Posts by OrphanCrow

61

Today's WT glancing at the opposite sex is flirting and therefore immortality

by purrpurr in

in today's wt study it makes the point that just glancing at the opposite sex is flirting and can lead to sex!.

so are jw's now to wear blinkers?.

also jw's are told to go and confess to the elders if they have any immoral thoughts?!!.

OrphanCrow

Thanks, Scully.

Does the WT also say that these thoughts crimes are to be confessed to the elders? Or is that just a "platform" directive?

61

Today's WT glancing at the opposite sex is flirting and therefore immortality

by purrpurr in

in today's wt study it makes the point that just glancing at the opposite sex is flirting and can lead to sex!.

so are jw's now to wear blinkers?.

also jw's are told to go and confess to the elders if they have any immoral thoughts?!!.

[Day 8 - 14/8]Governing Body, Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commissions On Child Sexual Abuse, Australia. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r in

the big day finally arrived!

these amazing royal commission proceedings are available on youtube :).

part 1 has been uploaded and part 2 will soon be available.. part 1:.

OrphanCrow

flipper: 1:41 to 1:50 Angus Stewart uses an example from the Hebrew scriptures indicating that a man who rapes a woman was to be put to death only though SHE the victim was the only eyewitness. Then Angus asks Jackson, : " So we see it's NOT necessary even in the Scriptural sense to have two eyewitnesses to child abuse is it ? " Jackson replies ridiculously, " I'd like to ask Jesus Christ that in the future. "
1:46 to 1:50 Angus Stewart states that , : " The 2 witness rule needed could be the circumstances involved as well. " He proves his point by showing how elders stake out homes all night lying in wait to see if someone has committed adultery with another- all based on circumstance. " Why not the same in child abuse cases ? "

This is a really interesting segment. It is in this exchange that Jackson reveals himself. At the 1:41:07 mark, Jackson reveals his anger. He sets his Bible down in frustration, almost contemptuously, angry that Stewart continues questioning after Jackson had so emphatically 'taught' Stewart the right answers. Jackson's gesture doesn't look like much, but it speaks volumes.

Following the 1:50 mark, Jackson loses his composure. He answers a couple questions with an "Umhumph", not even bothering to say "yes" - he is pissed. And then, right after that, at the 1:50:22 mark, he scratches his eye (the first face touch in his testimony - this is a signal he is being deceptive or angry - it is a defensive response) and he then appears puzzled and asks Stewart to "walk me through that a little further". Another signal that he is experiencing discomfort. It was an easy question, far easier than others that Jackson faced and indicates that his mind was actively involved with formulating his response - something that isn't necessary if you plan on telling the truth.

And then...the infamous watch check at 1:51:05. Jackson's gesture indicates two things: 1.) he would rather be somewhere else and 2.) contempt for Stewart for taking up his time.

34

[Day 8 - 14/8]Governing Body, Geoffrey Jackson - Royal Commissions On Child Sexual Abuse, Australia. + VIDEO

by C0ntr013r in

the big day finally arrived!

these amazing royal commission proceedings are available on youtube :).

part 1 has been uploaded and part 2 will soon be available.. part 1:.

OrphanCrow

Good note taking, Flipper!

Jackson - seeming flustered said condescendingly , " This is the problem when trying to explain our arrangement from the scriptures to secular authorities. "

Yeah, Jackson made several disparaging remarks about secular law/authority during his testimony and he insulted the Commission many times. I had listened to that part you quoted again earlier today and Jackson had said "...this is the difficulty with secular commissions trying to analyze a religious subject". The insult was actually worse than just him trying to explain their religion to the commission - Jackson actually said that it was the Commission who lacked the ability to analyze their religion. According to Jackson, he wasn't the one with the problem - the Commission was.

Thanks for your notes...they fill in spots I missed getting written down. I was busy taking notes on his body behaviour and I missed some of what he said.

49

GEOFFREY JACKSON THE PERSONABLE FACE OF JW.ORG...BUT IT AIN'T OVER YET BUDDY

by steve2 in

since geoffrey jackson's appearance before the australian royal commission on friday there has for some been an expressed feeling of anticlimax.

it is as though he was given too much latitude to preach, to claim ignorance and to skirt questions.

more to the point, as much as i myself thought i would never have expected to say this, gj actually came across as likeable and - don't throttle me please!

OrphanCrow

NewYork44m: For example, do you think that Monica Applewhite's career will ever recover after this?

Nah. She will be just fine. The Catholics will keep using her skills. So will the WTS.

Applewhite has done extensive work within the Catholic community and will continue to do so. She will still appear as an expert witness - the States will take her. She is the one who gave testimony for the Conti case and the American legal system didn't challenge her testimony then...she will be safe as long as she picks her court locations carefully.

28

The sheer lunacy of Jackson's view regarding mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse.

by DATA-DOG in

lunacy?

insanity?

without a doubt.

OrphanCrow

LisRose: What also bugs me is that elders had knowledge that allowed them to protect their children, but did nothing to protect other children in the congregation.

In addition to that - not protecting the other children in the congregation - the way that a child abuse issue is handled within a family once an allegation has been made is a set-up for the abuse to happen again.

Early in the hearings, it was revealed that the JWs in BCG's case actually encouraged the abuser to move back into a family unit with children he had already abused. This simply is a situation that is created that would allow the elders to collect more evidence.

Returning an abuser to the family unit, expecting that the mother would be the supervisor when she didn't do that before, is negligent to the welfare of the children.

Even Jackson talked about how a second abuse allegation could be aquired by leaving the abuser in the home (at about 35:50 of part two). He stated that if the mother sees the father do something inappropriate that "then we have the two witnesses".

It appears like the JW elders are well aware that the child(ren) will be further abused and are just waiting for it to happen so they can proceed with their disciplinary committee. The welfare of the child(ren) is secondary to the collection of evidence. The child is used as bait for their judicial process.

49

GEOFFREY JACKSON THE PERSONABLE FACE OF JW.ORG...BUT IT AIN'T OVER YET BUDDY

by steve2 in

since geoffrey jackson's appearance before the australian royal commission on friday there has for some been an expressed feeling of anticlimax.

it is as though he was given too much latitude to preach, to claim ignorance and to skirt questions.

more to the point, as much as i myself thought i would never have expected to say this, gj actually came across as likeable and - don't throttle me please!

OrphanCrow

Heaven: I could just hug both Peter McClellan and Angus Stewart.

Me too!

I just loved it when Angus Stewart would smile - not often, but he would smile every once in a while. His occassional little smiles gave me the impression that he was enjoying the sparring.

The best Angus smile is at the end of Part Two with Jackson at about 1:08:13 - he looked like my son when he was a little boy and had been caught being mischevious! Haha! I laugh every time I watch that part!

49

GEOFFREY JACKSON THE PERSONABLE FACE OF JW.ORG...BUT IT AIN'T OVER YET BUDDY

by steve2 in

since geoffrey jackson's appearance before the australian royal commission on friday there has for some been an expressed feeling of anticlimax.

it is as though he was given too much latitude to preach, to claim ignorance and to skirt questions.

more to the point, as much as i myself thought i would never have expected to say this, gj actually came across as likeable and - don't throttle me please!

OrphanCrow

steve: More to the point, as much as I myself thought I would never have expected to say this, GJ actually came across as likeable and - don't throttle me please! - personable.
Okay, we can debate the extent to which this is about perception and public performance. But, no one here has so far put him in the same category as the bumbling JW elders who appeared earlier.
Perhaps we were harboring the hope that GJ would himself be an arch-bumbler or that the counsel would have ripped him to pieces. I would love to see a member of the GB dissolve under scrutiny! I could dine out on that for a year!

Yes, Steve, Jackson is quite the politican. Personally, I found his "likability" to be nauseating and false. He was acting.

I thought he was real close to being as bumbling and idiotic as the elders who already testified - he was smoother and more slick, but bumbling, none the less. And, I did think that the counsel ripped him to pieces, more than once. Just because Jackson answered smoothly most of the time, didn't mean anything - he often evaded the questions and he could not defend his "scriptual authority" even though it looked like he did. He couldn't address the discrepencies in the two witnesss rule or even defend the 'only men judges' postion.

I dunno...maybe it is just me, but I thought that Jackson's performance was only a slicked up version of the bumbling elders. Lol! Instead of the "I don't recall", Jackson's mantra was "That's a very good question."....."your Honor."

And, Jackson was just better at covering up his discomfort and at times, anger, than the lowly elders were. His body language and voice tone and facial expressions gave him away. All the same signs were there that he was lying, Jackson has just had way more practice at high level deception - the lying signals were subtle but they were still there. In abundance.

steve: In closing, my hat is off to the wonderful female counsel for BCG who is probably the only woman to have ever closely and directly called any member of the Governing Body to account for their policies and procedures of responding to child sexual abuse. I did not get her name but she is certainly up there with Angus Stewart in her acumen and intelligently persistent questioning.

I agree.

Pauline David.

She is great. Smart and bold - and she wore trousers most of the time - I loved it! Haha! A woman questioning all those men. It was her questioning that so often revealed how women are treated - the elders' demeanor and voice changed dramatically at times when she was the one doing the questioning.

It was so obvious that a woman in authority made those JW men uncomfortable. And Pauline played on their arrogance - I loved it when she would set them up with her demeanor and then boot them through the goal posts!

3

If you force mandatory reporting you will no longer have a clergy penitent mechanism

by poopie in

jw
friends

so then what do you have ?

appears jackson wants mandatory reporting so they will never have to deal with it then no more judicial comitees.

corect me if im wrong

OrphanCrow

thegirlnextdoor: Even with Mandated Reporting requirements, elders are instructed to investigate, call the Branch, THEN call law enforcement. The process is still fraught with problems and not even close to "best practice or standard of care"

I totally agree. Mandatory reporting will not fix the systemic problems of the JW judicial system.

The JWs have the idea that if a problem is out of sight, it is out of mind. "Let's kick the bad guy out of the congregation and everything is hunky dory" - "Keep the congregation clean!"

The lifestyle/culture of the JW religion is such that it is a sin-based, rule-based culture that deals with sin in a punitive manner and all of those rules and sins and punishment are determined by men only. It is the JW culture itself that is harmful and the systemic problems will not be solved by simply putting in place a mandatory reporting law.

Hell, according to the WT lawyer/lizard himself, V. Toole, the WTS legal team has difficulty in interpreting the laws that existed even before mandatory rules were put in place. The WT legal team hasn't even abided by the laws that require a person to report a known crime and they ignored the mandatory laws that were in place in some areas. I know that some of the WT goons has said that they did report, but the Commission's evidence says otherwise.

Mandatory reporting is just one tiny step in the right direction. It doesn't solve the issue of how children are treated once they come forward with an allegation of harm done to them. The child is still put through the damaging process of giving testimony and the JW judicial system is woefully inadequate in dealing with the problems associatd with handling child witnesses. Allowing a child to simply have a "support person" with them is not enough to ensure that 1.)the child is not re-traumatized, 2.) the evidence is not contaminated.

Check out this link here to see how the real justice system handles child witnesses and you will discover how horribly inadequate it is to just have a JW woman with a child when they are forced to give testimony:

http://www.lfcc.on.ca/full_and_candid_account.html

Compare how children in the secular legal system are treated when giving testimony with how the child abuse allegations are handled by the JWs. The process has been described where a JW elder would visit the child's home, and, either with a parent present, or sitting in another room, he would sit down with the child and record the child's story, "gently" and "sensitively" probing for details about how that child had been forced to have sex acts with an adult. And, to top it off, there can be a voyeur in the room - an "observer" elder. Yuck. It sounds like something that would happen in Thailand.

The provision that the JW judicial system has put in place that allows a child to write out their testimony and hand it over to that same body of men is again, woefully inadequate.

Allowing the child to write out their sex experience and hand it in for all those men to read and mull over, and discuss, and return to time and time again, and to pass on those intimate sex stories with children to even more men and more men to read, is a HUGE problem. It is even worse to compel the parent of the child to document, in writing, how their minor child was subjected to sexual acts by an adult, complete with as much detail as possible. This "provision" only makes the parents into accomplices in the collection of those child sex stories.

The JW elders are incompetent and do not have the skills or knowledge as to how to collect and evaluate sensitive evidence that may lead to a criminal case. They should be prohibited from investigating in child sex abuse claims in any way at all. They should be stopped from the process of collecting and storing the intimate details of child sex.

Dr. Applewhite had given testimony that even with mandatory reporting in place, the JW judicial system would still happen alongside of any criminal investigation that is occurring. This is horribly wrong at so many levels.

I agree with the assessment of Ann Cousins, the Commission's expert (she really is an expert), that the JW policies and processes are medieval and bizarre.

Yes. Put in mandatory reporting by all means. But, the road ahead is a long and hard one and fraught with problems that extend far beyond that first small step of mandatory reporting.

42

GeeJay at the RC: highlights, paraphrases and translations.

by sparrowdown in

q: is there anyone that has the permanent role of coordinator or chairman?.

geejay: no, we rotate yearly...... (translaton) we are all sparticus.. geejay: we are a faith driven org, we are not a group of lawyers, being overly concerned with legal matters..... fave quotes .

on establishing headship principle 1cor 14: 33-35, 1 cor 11:3. geejay:...... that's talking about women not excitedly jumping up arguing with others..... geejay: ......our literature has said it, and we agree!.

OrphanCrow

sparrow: Damn my image of the Aus Branch keeps disappearing.

"That's something we need to follow up on."