Posts by defender of truth

22

UK: Would anyone like to attend Frank Otuo's next hearing against the Watchtower? Or send him your support?

by defender of truth in

www.standard.co.uk/news/jehovahs-witness-sues-for-150000-after-church-snubbed-him-over-fraud-claims-9750062.htmlfrank otuo is suing the watchtower for disfellowshipping him and causing the loss of his family and his friends, after being disfellowshipped based on a false accusation of fraud.on friday may 13th 2016, a hearing will take place to decide whether the watchtower's defence will be thrown out.otuo is confident that it will be.

;)would anyone like to be there on the day, to see what happens and maybe even report back and tell us what you saw?.

otuo would like it if some people could be there to cheer him on, as it were.

defender of truth

Turn your screen sideways if
you can't read this post!
[This was first posted by akromo on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5633567157649408/watch-towers-ridiculous-defence-otuo-v-morley-watch-tower?page=1 .
All I have done is tidied up the formatting a bit to make it a little easier to understand. To me, anyway. ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
FRANK KOFI OTUO
and
JONATHAN DAVID MORLEY
and
Claimant
1st Defendant
2nd Defendant
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF BRITAIN
HQ14D02898
AMENDED DEFENCE
BY ORDER OF SIR DAVID EADY DATED 23 MARCH 2016 ________________________________________________________
The Parties
At the material time, the First Defendant served as an elder in the London, Wimbledon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereinafter “Wimbledon Congregation”). An elder is an ordained and appointed religious minister in a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Second Defendant is a legal entity of Jehovah’s Witnesses, incorporated in 1999 as a company limited by guarantee and duly registered with the Charity Commission in England with charitable status (Charity number 1077961). It is one of the bodies that provide support in the United Kingdom and Ireland for the religious activities of
1
Jehovah’s Witnesses, a known Christian religion acknowledged as such by domestic authorities and many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Claimant is a former Jehovah’s Witness. At the material time, the Claimant was “disfellowshipped” (or excommunicated) from the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and he had requested reinstatement into the religion. The Claimant has never been a member of the Second Defendant.
As to paragraph 2 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that the First Defendant is one of the appointed elders in the Wimbledon Congregation. The body of elders of the Wimbledon Congregation was responsible for the oversight of the spiritual activities of the Wimbledon Congregation.
It is further admitted that at the material time, the First Defendant served as the Co- ordinator of the Wimbledon Congregation body of elders. This is not a superior position to that of the other Congregation elders. The role of Coordinator involves chairing meetings of the body of elders and coordinating part of the spiritual programmes that are provided in the Congregation.
It is denied that the First Defendant was appointed to oversee any “affairs” of the Second Defendant in the Wimbledon Congregation. The Wimbledon Congregation is an independent charity with its own Trustees (who are appointed from among the elders serving at any given time).
It is further denied that there was any malicious slander of the Claimant at the meeting or at any other time.
It is admitted that at the material time the First Defendant acted within the scope of his duties and role as a congregation elder. However, it is denied that either the First Defendant or the Second Defendant are liable for malicious slander of the Claimant.
Background
9. Paragraph 3 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the objective of the meeting was to discuss the Claimant’s request for reinstatement and that, in line with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Claimant had been disfellowshipped in July 2012 as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis of the sin
2
of fraud (according to the religious teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses). It is also admitted that the Claimant does not accept that he is disfellowshipped.
However, it is denied that the Claimant was seeking reinstatement into the “Second Defendant’s Organisation” since the Claimant has never been a member of the Second Defendant. It is also denied that the group of four congregation elders (the “Committee”) who made the decision to disfellowship the Claimant (the “Committee”) had any reason to believe that the allegation of fraud made against the Claimant by Mr Robert Wee was false or malicious.
Paragraph 4 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is not admitted save that:
it is admitted that the Claimant was invited to a meeting with the Committee – the invitation was given to the Claimant at a brief meeting with two elders on 8 January 2012;
the meeting with the Committee was convened on 13 January 2012;
it is denied the Claimant was “summoned” to the meeting with the First Defendant, he was invited;
and it is denied that the Claimant’s attendance at the judicial committee hearing was “mandated”, although it is admitted that pursuant to the beliefs and practices and internal religious procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses he could have been disfellowshipped in his absence if he did not provide good reason for not attending.
Paragraph 5 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that:
A. the Claimant was informed of the decision to disfellowship him at a second meeting with the Committee on 30 March 2012, not at the meeting on 13 January 2012;
and
B. it is denied that the accusation of fraud was the only basis for the decision to disfellowship the Claimant. It is averred that disfellowshipping is a part of the Scripturally based internal religious procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses which does not involve the determination of any private or public law rights and is therefore non- justiciable before a secular court.
3
Paragraph 6 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the announcement of the Claimant’s disfellowshipping is the subject of a separate claim (No.HQ13D03735).
Paragraph 6 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges that the announcement of the Claimant’s disfellowshipping defamed him.
The words complained of
15. As to Paragraph 7 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that the words complained of were spoken by the First Defendant.
16. On 18 March 2016, Sir David Eady ruled that the words spoken by the First Defendant were capable of meaning:
a. The Claimant had been disfellowshipped a year before the reinstatement meeting on the ground of fraud.
b. The Claimant was guilty of fraud.
c. The Claimant was unrepentant.
Sir David further ruled that these meanings are capable of being defamatory of the Claimant.
It is averred that in the particular circumstances in which the words were spoken, the words in fact meant that:
The Claimant had been disfellowshipped for the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses) a year before the reinstatement meeting.
The Committee had decided that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses), a year before the reinstatement meeting.
The Claimant did not accept that the conduct for which he was disfellowshipped constituted the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
19. The relevant circumstances were:
The reinstatement meeting was convened by religious ministers, solely for religious purposes.
The dealings between the Committee and the Claimant were at all material times governed by and based on the Holy Scriptures and the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Committee had no remit to adjudicate on secular, legal definitions or concepts of fraud.
Paragraph 8 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted. The persons in attendance at the meeting were the Committee.
Paragraph 9 is denied. It is averred that the words in fact carried the meanings pleaded at paragraph 18 above.
It is averred that, in the particular circumstances in which the words complained of were spoken, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, as pleaded in paragraph 18, does not give rise to a real and substantial tort.
As a matter of fact, the only other persons who heard the words spoken were the same three individuals on the Committee that decided that the Claimant he would be disfellowshipped on the basis of the sin of fraud. There was nothing new to those three individuals in:
A. a statement that the Claimant had been disfellowshipped for the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses);
B. a statement that the Committee and others had found that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses); or
C. a suggestion that the Claimant did not accept the Committee’s decision;
that would adversely affect the claimants reputation.
5
Accordingly, any damage to the Claimant’s reputation in the minds of the listeners, that is, the Committee members was insignificant and the Claimant’s claim does not therefore disclose a real and substantial tort.
Defence of Qualified Privilege
Further or in the alternative, it is averred that the words complained of were spoken under circumstances to which qualified privilege attached and the Claimant has not provided any particulars or evidence of malice.
The relevant circumstances are as follows:
In September 2011, a third party who was a fellow believer of the Claimant complained to the elders in the Wimbledon Congregation that the Claimant had defrauded him.
The Committee carefully considered the third party’s complaint and found sufficient evidence to uphold the complaint and disfellowship the Claimant (an announcement was made in July 2012 that the Claimant was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
The Claimant made several requests to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the period after his disfellowshipping.
A reinstatement meeting was convened on 22 July 2013 following an express request for reinstatement by the Claimant.
The purpose of the meeting was to assess whether the Claimant was now fit, in accordance with the religious practices and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The only persons present at the meeting, other than the Claimant, were the Committee of four elders who had decided to disfellowship the Claimant a year earlier for the sin of fraud in accordance with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
All in attendance were aware that the focus and intention of the Committee was to assess the Claimant’s attitude towards the conduct for which he had been disfellowshipped.
The individual members of the Committee, had reciprocal religious and moral duties and interests to explore in a full and frank manner how the Claimant felt about the decision to disfellowship him and the basis for that decision, in order to determine whether he was now fit, in accordance with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be reinstated to the religion.
The Claimant was fully aware that the elders on the Committee were acting in their capacity as religious ministers and in fulfillment of their ecclesiastical duties would have to examine spiritual issues involving sin and repentance, how the Claimant felt about the disfellowshipping decision, and the steps he had taken since the decision. The Claimant knew that the reinstatement meeting was private and confidential and involved only the Committee and the Claimant.
Defence of Truth
Further or in the alternative, if (which is denied) the natural and ordinary meaning of the words spoken, as pleaded in paragraph 18 above, was defamatory of the Claimant, it is averred that the meaning is true.
As a matter of fact, the Claimant had been disfellowshipped on the basis that the Committee found he had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious practices and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Committee found him unrepentant, and the Claimant did not accept that decision or the basis for it.
It is averred that whether or not the Committee was correct to find that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses) is not justiciable before a secular Court.
Innuendo
Paragraph 10 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that it is averred that the basis for the disfellowshipping was the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
It is averred that an allegation of fraud was made by Mr Robert Wee against the Claimant in September 2011. The allegation was put to the Claimant by the Committee and ultimately lead to the decision to disfellowship the Claimant.
7
Malice
Paragraph 11 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the Claimant denied and continues to deny the allegation made by Mr Wee.
Paragraph 11 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges the First and Second Defendants conspired to harm the Claimant, by “being indifferent to the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegations complained of” or at all.
It is not understood whether the Claimant wishes to advance a plea of malice. In any event, no facts or matters are provided to support such a claim. For the avoidance of doubt, any assertion of malice on the part of the Defendants is denied. It is averred that the Committee followed the standard procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses for handling sin and acted with honesty and integrity throughout.
Claimant’s Alleged Damage
Paragraph 12 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
Paragraph 13 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
Paragraph 14 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. It is averred that the Claimant’s fitness to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not relevant to a claim for defamation and in any event non-justiciable before a secular court.
Paragraph 15 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges that the alleged slander has been “republished” in the London Evening Standard (the “Standard”) and that the alleged republication has “subjected the Claimant to further ridicule and humiliation in his neighbourhood and community-at-large”.
Paragraph 15 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the Standard published a report dated 23 September 2014 which stated that the Claimant had issued proceedings against the First and Second Defendants for defamation.
It would appear that the Standard obtained its information from documents filed at Court by the Claimant and/or from the Claimant himself. The Defendants note that the report does not contain the alleged defamatory words complained of in this claim. In so far as the article contains any defamation of the Claimant, which is not admitted, it is denied that the Defendants are responsible for the same.
8
Paragraph 16 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. Further, the Claimant did not provide any “notice of proceedings in a pre-action protocol” before issuing the instant claim and therefore the Defendants do not understand the Claimant’s assertions in this paragraph.
Paragraph 17 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that a report on the Claimant’s claim was published in the Standard on 23 September 2014. However, it is denied that there was any republication of the alleged slander which is the subject of this claim. It is further denied that the Defendants were responsible for anything written in the report which caused the Claimant loss or damage.
45. Paragraph 18 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraph 39 above and aver that the Claimant’s disfellowshipping and the consequences thereof is not the subject of this claim and would not be justiciable before a secular court in any event. Further, none of the matters pleaded constitute special damage.
Paragraph 19 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is not admitted, save that it is denied that the alleged slander of the First Defendant has caused the Claimant any “spiritual harm” or “mental distress”.
Paragraph 20 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
Paragraph 21 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied that the Defendants have “barred” any members of the Claimant’s family from seeing him.
Paragraph 22 of the Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. In any event, even if the Claimant could establish that the words complained of constituted actionable slander and were not spoken on an occasion protected by qualified privilege, which is denied, given the context in which the words complained of were spoken, the words spoken could not and did not interfere with the Claimant’s right to respect for his private and family life.
Paragraph 23 is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the matters pleaded. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
Paragraph 24 is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the matters pleaded. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
9
52. Paragraph 25 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraphs 45 and 49 above.
53.Paragraph 26 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’
Paragraph 26 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’s claim under Article 9 appears to arise in relation to his disfellowshipping which is not the subject of this claim and is in any event non-justiciable before the secular court. The Defendants aver that Article 9 in conjunction with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to determine the membership of a religious community as held by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania (no. 2330/09, 136, 137, 165, 9 July 2013).
For all of the reasons in this Amended Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to any relief claimed at paragraphs 27-29 or at all.
As to paragraph 28, the Defendants make no admission of the damages claimed by the Claimant and put him to strict proof of his alleged loss.
56.As to paragraph 29, the Claimant has failed to provide any details of alleged “unreasonable behaviour” on the part of the Defendants. In the absence of any particulars, this allegation is denied.
Legal Department Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain Solicitors for the Defendants 7 April 2016

22

UK: Would anyone like to attend Frank Otuo's next hearing against the Watchtower? Or send him your support?

by defender of truth in

www.standard.co.uk/news/jehovahs-witness-sues-for-150000-after-church-snubbed-him-over-fraud-claims-9750062.htmlfrank otuo is suing the watchtower for disfellowshipping him and causing the loss of his family and his friends, after being disfellowshipped based on a false accusation of fraud.on friday may 13th 2016, a hearing will take place to decide whether the watchtower's defence will be thrown out.otuo is confident that it will be.

;)would anyone like to be there on the day, to see what happens and maybe even report back and tell us what you saw?.

otuo would like it if some people could be there to cheer him on, as it were.

defender of truth

www.standard.co.uk/news/jehovahs-witness-sues-for-150000-after-church-snubbed-him-over-fraud-claims-9750062.html

Frank Otuo is suing the Watchtower for disfellowshipping him and causing the loss of his family and his friends, after being disfellowshipped based on a false accusation of fraud.

On Friday May 13th 2016, a hearing will take place to decide whether the Watchtower's defence will be thrown out.Otuo is confident that it will be. ;)

Would anyone like to be there on the day, to see what happens and maybe even report back and tell us what you saw?

Otuo would like it if some people could be there to cheer him on, as it were.

Details of the hearing:
Friday 13th May, 11am at the Queens Bench Division High Court in London . Court 14.
https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/queen-s-bench-division

Here is a description of the situation from a source close to Otuo:

"If you read their defence posted by akromo, you will see that they appear to have failed to defend the allegations of fraud made against him, so they have an unacceptable defence which he has applied to strike out. If successful, and I believe he will be, they will have 14 days to refile properly and if not they lose without trial."

The Watchtower's defence will be posted next.

If you want to post messages of support for Otuo, or you want to let him know that you will attend, please do so on this thread. I will send this link to him.Thank you.

7

more from ARC

by zeb in

royal commission hosts criminal justice public roundtablesthe royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse is holding a series of public roundtables in april to discuss a range of criminal justice issues with invited participants.

the public roundtables follow march’s public hearing into criminal justice issues.

royal commission chief executive officer philip reed said the public roundtables will discuss adult sex offender treatment programs, director of public prosecution’s (dpp) oversight and complaint mechanisms and reporting offences.“these roundtables will invite comment and discussion from a range of participants, including police, public prosecutors, criminal justice policy officials, academic and practitioner experts and others,” mr reed said.“consultation through these public roundtables will help inform the royal commission’s criminal justice policy work,” mr reed said.

defender of truth

Bump for any who missed this.

Thanks again, Zeb.

Venue: Hearing Room 2, Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Sydney.
When: Wednesday 20 April (reporting offences) 10am AEST-4pm
Thursday 21 April (adult sex offender treatment programs) 10am AEST-1pm
Friday 29 April (DPP complaints and oversight mechanisms) 10am AEST-4pm
Time: Commencing 10am AEST

The public roundtables will be streamed live via webcast on the Royal Commission’s website at
www.childabuse royalcommission.gov.au

4

Senator's last rites to church tax breaks

by defender of truth in

senator's last rites to church tax breaks.

getting rid of tax breaks for churches and axing the school chaplaincy program could save the federal budget $250 million a year.. liberal democrats senator david leyonhjelm says the government should consider the move, which he has had costed by the parliamentary budget office, in this year's budget.. "this easter, the liberal democrats propose a $250 million annual boost to the budget by abolishing taxpayer support for religion," senator leyonhjelm told aap on thursday.. .

the christian church had made a "significant contribution to liberal democratic values" and had a right to impose religious tests for membership and employment, the senator said.. "however, we do not consider it appropriate for taxpayers to pick up the tab for what is fundamentally a private matter.".

defender of truth

Strange, I would've thought some people would have found this interesting.
Ah well, I will just leave you with these points:

Religion is a part of people’s private lives, so why does the government allow tax breaks for it?

...we remain a largely secular country that at the same time is blessed with a multitude of different religious beliefs, or total indifference.
What does confound a lot of people though, regardless of their subscription to any particular brand of God, is the legislated privilege and preference accorded to organised religion in this country.
Religion is a part of people’s private lives that is totally optional, yet we enshrine it at a budgetary level...in tax breaks bestowed on everyone from the Catholics to the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Church of Scientology, your local mosque and the multimillion-dollar money machines in the happy-clapper sector such as Hillsong.
Churches don’t pay income or company tax as the rest of this country does. In most cases they are also exempt from state taxes and charges such as stamp duty, and exempt from local government rates.
In effect, the revenues of the temples of the faithful are subsidised by everybody else on the basis that, according to government guidelines, the “advancement of religion” is deemed philanthropic as it is supposedly beneficial to the community.

But seriously, in 21st century Australia, do we really need to be foregoing untold revenue to effectively subsidise evangelising and growing what in some cases are billion-dollar property and investment empires?

www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/religion-in-australia-continues-to-benefit-from-tax-subsidies-despite-preaching-doctrines-that-contradict-modern-societal-norms/news-story/472a57734a806644f4e7292005ed3cdc

22

Im wondering...maybe the GB are truly mentally damaged, not just deceivers.

by sowhatnow in

has anyone by chance read the latest issue of pshychology today?

april issue, article title' moment of impact'.. i havent fiished reading it yet, but it got me thinking, how likely is it that many born in jws [ teens in particular since thats the age these issues start to appear] will end up with these problems mentioned in the article?

i know of a few adults that have this problem, schizophrenia, bi polar, ect.

defender of truth

sowhatnow 7 hours ago
well my topic wasnt actuallly about them only, i was asking about in general the likelyhood of many youg people being mentally damaged, has anyone actually read my post?

I read your post.

Did you read the link I posted?

From the page, as a summary:

Despite a lack of reliable scientific studies, there is consistent indication of high levels of mental illness amongst Jehovah's Witnesses.
There are a number of reasons why this could be the case - isolation from general society, an unrealistic view of the world and the destructive nature of the threat of disfellowshipping.
Total reliance on a leadership that claim angelic direction, yet have a string of failed prophecies and doctrines, leads members to fear the religion may be wrong but fear leaving, leading to cognitive dissonance. Those that do leave are often inadequately prepared for life and lack a support group that would normally be developed in a healthy upbringing. Additionally, people with mental illness can be attracted to religious groups and the loving brotherhood that they promise.

www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/mental-issues.php

13

JWs and "Simple Truths"

by JW_Rogue in

in public talks we would always hear about how we knew god's word was the truth because it was simple and clear.

how god revealed the real truth to uneducated and ordinary people.

the problem is that in reality something being simple or clear isn't an indicator of it's truthfulness at all.

defender of truth

JW_Rogue 2 hours ago
In public talks we would always hear about how we knew God's word was the truth because it was simple and clear.
How God revealed the real truth to uneducated and ordinary people.

The thing is, though, there was nothing simple and clear about some of those teachings.

Remember the Revelation book?

Instead they want "Simple Truths" handed to them, that's why they'll ignore anything that gives rise to any new or contradictory explanations.

Simple truths? Again, do you remember the Revelation book?... ;)

Also, as a side point. (I know this is not what you meant by those words, I am being a bit sarcastic)...

New and contradictory explanations were frequent when it came to interpreting the Bible book of Revelation.

Yet JW's could not ignore them.

They had to teach these new and contradictory thoughts, whenever the latest book came out.

www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/revelation-daniel-prophetic-interpretation.php

22

Im wondering...maybe the GB are truly mentally damaged, not just deceivers.

by sowhatnow in

has anyone by chance read the latest issue of pshychology today?

april issue, article title' moment of impact'.. i havent fiished reading it yet, but it got me thinking, how likely is it that many born in jws [ teens in particular since thats the age these issues start to appear] will end up with these problems mentioned in the article?

i know of a few adults that have this problem, schizophrenia, bi polar, ect.

defender of truth

www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/mental-issues.php

4

Senator's last rites to church tax breaks

by defender of truth in

senator's last rites to church tax breaks.

getting rid of tax breaks for churches and axing the school chaplaincy program could save the federal budget $250 million a year.. liberal democrats senator david leyonhjelm says the government should consider the move, which he has had costed by the parliamentary budget office, in this year's budget.. "this easter, the liberal democrats propose a $250 million annual boost to the budget by abolishing taxpayer support for religion," senator leyonhjelm told aap on thursday.. .

the christian church had made a "significant contribution to liberal democratic values" and had a right to impose religious tests for membership and employment, the senator said.. "however, we do not consider it appropriate for taxpayers to pick up the tab for what is fundamentally a private matter.".

defender of truth

Deluded people can think it is persecution if they like.

How likely is this to happen, politically speaking?

The Australian budget is on May 3rd.

243

Victoria, Australia: Steven Unthank's Press Release: JW's Hierarchy Formally Charged Today With Child Abuse

by AndersonsInfo in

jehovah's witnesses hierarchy charged.

immediate press release: 26 july 2011. link to this press release: http://wp.me/p1g1hc-4o.

worldwide church hierarchy charged with child abuse.

defender of truth

(Talking now about the Victoria Inquiry into child abuse)

Sorry, when I said that, I should have explained I was referring to the bi-partisan parliamentary inquiry that was established in May 2012 in that state to seek information about the causes and effects of criminal abuse within religious and other non-government organisations;

There were two different inquiries.

But seeing as the date of the news article was 2013, you may have worked that out anyway. ;)

243

Victoria, Australia: Steven Unthank's Press Release: JW's Hierarchy Formally Charged Today With Child Abuse

by AndersonsInfo in

jehovah's witnesses hierarchy charged.

immediate press release: 26 july 2011. link to this press release: http://wp.me/p1g1hc-4o.

worldwide church hierarchy charged with child abuse.

defender of truth

For the benefit of WHATSGOINGON and anyone else who wants to know what happened and what Mr Unthank did afterwards...

(Forgive me for all the blue links, the links would be so long otherwise that the text doesn't all display. They all go to the right places ;))

Here is what happened to this case you were asking about:

"The four children launched their prosecution with a magistrate's permission on July 26, 2011. In October 2011 the church's Governing Body wrote to all Victorian congregations, telling them to get the checks.

At the final court hearing, on February 21, 2012, the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the case, saying it was not in the public interest."

"The child, 11, who is due to give evidence on Monday at the state inquiry into how the churches handled child sex abuse, wanted to force the church to comply with working with children laws. After four hearings, to which church leaders did not send a representative, the church began complying and the Office of Public Prosecutions intervened to discontinue the case.

(Talking now about the Victoria Inquiry into child abuse)

The inquiry will also hear from anti-Jehovah's Witness campaigner Steven Unthank, a former member of the church who says he and his family were ostracised and persecuted after he tried to tackle child abuse.

His submission alleges the church and its incorporated body, the Watchtower Society, covered up criminal child abuse, including rape, sexual assault, death threats, blackmail and assault, across four states by ordained ministers and officers of the church.''.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/child-in-jehovahs-witness-court-bid-20130217-2elcg.html

The Victorian Inquiry then basically led up to the ARC:

"In Victoria, in January 2011 the Protecting Victoria's Vulnerable Children Inquiry was launched to investigate Victoria's child protection system and make recommendations to strengthen and improve the protection and support of vulnerable young people...

A bi-partisan parliamentary inquiry was established in May 2012 in that state to seek information about the causes and effects of criminal abuse within religious and other non-government organisations;...

By June 2012, there was community and academic pressure for the establishment of a Royal Commission, most especially in Victoria... (Read the rest of the 'Background' section if you want to, I'm trying to make this quick to read)

Australian Royal Commission wiki page

----------

This was his submission to the Victorian Inquiry:

Steven Unthank submission to Victoria Inquiry

He also started Jwsurvivors:

"JW Survivors is a volunteer not-for-profit community based victim advocacy group for survivors of the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses within Australia. The group was founded by Steven Unthank. The seeds of JW Survivors were planted by current and former members of the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and their families, in response to the Victorian Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Organisations, and an extensive submission made in relation to the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their administrative controlling corporation, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia."

www.atheistgeeknews.com/tag/candace-conti

November 26, 2012
JW Survivors lodged today a submission, written and prepared by Steven Unthank, in reply to the Australian government’s request for stakeholder consultation for the establishing of the “Terms of Reference” for the Child Abuse Royal Commission.

Among the 9 recommendations made to the Royal Commission by JW Survivors was that “the Royal Commission investigate religious and other organisations in relation to their response to working with children laws as legislated in various jurisdictions across Australia.” The submission explained that “working with children laws and child safety legislation are the frontline of physical and sexual protection for children within the community”, and that “a failure, or refusal to comply with working with children laws, by an organisation, religious or otherwise, may be an indicator of the systemic failure of such an organisation to view the physical and sexual safety of children, with whom they work with, as a priority.” The submission also cited the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example of one religious organisation engaging in the “wholesale” criminal breaching of working with children laws.

On 12 November 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that she will be recommending to the Governor-General the establishment of a Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse in Australia. Following this, the government requested the input of stakeholder organisations in making recommendations for the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the Child Abuse Royal Commission. JW Survivors was one of those organisations who made a submission.
Click on the below link to download a copy of JW Survivors 11 page Submission:

JW Survivors submission to the ARC

https://jwsurvivors.wordpress.com/