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

by AndersonsInfo 243 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  diamondiiz

  I suppose the WTS could still just simplify it ... and state to rank and file that JW children in the future can go only go door to door work or travel in any 'ministry' forms only with one of their own parents

  Gayle: I don't know if I'm seeing the whole picture of this case BUT JWs go door to door and study with outsiders. Many times, adults study wts publications with kids that don't have JW parents. I think that this case is important because at present not only are JW kids at risk but general public is at risk because they don't know the individual they may be studying with them. Without WTS complying with the law you can have a molester studying with an worldly kid where the child's parents trust the JW to be alone with their child without the knowledge the JW teacher is a molester or ex-pedophile. IMO this law is a good one and protects children not only of the cult members but also of the public so I really don't know how WTS can weasel themselves out of this one.

  OT: I don't understand how JWs get away without having a name tags here in Canada while Mormons carry their badges when they go door to door.
• 

  sizemik

  I hear what you are saying Violia . . .

  The WTS historically will fight legally any part of "ceasars" law they can, to remain free from it's obligations . . . that's symptomatic of their religious ideology. And they certainly have considerable legal and financial resources to call upon.

  But at the end of the day, each case get's considered on it's merits . . . and the final arbitor is the Act of law itself and it's rightful interpretation . . . which is ultimately decided by the arbitors . . . not the WTS. Their history in the US and other countries has only limited relevance in that context. And their history will be of absolutely no consequence or relevance to the administrators of law in the State of Victoria, Australia. There are historically, Corporate entities with legal resources that dwarf the WTS, who have fought in Australia's courtrooms . . . and lost miserably. This one is almost impossible to call.
• 

  steve2

  While it is true that Australia does give strong consideration to the freedom of religious rights, it is equally stringent on the protection of children and identifying areas of vulnerability, hence the introduction of the Act and it's requirements in the first place.

  True, although this has yet to be tested in a court of law. As far as I know, some barbaric religious practices such as female genital mutilation (carried out by some North African Islamic groups - even when immigrants of other countries - has not been before any courts of Australia.

  I guess what may be hampering discussion here - or fuelling it? - is that to date there appears to be no written and/or quoted statement from the Watchtower Society about this matter. That is so typically Watchtovian about this: They remain tight-lipped until the matter is right before the court, creating a kind of innocent stance that goes down well in court (but not in the press). That's what led me to say that, despite their saying nothing, does not mean nothing is happening with them and their legal teams. Comments by others that imply the Watchtower may be afraid of the court process are (in my view) premature. The Watchtower will know full well that even criminal proceedings can drag on for months and months with all sorts of legal manoeuvres. Whatever we may think about the Australian federal and state courts, they do seem to proceed with a leaden pace to avoid being seen as accommodating individuals who appear to have religious axes to grind. My worry about Mr Unthank (and okay, it may be an unjustified and even unfair worry) is that he does present as a man obsessed with some of his statements being religiously grandiose (e.g., seeking detailed apologies from the faithful and discreet slave, claiming that many active JWs want action taken against the faithful and discreet slave, etc).
• 

  The Quiet One

  "I suppose the WTS could still just simplify it ... and state to rank and file that JW children in the future can go only go door to door work or travel in any 'ministry' forms only with one of their own parents"- http://jwnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/magistrates-court-of-victoria-criminal-list/ ''The case is a Criminal Case. The alleged offences are Indictable Offences. There is no such thing as an “out-of-court-settlement” in relation to Indictable Criminal offences. Only the Prosecutor has the authority to consider a “plea bargain”.'' ''At any given time a nolle prosequi (no further prosecution) may be submitted to the Court and the charges can then be referred to as “dropped”. Neither the Magistrates’ Court, nor the Department of Justice, nor the Working with Children Check Unit, nor Victoria Police, nor the State Government of Victoria have the authority to issue a nolle prosequi in relation to the criminal cases listed below. Only the Prosecutor, Mr Steven Unthank, has the authority to enter a nolle prosequi in relation to these criminal cases.''- This seems to say (not that I know what I'm talking about, feel free to correct me) that only Mr.Unthank could decide whether that would be enough to drop the charges.. Thank you Barbara.
• 

  sizemik

  True, although this has yet to be tested in a court of law.

  Precisely Steve . . .

  The chief concern of the judiciary will be any precedent this case sets as to how the Act will be interpreted and applied in future . . . they will simply want to retain it in a fair, practicably and enforceable form. The judiciary has it's own interests beyond that of the parties involved.

  This works more to Unthanks advantage than the WTS's IMO. The perception of Mr Unthank and his motivations will have less relevence than it would in a more established area of law . . . as will the private interests of the WTS. This will come down to the interpretation and application of the Act . . . and how it relates to the WTS's obligations in relation to it. It's very much a test case . . . and if they don't get it absolutely right, it has the potential to allow for mis-application of the Act . . . or conversely, to render it useless. This, I believe will be the judiciary's prime focus.

  The WTS will have the harder task . . . establishing that the Act does not apply to them. They have to justify their non-compliance to date, as well as retain it going forward. Their recent track record will not help in that respect . . . coupled with the willing compliance to date, of what can be fairly described as similar religious institutions.

  Personally, I have no worries as to how Steve Unthank is percieved. My (albeit limited) experience has demonstrated that the judiciary simply filters this and looks solely at the points of law. Application of the Act, for them is far more important, than the vested interests of both the WTS and Steven Unthank put together.
• 

  llbh

  My impression from reading this thread is that MR Uthank began proceedings and that the state has decided the matter is serious enough to begin proceedings itself, on the basis that a crime may have been committed. In the UK Mr Uthank would be free to continue with civil proceedings against the WTS, but would likely wait till the criminal case had been decided.

  Why the WTS is waiting to comply with these laws mystifies me, non compliance with similar laws in The UK is non negotiable, end of. This is either incompetence or arrogance on thier part, and I suspect both.

  From what I have seen I can only see there can only bo one of two outcomes, The WTS complies or it is prosecuted, and then complies. The bad publicity alone will do immense damage to the wts.

  David
• 

  llbh

  Sizemilk I agree with you on the personal qualities of Mr Uthank they are a non issue here as he is not involved in the proceedings.

  I can not see the The WTS has any gorounds to challenge the law at all, this law about is protecting children and ensuring that those who may come into contact have had some checks done on them to see if they have a criminal record, how they could see that compliance will infringe thier religious freedoms i can not imagine, and if they did i do not believe that they would win. If they win on a technicality it would be a pyrrhic victory due to the bad publicity they would receive, and that the state would not allow any lacuna to continue.

  David
• 

  sizemik

  I can not see the The WTS has any gorounds to challenge the law at all

  I tend toward this view also David. Because this is a test case, the judicial application of it will seek to validate the Acts intent, ie; the spirit of what it's endeavoring to achieve.

  I've only read through the Working With Children Act 2005 a couple of times, but the intent seems clear . . . to protect children where they come into contact with adults, where some personal or institutional authority is involved . . . and that those with that authority undergo background checks and are given clearance (through the issue of a card). It's hard for me to see at this point, how a structured religion like the JW's could possibly be exempt. As you point out . . . to date they have simply ignored it. No application, or petition for exemption has been forthcoming in spite of repeated requests (and the offer of free training and assistance) . . . they've simply ignored it.

  From such a position, it's very difficult to appeal for exemption or justify non-compliance, when they have already had ample opportunuty to do it. It's also hard to see grounds for avoiding prosecution under these circumstances.

  It's worth remembering that were the WTS squeaky clean when it comes to child sexual abuse, they may still be obligated under the Act . . . and still be criminally liable for non-compliance. And we know they are anything but squeaky clean.

  Still . . . strange outcomes are also the frequent preserve of judiciaries. And there's a lot we don't know. So I'm ready for anything really . . . but like everyone else . . . totally fascinated by the whole thing. How it finally pans out will be very interesting.
• 

  MrMonroe

  The big unknown in this is whether Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions will take over the case. On September 13 will Steven have to stand up in court to present the charges and run the case on his own? It's likely the WTS, or its lawyers, will seek to postpone the case or have it transferred somewhere else; will Steven then be responsible for all the paperwork and legal filings and presenting legal arguments before a judge or magistrate -- who are undoubtedly irritated with armchair lawyers trying to act big in court and wasting their time.

  There's still another six weeks to go before the court date, so hopefully there will be some indication by the DPP between now and then on whether they'll assist or leave him to go it alone. A private prosecution is so unusual in Victoria, there may be no clear course for the DPP to follow.
• 

  Listener

  I had been assuming that a WWC certificate would be pretty straight forward and issued if a person had no convictions in relation to child abuse but the clearance is much more investigative than this and more so than the requirements to obtain a police clearance (which can be obtained and usually requested by some employers) Each State sets their own requirements as to what background checks are to be undertaken. In Victoria it requires -

  "The Working With Children Check is comprised of:

  • a National Police Check - offences with most significance include serious sexual offences; serious violent offences; serious drug related offences, offences against the Working With Children Act 2005 (Vic.) itself;
  • a review of relevant findings from prescribed professional disciplinary bodies (at present only the Victorian Institute of Teaching);
  • information sought from other bodies such as courts, Corrections Victoria and employers, including, where a court: made a formal finding of guilt in relation to an offence; convicted the applicant of an offence; accepted a plea of guilt from the applicant; or acquitted the applicant of an offence because of mental impairment; and
  • information about any spent convictions, juvenile convictions and findings of guilt, pending charges; and the circumstances surrounding any charges or convictions."

  source http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs13/rs13.html

  That would mean that if a JW was required to obtain a WWC certificate that there would be a thorough research and they may be denied the certificate due to a violent background (regardless of whether minors were involved) and also drug related offences, basically anything that would indicate that a person could potentially pose a danger.

  That is a big responsibility for the organisation, that is, to know that a JW does not have a good moral background and this would require further investigations/probing and a renewed procedure by the organisation. They could no longer just accept the word of a JW to say they had a clean background. It would also mean that they had a responsibility for others in the congregation to know these things (whether that be the elders and/or the r&f).