3W,
Are you an elder? Have you ever been involved in any JC's? What are your credentials to make the claims you're making?
Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?
by listen 149 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
fullofdoubtnow
odrade said: However, in States where clerical confidentiality supercedes mandatory reporting, it would neither be surprising, nor unusual for an elder body to "encourage" the would-be reporting individual to "consider the reproach that YOU will be bringing on Jehovah."
However this is not the policy of the WT
Oh yes it is. The wts puts protecting its reputation above protecting any of its members. That's why Bill Bowen quite correctly called the wts a "paedophile paradise".
3w, I know you will try, as you have before, to discredit Bill Bowen, but I ask you again (you didn't respond the first time), if the information on silentlambs can be proved to be untrue, and you seem to think it can, why hasn't the wts tried to silence Bill Bowen through the courts? They went after the Quotes site, and won their case, so why daon't they go after silentlambs?
I await your answer....
-
Odrade
Let's break that "policy" down, shall we?
In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.
The operative word here, as has been pointed out, is "MAY." The elders MAY be required to report. This is not a policy. This is a statement of possible outcomes. Then they state "IF SO," IF the State REQUIRES reporting, the elders are expected to comply. What about in the states where clergy confidentiality supercedes mandatory reporting? In those cases the Society has no "policy" to report allegations of child rape. It is up to the individual elder body. Did you get that? NO OFFICIAL POLICY. Period, full stop. To borrow your words, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. I hope you aren't responsible for any children getting raped...
Elders are told time and time again that they should never discourage anyone from going to the police since child molesting is a crime.
What happens to an elder who DOES discourage anyone from going the police? While the debateable "official policy" is that they should never discourage police reporting, what happens if they do discourage reporting? What is the official policy on that? Hand slap? Phone call from legal? Removal from elder body? Good ol' boy handshake? I see NO official policy here either, and never have.
And also this from the 1992 letter to elders: As members or the community in which Caesar still acts as God's minister and hence still has a certain authority, all in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type (see ks91, page 138) In child abuse cases such authorities might include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police.
"All... would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility..." is NOT a policy. It's not even a suggestion to report. It's only a suggestion that JWs decide whether or not they wish to report allegations of abuse.
"In child abuse cases such authorities MIGHT include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police." MIGHT, again the operative word is MIGHT. Thus it follows that it also MIGHT NOT. Again, where is the "official policy?" This is subterfuge, misdirection, politicospeak, loaded language and double talk at its best.
So far, YOU have shown not one single thing that is an unassailable "official policy" of the WTS regarding handling of charges of child rape. There are more loopholes in this "policy" than there are in corporate accounting, which, in all seriousness, is probably what this supposed "policy" boils down to.
My "opinion" is based on observation, reading the "policy" very carefully, and listening to recorded WT spokespeople on their "policy" regarding sex abuse. Not, as you put it, "false information gleaned from enemies of JWs."
I have seen no policy yet, just a bunch of pandering doublespeak from the WTS.
-
Odrade
FODN:
They went after the Quotes site, and won their case, so why daon't they go after silentlambs?
Technically, they did not win their case, they didn't even have a very good case. They just had lots of money and were willing to throw it at Quotes. Quotes acknowledged that he could not possibly raise the kind of money he needed to defend himself all the way to a judgement against WT, so he settled.
But you do raise a good question. If SL is so full of lies and slander, why has the WTS not taken them to court over the issue? Is it because their dirty laundry regarding the mishandling of 1000s of cases of child rape in the congregation would then be submitted into evidence and made a part of the public record? Of course this is simply an inference made without facts in evidence, but it is certainly interesting to consider. It seems to me that a religious organization with such an unassailable, ironclad and "superior" policy regarding the handling of abuse within its constituency, would be very motivated to defend their good name. After all, having such a good and airtight protocol for action would almost assure a favorable outcome, would it not?
-
candidlynuts
what disturbs me is the discrepancy between written watchtower policy (written by lawyers and gone over with a fine tooth comb)
and verbal instructions to elders...
one example.. the elders pay attention book that was posted online with the notes from elders meetings in it.
-
thirdwitness
Sue Bill Bowen? Maybe they are gathering info and waiting him to hang himself further.
Still no proof is forthcoming. Only the same old rhetoric that anyone can say. Where are the instructions to DF anyone who reports uncorroborated or unsubstantiated child abuse? Where are the instructions to DF anyone who warns someone about a child molester? Where are the instructions to appoint child molesters as servants? Where are the instructions to tell victims they should not bring reproach upon the org by reporting child abuse?
We await such proof? We are tired of the rhetoric? Do we give forth rhetoric? NO . We have given you the documented evidence as to the policy of the WTS and just what the elders have been instructed to do. We have shown the reasonableness of the policy and how lawyers would cringe if they thought the WTS was saying you can't report child molesting, you can appoint former child molesters as servants, you must DF anyone who reports it or tells someone else. We have shown the court cases which have exhonerated JWs. We have documented the lies of SilentLambs and Sarah Poisson. We have shown the Bible reason for the two witness rule and just what it means. We have shown you numerous publications which say child abuse should not be hidden and that we will not protect child abusers from the law. What have you shown us?
You have shown us that your vocabulary includes vulgar language. You have shown us that you can be quite insulting. You have claimed that JWs is a pedophile paradise. You have told us that the WT's policy is bull sh*% time and time again. You have told us stories about child molesting some of which appear outlandishly exaggerated and none of which have been substantiated in a court of law. But you have not shown us any of the claims that you make are really the policy of the WT at all. And you have not shown us where the WTS has been found guilty of promoting a haven for child abuse. Perhaps it is time to put up or shut up? We have put up. Now its your turn and please spare the rhetoric if possible.
-
fullofdoubtnow
It seems to me that a religious organization with such an unassailable, ironclad and "superior" policy regarding the handling of abuse within its constituency, would be very motivated to defend their good name. After all, having such a good and airtight protocol for action would almost assure a favorable outcome, would it not?
It seems that way to me as well, which is why I put the question to thirdwitness. He doesn't, however, seem very disposed to answer it. I think that you are right about the reason the wts don't go after silentlambs, they really wouldn't want to risk their dirty laundry being aired in public unless they were absolutely sure of a favourable outcome. They must be aware of the information on SL, yet, as far as I am aware, they make no official denial of the evidence Bill Bowen presents, instead calling those who appear in the numerous TV investigations liars and leaving the rebuttal in the hands of blog writers like the author of the one we were referred to in this thread.
My boyfriend, who is also an ex jw, spoke recently to a current jw who remains a friend, and he was quick to call the BBC Panorama documentary a pack of lies, yet later admitted he hadn't seen it! His judgement was based on things said from the platform at the hall he attends. Another poster made an earlier comment that it is difficult to make an honest judgement unless one has heard both sides of the argument. Theirin lies the problem for jws, they are discouraged from seeing both sides of the issue, and can only use the wts child abuse policy as the basis for their argument. They really have no idea if the policy is correctly implemented or not.
-
Odrade
We have given you the documented evidence as to the policy of the WTS and just what the elders have been instructed to do. We have shown the reasonableness of the policy and how lawyers would cringe if they thought the WTS was saying you can't report child molesting, you can appoint former child molesters as servants, you must DF anyone who reports it or tells someone else. We have shown the court cases which have exhonerated JWs. We have documented the lies of SilentLambs and Sarah Poisson. We have shown the Bible reason for the two witness rule and just what it means. We have shown you numerous publications which say child abuse should not be hidden and that we will not protect child abusers from the law. What have you shown us?
You haven't shown any policy at all. You've shown a handful of loose suggestions that may or might be applied in certain circumstances, and only necessarily when required by law, otherwise it is up to the discretion of the BOE. This is NOT a policy.
The "policy" is not reasonable. The "policy" states that one MIGHT not be reappointed as a servant, (leaving the door open for a judgement call... again, NOT a policy, merely a "guideline." You have NOT shown court cases which exhonerate JWs, you have only referenced a court case that is now concluded, that states that not enough evidence was presented. A fair look at the court documents reveals that the judge found many disturbing aspects of the WTS handling of that case, though it did not meet the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS to hold them accountable. VERY different from being cleared of all charges. Is this poor comprehension on your part? Or is it intellectual dishonesty? Or outright lies and distortions?
WHO has documented the lies of SilentLambs and Miss Poisson? I haven't seen any proof or documentation of lies by either party. Not on this thread, and not on your blog. No proof.
You have quoted the bible's two witness law. You have not explained how it is that this law, written as a principle, and not specifically toward any particular sin, would require substantiation of the rape of a child at the mouth of two or more witnesses. You have not explained how that principle allows you to treat the child rapist as a "tax collector," in other words, just as a "worldly" person. You have also not explained how it is a rule, yet nowhere else in the NT is that extremely important rule of the WT regarding the establishment of guilt, is the be all and end all of the BOE's responsibilty toward victims of criminal assault. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Where is the "policy?"
WE have shown YOU countless instances where the wishy-washy "policy" of the WT has allowed for abuse of the flock, perpetration of crimes and intentional or unintentional infliction of additional pain and emotional/psychological trauma on children who have already been raped by members in good standing in the congregation.
I would like to extend an invitation to you: Next time the Convicted RAPIST of two (at least) of my childhood friends, the man who tried on numerous occasions to fondle me, and who did get away with inappropriately touching other young girls in my kingdom hall, next time he is scheduled to give a Public Talk in my home congregation, I invite you to come along and see how the policy effectively deals with child rapists, and keeps the congregation protected. He should be on the schedule sometime in the next 8 weeks. Better yet, why don't you come with me and visit one of the Kingdom Halls where he will be the visiting speaker. Let's see if the potential host families are warned that if they have any 8-9 year old daughters in their home, they would be advised not to invite him over for lunch? Why don't we go to that hall and ask around if anyone, including the elders in the host congregation, have been advised that he is a registered predatory sex offender in good standing in the congregation?
-
thirdwitness
If you do not see the policy then you have not read the blog nor the site where the WTS clearly states their policy. And if you have not seen the lies of Sara Poisson then you have not read the blog. Here it is again for you:
Poissonous Lies One of the most famous cases brought against the WTS is the one brought by the children of Sara Poisson at the behest of the Silent Lambs organization. You are no doubt aware of the case and have heard how the elders were told by her that her husband was sexually molesting her 2 children and the elders stood by and did nothing about it. But did you know that these statements are untrue, lies that can be factually documented.
You have no doubt read articles such as this about the case: "November 16. 2004 8:06AM "At issue are the claims of sisters Heather and Holly Berry, who allege their Jehovah's Witness congregation in Wilton ignored their mother's complaints that their father was sexually abusing them. After the police inadvertently learned of the abuse, Paul Berry was convicted of assaulting Holly in 2000 and is serving 56 to 112 years in state prison. According to court records, Paul Berry, formerly of Greenville, abused the girls sexually and physically in the 1980s, when they were between the ages of 3 and 10. In one case, he was accused of hanging Holly by her wrists from hooks on a barn wall. When their mother, Sara Poisson, reported the abuse to church elders between six and 10 times, they told her to "be a better wife" and to pray more, the records said."
But are you aware that the truth is that the elders were never told of sexual abuse by Paul Berry at this time by the mother, Sara Poisson. How do we know this to be the truth?
Note the testimony of the mother herself in the sentencing phase of Paul Berry. Sara Poisson testified: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."
Then notice what happened much later after her daughter had grown to maturity. Sara Poisson continues her testimony: "I did not hear from Holly for 18 months. She called one day from Indiana and sa1d she wanted to come home. I sent her a bus ticket and picked her up in (Ascutney), Vermont. She was thin, she was sick, and she had parasites. When she dismounted from that bus, she asked me, "Why did you let that happen?" And I said, "Why did I let what happen?" And this was the first time that I heard about the sexual abuse that had happened to her.""
According to Sara Poisson's on testimony at the sentencing of Paul Berry, she found out about the sexual abuse for the first time at a much later date than her conversation with the elders. No, she could not have possibly told the elders about any sexual abuse by Paul Berry. Silent lambs is attempting to discredit the WTS by spreading untruths. No wonder the WTS in the complaint against them denied it: "The church disputes the sisters' claims, however, and its lawyer, Donald Gardner of Manchester, has said church elders didn't know about the abuse until long after it had stopped and police were investigating."
Sara Poisson's testimony about her first suspecting sexual abuse at the sentencing phase of Paul Berry's trial is also contradictory: About this time, Heather, who was very young, began to act strangely. She refused to sleep in her bed, would only sleep in the bathtub. She threw things at her father and became very v1olent. Heather was the kind of little girl that brought wilted dandelions home for me. I suspected Paul was sexually abusing her, and began to ask questions of professionals and to take Heather to counseling. The situation went on for years. The abuse continued.
What does this reveal?
1. Lets assume that she is telling the truth when she says the elders told her not to report it to the authorities because we handle things in house. And so she listened to them and went against her better judgment. But then apparently she did not fully listen to the elders and ascribe to the notion that help from outside JWs organization should not be sought because here she acknowledges questioning professionals and taking her child to counseling. Yes, the fact is and we know it, that JWs do not condemn receiving outside help from professionals. Nor do they chastise or discipline members for reporting abuse to the authorities. This is a decision of each individual.
2. Heather received counseling and professionals were questioned. We have to wonder why didn't these counselors and professionals report the physical and sexual child abuse to the authorities? Why hasn't she brought a lawsuit against those counselors and professionals who surely learned of the abuse in questioning and counseling her child and Sara Poisson herself.
3. She admits the situation went on for years and she had no proof. It was not till much later that Holly told her. She did not and could not have told the elders that they were being sexually abused because according to her she did not know. If she did know about it then she allowed it to continue for years. I'm sorry. But these are the facts. I wonder if it bothers any of the opposers of JW's child abuse policy to realize that they have been duped into believing lies from silent lambs and Sara Poisson?
It is apparent from Sara Poisson's own testimony that she is the one who is the liar and not the WTS. At any rate the court dismissed the charges against the elders and the WTS and ruled the following: "We also disagree with the plaintiffs' assertion that special circumstances exist in this case such that an especial temptation and opportunity for Berry's criminal misconduct was created by Watchtower and Wilton Congregation. There is no allegation that the elders created any opportunity for Berry to abuse his daughters. As noted, there was no allegation that the alleged abuse took place on congregation property or at congregation-related activities. There is no allegation that the elders acted in any way other than by providing spiritual guidance and scriptural advice, at the request of the plaintiffs' mother."
You might take note of other lies by Sara Poisson: Concerning the teachings of JWs she said: "Women were not allowed to seek an education." We know that is a lie.
She said: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."
Another lie. There is no judicial discipline against anyone separating from their husband. There was no decision to choose God or choose her children. She could easily choose both if she desired. Many have been duped by the lies of Sara Poisson and Silent Lambs.
Poissonous Interview In 2002 BBC reporter Betsan Powys interviewed Sara Poisson and her daughter, Heather.
POWYS: Even after you had told them that her father was sexually abusing Heather, nothing changed?
POISSON: No, no. Well yeah, things changed, they got a lot worse, for me.
Notice the stammering. According to her own testimony that we showed above she did not know about the sexual abuse when she talked to the elders. How did she tell them about it? Either she lied under oath when she testified. Or she is lying in this interview. Notice how it continues.
POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.
POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.
POWYS: Sarah Poisson had no life outside the Kingdom Hall. When the congregation cast her out she had no choice but to move away. She didn't just lose every friend she had, overnight she was homeless, penniless, scraping a living to bring up her children. The friends they'd had openly shunned them.
Why was she DFed and removed from the congregation. Was it for separating from her husband? That is what we are led to believe. But any honest and reasonable person knows that she would not be Dfed for that reason. There is no dfing for separating from a mate or even divorcing them. The grounds for dfing would only come when remarrying without having scriptural grounds (fornication) for doing so.
POWYS: Heather Berry and her stepsister Holly Brewer have flown here from New Hampshire. The man who abused them has been gaoled for a minimum of 56 years. He was Heather's father. Now Heather and Holly are breaking new ground, they're taking the Jehovah's Witnesses to court.
HEATHER: I'm Heather from New Hampshire. I don't want to tell my story but I've heard the word 'victim' too many times today, and all of us are standing out here today and we're standing tall and proud and saying this happened and that it can't happen and we're survivors, and we're fighting and we're not victims.
POWYS: They're the first of those survivors to take their fight to court. They're claiming that not only did the church do nothing when they were abused, it ostracised and punished the family when they called the police.
HEATHER: I'm very glad I came, and like I said, I would do it again, and again, and again, and as many times as it takes to get a change in the policies and things that they hide constantly.
Can you believe that the church elders did this to them for simply going to the police? How terrible this WT organization must be to punish members for simply reporting crime? How courageous was Sara Poisson for finally ignoring the elders instructions at the risk of being ostracized and informing the police? Is that what really happened? Later on in the interview notice what is said about who really reported it.
POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.
POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.
Social workers were made aware of the situation by the school. The children were to be removed from the father's presence. The police would have had to be informed for this to take place and a criminal investigation would ensue. Sara Poisson would have absolutely no choice about talking to the police. How could she be ostrasized by the elders? She did not even initiate the contact with the police.
Questions:
1. Did she get ostracized by the elders for contacting the police or did the police get involved without any choice from her? Both cannot be true.
2. Was she ostracized and shunned for contacting the police or for separating from her husband? Since JWs do not judicially punish members for reporting crimes or for separating from their mate I submit that both accounts explaining how the elders ostracized her are lies. -
thirdwitness
I see the hand written proof above. Funny but thats not what my copy says.
