The reason that that was not brought up by the ARC was that it was outside their scope. How can this be considered the child abuse in an institution. The Commission has a mandate to investigate the investigation of institutional child abuse.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
OC and again that is where the mandatory reporting statutes in each jurisdiction comes into play. It depends again on the jurisdiction. Such as in Alaska and Louisiana, it is rolled into the child abuse statute that if someone sees child pornography then they are required to report the matter. The possession, creation and distribution of child pornography is a separate statute, but the reporting of it falls under the child abuse statute. So just because the child pornography statute doesn't mandate processors of film to report it doesn't mean that they aren't required to report it, it is covered in a separate statute. You have to take the full law into account, just like you have to take the full Watchtower policy in it's totality.
See... OC was able to write the policy in 10 seconds.
It might seem simplistic but it is actually simple.
Is the alleged activity criminal? Yes - then report.
So if the alleged activity is a criminal act then report it. So if you see someone speed down the road are you required to report it to the police. Or let's say that you see someone or someone confesses that they murdered someone are you required by law to report it. For the vast majority of laws you are not. It is only when the law mandates that you are required to do something are you required to do it.
Don't be dense, Richard. I gave you a link to Interpol. There is a Baseline system that they use that defines child abuse material globally - there is a category whereby images that fall into it are considered to be illegal worldwide. In every country.
Just report it. Let the proper authorities determine if a law has been broken.
RO: How can this be considered the child abuse in an institution.
Because the WT has published a policy that covers it. It is child abuse and the WT is determining how they will handle it (or not handle it).
Did I say that it wasn't child abuse. I said how could this be considered in the jurisdiction of a commission that is mandated to investigate not just child abuse, but child abuse in institutions.
And I answered your question.
Accept the response.
just simple: Would Jesus join you watching child pornography? If answer is No, it is therefore a sin, as Jesus was sinless. Any self respecting Christian organization would always consider this as very bad. Christian moral or law applies. The WT stand shows they know some of their members like this type of entertainment and therefore do not apply the Christian moral / law but their condition of the heart. Horrific, ugly, disgraceful
What is the answer that you gave, that you don't care about the grey areas.
We are not talking about each and every law. We are not talking about reporting a criminal activity because the law mandates you to. We are talking about an institutional child protection policy. We are talking about how an organisation responds when they become aware of an allegation of child abuse, and yes, I include the viewing of child pornography in this.
Any of these activities are criminal. Some, such as consensual sexual activity between older teens, may fall into a grey area in terms of where paedophilia is concerned but it's for the authorities to make that judgement.
An organisation can choose to adopt processes that go beyond what is required by the law to ensure that they reduce the risk of abuse taking place or continuing once it is exposed. Why the WTS seems to be so backward in all of this is beyond me.
The WTS is never going to held up to scrutiny for not reporting someone speeding but if they fail to report allegations of sexual abuse or the viewing of child pornography then then deserve all the criticism they receive.
Making pedantic points like some know it all 6th form gobshite does you no favours RO.