The recent Australian Sunday program
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1789.asp
Only just read this - anyone record it ?
by A Paduan 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
A Paduan
Thanks Blondie - I'm keen to see the part where the elder just doesn't get it that the abuse of a boy wasn't homosexuality on the boy's part, but simply abuse - the universe is certainly infinite in many ways
-
blondie
This fallacy that it was a homosexual act is predicated on the assumption that the act was voluntary, between two consenting adults. This is purely a case of rape and it is ultimate stupidity to suggest that a child rape victim was a willing participant. The elder shows his stupidly quite clearly. The scary thing is how many elders have this same stupid reasoning; did they get it from the WTS; and how many others are infected with this?
Blondie
-
Nathan Natas
(In the USA, "Parade magazine" is a supplement to the Sunday edition of many newspapers. www.parade.com)
from: PAGE 16 • JUNE 5, 2005 • PARADE
If you want to fight against the abuse of children, WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE
By Andrew Vachss
YEARS AGO, I PARTICIPATED IN the rescue of a child from bondage.
Destiny (not her real name) was 13. She had been repeatedly raped by a pair of predators to "educate" her. Then, along with several other young girls, she was forced to sell herself to strangers. Each day, she woke to the threat of disfiguring brutality if she failed to bring in sufficient money that night. Later, it was reported that "pimps" had been arrested, and "a number of child prostitutes were taken into custody."
What was wrong with calling Destiny a "child prostitute"? After all, she was a child, and she was engaged in prostitution. First, the word itself implies a judgment of character. Don't we call people who sell out their moral convictions in exchange for personal gain "whores"? More important, prostitution implies a willing exchange. Ultimately, the term "child prostitution" implies that little children are "seductive," that they "volunteer" to "nonviolent have sex with adults in exchange for cash (which, of course, the children never see).
The difference between calling Destiny a "child prostitute" and a "prostituted child" is not purely semantic. It is more than the difference between a hard truth and a pernicious lie. It not only injures the victims; it actively gives aid and comfort to the enemy. By allowing the term "child prostitution" to gain a foothold in our language, we lose ground that can never be recovered. Look at the following examples:
• A judge spares a predatory pedophile a long prison sentence on the grounds that "it takes two to tango." Another grants work-release to a sex offender, declaring that the 5-year-old victim was "unusually promiscuous."
• A teacher is arrested for sexual intercourse with a minor student in her class. The newspapers describe the conduct as "a forbidden love affair."
• A young actor, in an interview given before his drug-overdose death, describes how he "lost his virginity" when he was 3 or 4 years old.
How have such grotesque distortions taken control of our language? To answer that question, we must first ask another: Who profits? Who benefits from pervasive cultural language that trivializes violence against children?
Pedophiles are very familiar with the power of language. They would have us believe that child pornography is a free-speech issue. They know that if they succeed in placing "child prostitution" anywhere on the continuum of voluntary sexual activity, they will have established a beach-head from which to launch future assaults.
We must understand that such language is no accident—it is the deliberate product of cultural lobbyists. There is a carefully orchestrated campaign to warp public perception, a perception that affects everything from newspaper coverage to legislation and even jury verdicts.
If they can get us to accept that children consent to sex for money, it will be easier to sell the idea that they can con-sent to sex for "love." But an adult male who sexually abuses little boys is no more "homosexual" than one who victimizes little girls is "heterosexual." They are both preditory pedophiles. There is no such thing as a child prostitute; there are only prostituted children.
When we use terms such as "lose's one's virginity" in referring to adult sex acts with children instead of calling it "rape," or when we say that the teachers "have affairs" with their pupils instead of saying that teachers sexually exploit them, the only beneficiaries are the predators who target children.
This is not about political correctness. It is about telling the truth. In any culture, language is the undercurrent that drives the river of public perception. That undercurrent has been polluted for too long.
If we really want to protect our children, it's time to watch our language.
PARADE Contributing Editor Andrew Vachss is an author and attorney whose only clients are children. His novel "Two Trains Running" will be published on June 14 by Pantheon. Visit www.vachss.com to learn more.
What words REALLY say
When it comes to Child abuse, the language we use can distort the reality of the crime and create a roadblock to justice. The next time you hear a news report, keep to mind what the following terms actually mean... and the consequences of the conduct described.
PEDOPHILE: An individual with intensee, recurrent sexually arousing fantasies and urges toward prepubescent children. Those who decide to act on such feelings can be termed "predatory pedophiles." The predatory pedophile is as dangerous as cancer and as camouflaged in approach. His presence becomes known only by the horrendous damage in his wake. Predatory pedophiles most often operate inside a child's "circle of trust." He (or she) may be a teacher, a doctor, a a scout leader, a police officer, an athletic coach, a religious counselor or a child-care professional. They are protected not only by our ignorance of their presence but also by our unwillingness to confront the truth.
FONDLING: Nonpenetrative sexual misconduct with a child, often resulting in severe emotional damage to the victim.
MOLESTATION: Sexual assault of a child, often resulting in both physical and emotional damage.
NONVIOLENT INCEST: The rape by extortion of a child by a family member, creating a climate of oppression and fear in the child's daily life that inevitably results in profound long-term damage.
INTERGENERATIONAL LOVE: The sexual exploitation of a child under the guise of a consentual relationship. The pedophiles perversion of the word "love" is routinely promoted in all their literature as "harmless" or even "beneficial" to the victim.
CHILD PROSTITUTE: A child, often held captive against his or her will, who is physically and/or emotionally coerced into performing sex acts with adults for the profit of others.
-
JW83
Nathan, that is a great article and very true! I just wanted to criticise the point: This is not about political correctness. I am a huge political correctness proponent, & that is because language can be a horrific tool, as the author points out. Let's stop this pc bashing!
-
MidwichCuckoo
I emailed the 'Sunday Programme' to ask if 'Silent Lambs' will be shown in England - they replied saying that it has been forwarded to their agents in London.
-
Robert_V_Frazier
The part of the program that gets to me the most is the segment where the elder John Wyngate is discussing with Graham Davis about a JW who confessed to raping a six-year-old girl:
GRAHAM DAVIS: This was a confession from a paedophile.
JOHN WYNGATE: That's right.
GRAHAM DAVIS: He confessed to it!
JOHN WYNGATE: Yes.
GRAHAM DAVIS: To abusing a 6-year-old.
JOHN WYNGATE: Yes.
GRAHAM DAVIS: And you disfellowshipped him, you banned him from the congregation for nine months.
JOHN WYNGATE: Yes.
GRAHAM DAVIS: And that was fair enough?
JOHN WYNGATE: No, well ...
GRAHAM DAVIS: Seriously.
JOHN WYNGATE: At the time we acted with the information we had.
GRAHAM DAVIS: The information you had was a confession that "I have abused this 6-year-old."
JOHN WYNGATE: That's right. His conduct, it was a one-off thing.
GRAHAM DAVIS: A one-off thing? With a 6-year-old? That's okay, is it?
JOHN WYNGATE: No, no, let me qualify my remarks. There was no evidence of sexual abuse of other children by this guy.
GRAHAM DAVIS: As we'll see, no evidence yet. That was to come. And, well, Dennis Evans was repentant.
JOHN WYNGATE: In a situation like that, you look for a person's remorse, and all of these qualities that go along with a request to be able to be allowed back into the Christian congregation.
GRAHAM DAVIS: But every paedophile is remorseful when he gets caught. That is the problem with paedophilia.
JOHN WYNGATE: It's all right for you to stand there and tell me all the facts.
GRAHAM DAVIS: But we know that he molested ...
JOHN WYNGATE: But you've never dealt with it, have you?
GRAHAM DAVIS: But we know he molested more girls than just Sonia.
JOHN WYNGATE: We do now, don't we?
GRAHAM DAVIS: We do.
JOHN WYNGATE: Yes, we do now.
It staggers the imagination. Here's this JW elder, a man CONFESSES to him that he raped a little girl, six years of age, and this elder actually thinks it's purely a matter for church discipline! And at least two other elders must have agreed that was all that was necessary! Call the cops? What for? He only raped her once as far as Wyngate knew, no big deal, and he didn't rape any other girls that Wyngate knew of at the time! Besides, he said he was sorry! They punished him -- they didn't let him be a good JW in fellowship with all the other good JW's for NINE WHOLE MONTHS! How traumatic that must have been.
And Wyngate still thinks that given the knowledge he had at the time, that this monster had raped one six-year-old girl one time, there was nothing more that he could have done, nothing that could have been handled better than it was. These moronic psychopaths actually believe that handing out the exact same punishment for smoking one cigarette and for raping one little girl is justice, righteousness, and holiness.
Unbelievable.
Robert V Frazier