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

RO: OC you just want to ignore everything else and focus on that one sentence

Yes, I do.

That one sentence reveals the fundamental flaw in the WT's thinking. Fundamental.

In the same way as if I was building a house and I saw a fatal crack in the foundation before the rest of the house was built, I would stop what I was doing and fix the fatal flaw. Without fixing that, the whole house will tumble down.

That one single sentence is the statement that puts all of the rest of the WT's policies on child abuse into question.

If they cannot grasp that simple concept, that viewing images of child abuse is child abuse, then there is no hope whatsoever for them.

That has to be fixed before the rest of the house is built.

It is a fatal flaw in thinking and in policy. It looks small, but it is really, really big. The WT does not define child abuse correctly. How can they design policies about it until they understand what it means?

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: So Orphan Crow. I showed you that Watchtower does acknowledge that Child Abuse can include that of child pornography

Right. That would be what the WT means when they say this:

"viewing child pornography is not considered to be child abuse"

You are putting lipstick on a pig, Richard...either that or building straw men, I am not sure which.

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: So in similar fashion, yes the Watchtower policy does not state that those that watch Child Pornography must be reported to the police in that section, you have to look at the full policy together.

Bullshit.

The WT has stated that viewing child pornography is not considered child abuse. That statement precludes anything else that the document states. If they will not acknowledge that salient point, that the viewer is engaging in the abuse of a child, the viewing of child abuse material falls flat in the water and never gets out of the gate.

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: What is the answer that you gave, that you don't care about the grey areas.

There is no grey area in my response.

The Royal Commission is investigating institutions to examine how the institution responds to child sex abuse. How the WT responds to the viewing of child abuse material falls within the commission's mandate.

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

And I answered your question.

Accept the response.

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

Don't be dense, Richard. I gave you a link to Interpol. There is a Baseline system that they use that defines child abuse material globally - there is a category whereby images that fall into it are considered to be illegal worldwide. In every country.

Just report it. Let the proper authorities determine if a law has been broken.

RO: How can this be considered the child abuse in an institution.

Because the WT has published a policy that covers it. It is child abuse and the WT is determining how they will handle it (or not handle it).

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: So if the child is being victimized each time that someone watches a depiction of child pornography then the child is still in danger, isn't that correct? Then the mandatory reporting would come into play.

Exactly.

That is why the WT has to change the wording in their policy manual. They need to word it like this:

"Child Abuse Material: Child abuse material is the term for child "pornography". Because viewing images that depict children being abused sexually is part of the production cycle of those images, viewing them is considered to be child abuse and as such, will be reported to the proper authorities to determine the extent, if any, of illegal activity.

In addition, the offender will be subject to all judicial action that the WTS feels is necessary to abide by proper Biblical conduct."

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: OC no one is disputing that child pornography does depict child abuse

Lol! Wow.

Yes, there is "someone" that disputes that. The WT disputes that. That is the point that is being made.

Viewing child abuse material is engaging in child abuse. The viewer's role is critical to the production of material that depicts child abuse. Critical. Without the viewer, there would be no images produced. There would be no need or demand for them.

The "politics of representation". Look it up, Richard. I won't get into that on here because it is a huge subject and one that takes a lot of time to lay out in a way that would do it justice. Simply put, though, the voyeur is necessary for the subject being represented to exist.

The WT doesn't get that. Or, more likely, they don't care.

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