Should the GB be in the Dock at the International Criminal Court ?

by wobble 9 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  wobble

  It would seem that if rape or sexual slavery is condoned by a government or de facto authority, then such persons, i.e the head or heads, of a government, or heads of "authorities" are seemingly guilty of a crime against humanity, for which they could stand trial before the court.

  It would need to be proved that acts of sexual abuse were not sporadic, but part of a wide practice known to the authority and in effect, unpunished, by covering up the crime, and allowing the perpetrator/s to offend again.

  The recent case in Hull, U.K is of this nature, it would need to be shown too that such cover-ups had gone on since 2002 when the International Criminal Court was set up.

  I think the GB, as ultimate authority in the WT/JW organization deserve to be in the dock just as much as the Pope does, for the same reasons.

  What do you think ?

  Wobble
• 

  The Finger

  I would agree with you on the GB but probably not the pope.
• 

  blondie

  Why not the pope?
• 

  wobble

  I think there is a case for the Pope to be in the dock, he is the ultimate authority in an organization that has aided and abetted in the crimes of sex with a child for decades.

  The GB likewise have aided and abetted such crimes.

  He, the Pope, will claim immunity as a Head of state, but he isn't that really as the Vatican was created by the Fascist Italian state in a unilateral manner, and so is not really a proper state in international law.

  Wobble
• 

  The Finger

  I'm not Catholic.
• 

  thetrueone

  Religions like the JWS and the Catholics deem their inherent power above the laws of any man made laws.

  A sort of self governance over their flock of followers, traditionally in the history of Christendom sexual impropriety

  with perceived as a minor sin that was worthy of redemption and atonement. Today these types of sexual improprieties

  upon children are known to have much devastating effects on the victims, thats why the penalties placed on

  the perpetrators are so high as opposed to the past. Unfortunately each of these religious organizations try

  hard to protect their outward image to the public, within each individual congregation and the body of the faith itself.

  The kicker to all of this is that its a criminal offense in many countries to know of a serious crime and not report it to

  the proper authorities, therefore these religious groups are committing a crime legally if not morally against the public that they serve.

  The ridiculous and redundant laws to what the JWS subscribe to such as the 2 witness rule plays very well to sexual predators,

  they can exploit that law and move around as the heat rises so to speak.

  The Catholics on the other hand would remove that priest out the church for where he served to a different location only to have

  him re-offend where he was replaced, creating even more victims.
• 

  wobble

  That is spot on, The true One, and I want to do all I can to stop the WT/JW organization being a paedophiles paradise, by agitating for legal action to go right to the top, we may get something done.

  At present they hide behind their usual obfuscations, "He is no longer a JW" etc. O.K so they sling him out for a while, within a year or so ,the oh so repentant guy is back in and free to do what he wants, they never tell the public or press that re-instatement is a fast track process.

  PLEASE , all on this board, talk about this issue, publicise it, shout about it, and you may expose the WT for being what it is, as heartless and reprehensible as the Catholic Church, but more important, we may force them to put proper child protection programmes in place, they have nothing at the moment that is remotely effective.

  Wobble
• 

  cantleave

  So why not the pope finger? You haven't justified your position.
• 

  The Finger

  I'm enjoying one of his books.
• 

  The Finger

  cantleave,

  I apologize that was not a proper answer. I don't wish to justify my position totally.

  As I said "probably" not the Pope. I am not 100% sure. I'm not well informed as to the whole of the matter. As I'm not Catholic and never have been whereas I was raised as a JW and spent many years in the organization I feel in a better position to agree that the responsibility lies with the GB.