Will The Watchtower Society Continue To Comply With The Working With Children Act?

by DT 10 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  DT

  I'm hoping that this thread can address the current situation in Australia without being derailed by debate about Steven Unthank and any errors of judgement that he may have committed. I'm not saying that debate isn't needed or appropriate. It's just that there are already enough other threads handling that subject.

  The Crown has implied that they are unwilling to enforce the Working With Children Act. What would prevent the Watchtower Society from refusing to comply again now that the cases have been dismissed? Why couldn't they just revert to their previous position that the act doesn't apply to them? There hasn't been a court decision that says otherwise.

  I think it's likely that the Watchtower Society gave the Crown assurances that they would continue to comply. However, there doesn't appear to be any legally binding agreement to that effect. If I understand things correctly, any agreement between the Crown and the Watchtower Society would have had to either involve Steven Unthank or taken place after the Crown took the case. It doesn't appear that this has happened.

  However, I think it is likely that the Watchtower Society will continue to comply with the act. I think they may have learned their lesson. It also might not too difficult to continue to comply now that they have taken the step of getting the background checks for their elders. It wouldn't be too difficult to just get new background checks for newly appointed elders.

  Still, it doesn't pay to underestimate the arrogance of the Watchtower Society. It's certainly possible that they could refuse to fully comply in the future or handle the background checks that suggest possible problems in an inappropriate manner.

  We should also consider the possibility of future lawsuits that are at least partly based on the fact that the Watchtower Society has failed to comply with that act for several years. If people start suing the Watchtower Society for their criminal negligence, then this story could be far from over.

  I understand that the Crown probably just wanted current compliance and was unwilling to engage in a lengthy legal battle to inflict penalties on past transgressions. Still, it's a shame that they didn't at least try for some kind of plea bargain that would ensure future compliance and acknowledge past crimes with at least a token fine.

  They also seemed to ignore the fact that children have been greatly harmed by the Watchtower Society's criminal actions. The Crown failed to even make it look like they were trying to protect them.

  The Crown may have failed, but there is still the court of public opinion and the possibility of costly litigation.

  I welcome your comments.
• 

  soft+gentle

  my understanding, although my memory may be at fault, is that the letter that was sent out to congregations informed witnesses in Australia that it was not necessary to get themselves checked but that they could if they wanted to.

  I would be grateful if someone could clarify what was in the letter.
• 

  DT

  There is also the question of whether individual elders could be prosecuted for failing to comply with the act, since they were left out of the cases that the crown dismissed. I'm sure it would be much easier to prosecute individuals than giant corporations. It would be helpful for there to be a public record that crimes were committed, especially if there are future lawsuits.

  It's not the ideal way to handle this. I'm sympathetic towards at least some of the elders who are bying used and abused by the Watchtower Society, but I'm even more sympathic towards the innocent child victims.
• 

  DT

  Bump
• 

  DT

  Another bump
• 

  steve2

  You're right: There is no specifically binding legal requirement that "an agreement" between the Watchtower and the state be enforced through legal consequences if non-compliance continues. It is little more than a "gentlemen's agreement".

  Soberingly, if a private citizen (Mr Unthank) had not deliberately pursued this matter through all legally available channels at great expense to himself and his supporters, the state of Victoria would have remained limp-wristed about the lack of compliance. The state had literally years to do something of its own volition but failed to act...That's how low a priority it was for the state legislative body - it's no so much about turning a blind eye as it is about having bigger, more important fish to fry.

  To those of us with a vested interest in the outcomeregarding the lack of compliance, this is huge and very revealing about the above-it-all arrogance of the Watchtower Society. To the state, however, the initiative shown by the private citizen is the moral equivalent of an incessantly annoying mosqitoe: "Go away...leave us the f*!k alone".
• 

  sizemik

  @soft+gentle . . . I think I have seen the letter. I will try and track it down. Maybe later today or tomorrow.

  @Steve . . . you make good points. Judiciaries around the world are warping under political and financial pressures. Laws are more complicated and ambiguous than ever, around human rights v state interests. Judiciaries are losing their neutral "one law for all" foundation. It's a trend that makes me feel a touch threatened.
• 

  soft+gentle

  size

  @soft+gentle . . . I think I have seen the letter. I will try and track it down. Maybe later today or tomorrow.

  that would be great size - thank you
• 

  soft+gentle

  the wt attorney's comment to the judge "that has all been sorted out now" could mean a number of things. to my mind it is unlikely, though possible, that she was saying that elders have been told to comply.

  "that has all been sorted now" could mean that they the wt lawyers was addressing Mr Unthanks's claim that Jehovahs witnesses themselves wanted the WTS to comply with the legislature contained within wwc laws. So the WT letter, the contents of which somebody paraphrased here on here a while back could be seen to be addressing this aspect of Steven Unthanks accusation. That witnesses were told that if individual witnesses wanted to have these checks done then to go ahead but that in general the checks did not apply to Jehovahs witnesses. So this is what I wish to clarify and is the reason I'd like to see the letter or even just a close paraphrase of it.

  A police authority is reported to have told Mr Unthank that all the elders are going to be to told to comply with WWC legislation. It is possible there there has been miscommunication and misunderstanding between Mr Unthank the policeman and what the policeman was told by the court (this often hapens). Mr Unthank says the police authrority was going to tell him in writing. Has Mr unthank receive this letter and would he be prepared to share it with us?

  we also have a situation going on in the UK and this is why I'd like to know the bare facts in themselves.

  even if the above is the outcome Mr unthank is still a hero as it is very rare that the wts are forced to write letters to congregations about any external action that has been taken
• 

  The Quiet One

  This was all I could find.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/216634/1/Victoria-Australia-WTBTS-and-GB-of-JWs-have-shown-themselves-to-be-GUILTY-respecting-previous-noncompliance-with-e2809cWorking-With-Childrene2809d-Laws