ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • konceptual99

    I cannot believe they do not have a stronger policy on the viewing of child pornography. Well actually I can but I can't get my head around how they don't consider the reporting aspect given the scrutiny they are under.

    Just this week in the UK the family of April Jones were unsuccessful in getting their call for the life long registration of sex offenders put into law. One of the features of her case was that her murderer and abuser, Mark Bridger, had no convictions and was not on the register but had child porn on his computer.

    Viewing child porn is a crime yet once again elders are not being told to report and the branch assuming the role of expert in determining what risk the person poses.

    Does the letter referenced shed any more light on the process?

  • sparrowdown

    WT in it's stunning display of ignorance have once again missed the point.

    Viewing child pornography means that the child/children in the images/video are being subjected to some form of abuse in order for the images/footage to be recorded. Also where there is child porn there is a pedophile.

    The sick bastards just don't get it!

  • flamegrilled

    For those struggling to find that quote in OrphanCrow's post (as I was), it's in the "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks" rather than the "Child Safeguarding Policy of Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia".

    It's a very important point. There still seems to be a disconnect between JW leadership's understanding of child pornography, and the standard set by law and common decency.

    To allow someone involved at any level with child pornography to go unchecked, except for being "strongly counseled" would appear to be grossly negligent. And yet that's what the policy allows for.

    The fact is that a crime would have been committed according to Australian law and the law of most other countries. And it is a crime that can effectively be an early warning system to protect future victims. JW policy simply fails to recognize this.

  • nonjwspouse

    Great observation Birdie. Someone found with child pornography in their computer history, especially if downloaded, would be arrested.

    It is a huge red flag of a pedophile as well.

  • konceptual99

    Is the 2012 letter available as that may have additional instructions?

  • konceptual99

    Don't worry - I found it.

    As expected it does not reference the authorities at all. Quite how they can assume someone who looks at kiddie porn should not be reported is beyond me.

  • Lostandfound

    Comment in one letter from Branch to Congregations;

    We appreciate the confidential nature of both documents, but also recognize that it may not take too long a time before these documents find their way to the Internet.

    Too right they will as will anything confidential in the leaking can of worms

  • Pubsinger

    Just for clarification.

    Is viewing child porn illegal in Australia?

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions
    Although viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse, it is still a serious violation of Jehovah’s standards. A person involved in viewing child pornography should be strongly counseled.

    This is amazing. They have to be the most ignorant people on the face of the earth.

    As a side note:

    Years ago, a MS in a nearby congregation was busted by the authorities for downloading and spreading child pornography -- it was in the local papers and everything. What did the elders do? Nothing, other than remove him as MS. He was "repentant" and they (supposedly) could find nothing in the elder's book to nail him on.

    He ended up going to prison for a few years, and is now out. He is in the online sex offender registry for the state. Thank god for Satan's worldly governmental authorities.

  • OrphanCrow
    Where is the quote on child pornography? I can't find that on page 3 of the Child Protection Policy.

    So sorry about that...I posted the wrong document. That is what happens when I have too many files open at once. I need to slow least it wasn't the wrong text to the wrong person. I have done that before too!

    As others have said (thank you for those who corrected me!) - the quote is in the "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks"

    Eden: Also...two "dislikes" to the OP? Wow!

    2 dislikes?

    hmmmm...I wonder who that could be. I is so odd, isn't it?

    pubsinger: Is viewing child porn illegal in Australia?


    sparrowdown: ...where there is child porn there is a pedophile.

    This. The WT's ignorance about child pornography is astounding. It truly is. After all that has been covered in the ARC up to this point, and they cannot grasp (or will not grasp) the fundamental wrongful nature of child pornography and that children are abused to produce those images.

    I was floored when this statement was actually put in writing: "...viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse".

    This is unreal....I can't find the word for the level of...defiance that the WT displays. That's it - the WT defies anything and everyone outside of itself. Defiance.

    It is one thing to defy the laws of the land if religious precepts are being violated. As in, contentious objector status, etc. But, seriously? To defy the laws of the land for the sake of the sexual gratification from the viewing of minor children being sexually abused is nothing short of astounding.

    The WTS can cross all their "t's" and dot their frigging "i"'s in their safeguarding policies, but as long as they won't accept or understand the severity of viewing child pornography, there is little hope of them ever understanding the nature of their crimes.

    The WTS is splitting hairs. In NY State, a person cannot be found guilty of breaking the law for simply viewing an image of child sex online. This is simply to protect those individuals who "accidentally" view an image of child porn. This is an escape clause for viewers of child porn who are accidentally caught with images in their computer cache. However, the second a person downloads, prints or saves child sex material, it is a crime. I don't know how well that escape clause would hold up if it could be proven that viewing all those images was not simply "accidental" - that the viewer purposely clicked on images of child porn.

    This apparent NY loophole, which allows an offender to say "I was jus' accidentally popped up on my screen", is the one that the WT is using to say "...viewing child pornography is not child abuse".

    Of course viewing child pornography is child abuse. Of course it is. To say otherwise is willful ignorance. And evil. Evil. Evil. Evil.

Share this