pray for brother jackson of the governing body!.
in todays news from australia it appears that, despite his previous declination to appear when invited, justice mcclellan from the australian royal commission on child sex abuse will officially summon brother geoffrey jackson to the stand after all.. ..... the commission was due to conclude its hearings into the jehovahs witnesses on wednesday but justice mcclellan said he will now call geoffrey jackson, a senior member of the churchs governing body in new york who is currently in australia, to appear next week.. .
source.
SSC: Hmm perhaps that's were ol' Jackson will disappear through a squirm hole: $1000 fine
If he committed any offence in respect the RC, whatever the penalty imposed if any, what would that say about the prior witnesses testimony that the JWs would obey secular law and cooperate with the RC in respect child abuse?
pray for brother jackson of the governing body!.
in todays news from australia it appears that, despite his previous declination to appear when invited, justice mcclellan from the australian royal commission on child sex abuse will officially summon brother geoffrey jackson to the stand after all.. ..... the commission was due to conclude its hearings into the jehovahs witnesses on wednesday but justice mcclellan said he will now call geoffrey jackson, a senior member of the churchs governing body in new york who is currently in australia, to appear next week.. .
source.
(1) A member of a Commission may summon a person to appear before the Commission at a hearing to do either or both of the following:
(a) to give evidence;
(b) to produce the documents, or other things, specified in the summons.
(1) A person served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness at a hearing before a Commission shall not:
(a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or
(b) fail to attend from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by a member of the Commission.
Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.
Penalty for refusing to be sworn or to give evidence
(1) If any person appearing as a witness before the Commission refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation or to answer any question relevant to the inquiry put to him or her by any of the Commissioners, the person shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) The penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months.
(3) Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
Self incrimination
(1) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection 3(2B) or (5), or section 6AB, for a natural person to refuse or fail to produce a document or other thing that the production of the document or other thing might tend to:
(a) incriminate the person; or
(b) make the person liable to a penalty.
(1) The following are not admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory:
(a) a statement or disclosure made by the person in the course of giving evidence before a Commission;
(b) the production of a document or other thing by the person pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice under section 2 or subsection 6AA(3).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings for an offence against this Act.
has anyone read the new awake ragazine??
it's a doozy!!
i thought we had a thread concerning this subject, but i can't find it.
They do say that where the bible says the earth is 'a circle hanging on nothing' (ie: flat and maybe supported from underneath), it means the same as 'a sphere held by gravity'.
Frankly, I'm amazed sometimes that they acknowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Which is kind of perverse really.
we haven't been to a meeting or jw event in several years.
we have been following the rc closely.
it is fascinating!
What I don't get is how the Christian God would prefer a church that protects child abusers and makes children vulnerable to them, but that Satan runs a system that protects children and prosecutes abusers.
It's the wrong way around.
Maybe the JW's Jehovah is everyone else's Satan? He is 'The Deceiver' after-all.
Alternatively, the WTS are just people who've f'd up.
day 7 of the australian royal commission has chair justice peter mcclellan raising the point that i have been wondering about all along, which is, how can these elders not report child abuse to the authorities especially when a full confession has taken place?.
justice mcclellan asked toole, the wts's lawyer, if he is aware that there is a difference between an organisation being required to have mandatory reporting of child abuse to the authorities and misprision which is the concealment of a felony, itself a criminal offence?
toole says he is aware of it now but he wasn't before!
This letter of legal advice sets out the Australian law at the time as regard misprison of felony in respect church leaders who concealed confessions of child abuse..
It is a compelling read in the context of the RC.
If starts off...
You have asked us to consider the possibility of charges being laid against individuals within the Church arising from their concealment of knowledge of the activities of paedophile Priests.
and finishes with...
It would appear accordingly that it is only in the States of Victoria and New South Wales that there may be consideration given to charging members of the Church hierarchy with Misprision in Circumstances where knowledge of a felony has been concealed.
The branch is in New South Wales.
the gb needs to be subpenaed to testify just like losch was.
the commission needs to subpena each one individually and make separate fines when each one refuses.
The RC could convene in the US if the US agreed, the Royal Commission Act 1902 allows that.
The RC might also be able to apply to a US court to summons anyone to it, depending on local law.
And Applewhite may give additional evidence vis video link, why not her employers too?
it is enthralling having everything being dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
however one of the most important things to ask is this:.
is the rc evidence admissable in other countries and other courts?.
it is enthralling having everything being dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
however one of the most important things to ask is this:.
is the rc evidence admissable in other countries and other courts?.
I think most common law jurisdictions would accept the report of a Royal Commission as of persuasive value, but testimony at an RC is of limited value as evidence. A witnesses own statement cannot be used as evidence against them, for instance. This is covered by the Royal Commissions Act 1902.
JC notes and records being child pornography is an interesting thought.
According to the current law in Queensland where I think this JC was heard (Edit: BCB's case was actually in Western Australia. But the law in all jurisdictions is similar enough that the general points are still valid):
child exploitation material means material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or depicts someone who is, or apparently is, a child under 16 years— (a) in a sexual context, including for example, engaging in a sexual activity; or (b) in an offensive or demeaning context; or (c) being subjected to abuse, cruelty or torture.
So, possibly needlessly explicit notes about abuse and cruelty might fit the definition. Although I doubt the proceedings of a church hearing was the sort of material the Parliament would had in mind when the legislation was considered.
But is there a defence to a charge of making, distributing or possessing such material in the case of a JC?
228E Defences for ss 228A–228D
‘(1) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) prescribe defences available to a
person charged with an offence against section 228A, 228B,
228C or 228D.
‘(2) It is a defence for the person to prove that—
(a) the person engaged in the conduct that is alleged to
constitute the offence for a genuine artistic, educational,
legal, medical, scientific or public benefit purpose; and
(b) the person’s conduct was, in the circumstances,
reasonable for that purpose.
Example of something made for a ‘public benefit’—
A current affairs television program showing children being tortured
during a civil war.
I think it would come down to whether a reasonable person would think the material was too detailed for a legitimate church disciplinary purpose and that a paedophile would get off reading it.
what can i add?
this says it all.. elder on stand is mute till prompted.. .
i guess i could encourage you to watch to the end and a guest commentary, lol..
The Commission of Inquiry has no jurisdiction over non-Australian citizens and cannot summons religious leaders from other countries. For their part, even if they wished to appear, the GB could not - although theIr organization's official literature can be included.
I think citizenship is irrelevant.
The RC could invite or summons whomever it wishes to appear before it, although the compulsive nature of a summons can only be enforced where Australian police have jurisdiction making it pointless (rather than impossible) to summons someone outside Australia. Whatever their citizenship.
And it'd be shameful to refuse if invited.
If the witness does not travel to Australia, video conference was proposed for Applewhite to give more evidence from overseas, and the Act even allows the RC to take evidence overseas with permission of the other country.
the gb has been preparing the flock for the assyrian's attack, that now is starting from australia:.
elders, you can learn some helpful lessons from what we have just discussed: (1) the best thing you can do to prepare for the future attack of the assyrian is to strengthen your faith in god and help your brothers to do the same.
(2) when the assyrian attacks, you must be completely convinced that jehovah will save us.
Let me get this right, some JW's are getting the idea that since the government (ie: Satan) is conducting a process, politely and diligently,via the RC to ask how children could be better protected from abuse, that a perfect, loving God might be provoked into slaughtering 7 billion humans.
Therefore, JW's must be ready to "obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not"?
I just wonder what kind of God this Jehovah is. Not one I'd like to live under.
And, I must say, Satan is looking pretty decent on this issue.
