In Australia, A $3 Billion Jehovah’s Witnesses Class Action Over Child Abuse looms Large

by Scott77 24 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Witness My Fury

  Yet more Unthank sensationalism per chance?
• 

  besty

  Yet more Unthank sensationalism per chance?

  Yet more anonymous keyboard criticsm per chance?
• 

  Witness My Fury

  By definition most posts on this board are anonymous and use a keyboard, quite a few of those are critical in one way or another of something or someone.

  Mr Unthanks use of language will likely continue to raise questions over his choice of words, this is because he uses them in provocative ways to grab attention instead of for conveying facts.
• 

  besty

  ye I get that WMF - just gets a bit wearing seeing real people who are doing something tangible about the problems of child sex abuse within the Watchtower Society being criticized anonymously...
• 

  exwhyzee

  I get what WMF is saying and didn't think it was a criticism, rather an acknowledgment that the approach of Mr. Unthank does sometimes make one wonder if they should take what he says, with a grain of salt. Many others have thought this as well.
• 

  Scott77

  At this rate, we should at all cost, jump on board and provide moral and psychological support to Mr. Unthank's worthwhile effort of 'doing something tangible about the problems of child sex abuse within the Watchtower Society' MWF, think twice before criticizing a champion of children's rights. This is a time to cheer and tow the line instead of criticizism.

  Scott77
• 

  Chaserious

  Something to remember is that litigating at every opportunity, even when you have a losing case, is not always best for a cause. The only way that something big is going to happen to the WTS is if public opinion turns against them. When members of the public or the court system who don't have an interest one way or the other see outlandish claims, a flair for sensationalism, or a personal vendetta, they tend to think that the person or group making those claims is the problem.

  Historically, groups that have been successful fighting in court for rights that are unpopular or lack public support pick their battles very carefully. They are well-organized and resist the temptation to pick fights that could be damaging from a public relations standpoint. I think it's important to realize that even though someone might be fighting hard for your cause, they might be doing more damage than good to it.
• 

  Scott77

  	"Something to remember is that litigating at every opportunity, even when you have a losing case, is not always best for a cause.."
  	Chaserious

  Hi Chaserious,

  Are you from the Mars?

  Scott77
• 

  Jeffro

  mP:

  Is the same requirement about clearance and working w/ chilrdren required in NSW or is this a VIC thing only ?

  I would expect so. Queensland also has a requirement for people who work with children to submit to a background check and obtain a 'Blue Card'. (Unfortunately, in Queensland a 'Blue Card' is also the informal name given to a building contractor's licence.)

  In theory, elders in all congregations in at least Victoria and Queensland (and probably other states) are legally required to obtain such permits (in addition to any JWs engaged in school 'religious instruction' classes). I'm surprised this hasn't been more of an issue.
• 

  Chaserious

  Hi Chaserious,

  Are you from the Mars?

  No, I'm not from Mars. Litigating at every opportunity is not always best for a cause. I recommend reading about the history of the legal battles in the civil rights movement in the United States. It's a very interesting story. The court battles and the parties who were going to bring them were very carefully selected by the NAACP legal defense fund. They only picked the best cases to fight, and fought them in a certain strategic order.

  In higher courts of appeal, once they hear what they consider to be a certain kind of case, they tend not to hear a similar case for a number of years, since the issue is considered decided. So the civil rights groups only wanted to take the best cases to the Supreme Court. Similarly the cases they picked were decided in a way calculated to be sympathetic to their cause and influence public opinion.

  The NAACP leaned hard on some blacks who were legitimately wronged because it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a great case, or it just didn't fit into the larger picture of the legal battle correctly. Imagine being told you were not eligible for a job or being denied admission to a school because of your race, and the group that is supposed to represent civil rights for your race tells you not to bring a lawsuit. But that's exactly what happened, and agree or not, the movement won almost every important civil rights case they litigated, which turned out to be a very important series of cases for civil rights.