Posts by OrphanCrow

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

Richard, you like to have documentation and all of that to pick apart and dissect. So, I will provide you with some material that will enlighten you to the reality of what "child pornography" actually is and how it is viewed by a global law enforcement agency - Interpol.

Look around in this website. Take your time. There is lots to go through:

https://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children/Crimes-against-children

You will note that Interpol uses the term "child abuse material" instead of "child pornography" (from the Online Q&A - click on link right of screen for downloading pdf):

1. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL’?
Child abuse material (CAM) is the term used to refer to the photos or videos taken by an offender, documenting the sexual abuse of a child.
2. IS ‘CAM’ THE SAME AS ‘CHILD PORN’?
The media often use the term ‘child pornography’. This is not appropriate when describing images of sexual abuse of children. A sexual image of a child is ‘abuse’ or ‘exploitation’ and should never be described as ‘pornography’.
Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed (mostly) legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime.

According to Interpol, child pornography is "child sex abuse material". Someone should tell the WT that.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

Law is based on moral codes.

Why are you making a distinction, Richard?

Whose morals do you follow?

But to answer your question simply, I think (I don't believe...I think) that child porn should be regulated as a matter of law. Relying on the moral code of people like the ones who wrote the WT policy, is a dangerous course to take when they don't even view child pornography as child abuse. (and I am using the narrow definition of that - not the grey "big" definition that you and the WT like to use to hide behind)

*oh...and by the way...child pornography IS regulated as a matter of law so your question is moot

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

BoC: BoC: Oh good.
Our two in-house lawyers have arrived to clear things up for us.

Lol! Of course they have. I invited them. This is a good topic to show how misinformed and how bad their position is. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell to come out of this looking good.

I want them to engage. Every time they engage, they show their ignorance.

For example, RO doesn't get what a straw man argument is. He claims that because I presented a fact that cannot be refuted that it is a straw man argument and yet it is the farthest thing from a straw man that you can find.

A straw man argument distorts, exaggerates and misrepresents. I didn't do that. I narrowed and defined - I presented the definition of child pornography clearly, definitively and narrow. I did not distort or exaggerate.

The grey areas, the ones that are all foggy and blurry, the areas where distortion and exaggeration occur, are in the areas that RO feels so comfortable in trying to capture people inside. Trying to get an argument going in those grey areas are where straw man arguments thrive.

The WT has presented child pornography in broad terms - just as one simple thing - "child pornography". That means that the child pornography that I described so narrowly does fit within that umbrella term. And, it does fit into what the WT claims is not child abuse.

Stack on track, RO. Stay focused. You can do it. I haven't given up on you yet. Today is a new day and the clouds still have a chance of breaking.

14

Forum 18: RUSSIA: Justice Ministry seeks complete Jehovah's Witness ban

by OrphanCrow in

jw
friends

russia: justice ministry seeks complete jehovah's witness ban.

by victoria arnold, forum 18. with no public announcement, russia's justice ministry lodged a suit at the supreme court today (15 march) to declare the jehovah's witness administrative centre "extremist", to liquidate it, and to ban its activity.

if successful, this would ban all jehovah's witness activity across russia.. russia's justice ministry has submitted a suit to the supreme court to declare the administrative centre of jehovah's witnesses an "extremist" organisation, order it liquidated, and ban its activity.

OrphanCrow

RUSSIA: Justice Ministry seeks complete Jehovah's Witness ban

By Victoria Arnold, Forum 18

With no public announcement, Russia's Justice Ministry lodged a suit at the Supreme Court today (15 March) to declare the Jehovah's Witness Administrative Centre "extremist", to liquidate it, and to ban its activity. If successful, this would ban all Jehovah's Witness activity across Russia.
Russia's Justice Ministry has submitted a suit to the Supreme Court to declare the Administrative Centre of Jehovah's Witnesses an "extremist" organisation, order it liquidated, and ban its activity. If the Justice Ministry wins the administrative suit, Jehovah's Witness activity would be banned across Russia. The suit reached the Supreme Court today (15 March) and was included in the list of forthcoming cases on the Court website late in the afternoon Moscow time.

If successful, this would be the first time a court has ruled a registered centralised religious organisation "extremist".

The Justice Ministry made no public announcement that it had lodged the suit.

The liquidation suit, which reached the Supreme Court on 15 March, was handed the same day to Judge Nikolai Romanenkov. "Once he has examined the case, the Judge will determine when the hearing will begin and whether it will be open or closed," a Court secretary told Forum 18 from Moscow on 15 March. "All the information will be posted on the court website."

Should the suit succeed, the Administrative Centre's property would be forfeit to the state and all its activity would be prohibited. The local religious communities for which it is responsible would also be dissolved, and their members would be liable to criminal prosecution if they continued to meet for worship. This would end Jehovah's Witnesses' open public life in Russia.

*Full article (lengthy) at link

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: ...you give an argument that no one can disagree with

Au contraire, Richard.

The WT disagrees with it.

*reminder, Richard...don't slam it shut

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

Richard, I don't care about the grey areas.

I care about all those babies and children being raped to produce child pornography. I care that the WT is telling the JWs that viewing images of that nature is not considered child abuse.

That's all. That is an important enough issue to speak about without falling into your grey zone.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman: morally or legally?

Why does that matter? Is not the law based on our moral codes? Is not the law a living thing? Do you not understand the fundamental nature of law itself?

I find it paradoxical that the WT, with their army of JWs, will have no problem taking a stand outside the law and scream until the rights and freedoms of their precious organization is ceded to, and yet when it comes to the rights and freedoms of the very most vulnerable in society, the children, they fall back on...legalism. The JWs could be making great strides in changing those laws that they so neatly hide behind, but no. They won't. They will let their children die for lack of blood. They will go to hjail rather than fight for their country. They will sue all sorts of entities for their right to spread literature. They are ALL about changing laws.

But they won't help change laws to protect children.

Assholes.

RO: OC in your narrow definition yes that is child abuse. But again in your narrow definition, which is not the legal definition, of someone under 10.

You couldn't do it, could you? You had to add your caveat to your response. Just a tiny bit of honesty is shining through, though. We have a start.

I don't care if my definition is narrow - it is supposed to be. That narrow definition fits inside the broad definition that feels the most comfortable to you. It is that simple. You have finally admitted that the WT is wrong. Viewing child pornography (yes, the narrow definition) is child abuse.

Go tell the Watchtower that. And open that crack just a little bit more. Don't slam it shut. I have high hopes for you. That was a big step, Richard. Congratulations.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: If you want to talk about the legality of Watchtower reporting cases of child porn then stick with the legality of it. If you want to speak about the morality then stick with that.

Goose and gander, huh, Richard?

Check that those holy guidelines that were released by the WT. They are chock full of scriptures. Who is mixing up moral and legal now?

This is exactly what the problems are with the WT. They stand on their Bible but won't accept anyone else using it. Clearly, they chose which words of Jesus to follow - keep the two witness rule but ignore the ones that don't suit them.

The WT is the one who needs to quit mixing morality with legality and then maybe we would get somewhere.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

So. Let's be clear about this.

Both of you, Fisherman and RO, you both think that viewing child pornography is not considered child sex abuse?

Let's use a narrow definition. "Child pornography" will refer to images of children less than ten years of age, engaging in sexual acts with an adult.

Would viewing images of children being raped be considered child abuse? Answer this personally. From your own conscience. Speak to us with that and forget the legalism mumbo jumbo. Tell us what you really think.

Yes. Or no. Which is it? Is it child abuse to look at images children/babies getting raped? Or is it not? For sexual pleasure. Not for some other kind of excuse you want to throw up. No legalism allowed in your response. Just one word.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

You are being intentionally obtuse and muddying the waters, RO.

This is simple. Very simple.

Let's put aside the whole argument of "crime" or the categorizing and breaking down into detailed lists of what does and does not fall into the category of child pornography.

Let's just assume that the "child pornography" that the WT is talking about is exactly that - child pornography. Sexual images of minor children.

Now tell me, what is your defense of the WT claiming that "viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse"?

And please, address the words of Matthew 5:27, 28 in your response