today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
Something noteworthy from the article — only 6 of the “more than 300” claimaints RC claims they have filed a “report” (I am assuming a police report)? That’s south of 2 percent. They’ve been getting these reports for about a year, and that’s it?
How many of these “more than 300” are actually valid complaints, and how many are based on stories like “a Witness I know, says her sister’s best friend’s cousin was abused by the second cousin of another Witness she knows” type of stuff?
today a dutch newspaper published an in-depth follow-up item on jw abuse issues.. the most interesting part of the article is this:.
the politicians also let themselves be heard.
a month ago the house of representatives voted unanimously in favor of a motion to enforce an independent inquiry into abuse within the jehovah's witnesses, as the organization refuses to initiate it.
The “how” and “what” are the most important details. Best wait until those come out before banging your head on the ceiling.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/australian-archbishop-resigns-amid-uptick-of-sex-abuse-cover-ups-and-acts_2608598.html?utm_source=epoch+times+newsletters&utm_campaign=3ecf79a4af-epoch+10+07-31-2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-3ecf79a4af-238225877.
It’s apparent you didn’t read the article. The boys reported it to him directly. Branch members don’t take reports directly from victims — local elders do.
So basically, local elders would be subject to conviction for not reporting abuse to police. There is no equivalence here, local elders are not “high-ranking” and there certainly is no “precedent”.
i was watching lloyd evans rebuttal to the saturday program of the be courageous convention.
lloyd pointed out something that had occurred to me as well:.
all this talk and examples of courage, whether it be standing up in class defending intelligent design, putting up with being imprisoned, not running away from bullies, always having a reply to someone who tries to ridicule your faith... the young ones are encourages - nay, commanded - to stand their ground and be courageous.
i was watching lloyd evans rebuttal to the saturday program of the be courageous convention.
lloyd pointed out something that had occurred to me as well:.
all this talk and examples of courage, whether it be standing up in class defending intelligent design, putting up with being imprisoned, not running away from bullies, always having a reply to someone who tries to ridicule your faith... the young ones are encourages - nay, commanded - to stand their ground and be courageous.
This is more about people gushing over a perceived “gotcha” without employing a shred of critical thought.
Public Relations deal with media, lawyers deals with legal matters, the GB deals with doctrine.
If a lack of overlap implies “cowardice” then every organization on the planet is full of “cowards”.
LOL
i was watching lloyd evans rebuttal to the saturday program of the be courageous convention.
lloyd pointed out something that had occurred to me as well:.
all this talk and examples of courage, whether it be standing up in class defending intelligent design, putting up with being imprisoned, not running away from bullies, always having a reply to someone who tries to ridicule your faith... the young ones are encourages - nay, commanded - to stand their ground and be courageous.
What Lloyd is claiming is the same as saying a 5-Star army general is not “courageous” because he’s not down on the front lines, dodging bullets, with his troops. His job is to command the army, not to be on the front lines.
Why are the GB not talking to reporters, etc? It’s not their jobs. Their jobs are to establish and defend doctrine.
This sort of stuff is why I’ve long regarded Lloyd as nothing more than a clever deciver.
i was watching lloyd evans rebuttal to the saturday program of the be courageous convention.
lloyd pointed out something that had occurred to me as well:.
all this talk and examples of courage, whether it be standing up in class defending intelligent design, putting up with being imprisoned, not running away from bullies, always having a reply to someone who tries to ridicule your faith... the young ones are encourages - nay, commanded - to stand their ground and be courageous.
You all know Lloyd is going narrow the definition of courage to what explicitly excludes anything the GB does so to make whatever point he wants to make. In other words, he’s going to cherry pick.
So according to what has been posted in the OP, one can only be courageous if he faces a reporter, agrees to a false summons (Losch was correct in refusing to appear on behalf of “Watchtower” — the court should have done its homework an actually found out his actual role), or answer questions he doesn’t know the answer to?
Let’s forget the GB before becoming the GB were in the trenches just like ordinary rank and file members (in fact, the GB is pulled from the rank and file).
today a large article was published in a dutch newspaper 'dagblad van het noorden'.
it is about frank huiting, the reclaimed voices foundation and the adopted motion in parliament.
the branch office has given a reaction:.
Actually, RV is making stuff up. Are the 301 each verified by court/police evidence? When did these alleged abuses happen? Have they proven each case was known by the organization and covered up?
All this matters when you are accusing people.
If they are relying on the organization to release their files so they can have this proof, then they have no proof to begin with. Thats their problem, and their burden.
The JW reply is a good reply, unless the government can prove any of the things alleged by RV.
today the dutch house of representatives unanimously voted to petition the government to start an investigation into jw child abuse issues.. the request from the house of reps. came after jw nl refused to listen to repeated and serious requests from the government to start an independent investigation themselves.. now it's up to the government to either accept the request by the house of reps. and start an investigation, or refuse to do so and explain to the house why.
it appears the minister of justice is not unwilling to start an investigation though.... collection of dutch news items here.
Nah, one didn’t result in a ruling that the policies were unlawful, and the other wasn’t even a court hearing.
today the dutch house of representatives unanimously voted to petition the government to start an investigation into jw child abuse issues.. the request from the house of reps. came after jw nl refused to listen to repeated and serious requests from the government to start an independent investigation themselves.. now it's up to the government to either accept the request by the house of reps. and start an investigation, or refuse to do so and explain to the house why.
it appears the minister of justice is not unwilling to start an investigation though.... collection of dutch news items here.
John,
Thanks for the question.
A government can absolutely investigate an organization, if it has a legit basis for it.
Answer this question: what irrefutable independent evidence do you have that jws turned a blind eye to child abuse?
If what you say is true, then outside of an admission, we’d see courts ruling as such.
What court has ruled that way against jw child abuse policies?
