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

by AndersonsInfo 243 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  wasblind

  Thank you so much Barbara for keeping us updated, your work is greatly appreciated
• 

  DT

  I think that the presence of parents or other adults is mostly irrelevant to the requirements of the law. The law doesn't apply to cases where the contact with children is directly supervised. However, it says, "Supervised has its ordinary, everyday meaning. A supervisor is a person who has the role of overseeing the work of another person while that person engages in the work." It doesn't matter, according to the law, if an elder is meeting with a child alone or a child with his parents. A parent isn't the elder's supervisor. The parent may be supervising the interaction, but not in the sense as defined by the law. It's also church doctrine that both adults and children follow the lead of the elders, so it is clear who has the power. It only makes sense that someone who has power over both the parent and the child would be subject to a background check. It's also naive to assume a parent will always be present.
• 

  sabastious

  The shemes that take place in the minds serial child abusers are sometimes extremely complex and require high intelligence. The Witnesses need to DEFER to government on this issue as government has the policy and resources in place to handle situations like that.

  There's no reason to get into a semantics debate. If the Watchtower tries to defend itself using semantics as a defense they are DOA.

  -Sab
• 

  belbab

  Belbab has to put on the brakes and back pedal somewhat. Maybe a better word is reguritate.

  I was surprised by Gary Botting's comments a few posts back. He is a doctor of law in Canada. Supreme Court judges in Canada have quoted from his legal writings in their decisions. So if they consider his opinionrs worthy of being written into case law, myself, quite ignorant in most legal questions should sit up , and shut up and pay attention.

  So I have gone back and looked up every reference site on the ten pages of this thread. I find it all a house of cards. I read a long "press release" (that is, delivered but not necessarily published) of S. Unthank posted on a jw.net site and was supposedly pubished{?) in a paper called the Herald, but no photo copy of the article appears. The poster, 'Mr. Monroe' (as well as others) refers us to a site where a commitee of three was set up to take submissions from the public on child protection subjects. I look at the list of submissions, some two hundred, I believe, and Mr. Unthanks name and text of his submission are no where to found. Mr Monroe uses the term "apparently"in referring to Unthanks submission. Another link refers us to cases to be "filed" on Sept 13, where only one name appears, S. Unthank, no jucge, prosecuter, no representative of the accused, not even the courtroom.

  I googled Steven Unthanks name. Along with this forum, and the ones mentioned in this thread, one on Free Minds.

  This one I find the most thought provoking: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TUHBOAQAPA4EF27R3

  belbab, this old fart is tired.

  sorry no spell check
• 

  belbab

  Link highlighted (I hope)

  http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TUHBOAQAPA4EF27R3

  belbab
• 

  sizemik

  I completely agree that allegations of past sex abuse are irrelevant. I was replying to an earlier statement about TV docos.

  Perhaps the reason I referred to this was not made clear . . . if so, I apologise.

  My reason for referring to it was not to present it as evidence of child abuse but rather this . . .

  That the participants in that Doco are still alive and therefore available to provide evidence as to how the organisation functions and subsequently expose children to risk. The participants included current JW Elders who were involved in such an occurrance, including an XJW Lawyer who served as a legal advisor while a JW. This is simply an example.

  The point being made is this . . . SU will need to demonstrate that, as an institution, the WTS "teaching" practices include exposure of "teachers" in authority to children who are subsequently put at risk. Alluding to the doco was merely an example of the human resources available to testify that exposure to risk is significant enough to require WTS to comply with the Act . . . capiche?

  ED: Gary Botting's post doesn't suprise me . . . there are several like it here already. "Experts" are prone to flying by the seat of their pants instead of informing themselves first, it would seem.
• 

  MrMonroe

  Belbab, The link to the submission made by Steven Unthank is here. He appeared in flesh and blood at the inquiry's sitting in the Victorian town of Morwell on June 8. He spoke and the transcript of his submission are on a government website.

  The Herald Sun, published in Melbourne and one of Australia's biggest selling daily newspapers, publishes stories, not press releases. To find copies of stories printed in the Herald Sun, go to the newspaper's website here and type in "Unthank" in the search box at the top right.

  I used the term "apparently" in a sarcastic tone that I feared at the time would not be discerned by some people. You are clearly one of those people. Gary Botting, if the poster is the real Gary Botting, author of a couple of books on the religion, appears to be as incapable as you are at doing online research; if it's him, my level of respect for him has plummeted.

  You refer to the case as a house of cards. I have provided a link on a Victorian Justice Department website. Sorry there's no photo of the courthouse or the thumb print of the presiding magistrate. The case is listed for hearing as a criminal action on the day. Please don't insult my intelligence by continuing to suggest it's all a work of fiction, or some vast conspiracy.
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  I did some back-tracking today to see when I first learned about Steven Unthank and his “Submission 2011.” It was last February. After reading Steven’s complicated and unusual document back then, I came to an understanding of the major issue although it seemed that his presentation, mixed with religious declarations to such an extent that the extraordinary message of Watch Tower’s non-compliance with Victoria law—specifically the Working With Children Act—was clouded. Since the beginning of my acquaintance with Steven’s outcry, the question has been why did he choose to present his indictment of the WT and its entities like he did when the issue was so straightforward and could have been addressed in a paragraph or two?

  When I spoke to Steven over the phone (the one and only time I ever talked to him), he came across as intelligent, informed, and articulate. So it has crossed my mind that maybe he has known all along that he could present his information any way he liked—slathered with religious quotes and history of the WTBTS—if he wanted to, and take full advantage of people reading and thinking about all that he wrote including government officials. As for right now, I’d like to give this young carpenter the benefit of the doubt in that he did know that only the legal aspects of the case would be discussed in court. However, he was smart enough to know that the rest would be discussed outside the court.

  I don't personally know Gary Botting, but to my knowledge, he has an enviable reputation for understanding and teaching Canadian and US law and the laws of many other countries. No doubt of his superior intelligence especially when compared to mine; but I can’t help but wonder why Gary was so quick to condemn (especially since it took many of us a considerable amount of time to try to make heads and tails of Steven Unthank’s cause) before he knew the whole story and did not take the side of prudence in this matter before he said what he did.

  I’m going out on a limb here and will probably take many hits for saying this, but it appears to me that it would have been advisable if Gary, who was not posting anonymously, had thought twice before he wrote such defamatory statements about Steven even doubting that he really existed and compared Steven’s endeavors to an actual hoax committed back in 1984.

  To be sure, many, including me, were concerned back in the spring of this year that maybe we were being “taken for a ride” if we supported Steven’s efforts and would be embarrassed if the whole story was a hoax. However, it seemed that reporting the story and exercising patience to see which way the wind was blowing was the sensible thing to do without condemning Steven’s efforts.

  From investigations done by a number of people, I’m told that Steven Unthank is as real as I am, but whether he is honest is a question only time will answer just the same as it took time for many people to trust that I was and am honest.

  Whether the ending of this story will be a positive for 2,500 JW children in Victoria or not, the Unthank journey has been and continues to be an interesting undertaking that costs us nothing but our time to reflect on the issues he has raised and now legally filed with the Victoria government. I wish Gary had not said what he did in the manner he said it because his uncomplimentary statements might have turned many readers off and they will not continue to follow this developing story to the end, no matter what the results will be. And I'm of the opinion that would be a shame.
• 

  No Room For George

  To be fair to Gary, considering what he does for a living, he's probably a fairly busy man, and posts on the fly. I know I've misread quite a few forum topics and posts, and had to correct myself later due to the nature of what I do for a living as most of my posting is done from my place of employment. Gary probably looked at the surface of this story, and just like many others in this thread, mistook it for a hoax. Or was he not mistaken about it being a hoax? I'm kidding, I'm kidding, Mr.Monroe!!!!
• 

  JW GoneBad

  As the song goes ............'Every party has a party pooper!'

  Barbara is right. Everyone needs to stay focused. The last thing Steven needs is resistance when he is already fighting an uphill battle. It definitely looks like he has some forward movement in his case for Childrens' Rights.

  If anything else get behind him and push!