jamesmahon...
The NSPCC report is on convicted pedophiles and is not directly comparable to this situation
That's a HUGE climbdown from your earlier expressed stance, but welcome nonetheless.
By community notification all I and the report means is informing the community of the names of molestors.
No. Again, in the context of the report, "community notification" is notification of the community BY THE AUTHORITIES of CONVICTED paedophiles. The proposed action by Anonymous is not the same. Firstly, Anonymous are not "authorities", and the people on the list are not "convicted". Those two elements completely dessimate your assertions that the NSPCC report is somehow applicable in this instance.
Accusing someone of child molestation is not just like accusing them of being a thief. It can destroy their lives.
Yes, which is why the Watch Tower Society should have given more consideration to setting up an illicit paedophile database in the first place.
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).
You're entitled to react that way, but I would argue that nobody should "feel ill" who is not on that list.
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.
If you feel you're one step ahead of the law, then that's your business.
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.
That's not what you said originally - another U-turn. Originally you said that not ONE CHILD would benefit from the leak.
Unless they are convicted they will just find somewhere else to abuse.
How can they be convicted unless the list is leaked? Shouldn't this be left in the hands of the authorities?
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?
The police stand a much better chance of monitoring molesters ONCE they are convicted, and at the moment they are "underground" (as you would put it) precisely because of the secrecy policies of the Watch Tower Society. Whatever the molester tries to do to evade the authorities once he is convicted is for the authorities to worry about. They should at least be allowed the opportunity to keep his behavior in check. Please read my above response in more detail, because (hopefully) I've already made this abundantly clear.
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.
So you admit you were wrong in at least one of your earlier assertions? And again, they can never BE convicted if their identities are kept secret on a secret database.
Releasing the list will result in convictions. Not unless the victims go to or are willing to work with the police it won't.
Don't be silly. Once the list is made public, being "convicted" won't be "optional" on the part of the molester. More flawed logic.
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)
This comment makes absolutely no sense at all. Please clarify.
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. Just do not see how releasing the list will do anything but minimal damage compared to the damage done to even one innocent man.
You're entitled to your opinion. But if you don't think a successful raid on the Watch Tower Society by Anonymous resulting in 20,000+ paedophiles being named and/or criminally apprehended WON'T receive huge publicity and make the organization look bad, thereby making them hemhorrage members, you're living in another reality entirely. I don't even need to argue that one.
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.
And this story is supposed to make it magically preferable that thousands of pedophiles go on abusing children undetected?
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.
Which is exactly how they will be viewed once the list is released - but at least the authorities will have something to go on.
In all though I think the agreements we have - especially the last two of those bullets - far outweigh the disagreements.
I'm glad you think that, but as far as I can see, the only thing you've climbed down on is the "one child" claim. Apart from that, if you think the negatives of this outweight the positives, then we couldn't be MORE in disagreement.
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.
...and so far you seem to be the only one making them. I refuse to judge you as an apologist, but you are certainly sounding like one. I say this because apologists tend to push their arguments continuously rather than simply have their say and leave it at that. And you DO have flawed logic, as you appear to have admitted over the "one child" argument, which you have now apparently dropped.
Cedars