Hi,
I had received an e-mail from Silentslambs seems regarding this thread, at the end you will see it. As youll note it talk about things that make us to think about. I don't think that Silentlams don't like me to attach their e-mail, if so, my apologies for Silentlams, but I think that this are important topics to talk about.
Of course maybe none of us are experts about this topics, but maybe some of us want to share our informed position.
I make a research in these points reading the legal position in Latin American, which had been influenced by the Spain and France legal point of views. For this research I used an Argentinas legal dictionary. The legal dictionay that I used talk about the legislation in various countries, and they said that they are difference in the legal view about the sex crimes in childs according theirs ages. For this books is very different to abuse of a baby of two years than had sexual relations with a 15 years old child. The dictionary talked about 12 years old in most of the countries as the point in which the sex crime is different, and for one country 14 years old.
It also difine the term abuse, and talked about the abuse as an act to take advange of a position, the advantage can be in fisical power, psicologial power, social power, authority and any other. Im in agree with this definition, but if I see a better definition I would accept it. I also believe that each case maybe be different, and that this is another reason because the elders arent qualified to make judgement on this topics
These legal definitions in the world are a work in progress, one of my grandmothers married at 13 with one of my granfathers at age of 40 near 1915, she was gave by theirs parents. Did he was a child abuser ? In view of today mindset yes, but maybe not when he married her. They are cultural differences between countries and timeframes, we need to be awere of it.
How many of us had sex with ours girlfriends or boyfriends at age of 15 ? Luckily I didnt.
But are those who had sex at age 16 being one year older than their partner, child abuser for all theirs lifes ? Is this act the same than have sex with a boy of 8 years ?
In the case that I considered, there was not sex act involved, only kisses and hugs. I dont have a final position about the other hypotetical case, but honestly, in my country at least I dont think that I could label a man or a woman as a sex abuser because of this hypotetical act.
I think that these are important points to think about. Maybe they are a lot of you guys which will not agree with me, and I admit that they may be a lot of emotions involve, my apologies to those that have another ideas, but I think that is my responsability to stand my position because I made some research in this point. Please don't hate if you don't agree with me, instead give more information. On the other hand I would appreciate others opinions, I think that is a very import point to talk about.
e-mail from Silentlams ...
A consenting minor moving toward adulthood
I found an interesting point when reviewing some material with a reporter yesterday and thought I might share it. In the latest information on the JW media website the following comment is made on their backgrounder section under the topic Jehovahs Witnesses and Child Protection:
In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All the factors are considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation.
So according to this information a child molester is defined by Watchtower policy as a 16-year-old boy who had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. In this instance the boy would have to wait for 20 years before he could qualify for privileges in the congregation. Is this an accurate reflection of Watchtower policy? If you refer back to body of elder letters which establish exactly what policy is, you will see the definition of a child molester clearly defined to elders in the congregation. The BOE letter makes this comment:
WHO IS A 'KNOWN CHILD MOLESTER?
What is child molestation? Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "pedophilia" as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object." (See "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of February I, 1997, page 29.) Deuteronomy 23:17, 18 condemns such practices as "detestable." (See the footnotes to verses 17 and 18 in the Reference Bible. Also, it would be helpful to see the footnote on page 10 of the , issue of Awake!) In harmony with these references, we are herein discussing sexual perversion in which children are the object of sexual abuse, including fondling by an adult. We are not discussing a situation wherein a consenting minor, who is approaching adulthood, has sexual relations with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Rather, we are referring, for example, to situations in which it is established by a congregation judicial committee that an adult brother or sister has been guilty of sexually abusing a young child or has been sexually involved with a non-consenting minor who is approaching adulthood.
Did you get that? Sex between a consenting adult and minor is not considered child molestation in the definition of the Society. Though in the definition of most States it is considered child abuse here we have a Biblical edict determined by the GB that while in violation of most secular laws, is administrated throughout the world in all congregations. If the consenting minor moving toward adulthood wants it, it is not child abuse. At what age do you move toward adulthood? This is left for untrained elders to determine. Yet when the Society wishes to reach for an example to justify the reappointment of child molesters after 20 years of not getting caught, they use a scenario that does not even apply when their current definition of a child molester is defined. The fact a man that rapes a child can be reappointed in 20 years is a service department policy that has been in effect for many years. This is verified by the British BOE letter which states:
There is one exception to the above direction: The elders may have written to the branch office and given full details about a former child abuser who is currently serving as an elder or ministerial servant. In such a case, if the branch office has decided that he can be appointed or continue serving in a position of trust because the sin occurred many years ago and because he has lived an exemplary life since then, his name should not appear on the List, nor is it necessary to pass on information about the brothers past sin if he moves to another congregation unless contrary instructions have been given by the branch. If therefore, such an appointed man moves to another congregation a letter confirming the move should be sent, addressed to the Societys Legal Department.
The abuser did not have sex with a consenting minor moving toward adulthood according to WT policy instead he had to rape an un-consenting child. Then after 20 years if deemed worthy he can re-qualify. Does that make you have a warm fuzzy feeling?
When you think of how misinformation is given to brothers and sisters as well as the media to cover the atrocities committed against children it brings to mind what Erica said when asked her view of the explanation offered by the Society on their abuse policy? Liars.
In order to protect a flawed policy a scenario is presented that does not even exist in the definition of WT policy on child abuse according to secret memos given to elders. They ask their membership and the media to trust this misinformation as a way to establish their credibility in protecting the congregation. If men supposedly appointed by holy spirit are willing to fabricate what can be proven by their writings to be a total lie to protect the image of the organization, can you really trust them to protect and put your childs interests first if they are ever molested? Honest hearted people know the answer to that question and will never allow the rape of their child to be shepherded by company men.
