http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/against-their-will/.
forced marriage is one of the last taboos to break.
a new law could make it a crime.
I cannot believe that the Andersons even posted this article. It is obvious that this was a mother's choice and nothing to do with JW practice. As a few have already posted on here, JWs do not practice pre- arranged marriage. The quote from "Keep yourselves in God's love" was just a factual statement and not an endorsement for this practice.
It seems that the Andersons just put out anything that their google alert sends out. So desperate for any JW bashing news.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@ Chaserious
If you look at the 1989 letter introduced at trial, it is obviously about protecting the organization from legal liability. It goes on and on about how litigious our society is and how opposers will want to enforce what they perceive as their "rights" - with "rights" always in scare quotes, to dismiss the idea that they actually exist. And then it went on to say that this is why elders have to keep judicial proceedings and related matters confidential. They were concerned about being sued for defamation and the like by people who were disgrunted over judicial matters.
In retrospect, that was not the best strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from liability, but there was certainly enough there for Simons to argue that minimizing liability was a motive in forming their policy. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one.
I have read the 1989 letter to the BOE. It seems like it is talking about protecting the org. from legal liability regarding a person’s legal rights “ Ill advised statements or actions can be interpreted as violating other’s rights”....” While we as Christians are ready to forgive others who may wrong us, those in the world are not so inclined. Worldly persons are quick to resort to lawsuits if they feel their rights have been violated”. . I wonder, if since all of the pedophile lawsuits have been made well after 1989, what were these lawsuits mentioned in the letter about?
The whole gist of the letter does not seem to involve child molesting at all. Only one short paragraph devoted to it states this: “Many states have child abuse reporting laws. When elders receive reports of physical or sexual abuse of a child, they should contact the Society’s Legal Department immediately. Victims of such abuse need to be protected from further danger. See “If the worst should happen” Awake January 22 1985 page 8” which says:
However, if molestation—and especially incest—is discovered to have occurred, two things must be done immediately:
First, the child—and other children too—must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost. In many cases the accused molester will have to be confronted. But whatever it takes, it is important that the child should feel confident that the molester will never be able to get at her (or him) again.
Second, the child must be given a lot of love and emotional support. Parents must make it very clear that the little victim is not to blame. The crime and anything that happens as a result of it—even if a close relative goes to prison—is not her (or his) fault. But that reassurance will have to be given many times, so that the victim comes to believe it—and to believe that the parents believe it too!
Further the letter states: “Many of these lawsuits are as a result of a miss use of tongue.” This does not indicate that this is referring to a child molester accusation lawsuit at all.
Actually I am inclined to believe your statement regarding Rick Simmons: “. He used the letter -effectively, I think - to rebut the argument that the confidentiality policy served a doctrinal purpose, and instead to argue that it served a financial one”. And also I think to make it look like it pertained to child molesting cases too.
I think it is pretty clear from the letter that protecting child molesters to avoid lawsuits (by child molesters) was not even a small part of this letter. In all practical logic, would a proven child molester have any grounds for a lawsuit at all??? Would any lawyer even attempt to defend a known child molester??? I know the WTS has made mistakes, but are you saying they are so dumb to think that reporting known child molesters would open them up to a lawsuit? As you say, the concern was over "individuals being disgruntled over judicial matters", of which I doubt convicted child molesters played any role.
In retrospect, that was not the best
strategy in terms of shielding the organization and congregations from
liability
Proof that the letter was not meant to shield the org. or congregations from the kind of liability we are talking about!
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@ Vidiot
There is another, darker possibility, however...
This wasn't as well-documented at the time, but by now, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the sexual victimization of young people becomes institutionalized and endemic within authoritarian hierarchies (religious or secular) due to a number of fundamental characteristics; lack of transparency and the democratic process, disdain for outward authority, a sense of infallibility and/or exclusivity, etc.
It's virtually unavoidable, and, in fact, the only way to prevent it is to, ultimately, not be an authoritarian hierarchy.
This is not a foregone conclusion at all, I would like to know where you got this info from. Maybe you would like to post a link to these findings? All the material I have read shows that child molestation and paedophilia are impossible to categorize into a specific social sphere. There are many theories out there but no real conclusions. In fact one of the articles describes a typical pedophile as the “clean, all American boy”. You are concentrating on one organization, the JWs. Facts show that the problem of paedophilia is a problem in all societal structures regardless of race, social standing or religion. I would guess your theories are based on your disdain and bias towards JWs and your sweeping statement: “in fact, the only way to prevent it is to, ultimately, not be an authoritarian hierarchy” is rather silly!
Parents wanting to protect their kids from sex offenders in their congregations would ultimately walk out en masse, partly out of shame for having been associated with such an organization, but even more so because of the very real possibility that they'd be unable to find other congregations which were offender-free environments.*
Know how I know? 'Cause I have kids, and it's what I would have done.
Not to be disrespectful, but you are not exactly a reliable measuring gauge when it comes to leaving the organization as you have evidently left it anyway, regardless of the issue under discussion.
In fact I do not think anyone would leave en masse at all if pedophiles was identified as being in their midst. In fact, I think that when this new policy is actually put in practice, it will make the pedophiles leave the organization, knowing they no longer have a “field” to work in because they are now identified by name.
Not to mention that the dwindling pool of "qualified" brothers willing to take on congregational duties has - I'm certain - forced the WTS to backpedal on their previously-held policy of not permitting former offenders to serve in an MS or Elder capacity.
Well you are wrong there and it is merely your opinion. The facts are that child molesters will never be able to serve in any capacity ever.
All in all your arguments are not well though out and are actually none arguments and are evidently the result of your strong bias. As for Irwin Zalkin, he has no idea what he is talking about and says the kind of things a lawyer would say to further his case.... lawyer style. He has to make a living too. Sexual victimization of young people has become institutionalized and endemic in the whole of society world wide. Instead of apostate websites why don't you actually read some secular articles on pedophilia and child molesting? This might put things into proper perspective for you. Here are some links:
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html
http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/3/3_1.htm
And if you really want to dig your teeth in to something scholastic then try reading this book and then come back to me with your simplistic theories.
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@ Chaserious
Thank you or your reply and for the explaining the definition of legal “recklessness.”
Putting the law aside, and just looking at this from a common-sense point of view, anyone who has been a JW knows that the elders will do whatever those higher up in the chain of command tell them to do, whether that's the CO, letters from the branch, WT legal, etc. So whether or not they believed he was going to re-offend, I think that the most reasonable assumption is that they would do whatever they were directed to doYes, I know the elders would do as they are directed by the WTS, but if the elders were worried, wouldn’t this have come across in their letter to the WTS? I have not seen the correspondence between the Fremont cong and the WTS but it seems like the WTS had to base their decision on something (since they were not personally involved with the situation). Is it possible that the WTS also believed things were taken care of?
People who are trying not to bring shame on their organization and are trying to minimize liability - that's who.
That’s what I don’t get. How does one “minimize liability" by not reporting cases of child molestation? Please explain that to me in legal terms, as a lawyer.
What
is the purpose of letters to the bodies of elders telling them to call
Watchtower legal when child abuse occurs? Is it really to protect anyone
besides the Watchtower? They don't have to call legal in cases of
fornication or drug abuse, do they?
From reading the new instructions to the BOE (2012) I would say that the purpose of that would be to protect the congregation, so that if anything goes wrong, the WTS is liable and not the congregation because it had merely followed the directions of the WTS. So any responsibility of future cases of child molestation rests squarely with the WTS. My thoughts anyway.
A reasonable conclusion (and I think
the one that was arrived at in this case) is that this process was in place to
attempt to protect the organization from bad publicity and legal liability,
with any concern for protecting children a distant afterthought, even
though headquarters knew or should have known that its policy was not in the
best interests of the children.
.....it disregarded a significant risk of harm, and put concern for its image above legitimate safety measures.
I know what you are saying here, but I don’t understand how telling others in the congregation about a pedophile in their midst (the safety measure) would have been bad for WTS image? I believe most members of the congregation are aware that there are some among them who bring reproach to the Witnesses (ranging from sins such as fornication and adultery to crimes such as theft and murder. There was a “brother” who ran a brothel in one European country). Elders do not stop anyone from going to the police if that someone thinks a crime has been committed. For instance if a “brother” broke into my home I would call the police. It goes without saying. Then I would tell the elders. So I honestly do not understand why not informing that there is a pedophile in the congregation has anything to do with image and bad publicity. (Unless there is another reason). Perhaps you can explain that to me.
I apologize for asking all these questions, and I appreciate your patience in answering.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@ splash
I don't know about the video. I have not seen it. Have you? Was there anything in it suggesting she was not allowed to go and see a doctor?
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@Chaserious
From what I remember from reading the transcripts was that; because the elders didn’t believe Kendrick when he said “it was an accident” implied that they were aware this was child molestation. The elders agreed with that, and that was partially what incriminated them, as I understand. Had the elders believed Kendrick that it was “just an accident”, then perhaps the court would have found them less liable (I don’t know) The elders gave reasons why they didn’t believe Kendrick....but then they stopped there and merely told him to not go near any children and that they would be watching him. I believe they thought the matter had been handled right, and that Kendrick would not re- offend. I know you are a lawyer and thus you understand the case much better than me, a lay person. I am just looking at it from a point of view of common sense. Common sense tells me that; IF the elders believed in any way that Kendrick was going to re-offend, they would have put in place some other provisions where this would be minimized. Who in their right mind would WILLINGLY allow such a danger to exist? (same goes for the WTS) I know the haters on here believe so. But you and I and any reasonable person can surely see that this was not deliberate. Yes, the elders and WTS made a BIG mistake. Evidently. Because sadly a child got molested again. I am not trying to minimize things or to defend the elders and WTS. I am just saying that crying "hang them all"! by haters is unfair. (I am not talking about the jury) Yes, I agree with the verdict of negligence.. It seems that WTS has changed their policy and that Candace has succeeded. Of course no policy on earth will be perfect and foolproof against these disgusting persons. The only fool proof way would be to incarcerate them for life. But no justice system will do that. So they will unfortunately remain part of the fabric of society until they die....
Just one question: when you said that the jury found that “the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences” can you explain what that means in practical terms? And what was the evidence of that if you can remember. Thank you.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
Ruby 456
Its ok, I am happily re- married again.But thanks.
To answer your question, as far as I am aware, the society will not recommend any specific treatments or in this case going to a marriage councilor in writing. It would be foolish to do so. What if the treatment or marriage counsel doesn't work? Then one could point fingers and say "they told me I should". All in the congregations are free to go and see anyone they want if they think it will help. (as long as it has nothing to do with spiritism). They do not have to consult with the elders first.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@Ruby 456
As far as I am aware, and from personal experience, elders have not stopped anyone from seeking "professional" help. And yes, I know of elders who have advised others to get professional help. The elders are of course first and foremost spiritual guides. Although the Bible's guidance and principals are very practical in all areas of life, some things only a professional in the field can help with, for example a doctor or a psychiatrist. The brothers recognize this. As for marriage councilors, well, from personal experience, our marriage councilor didn't do our marriage any good and we ended up getting a divorce. We were both spiritually low at the time. That seems to say a lot. At least in my experience.
As regards children, the elders generally do not interfere with what is the parents responsibility. They may offer advice but ultimately the parents are responsible for their children. Actually, the elders do not generally interfere with the private life of others period, unless others come to them, or a problem becomes apparent which can affect others. I have already stated on here somewhere in a post that I agree that the elders of Fremont should have warned parents about Kendrick. I can say that because if the parents of Candace had been warned, then most likely Candace would not have been molested. The only reason I can think of why they didn't was because they believed the case was closed. They believed that Kendrick would not re-offend. I can say that because logically (and if we are honest and fair and not haters) they would not feel comfortable about a predator running around in their midst either. The elders have kids. And only two elders knew about Kendrick. The other elders with kids did not. Kendrick could have molested any of the kids.
Are you familiar with the entire Candace Conti case? I have read all of the over 3000 pages of court transcripts covering the 10 day trial. Very insightful.
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@
Don't get upset. My response was to @Separation of Powers
because he/she said that members of a congregation are "told that they
should approach the elders for counsel on everything from marital
problems to depression". I was saying that Elders are supposed to advise
others only as regards spiritual matters in these areas using the
Bible. Once they start giving out personal opinions and advice then they
are wrong and are going against the instructions in the hand book for
elders. I was not necessarily referring to any specific case.
The meaning of "special relationship" in legal terms I understand is not the same as the "special relationship" you are talking about. I am no lawyer but I understand a "special relationship" to mean that one entity (in this case an elder or body of elders) is responsible for the actions of another entity (in this case a member in the congregation).
Also you are misunderstanding what is involved in bringing reproach upon JW organization. Anyone acting in contrary to the Bible brings reproach on the organization, naturally. But it has never been the policy to hide the fact that there are some who live contrary to the Bible, and most JWs are well aware that there are individuals who do act contrary to the Bible and those are usually disfellowshipped when found out, unless genuinely repentant. People on the outside are also made aware of this as the magazines are distributed to the public also. The WT 1986/1/1 page 13 says this: "Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah’s organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting. It is to be noted, also, that during the past year, 36,638 individuals had to be disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation, the greater number of them for practicing immorality".
The thing is, these people remain anonymous for the most part. We do not have a list of names of all those who have committed these crimes and the details there of. But I agree, child molestation IS different. And this is basically what this case is about. Making public the names of child molesters so that members of the congregation can avoid them....
P.S. The kind of reproach in the sense you are talking about is when one brother takes another brother to court over something which they could have resolved by themselves (this of course does not include criminal actions).
with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.
i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.
it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.
@Separtion of powers
"as you know the ORG is all that matters to a witness" No, a relationship with God is what matters.
"you tell them that they should approach the elders for counsel on everything from marital problems to depression" - this was supposed to apply only in as far as it affects a persons spiritual well being. The elders are not and never have been marriage councilors nor psychologists nor doctors and have not claimed to be such, or should not have claimed to be such. Elders who take it upon themselves to act in these capacities are not following counsel.
