My concern would be the ability to frame legislation in a way which they would not seek to wriggle out of. Their submission makes it clear that they believe that the only legislation which they think would include them would be that which includes all ministers of religion, at all times, and which does not conflict with freedom of religion principles. One can see why the commission felt the easiest approach was to try and establish whether or not a group vote in Brooklyn could be held and 'new light' something very important for a change.
Mephis
JoinedPosts by Mephis
-
60
Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing
by wannaexit ini've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.
seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.
they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
-
-
-
75
Australian Royal Commission Findings released
by Mephis inwill just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.
in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.
available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.
-
-
Mephis
That's a good point AudeSapere. Think those of us who've been inside see how the WBTS uses words and how what things say isn't always quite what they mean. Classic case is the use of the word 'freedom'. To be told one is free to report sounds at least neutral-ish. But in the context of a religion which teaches 'freedom' is relative and uses examples such as 'one is free to jump off a cliff' then it takes on a very different meaning. Amusingly, Stewart, quite rightly, points out the GB's role in interpretation. The JW amendments change it back to 'the bible'. 'What Jesus evidently meant was...' vs 'What the GB currently think Jesus meant was...'.
Absolutely agree that there's no room for such silliness within child protection policies. They need to be clear, to the point, and if elders are not capable of following simple directions then education needs to be given so they know what they're meant to do when a child comes to them and reports abuse, or if they suspect abuse is happening.
-
9
Deborah
by berrygerry ini, like many others, was furiously emailing about deborah when the issue of only male elders came up.. it seemed curious that angus didn't address deborah, as he surely knew of it.. thankfully, ol' geoff, and wt, cannot resist trying to get in a last word, which opened the door for angus.
(he's one cool customer.).
341 in his written statement provided to the royal commission following the close of thepublic hearing, mr jackson offered the relevant scriptural references to which headverted but was unable to provide during the hearing.
-
-
Mephis
The problem they have with trying to spin it that way is the context of women being part of a process where allegations of abuse are being made isn't really equatable to 'leading the tribes into warfare'. So a 'general sense' and 'a measure of judging' are perfectly adequate grounds for finding ways to take onboard what the commission are telling them.
The reality is that these are men who include Herd, who genuinely does believe that women are biologically incapable of making decisions when a man is present. So no matter how inconsistent and nonsensical the reasons they come up with for their view on this, the decision will stand because they can't get it into their heads that women aren't disqualified from decision making because they lack a penis.
-
9
Deborah
by berrygerry ini, like many others, was furiously emailing about deborah when the issue of only male elders came up.. it seemed curious that angus didn't address deborah, as he surely knew of it.. thankfully, ol' geoff, and wt, cannot resist trying to get in a last word, which opened the door for angus.
(he's one cool customer.).
341 in his written statement provided to the royal commission following the close of thepublic hearing, mr jackson offered the relevant scriptural references to which headverted but was unable to provide during the hearing.
-
-
Mephis
Makemeanunbeliever - the point being raised by counsel for the commission is in response to a later letter Jackson sent. He had plenty of time to prepare that. The holes are there because the JW position is internally inconsistent, not from the pressure of being under cross-examination. -
11
What happened with Dr. Applewhite's supplementary report? Mistery solved
by Viva la Vida in542 on 16 august 2015, dr applewhite wrote to the legal representative of watchtower.
australia and advised that she was unable to prepare a supplementary statement due.
to other commitments.
-
-
Mephis
It's from p.117 of counsel's submission to ARC ttdtt. -
60
Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing
by wannaexit ini've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.
seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.
they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
-
-
Mephis
steve2 - they've been specifically directed to go away and consider the problems raised during the hearings and to find solutions to propose, courses of action to take to prevent the issues identified during the hearing from arising again. Their answer has been "we don't have problems" and "we need you to write us a law to tell us to do what we already know responsible adults should do". Agree there's face-saving going on, but until they accept there are problems then the response and culture internally will continue to put children at risk. And that's the bottom line which needs addressing, and won't be based upon their response here. They have the opportunity to work with experts to create policies and procedures which will help, but there's not a hint of them even considering that direct recommendation already made by a commissioner. They're willfully negligent because they want to dictate to people whilst refusing to accept responsibility for what they say.
edit: Just something to keep in mind, even the one thing which they say they've stopped has actually given cause to a Charity Commission investigation in Britain dating from events last year. It's actions and practice as well as the blizzard of letters sent out which matter.
-
60
Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing
by wannaexit ini've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.
seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.
they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
-
-
Mephis
The difference between Jackson attempting to appear accommodating and willing to think through the issues and seek resolutions and the submission they've put in is very striking.
Thought it may be of use to put what they wish the findings to say in one consolidated block. I'm taking the findings from 1 to 3 and then 39 onwards as being 'general'. It's horrifying how far away they are from accepting what a commissioner has already advised them should be happening.
F.3 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation may receive approximately three or four calls a month about child sexual abuse. No evidence was presented to determine if these reports involved non-Witness perpetrators, occurred before the wrongdoer’s association with Jehovah’s Witnesses, if the report was historical in nature, or if it was in fact pertaining to actual child sexual abuse.
F.39 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.
F.40 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.
F.41`Jehovah’s Witnesses have not and do not presently, require the survivor of a sexual assault to make his/her allegation in the presence of the person whom he or she accuses of having assaulted him or her, unless the survivor wishes to do so; and Jehovah’s Witnesses have acknowledged the need for this position to be clearly documented
F.42 In the case of any alleged serious sin, including child abuse, judicial committees are formed on the basis of the Scriptural standard of evidence of either a confession or substantiation by two or more witnesses. – Proverbs 28:13; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19
Based on the testimony of the two survivor witnesses: (i) Although BCB did not feel supported overall, her testimony was that [an elder involved in Scriptually caring for her accusation] was “very kind and supportive. He told me that what has happened was not my fault and that I shouldn’t blame myself”; and (ii) Although BCG felt unsupported when her allegations of child sexual abuse against her father, BCH, were not Scripturally established at the time of the first congregation judicial hearing, it should be noted that BCH was found guilty of the sexual abuse of his daughter by the congregation appeal committee within the following two weeks
F.45 Jehovah’s Witnesses should continue to make clear their long-standing policy that, where desired, a victim may provide evidence remotely or by way of a written statement to elders investigating and to those subsequently handling an allegation of child abuse.
F.58 Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the right of a survivor or victim of abuse (or their parent or guardian) to decide for him or herself whether or not to report the abuse to the authorities.
F.60 The Scripturally-based beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses require that they obey the laws pertaining to child abuse. In jurisdictions that require it, they obey laws requiring the reporting of such allegations to the authorities. Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses will obey any newly enacted laws requiring ministers of religion to report allegations of child abuse.
F.64 There may be a risk of contamination of a survivor’s evidence as a result of the number of times and circumstances in which a survivor is required to divulge the detail of her complaint before her abuse is, if ever, reported to the authorities.F.69 A Jehovah’s Witness who no longer wants to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline may simply stop associating with the congregation without formally disassociating from the faith.
F.71 The opinions expressed by Dr Applewhite in paragraphs 36, 45 and 46 of her report are accepted.
F.72 Dr Applewhite’s report contains a small number of inconsequential factual errors with regard to her documenting of the relevant practices and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
F.73 Dr Applewhite’s report is therefore accepted.
McClellan's words to their counsel on day 152 are worth contrasting with what the JWs think the commission should report.
"But the starting point is to identify where you or your client accepts the problems are - and some of those are blatantly obvious from the words, not according to the practice, and then, moving on from there, what steps your client might take to bring its processes and its documentation up to an appropriate position."
According to the dubs, there aren't any problems to accept beyond making sure they state more clearly survivors don't *have* to confront their abusers.
Where does one even start with such grotesque idiocy from them?
-
72
My RC hearing brought forward. Will be in two weeks
by umbertoecho inthrough this forum of wonderful freaks, i have met someone who is coming with me to my hearing.
initially i was slated for next year, but will be attending in two weeks time.
all is in place from travel vouchers, support, where to go ............very efficient and well done.
-
-
Mephis
1.) If the view of the GB is that elders' consciences should move them to report, then they should explicitly give guidance to elders saying that. Write it down, no weasel wording, but a direct message to elders: "Your personal conscience is very important. Use it regardless of whether or not the law specifically obliges you to try and protect children. You are responsible before Jehovah for your own actions and inaction. Take advice from those qualified to give it on child protection issues, which the service desk is not, and act accordingly."
2.) A formal and fully documented procedure for elders to follow when child abuse is reported to them should be written for each different jurisdiction which takes into account both local law but, more importantly, that this is about protecting children as the priority. The 'sin' aspect of things comes after that. A long way after that.
3.) Involve recognised outside child protection experts in creating a curriculum and training course for elders. Allow them to provide it at elders' schools. This will help to raise awareness as well as give elders outside perspective of the issues involved and the need to pass things to people who can help appropriately. Regularly seek updated perspectives from child protection professionals on amendments to policies - review of what is effective and what isn't is important.
4.) Acknowledgement of there being an issue publicly. Openly admit the problems being faced and what is being done to solve them. No weasel wording. No passing the buck. An acceptance that they are a hierarchical religion and a willingness to accept they have a duty of care, sometimes legally but most definitely morally. An apology to those they've failed and public statement of what steps they are now going to be taking to try and ensure it doesn't happen again.
Sorry I can't be more practical with suggestions, and it's sad that even those will have little chance of being approved by Brooklyn. If someone keeps closing the curtains on the inside, it's hard to get sunlight from the outside.
-
60
Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing
by wannaexit ini've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.
seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.
they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.
-
-
Mephis
In case of emergency, claim persecution...
"Jehovah’s Witnesses consider, however, that some of the criticisms made by Counsel Assisting go beyond what is necessary to assist the Commission in fulfilling its task or what is required by the Terms of Reference. They appear to be unjustified attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a faith and the individual members thereof. These attacks seem to be the result of misinterpretations of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the Bible and the law."
Wryly amused that that they even try to disagree with points where the commissioner has already told them they have issues.
But morally bankrupt leadership yet again. They claim they assume elders will be moved by their conscience to report, whilst being absolutely adamant that they need mandated reporting because it's just too difficult for them to say it explicitly and actively put elders through a process to figure out whether or not they're legally obliged to report.
More of the same on other issues. Whitewashed graves as one chap was meant to have phrased it.
-
75
Australian Royal Commission Findings released
by Mephis inwill just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.
in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.
available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.
-
-
Mephis
I'm reading through the JW rebuttal, because that's what they've done, of the suggested findings. Incredible attitude from them. They're now claiming:
"Irrespective of whether a parent or guardian of an abused child takes responsible action, if a congregation elder believes that children are at risk, then the elder can inform the authorities so that children are protected." (which cites Jackson's evidence to support it)
"The safety of the victim and other children is paramount. In cases where the parent or guardian of a minor fails to take necessary measures to protect the child, a congregation elder can inform the authorities for the protection of the child or other children."
But they need mandated reporting, which allows no loopholes for them to avoid reporting, because they firmly believe in the right of the family to be free from interference in such matters? Which is it? The whole point of mandated reporting is to place child safety first. That's why we report. Because Brothers Dimwit and Footinmouth really aren't best qualified to be making those calls.
Deeply bizarre response from them. Not unexpected. But, even so, how can they be so willfully blind?