Posts by AbusedandPissed

85

Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community

by Anders Andersen in

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.

AbusedandPissed

So there is some discussion on numbers compared to the CC. First, you can't say 400 Catholic priests out of 1.3 billion. It is 400 catholic priests out of 414,000, that number has been consistent since the 70s. obviously, some have died some have added. If you want to say the number of 1.3 billion you have to include all those that have committed child abuse who are Catholic. You have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

Second is this thought on the ARC. If you actually listen to the full testimony you will hear that these were also cases involving child pornography, sexting between a minor and an adult or cases that involved witnesses before they were witnesses. So the number of victims even with child pornography is higher because that is easier to achieve in the volume of victims due to the nature of the abuse. Not saying that it is less evil just saying that is a simple fact. So the number of victims that was actually abused by a witness can be lower, even though the witness that watched child pornography reabused the child by watching it. But some of those cases that Watchtower was made aware, Watchtower was informed by the police, so there was no reason to inform the police again. Some were tried and convicted of the abuse and was in prison prior to them becoming a witness so again no reason to tell the police

Also on the rules. I am not sure who I saw it on here but they said that they had to go through child abuse training. Part of the training was that the first step under suspicion is to report it to their supervisor in order to ensure that the law is followed. Even in this discussion, there is talk that RV will inform the police themselves if they suspect a child is still endangered. Aren't both of these things in the new policy by Watchtower.

85

Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community

by Anders Andersen in

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.

AbusedandPissed

I am in no way saying one is right and the other is wrong or vice versa. Just asking a legitimate question. I know that the RV says that they have spoken with MPs but they are not law enforcement and have no power to investigate a criminal act or prosecute one either.

Clearly they have made a determination to keep matters private if the victim wants it to be kept private and I am no expert in Finnish law but if you say that withholding this information on Watchtower's part is a crime then shouldn't it also be a crime for RV from not going to the police themselves as an organization or individual members in compliance with the law.

85

Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community

by Anders Andersen in

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.

AbusedandPissed

in fact wouldn't by definition RV have a database of suspected criminals that they have not turned over to the police themselves.

85

Newspaper reports: Dutch government will initiate inquiry into child abuse within JW community

by Anders Andersen in

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.

AbusedandPissed

I have a legitimate question. The Reclaimed Voices organization is saying that these reports have come to their attention by the victims. The other point is how I understand it is that under the law in the Netherlands every person and or organization is responsible to report crimes to the police for investigation. Hasn't reclaimed voices put themselves in a position where they are now in violation of the law themselves because they have taken it upon themselves to accept these reports of a crime and holding that information themselves and not reporting it to the police.

25

How to Sue the WT

by Lee Elder in

a basis for taking legal action against the watchtower society's blood transfusion policy.

.

http://ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blood-misrepresented-2005-kerry-louderback-wood-1.pdf.

AbusedandPissed

If you can sue someone for expressing their truly held opinion especially when that person doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility, then you can sue anyone for saying just about anything. You could sue anti-vaccinators, including President Trump because you chose not to get your kid vaccinated and then they got sick. You chose to listen to someone while not listening to the advice of your child's doctor. Something with the Blood Issue, if your doctor decides that they recommend a blood transfusion you can choose whose advice you want to apply. And yes you might feel that Watchtower has so much control over someone but that doesn't mean that you can sue over it. Even as the paper indicated that saying that people who want to give you a transfusion is from Satan.

Even in the Unitarian case that is the major basis of the article the court wrote.

[21] Leal contends she was falsely imprisoned by the Church at Boonville, at Camp K, at Boulder, at Los Angeles, and at various locations in San Francisco. fn. 16 She admits she was theoretically free to depart at any time; she was not physically restrained, subjected to threats of physical force, or subjectively afraid of physical force. She insists, however, that her "imprisonment arose from the harm she came to believe would result if she left the community." That harm, specifically, was that her family "would be damned in Hell forever and they would forever feel sorry for having blown their one chance to unite with the Messiah and make it to Heaven."

The claim cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Although Leal correctly asserts that false imprisonment may be "effected by ... fraud or deceit" (Pen. Code, § 237), her theory implicates the Church's beliefs: it plainly seeks to make the Church liable for threatening divine retribution. As we stated earlier, such threats are protected religious speech (see Fowler v. [46 Cal.3d 1124] Rhode Island, supra, 345 U.S. at p. 70 [97 L.Ed. at p. 831]; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., supra, 535 F.Supp. at p. 1139) and cannot provide the basis for tort liability. Accordingly, we hold the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the summary judgment for the Church as to Leal's action for false imprisonment.

25

How to Sue the WT

by Lee Elder in

a basis for taking legal action against the watchtower society's blood transfusion policy.

.

http://ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blood-misrepresented-2005-kerry-louderback-wood-1.pdf.

AbusedandPissed

If you claimed that the Blood Policy was based on medical benefits than sure this paper may hold some weight, but that is not the facts. The Blood Policy is based on their interpretation of the scriptures. People can argue on that all they want but it is purely based on a religious belief. They can say that there are studies or historians that back them up but even if they didn't do that the policy finds it's genesis on their religious interpretation and not on outside factors.

In the Moonies' case in the dissenting opinion, the justice wrote that the fraud cannot just be a fact but that it has to have the proximity of the damage. The Nexus of the policy is gain based on a religious belief which no American Court can intervene and determine if that belief is correct or even rational.

It is likewise recognized that in order to render the fraud actionable, the misrepresentation or nondisclosure must be not only the cause in fact (causa sine qua non), but also the legal or immediate cause of the damages. Indeed, the majority quite agrees: "Justifiable reliance exists when the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's conduct which alters his legal relations, and when without such misrepresentation or nondisclosure he would not, in all probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

The Deleware court actually clarified this:

"If Section 909 were to be interpreted narrowly, the effect would be to advance certain religions over others. To apply Section 909 on a denomination by denomination basis, the Court would have to engage in an excessive entanglement with religion.

To avoid a finding that Section 909 is unconstitutional, the statute may be interpreted more generically. A broader reading may be justified because the terms at issue are neither defined, nor upper case (which could indicate that the terms are more akin to proper titles)."

"Conclusion

The Section 909 privilege exemption from the requirement to report child abuse and neglect, if narrowly interpreted, is unconstitutional on its face. The terms "priest," "penitent," and sacramental confession" literally apply only to select denominations. The Delaware Constitution prohibits laws that give preference to any religion. However, Section 909 potentially can be read to apply to all religions."

11

JW elders told abused girl’s parents not to report sex offender (another one)

by Tahoe in

jw
friends

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/jehovahs-witness-elders-told-abused-1636907.

a bradford man's sex offence against a little girl was kept quiet for 23 years because elders of the jehovah's witnesses church persuaded her parents not to report him, a court was told.. robert lee's crime in the forest of dean was not revealed until the victim had grown up and went to the police, gloucester crown court heard on friday.. .

both the victim's family and lee were jehovah's witnesses at that time, said prosecutor kerry barker.. he told the court that having avoided justice, lee, formerly of coleford, but now of alexandra road, bradford, went on to commit further child sex offences in 2008 and 2016.. lee, who used the surname howarth at that time, admitted indecent assault of the girl in march 1995 in coleford when he was aged just 17.. sentencing lee to two years jail suspended for two years and ordering him to sign the sex offender register for 10 years judge ian lawrie qc said he was 'concerned' at the church's advice to the mother not to report him.. he also placed lee under a 10 year sexual harm prevention order.. “i've raised concerns about how this came to the attention of your church authorities and was not reported.

AbusedandPissed

Kramer:

Interesting that the UK ministers have just dropped a proposal to make this a reality.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-mandatory-reporting-suspected-child-abuse-a8241441.html

Granted it wasn't going to deal with religious bodies but this is interesting what the paper said about this:

"The Government said the consultation received more than 760 responses from social workers, police officers, local government, children's charities, educators and health professionals, victim support groups, and other members of the public.

The majority of responses disagreed with the concept of introducing new statutory requirements.

The proposals would have placed caretakers, caterers and secretaries at risk of criminal action.

Ministers concluded that the evidence received does not demonstrate that either of the proposals would sufficiently improve outcomes for children - pointing to feedback suggesting the measures could risk creating unnecessary burdens, divert attention from the most serious cases and hamper professional judgment."

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

The thing that the law doesn't focus on but that is commonly misstated is that it must be a confession and if someone doesn't call themselves a clergy member, which WT does. The law says who is a member of the clergy and what is meant by the communicaiton. Look again at Kanasas law that again someone can prevent the member of the clergy from informing the authorities.

Notice that the communication can include that of seeking God's mercy or forgiveness, but it goes beyond that. It includes moral obligations. I have not done the research and cannot speak intelligently on if that would include seeking practical advice from a spiritual leader.

Also note how point "2) the term "regular minister of religion" means one who as his or her customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, a religious sect, or organization of which he or she is a member,".

60-429. Penitential communication privilege. (a) Definitions. As used in this section, (1) the term "duly ordained minister of religion" means a person who has been ordained, in accordance with the ceremonial ritual, or discipline of a church, religious sect, or organization established on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines and practices of a religious character, to preach and to teach the doctrines of such church, sect, or organization and to administer the rites and ceremonies thereof in public worship, and who as his or her regular and customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion and administers the ordinances of public worship as embodied in the creed or principles of such church, sect, or organization; (2) the term "regular minister of religion" means one who as his or her customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, a religious sect, or organization of which he or she is a member, without having been formally ordained as a minister of religion, and who is recognized by such church, sect, or organization as a regular minister; (3) the term "regular or duly ordained minister of religion" does not include a person who irregularly or incidentally preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, religious sect, or organization and does not include any person who may have been duly ordained a minister in accordance with the ceremonial, rite, or discipline of a church, religious sect or organization, but who does not regularly, as a vocation, teach and preach the principles of religion and administer the ordinances of public worship as embodied in the creed or principles of his or her church, sect, or organization; (4) "penitent" means a person who recognizes the existence and the authority of God and who seeks or receives from a regular or duly ordained minister of religion advice or assistance in determining or discharging his or her moral obligations, or in obtaining God's mercy or forgiveness for past culpable conduct; (5) "penitential communication" means any communication between a penitent and a regular or duly ordained minister of religion which the penitent intends shall be kept secret and confidential and which pertains to advice or assistance in determining or discharging the penitent's moral obligations, or to obtaining God's mercy or forgiveness for past culpable conduct.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

AbusedandPissed

There is supposed to be a ruling on a case involving a Christian florist in Washington soon. Most experts are really questioning if the high court will actually make a broad precedent-setting ruling or just punt it again. Kennedy is talking about retirement so that would remove the swing vote for most cases and the President would probably appoint another conservative justice, assuming the GOP keeps the Senate Majority.

BTW conservative members of the court don't necessarily mean Republican-leaning, though it often does, it means that the justice looks at the original intent of the framers more than believing that it is a living document that must change with the times.