In addition, a congregation member
who learns of child abuse may choose to report the matter to the secular authorities.
Why couldn't the WT have phrased that like this:
In addition, a congregation member
who learns of child abuse should be instructed to report the matter to the secular authorities. Elders will assist such a one if needed.
A report to the police or other appropriate
authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that
a child is still at risk.
What?
How do you determine whether a child is at risk of child abuse when you have no training to do so?
If the child expresses to the elders discomfort in
discussing the matter in the presence of a parent, and the parent agrees, then the child
may be gently told that he or she may choose an adult companion other than a parent,
with whom he or she feels comfortable speaking about the matter, to be present
during the discussion
Way too much is expected of a child here.
What if they are uncomfortable but can't express this?
During the investigation process and any subsequent
congregation judicial committee hearing, a victim of child sexual abuse is not required
to make her allegation in the presence of the alleged abuser.
Thank goodness that's been changed! At last!
But why are they assuming a victim will be a 'her'?
A person who has engaged in child sexual abuse does not qualify to receive any
privileges or to serve in a position of trust or responsibility in the congregation for
many years, if ever
This is wrong. It should be a permanent ban.
My take on this is that it seems to be an attempt at saving their asses given the ongoing Charity Commission investigation. At least the horrific act of getting the abuse victim to talk about the abuse in front of the abuser is finished.
But overall it still doesn't go far enough.
