by Lemonp 28 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Ew OrphanCrow, that's a perspective I'd never thought of :o
So they'll reappoint someone to an Elder position who will savour some poor child abuse victim giving details of what happened. Ugh, it's making me feel sick writing that.
This is sick sick sick! Beyond sick!
That statement by WT is two edged. Imagine a little girl of eight trying to find the right words to explain what she has gone through. Imagine how easy it would be for "elders" to disclaim her or his statements.
And if her father is the abuser? Or her mother? Again, if some adult assisted, there would be leeway for the elders to refute this child's statement and claim she was lead to say things by the person assisting her/him. It is full of holes and is worth pointing out to the Commission.
Since this thread asks probing questions, why are ex-JW's just writing their opinions in JWN threads instead of also writing to their politicians requesting that their politicians at least review the reports, evidence, transcripts, and/or videos that the Royal Commission has so transparently provided?
The hard work done by members of the Royal Commission will not change anything, unless citizens get involved to request that their politicians revise laws. For example a comprehensive bill and executive summary to tweak the USA Tax Code to protect children from sexual abuse is available for anyone to read at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lbrkte086omivtt/AADN7PQHNylsdKwbltjHxBUea?dl=0 .
In the last year I have written to 99 senators and several Representatives, but they will not listen to one person. They might listen to 100,000 constituents.
Rant over.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Petraglyph: Ew OrphanCrow, that's a perspective I'd never thought of :o
So they'll reappoint someone to an Elder position who will savour some poor child abuse victim giving details of what happened. Ugh, it's making me feel sick writing that.
This is sick sick sick! Beyond sick!
Yes, it is sick. Issues around the production of sexual images and materials has been an integral part of my university education - I taught photography and obscenity laws and responsible use of the image was integral to an understanding of how cultural production develops. The same laws that apply to image production also apply to written material.
Child pornography laws are one of the tools that international agencies that fight against the expoiltation of children worldwide have at their disposal. These laws have been used in circumstances that under other laws they would have had a hard time making a charge stick.
The whole process that the JW elders engage in, of collecting sexual material from minors, has been making me uncomfortable for a long time. I know why that is - it is a process that fits the legal definition of producing and distributing child pornography.
The evidence gathered by the Royal Commission is part of the public record. If it applies, or if it can be shown to apply, it can be used as support. And at the very least may well point to similar information existing elsewhere which is directly applicable. More generally, I'd think that other countries will be looking at the conclusions and recommendations eventually to be given when formulating their own policies. Sensible organisations may well also look towards a 'gold standard' which may be provided by the Australians with this process.
I know nearly all of us here have left a background of total disengagement with the political process, but as Robert says above, some things about this we can help with directly from the outside. A mandatory reporting law, for instance, closes off that loophole for the JWs. So even a short message to your local politician representing you at national level can have an impact.
"The whole process that the JW elders engage in, of collecting sexual material from minors...is a process that fits the legal definition of producing and distributing child pornography."
I must disagree with Orphan Crow's claim in the previous post..
If a child were to tell YOU what had happened to them during abuse, and you made notes of what they said, in case the story changes at a later date or you forgot what had happened.. As you may need to do if you were to support a police investigation for instance.. Would that be producing child pornography?
Would a police officer taking a statement from a minor and keeping a written record be producing child pornography..?
Put aside that elders don't support police investigations, and that they should have no need to ask for explicit details and handle these cases themselves, for the moment.
Making notes or records of a child's statement or testimony is not technically producing pornography, is it? Legally, it is not.
This article from a few years back is interesting.
.....
" A Conservative MP is seeking to change the law to close a loophole which allows paedophiles to legally possess written accounts of child abuse."
"Sir Paul wants to amend existing legislation so that written material is treated in the same way as indecent images, for which possession carries a maximum three-year prison term."
The law would be tightly written, he insisted, to cover obscene writing of a nature "that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487
And this following page is just one example showing that there must be a sexual purpose for the writing of the material, in order for it to qualify as child pornography.
So how exactly would you go about proving that the notes were taken down or read for a sexual purpose?
Just asking.
Accusing anyone of intentionally passing on or producing child pornography is a very dangerous area, and quite possibly slanderous.
And you appear to be claiming that the entire process fits this definition.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, this time. But before the flaming starts, I am not defending their policies.
.....
Pornography:
"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement."
Key phrase here: intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
If a child were to tell YOU what had happened to them during abuse, and you made notes of what they said, in case the story changes at a later date or you forgot what had happened.. As you may need to do if you were to support a police investigation for instance.. Would that be producing child pornography?
Key Point:
I would not collect details. I would immediately take the child to a professional.
If I was a professional, I would follow the required procedures for collecting evidence.
Key Point:
The JWs elders are not professionals with the skills to handle evidence collection. Because of that, it cannot be considered evidence collecting.
Key phrase here: intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
Key point:
That intent never has to proven when it involves minors.
Firstly, there is no need for the sarcastic repetition of Key Point.
Secondly: "That intent never has to proven when it involves minors."
"The JWs elders are not professionals with the skills to handle evidence collection. Because of that, it cannot be considered evidence collecting."
.. So are you saying then that legally, any nonprofessional person without the skills to investigate abuse, who asks a child about what happened during abuse and makes any notes is producing child pornography?
It seems a bit odd that the Royal Commission haven't noticed that fact. Or anybody else.
Do you have any sources to back that up?
It would be great if you had found a legal angle by which to prevent these traumatic elder sessions, but it just doesn't seem to be legally possible to me.
I think most common law jurisdictions would accept the report of a Royal Commission as of persuasive value, but testimony at an RC is of limited value as evidence. A witnesses own statement cannot be used as evidence against them, for instance. This is covered by the Royal Commissions Act 1902.
JC notes and records being child pornography is an interesting thought.
According to the current law in Queensland where I think this JC was heard (Edit: BCB's case was actually in Western Australia. But the law in all jurisdictions is similar enough that the general points are still valid):
child exploitation material means material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under 16 years— (a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a sexual activity; or (b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or (c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.
So, possibly needlessly explicit notes about abuse and cruelty might fit the definition. Although I doubt the proceedings of a church hearing was the sort of material the Parliament would had in mind when the legislation was considered.
But is there a defence to a charge of making, distributing or possessing such material in the case of a JC?
228E Defences for ss 228A–228D
‘(1) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) prescribe defences available to a
person charged with an offence against section 228A, 228B,
228C or 228D.
‘(2) It is a defence for the person to prove that—
(a) the person engaged in the conduct that is alleged to
constitute the offence for a genuine artistic, educational,
legal, medical, scientific or public benefit purpose; and
(b) the person’s conduct was, in the circumstances,
reasonable for that purpose.
Example of something made for a ‘public benefit’—
A current affairs television program showing children being tortured
during a civil war.
I think it would come down to whether a reasonable person would think the material was too detailed for a legitimate church disciplinary purpose and that a paedophile would get off reading it.
