Posts by Anders Andersen

25

JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities

by Room 215 in

a newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .

(translated from the italian) .

source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.

Anders Andersen

I sent in a tip to our national Privacy Authority to make sure they are aware of this verdict, and that JW in my country operate the same way..

25

JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities

by Room 215 in

a newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .

(translated from the italian) .

source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.

Anders Andersen

Smiddy,

That's standard operating procedure.

25

JW Door-to-Door Notekeeping Attracts Scrutiny of EU Authorities

by Room 215 in

a newly- enacted eu gdpr privacy protection law, to become effective from may 25, has apparently prompted jws to file suit in protest: .

(translated from the italian) .

source: ex-jwblog: http://testimonidigeovachiedono.blogspot.com/2018/05/le-note-di-casa-in-casa-sono-illegali-per-il-gdpr.html):.

Anders Andersen

@corney,

Thanks for the update. I think news like that deserves a new topic to make sure more people read it though ;-)

25

Why the term "waking up?"

by Sour Grapes in

is the term "waking up" the best way to describe when a jdub starts to have doubts?

to me, it is rather that a jdub realizes that what they have believed for years was a pack of lies and then they have to make a conscious decision if they want to continue to believe in lies or stop being a jdub or just go along for the ride.. it just amazes me how many die-hard jdubs there are despite every failed prophecy about the end coming, the borg being a part of the dreaded wild best united nations, the put down of women in the borg, the massive cover-up of the child abuse in the borg, the willingness to let a child die because they need blood, and the eagerness to shun a child who at the age of 10 got dunked to make mommy and daddy happy only to not want to be a jdub later and have the parents treat them like they are dead because 8 overweight, balding, goofy looking, incoherent men in upper state new york say that are the rules for being a christain.. jehovah's witnesses are a very sad cult that attracts people with emotional, psychological, or medical issues, have very large egos, can't make simple decisions, and believe in the tooth fairy..

Anders Andersen

This one says it all. Once you answer the hardest questions you'll awake, and you'll be sad because your family will shun you.

16

Dutch Branch office response to the motion accepted by Parliament: "an investigation is shooting with a cannon on a mosquito"

by jochie in

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:.

Anders Andersen

ARC Final Report for case study 29 states on p.65, 66, 68,69:

It shows a failure by the organisation to recognise that the rule will more often than not operate in favour of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, who will not only avoid sanction but will also remain in the congregation and the community with their rights intact and with the capacity to interact with their victim.

[...]

As discussed in section 7.6, on the basis of the evidence before the Royal Commission, we do not consider that the precautionary or protective measures available within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are sufficient to protect a child victim of sexual abuse or other children in the community when the child victim is the only witness to the abuse and the perpetrator does not confess.

[...]

Since it is the policy and/or practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities other than if required by law to do so:
• if a known abuser is found to be repentant and for that reason is merely reproved, the abuser remains at large in the congregation and the community
•if a known abuser is disfellowshipped and not otherwise dealt with by the authorities, the abuser remains at large in the community.
[...]
Reproval and disfellowshipping are not effective mechanisms for protecting children in the congregation and in the broader community.

Note: in these quotes 'community' refer to the community outside JW, as for the JW community the word 'congregation' is used.

12

How about having a special undercover mode so PIMOs can browse the site with greater security?

by Island Man in

when you visit the site it says jehovahs-witness big and bold.

a pimo might be browsing the site and a jw might come up behind him unexpectedly and notice he's visiting a site about jws other than jw.org, which can lead to the pimo reported for viewing apostate information.. to help remedy this risk, i was thinking about the possibility of having a button that activates an undercover mode where the title of the site is not prominently displayed so it's not easily apparent to an accidental eavesdropper that it's an apostate website.

also, the color-scheme and graphics can be different so that it doesn't look like the regular site.

Anders Andersen

You could simply change your browser settings to not load images. In Chrome you could even do this for JWN only.

8

Being taught to explain rape when a kid

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

does anyone else recall in the 80s/90s that when the minor/child blood issue was discussed the jw children were taught to say that being forced to have blood would be like rape?

and then had to be able to explain what rape is?

apparently there was a court case were the drs were trying to get a court order to force a blood transfusion on a jw child, and the child said it would be like rape to her and the judge asked her to explain what rape is to see if she understood what she was saying.. that went round my cong at least as a "fine witness " and all the parents were encouraged to have their kids practice the whole "explain rape" thing.. anyone else remember this?.

Anders Andersen

"Rape is subjecting a person to sexual acts they don't consent to, such as the Jehovah commanded the Israelites to do when they were told to forcibly marry young female prisoners of war."

16

Dutch Branch office response to the motion accepted by Parliament: "an investigation is shooting with a cannon on a mosquito"

by jochie in

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:.

Anders Andersen

Please any Dutch writers here please contact the relevant people in the Dutch Parliament and ask them to scan every thing the wt says and to never assume the standard norms of conversation, are being honored.

That has been taken care of. Reclaimed Voices is keeping in close contact with the members of parliament that initiated this. Every time I"m pleasantly surprised by the knowledge of the MPs and the timing of next steps. They (RV) are doing a very good job!

16

Dutch Branch office response to the motion accepted by Parliament: "an investigation is shooting with a cannon on a mosquito"

by jochie in

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:.

Anders Andersen

Watchtower hardly ever responds when asked for commentary by media, and now that they did they're effectively saying Reclaimed Voices and the victims make stuff up. Classy.

They should have said: we're very shocked to hear all this, and although before we never thought we had an issue with child abuse we sure want to get to the bottom of this! Therefore we invite RV to collaborate with us in an attempt to find the extent of the issue.

It's also very telling that Watchtower is basically throwing a red herring. The main issue the victims and RV and the government have with JW is not that JW has a much higher rate of child abuse than the rest of society.

The main problem is that JW offer no proper support to abuse victims and their policies and culture make that child abuse is kept secret without anyone reporting to the police.

By focussing on the numbers and not the culture of secrecy and blind loyalty Watchtowr are deliberately throwing the discussion of course.

As for their child abuse manual (that now they finally have it is being heralded as the best thing ever): al they do is tell everyone they on their own when it comes to abuse, because it's not Watchtower's responsibility.

34

Dutch House of Representatives formally requests the government to start an investigation re. JW child abuse

by Anders Andersen in

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.

Anders Andersen

Dear Doubter,

I'll try to explain again...

The investigation that the government urged the JW to conduct is not a criminal court case.
It's an attempt to see if current JW policies and practices are any good in preventing child abuse, and supporting victims once abuse happened.
If during the investigation it is found that policies and practices could be improved, recommendations for improvements will be given.
That's it.

Starting an inquiry is not the same as having already convicted one in court.

The latter requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the first yields evidence instead of requiring it.

To request an organization to start such an investigation there is no need for evidence in the same way as there is in a criminal case where the police must have evidence before they make an arrest, and the DA's office must have evidence before bringing someone before a judge.
Why not? Because this is not a criminal court case. It's simply a polite (but urgent) request from the government to a private party. The government cannot and will not make JW NL cooperate with their inquiry.

So far there are a couple hundred complaints and some claims that JW practices and policies re. child abuse are fatally flawed.
The JW claim they are actually quite good.
What could be done to find out who's right?
Run an independent investigation perhaps?

Now since JW refuse, the government might have to take it upon themselves to run such an investigation.

I did not say the govt asked for no reason, I said the reason was basically illegitimate.
[...]
I think when I’m saying is, that when a government wants to investigate you, the expectation is that there is some evidence that facilitates it. There HAS to be, or the investigation is by default illegal.
So what I am hearing is that they don’t have any evidence, but they want investigate anyway.
that makes no sense, unless, they merely believe what they are being told yet can’t validate independently.
[...]
So the investigation is really based on nothing but the opinions of the govt.
[...]
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?
[...]
im fine with government inquires, I only care about the basis, or premises, because fairness matters most.

Are you familiar with the Dutch legal system?
It appears not.

The Dutch government can decide to start an inquiry or do research into any issue (relevant to the public) they are concerned about.

Do Dutch dog breeders treat their dogs well?
Does artificial grass on soccer fields harm the environment?
Do pension funds invest their money properly?
Does religion X do enough to prevent child abuse and do they handle abuse cases adequately?

Surely the government doesn't want to waste time and money starting inquiries on unimportant issues, or for which absolutely zero basis exists.
But if there are signals (not necessarily 'irrefutable evidence') that there may be an issue that is relevant to the Dutch public, the government may choose to inquire into that topic.
Once they have done so, the might uncover illegal acts, which are then referred to the DA.
Or they find some law should be changed because what happens is perfectly legal, but undesirable nonetheless. Or maybe some private party might be recommended to change their policies.
Or they find there is no issue at all.

But since such a government inquiry is not an indictment in a criminal court case, they don't need irrefutable evidence to start an investigation.

The fairness in the process is that nobody is judged or condemned before the results of the inquiry are in.
And even then, the inquiry can only result in a moral condemnation. Any legal judgements are reserved for the judicial system, that's why a government inquiry can't and won't take any actions that are reserved for the DA's office.

In the case of the JW, there are strong signals that there may be an issue: almost 300 reports of abuse, including reports of the JW policies leading to people not reporting abuse to the police.
This is enough for the government to be concerned, as Dutch JW are also Dutch citizens, and the government has a duty to try to protect Dutch citizens and their children from abuse.
So the government can legally decide to research the issue and establish whether there actually is an issue or not, and if so, what can be done to resolve it.

The government wanted JW to run this investigation themselves, as that would be much easier (they have access to more documents, victims who are still JW might be more willing to talk to researchers of a JW approved inquiry) and much more useful (as the JW leaders would be more likely to accept the recommendations from their own inquiry)
Unfortunately the Dutch JW leaders see no need to re-evaluate their child abuse policies, and now the government might start the inquiry themselves.

if they “know this”, then why did Dekker make such a ridiculous statement?

Who do you thinks knows Dutch law better: you, or a Dutch minister and the people in his department?

Are you proposing that the minister and the House of Representatives are advocating an illegal inquiry because they dislike JW? Or are you simply wishing too hard this inquiry is illegal?

Remember, The Netherlands is not Russia or China. The government quite likes to adhere to the law around here.

Anders, you say the jws refuse to acknowledge the have a problem with child abuse in the Netherlands.
[...]
but you admit there is no clear evidence of illegal activity (coverups, which are illegal).

This statement shows a lack of understanding of (1) abuse in general, (2) the issue with JW child abuse specifically, and (3) the nature of the investigation proposed by the government.

1) Abuse victims, especially children, are generally quite reluctant to report abuse to the police as doing so would possibly prolong their trauma of have them relive it. It is estimated that around 13% of child abuse cases are also reported to the police (see for example http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/disclosure-statistics). And even when abuse is reported to the police, a conviction doesn't always follow.

2) The JW (are alleged to) have a culture that foster distrust and fear for 'worldly' authorities, a strong reluctance to ever talk negatively about "God's pure people" and thereby "bring reproach on Jehovah's name", reluctance to drag a brother to court. In addition JW policies do nothing to support abuse victims to report to the police, and according to some victims they were even actively discouraged to report the abuse to the police.

Take 1 and 2 together, and it becomes clear why we should be concerned that the number of abuse victims is much, much higher than the number of JW abusers convicted in court cases.

Yet the JW leaders refuse to even consider the possibility that there may be an issue. The flat out say there is no issue.

As for (3): again, the aim of the investigation is not convict JW NL of coverups or other illegal activities based on known evidence.

It is an inquiry with the aim to make sure JW policies and culture are any good when it comes to preventing child abuse and supporting victims, and improve the policies and culture where needed.

Ok, show me the cases, court rulings, etc. ill happily accept it.

You have been shown the cases and the conclusions of the ARC, several court cases in the USA and the UK Charity Commission investigations.

All of those point to a systemic issues with the way JW handle child abuse.Yet you seem to fail to acknowledge this.

And your questions are horribly flawed, because you were suggesting that any imperfect organization needs to be investigated by the government. are you serious? Don’t we all have rights?

My questions were not the standard by which the government should think about whether they should initiate an inquiry or not.
My questions were intended to make you reflect on whether an inquiry into JW would be a bad thing or not.

If the inquiry is run, either JW get to improve their child abuse policies, or the rest of the world can learn from JW policies.
It's a win-win situation. Why oppose it so much?

Who cares about the RCC right now? They admitted to hiding abuse, and so has the Pope. Their guilt is beyond doubt.
The jws have no such established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Apples to oranges

In the Netherlands, the RCC cooperated with the government and conducted an independent inquiry into their child abuse issues.
At the time the inquiry started, the RCC could rightfully have claimed "there are almost no criminal cases known, nor is their evidence apart from stories of some alleged victims".
Their guilt was not established at all. Just like you are claiming now about JW.
Regardless, the RCC did the right thing: they chose to look inward, provide transparency, and found out that they had a problem that needed solving.

The RCC in the Netherlands acknowledged the problem they had, actively improved their policies, and set up a complaint and redress procedure for victims....exactly because of that independent inquiry that the government initiated.
JW choose to bury their heads in the sand...it appears they don't even want to know whether they have an issue or not.

I strongly urge you to think about whether the only way to judge practices and policies is in criminal court.
Imagine everyone would argue only based on "established guilt beyond reasonable doubt".

Employee: Sir, multiple customers have complained that out coffee is so hot they burn their mouths on it.
Manager: I don't care. As long as our guilt hasn't be established beyond reasonable doubt we're not looking into this issue.
Employee: But....but....we could easily put a questionnaire to our customers about coffee temp. And it's easy to change the coffee temp too. Why not listen to our customers?
Manager: I still don't care. There's no evidence we do anything wrong, so we won't put a questionnaire to our customers.
Employee: Yeah.....but wouldn't the questionnaire be needed to get the evidence in the first place?
Manager: Shut up and go to work.

I understand that in the USA a lot of things are determined in court (including whether coffee was served too hot or not), but it's not like that in the whole world.

Isn't it perfectly reasonable to look to your own policies to see if they need to be improved, without having been convicted of a crime?
Do you think JW policies around child abuse and support of victims could be improved?
Do you think religions have an effect on and a moral duty to their members and to the public?
Do you think governments should keep an eye on the effect religions have on their members and the public?
Do you think a government should try to find out if any harmful issues exist with a religion if there are signals that there may be harmful issues?

Anyway, the main points for you to take away from this comment are

the Dutch government is well within their legal boundaries when inquiring into possible JW child abuse issues,

and this inquiry is not a conviction in a criminal court case that requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This is an inquiry by the government to see if a certain social issue needs intervention. It can be started simply due to the fact that the government is concerned about the issue.