//outnfree:
I HATE posts like that! 30 pages :-D but i shall make an exception and reply to some of it:
However:
"Are abused children who come forward to prosecute their molestors really taking "advantage of any legal provisions to interfere with [the Kingdom preaching work]? Or are they just searching for justice? The Society clearly tries to invoke a siege mentality with that last quoted sentence.'
That's most probably not the reason for abused children to come forward!!!, but the letter is not dealing exclusively with child abuse. To me, the above appears to be a misquote. I hope as many people as possible read that letter themselves.
"I should like to ask you if you ALSO read the letters written by the many silent lambs..."
Indeed I have, if not all - it's depressing reading about child abuse.
"Or are their" (the brother's) "rights only imagined, as the Societys letters implies worldly persons are?"
In my personal opinion, some people consider themselves having rights that oppose God. To me, these "rights" are questionable. Like, confiscating our litterature.
From your comment I gather the rights mentioned above are all rights. And you mean to imply this is what the Society meant? If so, misquote.
"So, the "judges" may take notes, but the other participants in "the hearing" may not. Why not? "
It is indeed obvious. Should anybody involved be allowed to go home with a record of the confidential information? In fact, the answer is right there, in the middle of the quote: "The chairman will keep these notes in a secure place to prevent breaches of confidentiality."
"Is this not a violation of internationally agreed upon "human rights"?"
It's the other way around, if anything. There's a Data Protection Act in effect in Europe which states how private information is to be handled.
"Again with the "rights" and what is inherently wrong with availing oneself of legal remedy?"
It's not always wrong, and the letter doesn't say so. Implying that the letter says so is surely misquoting?
"Why are the plaintiffs "vindictive, disgruntled or opposers"? "
They didn't say so!!! It states there's an "increasing number" of those cases. Again, the letter is not solely dealing with child abuse. People sue the Society or congos for other reasons. They didn't say "everybody who sues us".
"- Obvious question: What happens in states where there are NO child abuse reporting laws? "
If the elder feels there's not enough to go on, he cannot be forced to pass an allegation to the local authorities.
"- In those states where there ARE clergy reporting laws, WHY would the elders call the Societys Legal Department immediately? Why wouldnt they contact police FIRST, and then notify the Societys Legal Department (and Service Dept. for that matter)? "
Because the elder's may feel that there's not enough to go on to make a report to the Police, but it might be a legal requirement and in such case, the Legal Desk's job is to be up to date on the law and inform the elder of this.
"- Wouldnt the moral thing be to contact the professionals both social workers and law enforcement officials RIGHT AWAY so that evidence can be collected and aid rendered to the innocent victim of abuse? "
I hate to say this, but it might turn out that the abuse had never occurred, and when that child is one day actually abused, nobody will believe them because they lied before. Also, due to the nature of humans, the innocent accused may be branded a child molester anyway (by JW's or none JW's, gossip / word gets around / who wants to take any risks).
"Is the lack of a second witness a good reason to send a child BACK TO THE INCESTUOUS HOME or even to HAVE TO WORSHIP IN THE SAME KINGDOM HALL as the Accused? Will that allow the child to feel confident that they are now protected from further abuse?)"
If they're in the same Kingdom Hall with 50 others...but I agree we should go beyond what's written on that one and ban them from one Hall and advice them to go elsewhere. It's probably pretty rare that a molester chooses to go back to the same congo.
If it's an accusation, the home cannot be labelled incestous just yet, can it? How can you protect a child from further abuse before you know it has happened? The advice is aimed at the cases where it's proven, and in those cases, I don't see worldly authorities leaving a child with an abusing father, so how is that a worry?
' "A search warrant is a court order authorizing the police to search premises to locate evidence that may be used in a criminal prosecution. No elder should ever consent to the search of a Kingdom Hall or any other place where confidential records are stored."[Underscore mine]'
Why did you underscore that? That is not a definition created by the Society, you wally! That's not an expression of policy! WHY was that an eye-opener!? Elders have to make sure the Police has a search warrant before giving them access to private information. This is excellent policy from the Society. Any Police officer who thinks you're messing with him because you demand a search warrant is on thin ice ;-)
"This is an obvious misapplication of Scripture.."
They state the elders need to act IN HARMONY WITH Acts 5:29. There has been times and places where the authorites have tried to nail JW's and stop them from preaching. I can see why it must be exciting for someone looking for faults, reading this whole letter as if every section applied to child abuse.
"Please refer to my comments above and, then, please, ask yourself: WHAT DO THE ELDERS AND THE SOCIETY HAVE TO FEAR IF THEIR RECORDS ARE TRUE, HONEST, and LEGAL?"
They fear nothing but displeasing Jehovah God! If you let somebody search (other people's) private information without them having a search warrant, you're in a TOUGH SPOT - prosecution can nail you for that. Elders are responsible for that information, and it's not just information about child abuse.
'"To avoid entanglement with the secular authorities who may be investigating the same matter, the strictest confidentiality (even of the fact that there is a committee) must be maintained."
Oops! I guess the British elder blew that!'
He did, didn't he.
"So, then, do the elders encourage the lawbreaker to turn him/herself in? After all, if one of Jehovahs Witnesses has committed a crime which incest and child molestation ARE, by the way then the honest and law abiding and righteous thing to do is2 to confess not only to the elders and God, but also to the courts. Dont you agree, Dacke?"
I agree, outnfree :-D but some may not.
All in all, I think the policy is good, but not perfect. They've improved it before, they'll improve it again ;-)
Apart from that, I pray an
d hope and long for the end of the world, not the end of some individual organisation.
