Australian Royal Commission Findings released
If you ran the JW-Talk or JW-dot-org websites, would you mention it?
Bumping to read later. Scanned through it quickly...amazing. Just amazing.
They look really bad on paper. YAY!!
To aid anyone looking for these files in the future:
These have been added to my Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Evidence archive.
punkofnice said '...Stunning! Say no more, squire! Mr Jackson is a liar. Dr Applewhite ia a liar. the whole darn kit and kaboodle of the watchtower is a lie..'
the Watchtower's submission states on page 139
'...11.82 Counsel Assisting’s suggested finding F73:
F73 Dr Applewhite’s report is therefore rejected. For the reasons provided in paragraphs 9.400 to 9.401, the finding should read: Dr Applewhite’s report is therefore accepted ...'
It appears as if someone 'just doesn't get it' !
The ARC is truly revealing 'The Truth About The Truth'!
"It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas!"
Thank you ARC!
They're response has all the attitude of a belligerent child 'that's not fair, it's not like that', 'it might be black but I say it's white'
WBTSofA Submission 10.2: "...Unfortunately, those assisting the Commission appear to have misunderstood the relevant Jehovah’s Witnesses’ documents, which would not be the case with congregation elders who understand and implement the direction contained in the documents with the support of the Service Department."
LOL The bold part made me laugh.
The commission did such an awesome job of capturing the context and subtext of the relevant documents. To claim that there was a misunderstanding is laughable.
Besides that, when dealing with something as dire as child sexual abuse, the directions should be incredibly CLEAR - with no room for ambiguity or misunderstanding.
If the documents were 'misunderstood', really, who is to blame here? The author(s) or the educated reader?
Ruby456: omg - this report isn't as damning as I'd thought it would be - it really isn't. Other religions examined are much much worse.
"doctrine of relative filth" - When unethical actions look good when compared with worse behavior by others.
Ruby456: Most of the changes required are related to religion v secularism views of children and women against family orientation
WTF is "family orientation"? Your whole final sentence reads like gibberish, imo. Nice misdirect (fallacious reasoning) in the opening remark, too.
To be clear: the submission isn't the final report yet.
"The submission will outline key findings based on the hearing’s evidence and the recommendations likely to come from them. The recipients of the submission may then provide their own written submissions in reply.
The Commissioners then consider this information when they form their final recommendations during the course of the Royal Commission." - http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/.../case-studies
As I understand it, the government will review the final policy recommendations and can enact some or all recommendations into law.
What really shocks me is that Watchtower doesn't agree with one single finding. Their response is basically: "not supported by the evidence", "too broad", "incorrect", "should be disregarded", etc. They are so holy; they didn't do anything wrong. It makes me puke.
Take for example their response on the commissions finding "F54 The sanction of disfellowshipping does nothing to protect children in the community". Watchtower's reply begins with: "9.301 No evidence was presented to support the suggested finding." Really? Are they suggesting that they did something to protect children in the community? They go on: "9.304 The suggested finding wrongly assumes a broad obligation upon Jehovah’s Witnesses 'to protect children in the community' but fails to identify how such an obligation exists." #FAIL GO TO THE POLICE!