Hi Both
I understand the logic behind what you are saying, I just think it is flawed.
What is the benefit of doing this?
As far as I can see, the perceived benefits are supposedly:
- To shame the watchtower into changing its policy
- It will sully the name of the watchtower in the minds of the public and possibly in its membership
- To protect children
- To gain justice for those that were abused
If there others I have missed please let me know. I don't like to be in a minority believe it or not so happy to be convinced on this.
Anyway. Turning to each of these:
- Shaming the WTBTS into changing its policy
If the WTBTS believes its policy is legal this will change nothing. If it is not legal then the change can only occur through legal means. This categorically will not make them change a legal or illegal policy. The fact the list exists is already in the pubic domain. Anonymous' action will not change anything about WTBTS policy save put pressure on them to be more secretive.
- It will sully the name of the watchtower in the minds of the public and possibly in its membership
Possibly. Think the membership will just see it as more persecution. Some will take notice I suppose. The public largely will go 'religion, protection of child molestors. Now there is a surprise.'
This is a biggy for me. The NSPCC and the Scottish Chlidren's Commissioner (who I did work with on the issue of anonymity of accused child molestors before conviction) do not think that community notification of convicted child molestors protects children and actually believe the evidence suggests it increases the risk. It drives perpetrators underground. See this report http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/About_Us/The_Department/Probation_and_Parole/Managing_sex_offenders_in_the_community/megans_law_review.pdf
Child molestors who have not been convicted are clever at covering their tracks and changing their names so you can bet that many of the people on the list will still be abusing but under a different name. Others will simply move on and chnage their names. The Scottish children's commissioner in particular were very concerned that an atmosphere where men are named in the public by accusers before conviction was stopping men from volunteering to work with children. They were desperate to get more men to volunteer to run children's activities to provide positive role models for chlidren (boys in particular) and did a big piece of research to find out why men were not volunteering. The biggest reason by far was the fear they would get accused of molestation.
- To gain justice for those that were abused
Justice in what way? As said a lot of these men will have changed their names anyway. There will be no criminal conviction unless the victim is prepared to give evidence. So the best they can hope for is mob justice. But this inevitably means that some people who were innocent but accused will be subject to the same mob justice. This is not the way civilised society operates. As an aside I was abused as a child. Never went to the police. The thought of someone releasing the abusers name and then people linking it to me and it being all raked up again makes me feel sick. How dare we presume what is best for people who have been abused.
So looking at the potential benefits, of which I can argue there is none, this has to be weighed against the potential harm to innocent people I discussed above (and as stated above the abused who may just want to move on). So sorry, there is no 'check and balance' in operation here. The argument this is providing justice when the legal system will always fail (just as it did with Conti? or the litigation against the catholic church which is a much, much bigger fish) holds no water I am afraid. Even if it did, the fact that the actions of anonymous are more likely (note the NSPCC report) to harm children rather than helping them should be sufficeint for this board to take a step back, forget out hatred of the WTBTS, think of the real implications and then wholeheartedly condemn what they are doing. Their heart may be in the right place (though I have my doubts) but their brains need to be also.
