The Conti case is a game-changer; that much is certain.
It’s also pretty certain (to a lot of us at JWN, anyway) that the WTS:
· believes they have the moral high ground and thusly are in the right...
· aren’t going to significantly change their child abuse-related policies any time soon...
· don’t really think they’ll actually lose their appeal.
It should be obvious to anyone by now that one of the most significant and unavoidable characteristics of hierarchal, authoritarian religions (no matter what faith template they subscribe to) is a deeply entrenched problem of sexual victimization, especially of children and young people. The WTS is just one example.
Prior to the internet, these groups and others like them were able to keep this sordid aspect about themselves quiet, but that’s become virtually impossible in the developed world of 21st Century. The reason is that the most effective means of insulating themselves against exposure and/or legal consequences (besides wealth) have been these various groups’ close connections with political authorities and the agencies affiliated with them.
We sometimes forget this, but for centuries, powerful individuals and governments have had the ability to make the problems of well-connected churches disappear without too much effort. However, unlike the majority of other authoritarian religions, the WTS does not have that avenue, largely due to their official disdain for "worldy" things in general, and particularly the socio-political landscape...
...they have done nothing to cultivate "friends in high places".
Why is this significant?
There's a possibility we may have not considered before.
As the Information Age increasingly and inexorably "lifts the veil" over authoritarian religion’s dirtiest secrets, the general public’s disgust and outrage at each new publicised scandal is becoming quite palpable. As a result, more and more private citizens, public figures, activist groups, and even (apparently) cyber-vigilantes are finding a common cause to rally behind, either officially or otherwise.
We’re used to thinking of lawyers and courts in fairly cynical and negative terms, but the fact is, our modern justice system (however flawed) can - and indeed, has been - a force for Good on many occasions. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the court of public opinion has always had an influence on the actions and decisions of the court of Law.
People are getting fed up to their back teeth with the sexual victimization of children and young people, and they are getting even more pissed at institutions that have (passively or otherwise) shielded them from justice while failing to protect the victims.
Historically, when a sea change in the collective feelings of a population comes to a head over a particularly deplorable injustice, something significant has been known to happen; the courts and the Law have met the public’s needs in an admittedly ruthless but nonetheless effective manner...
...by making an example of someone.
Often, it’s an individual or group who has already alienated virtually everyone around them, who has a history of either passive or active disdain for aspects of the Law, who is genuinely guilty of the claims brought against them (not a scapegoat), and/or has very few or no influential friends inclined to intervene on their behalf.
One could argue that if the WTS insists on staying the course and fighting rather than submit to the Law (and, frankly, perfectly reasonable public expectations regarding their policies), the US courts - and for that matter, the rest of the developed world - may just have a unique and, frankly, convenient opportunity to mollify an increasingly outraged public, and set a hard precedent for dealing with similar situations.
Very few individuals will feel inclined to sympathise with the WTS; they’ve used the resources of the nations they dwell in whilst giving relatively little back, they have a history of publicly demonizing the wider world around them (including government, and - by extension - the courts), and they’ve effectively created a small army of dedicated and lifelong enemies due to their egregious mishandling of child abuse and hard-line shunning policies.
More importantly (to this argument), the WTS has done virtually nothing to garner influential friends or allies in useful positions of authority. Therefore, no one of significance in the legal - and more importantly - political arena would suffer any collateral damage if the WTS were knocked down a few pegs.
By that logic, the Justice System has virtually nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by smacking them, hard, and making sure they stay smacked.
Never underestimate the effectiveness of a well-deserved and public "object lesson".
Thoughts?