of giving possible documents to police by referring to confidential information of individuals but he admits that there is a chance that some documents must be given to authorities someday in future.
Päivärinta further asks if society is going to apologise possible victims "That is a good idea" says Ari but even thought he is more bombarded with the question the best he manages to say is "if there is a convenient opportunity to apologise well why not and if we have ever done something wrong of course we will apologise.." guess there is still no reason to expect JWs of Finland to officially apologise anything.
Ari is further asked about shunning and he mentions that if some one just stops attending meetings and going to field service - aka inactive - nothing changes. But with that "little percentage that is either disfellowshipped or has disassociated them selves" according to Ari there are no strict guidelines but it depends of a conscience of an individual meaning some people do shun strictly and some less strictly. "There is now one way" he says. Ari please. That is not true.
Päivärinta grills him further and quotes WT and refers to Elders Manual and Ari is forced to say "well if you look up this from bible you will see that these guidelines are from bible". Shuure. He then softens the case by claiming that 50% will return. Ari, the figure might be smaller nowadays.
Päivärinta then suggest that maybe they come back because they miss their family so much and says "Ari do you understand that it is a tough punishment, psychological violence if community rejects you?" Ari compares the situation with someone quitting a job if he/she has become unhappy with it and afterwards talks bad things about it. "Relations do easily become infected in situations like this" is Ari's comment. Ari. Job and family are not comparable. Ari then tells us that he does not shun anybody. He has in previous interviews said that he knows around 20 000 witnesses so somehow I don't buy this.
Last few minutes Ari and Päivärinta do talk about the wonderful hope of Jehovah's Witnesses. "What happens to me and the other people when badness is wiped away?" asks Päivärinta. "God will determine that. We of course hope that everyone will live in paradise" replies Ari. Wrong answer. You will all die would have been more truthful.
It is note worthy that Ari Hakkarainen was in this program. Usually society - in Finland - has used Veikko Leinonen but maybe his face has become "burnt" in media. Or maybe it is just too tough nowadays to be in lime light in connection with society since media is starting to ask tough questions. Or maybe Veikko was on vacation.
Even if you don't understand Finnish you can see that Ari's body language is disturbing. Just take a look at at 25.00 minute when he is asked if society covers up abuse cases.
Here is the link:
I'm glad you condensed it. I feel angry just reading it.
Thanks for your lucid translation and synopsis - that's really helpful to us English readers. ;-)
victims are never requested to be in judicial committee. Somehow I have difficulties to believe in this
Witness word-games. They are not requested ... they are commanded.
Thanks for the translation / info.
WTF!?!?? I’m confused as to why the WTBTS would even allow this interview. It’s mind boggling..
Are there different standards o conduct for branches outside the USA?? Can “foreign” Dubs just ignore the “scriptural” rule for two witnesses; the rule that the WTBTS will never abandon?
Wow. Thanks for the post. It makes me wonder what is going on here—is this guy stepping out on his own? Is this some half-baked PR move orchestrated by the GB? There is a lot of fudging and dodging of the facts and of history here. Whatever the case, it is noteworthy. We'll have to wait and see what comes next.
I think this is a hopeful sign that change is coming.
You say the attached picture is historical. When was the interview conducted?
You call the abuse victim "a vicious apostate". Is that how JWs describe her? Was she an apostate at the time of the interview?
You say the attached picture is historical. -- steve2
Historic -- significant, important, noteworthy, . . .
I believe that is what Festus meant.
Thank you, Festus.
steve2: interview was conducted 18.4.2018 so if we just think about the timeline it is not historical or ancient. But as compound complex pointed out other adjectives such as significant can be used. In this context I used word historical more in that sense.
She was an apostate during the interview and and still is. JWs have not labelled her "as vicious apostate" but taking into consideration that borg has described apostates as "mentally diseased" - and used several other degrading terms - I believe "vicious apostate" don't fall to far.