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: ...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

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

LoveUni: At the same time as all that, the org doesn't consider viewing child porn as a form of child abuse....
WTF?!
Just ... WTF?!

Me too. I have been saying that all day.

I don't get it.

The WT needs to read the words of the great teacher at Matthew 5:27,28:

"You heard that it was said, 'You must not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So, tell me, all you WT apologists and all those of you who support and follow that beast, does this scripture not apply to looking at children being abused? Does not the one who looks at a child being sexually abused and desires that "within their heart", have they not "already committed" child abuse as Jesus said when he spoke of adultery? Is not the sexual exploitation of a child, the rape of a child, more abhorrent than adultery?

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

Geezus, 88JM, the WTS sure goes to great lengths to "grade" the gravity of sexual sin, don't they? That must have taken several sessions of detailed discussion around the round table to get all that into print and properly categorized.

I am still astonished at the audacity of their comment that "viewing child pornography is not child abuse".

What is their excuse for saying that it is not? That "just looking" is only a "fraction" of child sex abuse so therefore, it is up to individual conscience? That it isn't a crime? Fractions of child abuse are fine?

The WTS thinks the rest of the world is stupid. We're not, Watchtower. We're not. Not all of us. There are some of us who know very well that if you transfuse a fraction of blood that you are receiving a blood transfusion. We don't buy into your deception on that one and we don't buy into the your notion that "viewing child pornography isn't child abuse". It is.

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

Pubsinger:
Where is the quote on child pornography? I can't find that on page 3 of the Child Protection Policy.

So sorry about that...I posted the wrong document. That is what happens when I have too many files open at once. I need to slow down...at least it wasn't the wrong text to the wrong person. I have done that before too!

As others have said (thank you for those who corrected me!) - the quote is in the "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks"

Eden: Also...two "dislikes" to the OP? Wow!

2 dislikes?

hmmmm...I wonder who that could be. I wonder...it is so odd, isn't it?

pubsinger: Is viewing child porn illegal in Australia?

Yes.

sparrowdown: ...where there is child porn there is a pedophile.

This. The WT's ignorance about child pornography is astounding. It truly is. After all that has been covered in the ARC up to this point, and they cannot grasp (or will not grasp) the fundamental wrongful nature of child pornography and that children are abused to produce those images.

I was floored when this statement was actually put in writing: "...viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse".

This is unreal....I can't find the word for the level of...defiance that the WT displays. That's it - the WT defies anything and everyone outside of itself. Defiance.

It is one thing to defy the laws of the land if religious precepts are being violated. As in, contentious objector status, etc. But, seriously? To defy the laws of the land for the sake of the sexual gratification from the viewing of minor children being sexually abused is nothing short of astounding.

The WTS can cross all their "t's" and dot their frigging "i"'s in their safeguarding policies, but as long as they won't accept or understand the severity of viewing child pornography, there is little hope of them ever understanding the nature of their crimes.

The WTS is splitting hairs. In NY State, a person cannot be found guilty of breaking the law for simply viewing an image of child sex online. This is simply to protect those individuals who "accidentally" view an image of child porn. This is an escape clause for viewers of child porn who are accidentally caught with images in their computer cache. However, the second a person downloads, prints or saves child sex material, it is a crime. I don't know how well that escape clause would hold up if it could be proven that viewing all those images was not simply "accidental" - that the viewer purposely clicked on images of child porn.

This apparent NY loophole, which allows an offender to say "I was jus' looking...it accidentally popped up on my screen", is the one that the WT is using to say "...viewing child pornography is not child abuse".

Of course viewing child pornography is child abuse. Of course it is. To say otherwise is willful ignorance. And evil. Evil. Evil. Evil.

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

Thanks, jwleaks.

I have downloaded the exhibits and have been skimming through the Child Safeguarding Policy of Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia and I notice that the WTS has dropped the ball concerning child pornography.

From page 3:

Child pornography: Showing pornography to a minor is considered to be child sexual abuse. Although viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse, it is still a serious violation of Jehovah’s standards. A person in-volved in viewing child pornography should be strongly counseled. Depending on the frequency and the extent of his viewing, he could be subject to congregation judicial action. In such cases, the Service Department may decide that branch-imposed restrictions are warranted.—See the April 10, 2012, letter to all bodies of elders

Just because some JW kid hasn't been harmed/abused in the making of those pornographic images of children, doesn't mean that viewing child sex material doesn't qualify as child sex abuse. Some child, somewhere, was abused to make those images.

Viewing child pornography is illegal. It is a crime. Why? Because children have been abused sexually to create those images.

This policy manual fails to instruct the reader on the illegal nature of viewing child sex material. They fail to say that someone caught with child sex material (or viewing it) should be reported to the police.