by nugget 12 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/calif-jury-awards-28m-in-_n_1602997.html
Getting all the usual apologist nonsense and people who have little understanding of the case or the way the society works. IT is good that the comments are still going though and there is sanity occasionally.
I've forgotten how to make link clickable sorry.
I must check that site nugget. I have been mulling over how much of a duty of care elders and WT authorities can be held liable for. I wonder if this is going to be a sticking point. to my mind, Candace was abused on the door to door work too. Plus the door to door work presented an opportunity for the the abuser to consolidate grooming his victim. This work is supervised by Elders and it is a work incumbent on all publishers. Also it is defined by Jehovahs witnesses as a being part of public collective worship. It is clear to that there is a duty of care but this may not meet legal requirements of what a duty of care entails
Here's a clickable link for you...
I'll be sure to add my two cents!!!
Thanks for the thread and the info, Nugget!
Thank you that was a big help.
Here is a flavour of some of the comments
Ms. Conti tried for two years (beginning in 2009 to get JW to change the policy and make a public announcement regarding a criminal background (she knew they would continue to refuse). It is in the court records, look it up. When they refused, and instead went with bible scripture and the law (and she knew they would) then she sued. Ms. Conti claims to have been abused during the mid 1990s. Mr. Kendrick was only found guilty of a felony crime requiring him to register as a sex offender in 2004. Making a public announcement would have been defamation of character at worst, and false light at best. Before anyone jumps all over me, the incident with Kendrick’s step daughter was deemed a misdemeanor (blame the law) and not one that is required to be disclosed publicly, further to do so could be seen in a court of law as a legal invasion of privacy. Of course this is an emotionally charged issue, but our world is organized, and not ruled by emotion. If you do not like the laws, work to have them changed rather than looking for a scapegoat which JW have most certainly been made in this case.
Cass Cohen - My point, it was not within the legal rights of the JW congregation to do what Ms Conti requested.
suelewis70 - My father, Gene Lewis, used to be an elder up until 1976 in Fillmore CA. After stepping down he spoke of a man, Mr. Krause, who was confronted about sexually abusing his step daughter, Debbie. Mr. Krause admitted it but he was not publicly reprimanded, an action called 'dis-fellowshipping' or a lesser action called 'public reproof or 'marking'. The elders did not report Mr. Krause the police because it would put a bad light on the JWs if it became public. The daughter remained in the house.
cruzing9382 - It is up to the victim and/or the victims family to report this crime. All thre JW congregation can do is disfellowship the person. They do annouce the name of the person who was disfellowshipped, but they never say why the person was disfellowshipped. It is the victim that has whatever proof they have that a crime was committed against them not the congregational elders. The elders are not the law, the are spiritual leaders.
Cass Cohen- Well then, shame on your father.
tandjam 32 - The lack of public announcment is not the issue. The issue is the REQIREMENT to keep the abuse secret. There does not have to be an announcement, but people who knew about the abuse were REQUIRED by the elders and JW policy to keep the the abuse secret ....THAT is the problem and what needs to change NOW!
Cass Cohen -You are mistaken. The lack of public announcement was and is in fact the basis of Ms. Conti's suit. Her claim of "Required secrecy" is prejudicial. It is hearsay as well as inaccurate. In a nut shell, it is lawyer speak, rumor, twisting of words in order to make a case with the wrong party because they have "deep pockets" The judgment in this case will almost certainly be overruled in the appeal.
tandjam - Well, her lawyer produced written proof that the elders had a policy of secrecy and that is why she won.
Cass Cohen - Cite your source.
BOE Letter
cruzing9382 - The letter stressed "the need for elders to maintain strict confidentiality" in personal matters involving congregants, including criminal investigations, and to follow the direction of the organization's leaders. (This was to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.) "The legal consequences of a breach of confidentiality by the elders can be substantial," the letter said. An attorney for Conti, Rick Simons, said it represented a policy of keeping sexual allegations secret. 'This jury bought it' McCabe said Simons "did a great job of spinning it into a policy of secrecy, and this jury bought it." In fact, McCabe said, the letter was a run-of-the mill reminder that some communications must be kept confidential. He noted that a section of the letter devoted to child abuse instructed elders to report all allegations to church lawyers so victims can be "protected from further damage." Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/15/BAUQ1P2PH2.DTL#ixzz1yDZq7fS0
nugget1510 - The witnesses have several sanctions that can be used. And as they are a religious group their right to discipline members is permitted as part of their constitutional rights. They can expel members for celebrating holidays and smoking without risking any prosecution and neither of those things would be considered particularly heinous. Mr Kendrick could have been expelled from the congregation and he would not have had any cause for legal action. The announcement to the congregation would merely have been that he was no longer a Jehovah's Witness. Whether he had been expelled fo smoking, celebrations or molesting children witnesses would have shunned him. This is a religion and they can bully, expel and not pay minimum wage to their workers because the constitution allows them to.
cruzing9382- 7They believe in following the Bible's instructions, unlike most Christian religions. Kendrick was expelled at the time.
nugget1510 - The question remains why let a child molester back in? However sorry someone is the best way to protect the flock would have been to let him remain expelled. Certainly don't permit him to go knocking on doors. Witnesses believe they have the truth and they adhere to the bible more closely than other faiths, however I think you do other religions a disservice. I think perhaps you need to scrutinise the religion more closely.
man i couldnt get thru many of those posts. some of them are so completely moronic its not even funny. that cruzing guy is such a fanboi he is obviously a witness. his reason that the dubs lost: they had a 'good' lawyer and the judge was biased
I agree it is all soooo unfair, Candace is a liar the elders did all they could, and some of the comparisons drive me insane. The trouble is I have posted so much so keep getting emails that I have had moronic replies.
Hiya Nugget
at the end of the day, this case will reach few JWs heads and hearts. They are lost souls mostly, unhelpable, unreachable. Their cherished Jehovah has been slandered and they must go in bat for him because he remains silent.
It will matter to the public though, whether it gets one days mention or one months. The public have heard bad things about Jehovah's witnesses and the more that happens the fewer will listen to them.
I know that many people in my life have seen heard enough from my ex and from me to never give them an ear.
We must expect moronic comments and accusations, they know no better poor things.
Oz
haha nugget i fanned you ... you have some really good comments ... that is if you are nugget1510 ... i keep going back to the thread .. now i have gotten up to about 9 pages ... it's not getting any better lol
i love the guy's comments: "everyone knows that dubs are the most honest people on the planet. that is just common sense" LOL
