Is there evidence for networks of abuse? (page 3)

slimboyfat

I thought they get a free pass as a religion.

For example it would be against the law to refuse someone a position because they are a woman or because they are gay, but JWs get away with it. (For the time being at least)

OrphanCrow

slimfatboy: I thought they get a free pass as a religion.

Yeah...I know. That is an attitude that has gone a long way in covering up sexual assault.

Sexual assault is sexual assault. Religion does NOT get a free pass. Rape is rape, regardless of the form it takes or where it happens. The only free passes that it gets are the ones given to it by the victims themselves.

Religion may get away with not ordaining gays or women...but they don't get away with sexually assaulting them.

slimboyfat

Has a secular court ever classed a JW judicial committee as assault? Or are you saying that they won't but they should? Or am I missing the point?

OrphanCrow

sfb: Has a secular court ever classed a JW judicial committee as assault? Or are you saying that they won't but they should? Or am I missing the point?

I don't know if a secular court has or not.

I am not saying they won't. I don't know if they won't.

I do know, however, that if the same thing happened to me, as a woman, in a work environment, or at a school, that I would have grounds to lay a sexual harassment charge. Without question.

So...I guess I am saying that "they should"...

slimboyfat

I don't think they should discriminate against women or gay people either.

I guess they can say no one is forced to attend a JC, just as women and gay people don't need to join the religion.

But with changing attitudes in society I don't think that excuse can hold forever. Maybe we will reach a point (within 10 or 20 years?) where religions can't lawfully stigmatise gay people or deny equal roles to women. Maybe other practices like JCs will come under scrutiny too.

When the ban on gays is lifted, just imagine how all the 60 and 70 year old celibate gay brothers are going to feel. Gulp.

talesin

There is a network of pedophiles, and people within the JWS are part of it It is not an exclusively JW network, though there are JWS involved. The local PD has a 'unit' of 2 people that deals with it.

Proof is hard to come by, as victims are threatened with reprisals, of course. If one is born into this 'network', it's hard to break the fear. Most times though, speaking out doesn't make much difference, because few people *want* to believe such horrors exist.

clarity

Brooklyn admits, some who are prominent within Jehovah's witnesses engaging in...wife swapping, pedaephillia .........

http://www.nairaland.com/1421303/two-gb-members-jehovah-witnesses

OrphanCrow

sbf: Maybe other practices like JCs will come under scrutiny too.

Actually, that is where the change has to start, not end. As far as I am concerned that whole system of judicial discipline needs to be dismantled. If the JWs chose to have an internal disciplinary system, it should abide by the same human rights standards that the secular law does.

I guess they can say no one is forced to attend a JC...

That is just a weak kneed excuse. Of course they are forced to attend - they have to attend or face discipline. That is no different than my boss making me attend an inappropriate hearing with the threat that I would be fired if I didn't. Only thing is...the JW women who resist the sexually intrusive questioning, don't just face losing their jobs...they face "eternal damnation".

slimboyfat

It could be worse. I remember reading about Church of Scotland hearings during which women who were suspected of secret pregnancies had their breasts squeezed to see if they would express milk, in one case by her sister, in another case by a doctor. (The cases mentioned dated from 1773 and 1790) Plus: "if a woman refused to reveal the father of an illegitimate child, kirk sessions of both Establisment and dissident frequently ordered that she be interrogated as to his identity during childbirth." Religion and Society in Scotland Since 1707 (1997) by Callum Brown, pages 71 and 72.

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal now. The practice of interrogating women (or men - why just women?) on private matters is very unpleasant, but I'm not sure on what grounds it could currently be said to be illegal. What law does it break?

OrphanCrow

sbf: The practice of interrogating women (or men - why just women?)...

For the purposes of this discussion...we have been responding to a previous post about "3 elders questioning a woman".

In a more general sense - it is because women in the JW hierarchal structure, have already been classified as the lowest social class. Therefore, the class most likely to be victimized. An adult woman even has less power than a minor baptized male. Women have the very least power within the JWs. Less than any male JW.

What law does it break?

Human rights laws. Sexual harassment laws.

Is there evidence for networks of abuse?

Share this