the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (iicsa) is holding a public hearing in the child protection in religious organisations and settings investigation for the next two weeks.
the provisional timetable for the first week was released today: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17795/view/2020-03-12-cpiros-public-hearing-week-one-timetable.pdf .
five witnesses will testify on the jw issue next thursday, 19 march:.
IICSA will hold virtual public hearing in the Child Protection in Religious Organisations and Settings investigation on 11 - 22 May, and another hearing week (the manner to be determined later) is listed on 10 August.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/18241/view/2020-04-16-cpiros-final-determination-may-virtual-hearing.pdf
according to a recent helsingin sanomat article, there are over 200 kingdom halls in finland.
and over the last three years, 22 khs have been sold and five new halls have been built.
currently, seven khs are listed for sale and two new ones are under construction.
As a Finnish observer noted, the number of people recorded as Jehovah's Witnesses in the country's population register (the Finnish Population Information System) declined for the last ten consecutive years - from 19,142 in 2009 to 18,467 in 2014 and 17,083 as of December 31, 2019 (decrease by 10.8% over a decade; a similar decrease was shown by the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Seventh Day Adventists). The 65+ was the only age group which showed a growth (by 42%) in that decade. The number of those aged 15-24 recorded as JWs has declined by 52% over the last two decades.
Yes, in Finland one's religious affiliation, along with sex, mother's language, citizenship etc., is recorded in a government register. "Religious denomination is reported to the Population Information System for every child when given a name. That information will be changed only upon separate application." (source). See also Act on the Freedom of Religion (453/2003), sections 3 and 4. For sure, all statistics have limitations (for example, many immigrants are apparently not counted), but these figures are still interesting and informative.
Official data (provided by Statistics Finland): http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__vrm__vaerak/statfin_vaerak_pxt_11rx.px/
More charts here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mirabi18qgn_TcE7mDM8X0oG0_wYEDdE/view?usp=sharing
a woman is suing a local congregation ("kingdom hall of jehovah’s witnesses, roy, utah, an unincorporated association"), individual elders and watchtower ny after, she claims, a judicial committee forced her to listen an audio recording of her own rape.
the trial court summarized the facts as alleged by the plaintiff as follows:.
at the time of the judicial committee, plaintiff was fifteen years old.
The Utah Supreme Court has recently published all legal briefs filed in this case, including (previously unavailable) Watchtower's brief: https://www.utcourts.gov/utc/appellate-briefs/2020/03/04/20190422-williams-v-kingdom-hall/
-----------------------
road to nowhere,
Let me begin with the factual issues. You're apparently aware of them but I hope someone will found that helpful.
Here is how plaintiff's allegations are summarized in the amicus brief:
A fourteen-year-old church member was sexually assaulted and raped by another church member [in 2007]. The church member insisted to church elders that the fourteen-year-old victim had consented to his assaults. Apparently believing that it would help his defense, the church member gave the church elders an audio recording of one of the rapes.
A group of three church elders, all men, responded by convening a “judicial committee” [in the spring of 2008] to determine whether the victim had consented to the assaults. The elders brought the victim in for questioning. The victim participated because she knew that she risked being disfellowshipped if she did not attend and participate.
At the hearing, the elders revictimized her and caused her additional harm. They played the audio recording of her rape, pausing repeatedly to ask her questions and refusing to continue until she had answered. During all of this, the victim was shaking, crying, and begging for the elders to stop. The interrogation lasted more than five hours.
The victim sued the church and asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed her complaint, ruling that the church’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment. (citations omitted)
So far, no court decided on the correctness of these allegations, and the Utah Supreme Court won't consider this issue too, it will decide only if they are justiciable. But some things are known:
- first, the Utah Department of Human Services found them at least partially credible and in 2009-10 decided that the judicial committee elders "had engaged in 'Emotional Maltreatment', defined as 'subject[ing] a child to psychologically destructive behavior'” (appellant's brief, p. 10; amicus brief, p. 4);
- second, the alleged rapist has not been charged with a crime;
- third, ten years later, at least two tapes were still kept in congregation files and have been provided to the court. They are described as "only six minutes long" and "consist[ing] of [the alleged rapist] unsuccessfully pressuring 14-year-old [plaintiff] to take nude photos." The plaintiff "has repeatedly denied that these recordings ... are the correct ones" (appellee's brief, p. 6 footnote 3, p. 25-6 fn. 7; appellant's reply brief, p. 3 fn. 1).
I think at this point it's impossible for us to establish whether and to what extent the allegations in question are true. I would defer to a jury on this issue. The question before the Utah Supreme Court is whether claims of such nature arising out of religiously motivated conduct are justiciable and can go to trial - or whether they are barred by the First Amendment.
In case you're interested about legal arguments, the plaintiff's lawyers argue that her claim depends on "an independent and religiously neutral principle of civil law" and its adjudication would not require a court to "resolve a dispute over religious doctrine or the truth of a religious belief", “to review and interpret church law, policies, or practices" or to "create a standard specific to religious authorities" ("[t]he applicable standard — outrageousness — already exists and applies to everyone")."That a defendant has a religious motive does not mean that a court must choose between competing interpretations of doctrine or in any other way sponsor one religious view to the detriment of another." Also, "[t]he immunity that Defendants seek for religiously motivated disciplinary conduct would generate dangerous results. Religious actors would be free to engage ... in a range of ... harmful conduct under a claim of pursuing religious discipline. For example, they could, without consequence, induce breaches of doctor-patient confidentiality or repeatedly strike a child in the face."
Watchtower asserts that allowing the suit to proceed would unconstitutionally authorize a court to review “the beliefs, practices, and doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses", of the "reasonableness of the elders’ ecclesiastical decisions" etc. Adjudication of the plaintiff's claim "would require a court to create a standard of care applicable to religious organizations’ conduct in training, investigating, and questioning congregant members regarding biblical sin, and in encouraging congregant members to repent for their sins." "Appellant’s allegations implicate key religious questions, including what questions can be asked by religious organizations about in membership-related proceedings, the reasonable duration of such a proceeding, at what age a member of a religious organization can commit sinful conduct or be questioned about such conduct, and what evidence or materials can be used by a religious organization to question members regarding sinful conduct. If this Court were to find review of religious tribunal practices constitutional, it would have far-reaching consequences. Applied to the LDS religion, Appellant’s theory would permit courts to dictate the manner and method by which LDS church leaders may question members about sinful conduct in proceedings to obtain a temple recommend or at a disciplinary counsel. The court could also now determine what discussions are off limits in the confessional box in the Catholic church. Such a result would impermissibly entangle the courts in religion."
Surely, this summary is not complete or perfect; maybe later I or someone else will provide a better one. BTW, each brief includes a short summary.
the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (iicsa) is holding a public hearing in the child protection in religious organisations and settings investigation for the next two weeks.
the provisional timetable for the first week was released today: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17795/view/2020-03-12-cpiros-public-hearing-week-one-timetable.pdf .
five witnesses will testify on the jw issue next thursday, 19 march:.
Links to specific parts of the video of the yesterday's hearing: https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/fjt2fi/iicsa_day_1_recommendations_of_livestream/
Transcript: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17841/view/public-hearing-transcript-monday-16-march-2020.pdf
Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the IICSA "is suspending the remainder of the public hearing ... The Inquiry is now looking at ways of reconvening the hearing as soon as possible and will provide an update in due course."
the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (iicsa) is holding a public hearing in the child protection in religious organisations and settings investigation for the next two weeks.
the provisional timetable for the first week was released today: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17795/view/2020-03-12-cpiros-public-hearing-week-one-timetable.pdf .
five witnesses will testify on the jw issue next thursday, 19 march:.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is holding a public hearing in the Child Protection in Religious Organisations and Settings investigation for the next two weeks.
The provisional timetable for the first week was released today: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17795/view/2020-03-12-cpiros-public-hearing-week-one-timetable.pdf
Five witnesses will testify on the JW issue next Thursday, 19 March:
- PR-A5, a victim who "experienced sexual abuse over a number of years whilst [she was a young girl] within a Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in England and Wales";
- Sarah Davies and Duncan Corbett, on behalf of Ex-JW Advocates Opposing Crimes Against Children, "a group of survivors of child sexual abuse, former elders and former member activits, within Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisations in the UK", and Lloyd Evans;
- Paul Gillies, "the director of the Office of Public Information of the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses" (source, p. 51:7-9), on behalf of Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The hearing will take place from 10am to 4.15pm at the Inquiry’s hearing centre, 18 Pocock Street, London SE1 0BW.
Public hearings are streamed ‘live’ (subject to a three minute delay) on the Inquiry’s YouTube channel and website www.iicsa.org.uk/live. The transcripts will be available on the website a few hours after the end of each hearing day. Due to the coronavirus, the Inquiry is encouraging members of the press and public to watch the hearings online where possible, and please do not attend in person if you are feeling ill.
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
ROFLMAO
You're entitled to your delusions
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
Anders Andersen,
I hope you're kidding. For sure, de jure this case was opened by Watchtower. That's why I used the word "actually" and wrote: "]O]therwise it would be just one of many (50+), mostly unnoticed, DMCA subpoenas", - subpoenas, which all weren't just take-down notices and all compelled ISPs to disclose identities of alleged infringers to Watchtower. Darkspilver's actions and EFF's involvement - this is what made this case newsworthy and (relatively) widely covered, what made it the Darkspilver case. I hope you won't dispute that.
TFG,
lmao. It's so ridiculous and pathetic.
First, I'm sorry, but your unverified and unsubstantiated claim of having super-confidential information isn't different from claims of receiving divine revelations. So far, it's just illogical bullshit not supported by any facts, period.
Second, frankly, I believe the best response would be to ignore or ridicule your disrespectful questions, but since it would be misinterpreted by people like you, my answer is yes.
End of discussion. Goodbye.
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
The Fall Guy,
You are aware that this case was actually inititated by Darkspilver when he contacted EFF and challenged the subpoena, right? And that otherwise it would be just one of many (50+), mostly unnoticed, DMCA subpoenas? Therefore, by your logic, Darkspilver secretly conspired with Watchtower and misled EFF and a court to chill criticism. Isn't it a smear and a nonsensical accusation? Or I'm wrong and you didn't imply it?
the final order was issued few hours ago:.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.30.0.pdf.
the record establishes that darkspilver made fair use of the watch tower ad and chart.
You are free to suspect anyone of anything but you cannot repeatedly smear someone's reputation and provide no evidence for your nonsensical accusations.
