ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Are you saying that the law is not good enough for you? - in this instance, yes. And if you had any sense of decency and shame, the law shouldn't be good enough for you in this instance, too.

  @Richard Oliver - I take your point that some countries may have low age of consents and lax abuse policies, etc. This is an issue that certainly needs sorting out.

  But this thread is about ARC case study 54 - child abuse within Australia. A progressive, forward-thinking, secular, First World country.

  Watchtower could report all cases of child abuse in Australia and the US - mandatory reporting states or not. Unfortunately it chooses not to do so because it puts the interests of its organisation over natural justice and the well-being of children.

  And it's fucking disgusting.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Yes Australia is a developed first world country. And if you listen to the full commission hearing you will see that since the last hearing there were a number of cases that were reported to the authorities if they were required to do so or not. Some were reviewed by authorities for further prosecution and some were dismissed because the secular authorities deemed it not a child abuse case. The current evidence list does not contain any specific information on those but it was asked in writing by the commission and was answered in writing as well as answered verbally.
• 

  dubstepped

  Richard, you keep repeating this as if you could say it enough that it would become true. So:

  I would speak as myself and give an explanation and would give what I believe but that is not what those gentlemen were asked to speak as, they were asked to speak as representatives so wording is very important.
  But how I believe it to be is that one who disassociates themselves have decided that they no longer want to be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and no longer be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a formal way of leaving a religion that one no longer agrees with either from a human or spiritual stand point.

  Yes, you get this right in that a person no longer wants to be associated with the title "Jehovah's Witnesses", though that doesn't mean that they no longer want to associate with, oh, let's just get crazy and say their parents or siblings that are JWs, as an example. Disassociation is from the religion, not the people, it is the people in that decide to shun based on their cult teachings.

  I would bring out that Paul speaks of not even eating with such a man that was once called your brother but that is no longer.

  And I would ask for a cite of this scripture please. Where does Paul say this?

  That even Jesus removed himself from Judas when he excused Judas from associating with him and the other apostles before his betrayal of the Christ.

  I've already told you my opinion, not that you probably even read it because you only care about your own words, which you are in such love with that you just keep repeating them over and over. Where did Jesus have opportunity after dismissing Judas to go do what he had to do and what Jesus knew he had to do to speak to Judas where he said "Oh NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't even speak to this person. I must shun him." Dismissing someone from a meeting does not equate to shunning someone. People are summarily dismissed from things all the time, it doesn't mean that they're shunned forever thereafter. To call what Jesus did shunning is just ridiculous and shows that you're still brainwashed. Your god Jehovah still associated with Satan after he became Satan. He even allowed him to stay in heaven and influence angels.

  I would say ultimately it is each person's personal decision if they want to shun someone who is disassociated.

  I would say that you're in conflict with the religion that you worship, and apparently what even you think scriptures say.

  I am not associated with a Congregation because of my sexuality but in my decades of a witness i have never known anyone who got DF for communicating with a DA or a DF person, I may be living in a fantasy world but that is my experience. I can only speak of the US but that is a perfectly legal thing.

  Ask Ray Franz how talking to an unapproved person in the organization works for you. True, most won't know of someone that is DFed fro speaking to a person who is DA or DF, but that's because nobody knows about it and they keep it secret, or they just don't do it. So this is a disingenuous argument.
• 

  Fisherman

  Are you saying that the law is not good enough for you? -- Fisherman
  

  - in this instance, yes ---LoveUniHateExams

  OK
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  And btw some pretty developed countries have shockingly low age of consent. Germany is 14. Japan and south Korea is 13.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  if you listen to the full commission hearing you will see that since the last hearing there were a number of cases that were reported to the authorities if they were required to do so or not - I was going to say 'good' but then it hit me what the subject matter is about. And I also remembered the 1006 cases in Australia that went unreported.

  When a child says he or she has been sexually abused, common sense tells me that the police should be told so that the matter can go before a court. Natural justice tells me that a child abuser should be given a long custodial sentence, depending on the severity of the actions, and put forever on a sex offender list - two witnesses or not, mandatory reporting state or not.

  The point you raised about countries with low ages of consent, lax abuse policies is a good one - certain countries urgently need to sort out a whole range of matters, some legal, some cultural.

  btw some pretty developed countries have shockingly low age of consent. Germany is 14. Japan and south Korea is 13 - the age of consent should be raised in those countries. Do you agree?

  But in First World countries that have some states mandatory reporting, some states not (i.e. US, Australia and maybe some others), Watchtower has, in the main, only reported child abuse when state law says so (the few recent examples in Australia notwithstanding).

  This largely ignores natural justice and concern for the wellbeing of children.

  Jesus said "suffer the little children", not "let the little children suffer".

  Shame on the Watchtower.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  So you are saying if a organization fails in this regard than any efforts to better their policy and to make amends for that and to not repeat those same mistakes, that doesn't matter.Ans if you feel you that way that is certainly your right, but you also have to be honest with that is how you feel.
• 

  Fisherman

  Shame on the Watchtower.

  Besides your commentary about what you like and don't like, show facts to support your statement, I am not saying one or the other but only asking that you back up what you say with fact and no commentary.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  So you are saying if a organization fails in this regard than any efforts to better their policy and to make amends for that and to not repeat those same mistakes, that doesn't matter - no, I didn't say that. Of course their policy should be improved.

  Besides your commentary about what you like and don't like, show facts to support your statement - you say 'what you like and don't like', almost as if we're discussing our favourite colours or food.

  We are talking about child abuse, the need to protect children and suitably punish child abusers.

  I said the following:

  "When a child says he or she has been sexually abused, common sense tells me that the police should be told so that the matter can go before a court. Natural justice tells me that a child abuser should be given a long custodial sentence, depending on the severity of the actions, and put forever on a sex offender list - two witnesses or not, mandatory reporting state or not" - what facts should I post to support this statement?
• 

  Fisherman

  "When a child says he or she has been sexually abused, common sense tells me that the police should be told so that the matter can go before a court. Natural justice tells me that a child abuser should be given a long custodial sentence, depending on the severity of the actions, and put forever on a sex offender list - two witnesses or not, mandatory reporting state or not" - what facts do I should I post to support this statement?

  You said shame on the watchtower. I said back it up.