ARC Analysis Summary of Case Files

by Richard Oliver 161 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • cobweb

    You have a long thread on this issue already. Forgive me if i get this wrong because i haven't read those threads through, but my impression is that you are very passionate about the idea the JW organisation is only minimally responsible for child abuse and people are being unfair and opportunistic by making such a big thing about it & its not justified to sue them in the manner that is occuring. Is that the size of it?

    Where does your passion come from for making this kind of argument? If you are not an apologist i don't really understand what is your motivation for making this issue such a focus.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I am just looking at the analysis that the ARC released, and there is a lot of information in that data. All I wanted to get opinions of people on here. One person stated if it is 1006 or 1 then it doesn't matter, because 1 is already too many. That is that person's opinion, which is valid and I am sure that person feels very strongly about it. I was not trying to start a fight, nor will I say that someone is right or wrong on this thread. I just been finding the data interesting. And wanted to get people's opinion when it comes to the data beyond the 1006 number that is getting a lot of patient opinions.

  • steve2

    One of the difficulties with your "question" is it was presented in a "loaded" context which, even though carefully worded, appeared to be a rational apologetic. You are on a hiding to no where - and your subsequent comments have the flavour of special pleading.

    Numbers aside, here's the thing:

    JWs policies and practices in responding to child sexual abuse have been appraised by the Australian Royal Commission and found to be seriously flawed, with the child potentially re-traumatized by the practices, among other negative effects.

    Played out at a local congregational level, it means that bodies of elders are ill-equipped to handle allegations of abuse and are virtually tied to phone contact with the branch office. A few of the more egregiously disgusting parts of their policies have been modified in more recent years; specifically, victims are no longer required to confront their alleged abuser and a child can have a support person and/or parents present (which is tricky if the alleged offender is a parent).

    Interestingly, as publicity about JW organization's patriarchal policies and practices spreads, it becomes apparent that, in one form or another, the organization is bedevilled by uninformed practices at the congregational level. I am privy to feedback from at least 3 regional congregations in my locality (New Zealand) in which women have come forward to belatedly disclose demeaning experiences they had as children in the context of child-sex allegations. None were reported to authorities - and in each case, the offender faced no sanctions whatsoever. Each of those women described the "follow up" by local elders as focused on their characters and the risk to the local congregations was not addressed.

    Yes, you could argue that we now live in more enlightened and informed times regarding responses to allegations of child sex abuse - but I would expect the "sole channel of Jehovah's work on earth" to be at least open and accepting of "best practice", reflected in their policies and practices. Oh, and the way the organization doggedly sticks to the two witness rule is sickening - given the highly secretive and controlling nature of child sexual abuse.

    Unfortunately, these kinds of experiences are "hidden" - they do not make up "numbers" of officially reported cases.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    Richard I like others are confused about your point exactly. Do you feel it is somehow less terrible when you look at the breakdown the WT society gave the ARC? Do you feel considering their past that those numbers are given in the spirit of transparency and integrity?

    The issue isn't the numbers. Its never been the numbers. This is a societal problem, and we don't expect ANY religion of community to be immune. the issue is that the branches worldwide have avoided telling their communities, and specifically law enforcement for their communities, because in their mind it would make them look bad. If they simply called the police, reported it, and took steps to protect those whom are always the most vulnerable members of our society, we wouldn't be able to say anything.

    Nobody thinks its the GB's fault that there is some sick elder, servant, publisher, or whatever who wants to touch kids. It IS however their fault for somehow thinking the privacy of this matter outweighs their responsibility to be good members of their community, and protectors of children in their midst. Their record on this is clear, and no matter how you break up the numbers in australia, the only one that matters is ZERO.

    Zero is the amount of times they reported abuse.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    Steve nailed it. JW's have been behind on this issue. Not exactly "sole channel" material.


    I was hoping not to respond to anything and just get people's feedback on my question. But right out of the gate you attack.....RO

    I was pointing out the obvious..

    This is another attempt by you to minimize WatchTowers Guilt..

    By presenting us with Watchtowers "break down" of the pedophiles they protected..

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I bring up the numbers because of a number of issues. First, there are plenty of instances where not just on this site but other "ex-jw" sites they highlight the number of1006 that the ARC reported. So obviously some people feel that the number is a key factor in all of this. I am not saying everyone who has a problem with Watchtower policy on this is highlighting the number, but there are certainly many people who do. Second, there have been a number of people who use the number of 1006 to extrapolate how many witnesses they believe are pedophiles and how many elders and servants are pedophiles, so clearly some people view the number of 1006 as very important. I was just looking for how people view the numbers that are behind the 1006 number. I didn't highlight the contention that Watchtower feels that they didn't have a duty to report or anything like that. I just was looking at the official numbers that the ARC posted as part of their analysis.

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    Richard in what way are those numbers "official"? Do you mind answering my earlier questions? thanks man.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I consider them as official because the ARC staff published them, not as evidence submitted by Watchtower but by their analysis. I believe that if the ARC staff felt that Watchtower was hiding numbers that they would have indicated that somewhere in their findings or in their discussions. I am not saying that there were no hidden numbers, but it can be said that the staff were skeptical when it came to what Watchtower said, and if they felt that there were still numbers in hiding that they would have said something, questioned it in their testimony questions or in their report or would have dug even further to find the correct number.

  • OrphanCrow

    "...but it can be said that ..."

    oh ffs

Share this