By the way, that link I just reposted has a ton of information already up. Some we already know but the level of detail is outstanding. These guys don't play!
Anonymous Message to Watchtower
by jwleaks 343 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
cedars
Continuing in my trawl through jamesmahon's posts...
#467 " Is your hatred for the WTBTS and their policy towards child molestors clouding your own judgement in this area?"
No. I've already mentioned that there are pros and cons to this action, and that we should proceed with caution. These are hardly the sentiments of someone whose judgment is emotionally clouded. I've also mentioned that whatever happens will likely happen whether we agree with it or not. If the list of those accused of paedophilia is exposed, I can see the positives FAR outweighing the negatives - the only negatives being (1) that our movement may be radicalized and/or strengthen the persecution complex of some JWs, and (2) that some who were unjustly accused would need to go through the stress of having to clear their names. However, people need to do this every day in every walk of life. Those who are innocent should have nothing to fear, and the number of people (or children) who stand to benefit from the leak far outweigh the number who will go through stress or inconvenience. I also argue that those unjustly accused can point the finger at the Watchtower for holding the information in the first place rather than Anonymous for leaking it.
#467 "If it doesn't matter if there are some casualties in the cross fire would you be happy if anonymous merged the child molestor list with the elder list and bumped the names up to say, 80,000. I mean - some of those elders will be molestors that have not been caught and the rest just support the policy anyway so they are just as guilty right? And it will do serious damage to the organisation which is all that matters.
I don't understand this question, which is purely hypothetical and a blatant attempt to draw me out into saying something equally silly and/or incriminating. Stick to the facts at hand, please.
#468 " I would be interested to know why you are so keen for the findings of the report not to be comparable."
It's not about whether I'm "keen" for the report not to be comparable, it just isn't.
#470 " Would you prefer that everyone who had an accusation of child molestation made against them has their name announced from the platform? Or perhaps only those where the elders believe there is some guilt? Of course not. What we want is the police to investigate these matters and guilt or innocence determined.
How can the police investigate this list if it isn't publicly leaked? Or are you proposing that you act as an intermediary and take custody of the list before passing it on to the authorities?
#473 " Sorry you find my posts so tiresome. I try rather than just stating something to explain the logic and evidence behind that. My apologies. Should of course just be dogmatic. You write well considered posts so not sure why you have said this."
Having reviewed your thought processes and logical argumentation (or lack thereof) I think you're the least qualified to pass judgment on whether my brevity equates to dogmatism. I was merely pointing out that, if you're so right, why do you need to devote reams and reams of posts to make your arguments? Why can't you make a few simple points, ask a few questions, and take it from there? Instead, I have to wade through pages and pages of essentially the same argument being made repeatedly, namely that the proposed action by Anonymous IS "community notification" as per the NSPCC report, when it quite clearly isn't. If brevity = dogmatism, then by all means - go forth and be dogmatic! It would certainly save time.
In summary...
"Community notification" of CONVICTED sex offenders is NOT the same as list of ACCUSED sex offenders being leaked and those who are named being processed by the authorities.
The argument that making the list public will force offenders undercover is ludicrous, because these offenders are "undercover" already. However, if they are processed by the authorities as a result of this leak there is at least a chance that they can have their movements tracked and be otherwise supervised/monitored.
The claim that no children will benefit from this leak is absurd because:
- By offenders being prosecuted for past crimes, they will be hindered in their ability to gain access to future children, due to their track record if nothing else (not to mention potential imprisonment).
- Any elders on the list who abuse their position of trust to gain access to children will, if convicted, be stripped of this unique opportunity, which will drastically reduce the number of future potential victims.
- The negative media exposure of an attack by Anonymous will be a DISASTER for a religion like Jehovah's Witnesses which is so reliant on evangelism and a "clean cut" image. By having its reputation thus smeared, it will have its ability to attract new converts (and potential victims) weakened, to say nothing of those who will leave as a result of the negative publicity.
- There is even a small chance that the publicity could force the Governing Body to make its child protection policies legally compliant, with the obvious benefit that no children would be endangered through organizational negligence.
I won't apologise for the length of this reply, because you hit me with so much stuff to reply to. I've tried to focus on the more relevant remarks, and ignore some of the less relevant comments you've made. If there's anything in particular that you've said previously that you want me to comment on, then please do bring it to my attention.
I should add that I wouldn't normally go to this much trouble to give an answer in ANY debate. However, this particular one touches on the safety of children, and I feel a strange compulsion to answer your bizarre claims JUST in case, by influencing people as you are doing, you somehow succeed in causing something not to happen that SHOULD happen, thereby putting children at risk. I know it sounds crazy, but that's just how I feel.
Cedars
-
infpalex
Ok, I don't post as much as all of you on this board but I know a lot of you pretty well and have followed this and a LOT of other threads on here. I thought I would pop in and give my two cents on this... but I am not going to argue with anyone because I firmly believe we all have our own way of thinking and we shouldn't need to have others agree with us to know who we are and what is right for us.
With that in mind... I personally was molested by a cousin who molested others that I know of. The problem is there was never two witnesses, and if there was, the second witness was a conspirator and wouldn't come forward. My aunt and 2 cousins were raped by one of my uncles who is STILL and elder and I can only imagine that in the 10 years I have been out of contact with them there are more things that could have happened. My aunt and the two others came forward about him but because there were never two witnesses he is still an elder.
I know some say that there may be some people who are accused wrongly, but I personally would rather have it all realeased if it protects even one person from going through what I went through and what my family members went through. The worst that can happen for someone falsely accused is they have to prove they didn't do it, and they get to move on with their lives. (Yes they may have to move to a different city etc, but hell that is a SMALL price to pay to protect somone who WAS molested)
I would rather be accused falsely in a group with people and then have to clear my name if even ONE of the other people I was accused with was currently molesting small children. It would be worth it to me as a human being with a consience and love of others to inconvience myself and/or my children to protect someone else.
That's my 2 cents... take it for what you will.
-
infpalex
One more thing I forgot to mention... What if you WERE one of the people who was on that list but you didn't do it?
What would that do to your faith in the WTBTS?
It would completely undermine it... making you want to go and look into why they would put YOU on that list! It might be the catalyst to that person leaving, and that for SURE would be worth it all. It would mean that person would get their mind and life back that the society stole from them.
-
life is to short
Hey Cedars did you see Soldier 77's post about them getting info alread and they might need our help?
http://pastebin.com/3NitcTLF I do not know how to make it live like Solder 77 did.
I think Jamesmahon is trying to throw out huge strawmans for some reason to keep us distracted maybe Outlaw is right he has something to hide.
LITS
-
jamesmahon
Hi Cedars
Thanks for your detailed response. I started to respond to all your comments and have just deleted it all because I think we are closer than you think in our positions:
Where we agree
- The NSPCC report is on convicted pedophiles and is not directly comparable to this situation
- A release of a large number of names of people accused has never been done before and so needs to be done with caution because we do not know the consequences
- The policy of the WTBTS needs to change such that children abused or people who have witnessed abuse just go straight to the police
- The list of names with details of accusations should be released to the police
Where we disagree (and these all should be prefaced with 'I think' but that would get a bit tedious)
- Whilst not directly comparable there are lessons about the unintended consequences of community notification from the report. By community notification all I and the report means is informing the community of the names of molestors. In this case it would be potential rather than convicted but the priniciple is the same.
- Accusing someone of child molestation is not just like accusing them of being a thief. It can destroy their lives. I have seen this happen. Unless they go to court to sue the accuser for defamation of character there is no way of 'establishing their innocence'. And in any case a person does not have to 'establish their innocence'. It is up to a court to prove their guilt. I'm a dad and the thought that someone would one day throw that accusation at me makes me feel ill because I have seen you are tarred for life in the eyes of many and your family suffers as much as you do. And no I am not on the list (as far as I am aware). As stated before the Scottish Children's Commission are so concerned about men accused of abuse remain anonymous before conviction that they have been lobbying the government up here for at least 6 years to try to get the law changed. This is because on balance they feel that the loss to children from not having men volunteer to do activities with them outweighs any potential reduction in risk from naming people accused.
- Releasing the list will protect children in congregations. You know - I am inclined more to agree that there are some situations where this will happen. But my point is only in that congregation. Unless they are convicted they will just find somewhere else to abuse. That is the point about 'going underground'. If the police cannot monitor convicted molestors when they have their names plastered all over the community then what hope that this will stop a molestor just changing identity and trying a different ploy? But granted, the children in a specific congregation may be safer. I am just arguing that on balance unless they are convicted they will just find other victims.
- Releasing the list will result in convictions. Not unless the victims go to or are willing to work with the police it won't. Which itself raises an interesting question. Are Anonymous going to go through all 23000 records and make sure that victims or accusers cannot be identified? Because if they cannot be identified there is little the police can do. An anonymous complaint is not going to be admissable in court. So really the only way this can result in convictions is if the full list with the names of the accusers are given over to the police and the victims are ready and want to come forward (and not just upset that this has been dragged up)
- Releasing the list will cause damage to the watchtower. The existence of the list is in the public domain. The Conti case and the silent lambs website is in the public domain. There have been documentaries here and in the UK about the WTBTS policy on child abuse. Most people associate JWs with not celebrating Christmas, pestering them at the door and letting their children die for want of a blood transfusion. More bad publicity is not going to be good for them and like I said I think it would be great if they could actually get some increminating documents about the policy. But they are already thought of as wacko and not caring towards their children. Just do not see how releasing the list will do anything but minimal damage compared to the damage done to even one innocent man. I think you need to have a look at some sites about the process over here when someone is accused of sexual abuse. A guy in our village and his wife looks after his grand daughter because his daughter-in-law is a junky and son works away from home. A couple of years back his daughter-in-law and her mother wanted the child back so accused him of abusing his grand daughter (two witnessess anyone). The girl was taken into foster care for a week while he was investigated. She used to come into school every day with the social worker in tears. After the week from hell they decided there were no grounds whatsoever for the accusation and gave her back. But the case remains open because they never close an abuse case. And the hearings were all behind closed doors. There are still people that will not let their kids go to his house because of the accusation. That is the reality.
Sorry, last few points went on. But these are complex issues which is why care needs to be taken - especially as these are just accusations collected by elders for goodness sake. The same men we constantly lambast as being inept and useless in these matters. Care to me doesn't look like just releasing all 23,000 names with accusations and possibly accusers onto the internet.
In all though I think the agreements we have - especially the last two of those bullets - far outweigh the disagreements. It just boils down to whether we think releasing these names will do more total harm than total good. Just because I think it will do more harm does not make me an apologist of any kind, an idiot or have flawed logic. We just don't know and there are arguments both ways. Only time will tell because if the list is electronic it will be found and released. I sincerely hope you are all right and I am wrong.
-
cedars
life is to short - yes, I'm keeping tabs on the Anonymous pastebin site. I'm sure they'll get the help they need.
As to jamesmahon, I try my best not to second guess what people's motives might be. It is, however, curious the voracity with which he argues against the leak, and abandons logic in suggesting that it would do more harm than good, waving a non-related charity report on "Megan's Law" as "evidence" of his assertions. In fact, he seems to go one step further and suggest that the leak won't do ANY good at all! Very strange indeed...
Cedars
-
jamesmahon
LITS - I'm sorry. Perhaps rather than trying to hide behind weasal words like Outlaw perhaps you can just type "I think JamesMahon is a chlid molestor" or "I think JamesMahon is protecting a molestor".
-
life is to short
I am not hiding behind any weasel's and I totally resent that.
I just truly wish you would not take up tons of words when this is so very important.
OK I get it you hate the fact that this list may come out, you have made you point very, very, very, very, very, clear, over and over and over.
But most of us especially those of us who have seen first hand the damage that has happened in the congregations know that the list includes some really dangerous people who have caused severe harm and have no doubt cased many to commit suicide as I know on the brink myself. For you to want to keep this list hiden is upsetting to all of us.
I have seen with my own eyes elders lie bold faced to me. Why? Why lie when I could see nothing in it for them?
Anyway I do not want to make this also into a debate. I get it very loud and clear you hate that the list might come to light. OK. OK!
As far as Outlaw he calls things the way they come across he calls a spade a spade. I truly respect that in him.
I was on my phone yesterday and able to track this thread but not able to post. I was thinking the exact things that Outlaw and Flipper and Ceader"s said to you. I am sure I was not alone in just tracking the thread and not posting. Many wonder why you are so worked up over this and why you are so bent in throwing out strawmen.
LITS
-
jamesmahon
LITS. The reason for so many words is because it is so important. Perhaps you could be explicit and say what you mean by 'I something to hide'.