Ignorance of Child Abuse within JW community

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

The cartoon is aimed at children. 

No.

Yes. Don't be obtuse.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Our video has the added bonus, completely lacking in yours, of instructing parents on how to teach their children and encouraging them to do so.

The Caleb and Sophia video is still aimed at children.

If Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers, does the video give the child other options on who to tell? It doesn't, does it.

This is why the video is, to me, another example of how behind-the-times the Org is with how to handle the child abuse issue. I know you will disagree, but there it is.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nonetheless, the Barbara Sinatra videos are well-done, and to be sure, 'mommy or daddy' have sometimes proved to be the abusers, particularly in step families. The Barbara Sinatra agency receives high marks from reviews I read on Yelp.

Yes. That is why I brought them to your attention.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Hey, watch those ad hominem attacks, will you? When did I ever do that to you?

 Just wow.

Anyway, at least you've been Googling those 'big words.' Well done. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

Well - how do you persuade a four year old, whose every instinct is to trust adults, that nobody, but nobody is to be trusted,, that at any time, any one of them might prove to be their worst nightmare come true - a nightmare that they cannot possibly envision? How do you do that without terrifying the child, their generation already being far more anxious than ones preceding. I think our video does it better than yours.

But it's arguable. That puts me at a disadvantage, for you well know that I don't like to argue. You are correct that ours makes no allowance for mommy or daddy being the abuser. I wonder if a child ever really recovers when that is the case?

It all must be put into a greater context. Everything about JW training and life serves to strengthen families ties, lessening chances of such abuse. Many things promoted in the greater world are destructive to families, increasing the chances of abuse.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 3/12/2017 at 11:02 AM, Witness said:

If anything, Tom, I appreciate your addressing me personally. 

 

In the midst of a rebuke as sharp as I can make it, a well-deserved rebuke IMO, Witness picks out and responds to the fact I didn't refer to her in the third person. She doesn't retaliate. This speaks well for her. Would I do as much?

We're not friends and we're not going to be, so long as she dedicates herself to tearing down what I and my people are building up. Nonetheless, this little tweet personalizes her.

But then, following this remark, she appends eight scriptures. Look, if my own people append eight scriptures out of the blue, i will not read them unless they have given me a reason to. Why should I? I've nothing against scriptures, but I'd rather read them in orchestral form, as part of routine Bible reading, where I can get everything in context.

Why doesn't Witness straighten out and fly right. Her people have nothing to show for themselves beyond myriad comments on the threads of others. My people have gathered and unified eight million persons. (a million for each verse Witness cited) Why doesn't she try to mend fences. Does she think someone did her dirty long ago?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I am unfailingly truly amazed at what you perceive .....

[Ann O'Maly]

On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Well - how do you persuade a four year old, whose every instinct is to trust adults, that nobody, but nobody is to be trusted,, that at any time, any one of them might prove to be their worst nightmare come true - a nightmare that they cannot possibly envision?

Why would any responsible, caring person want to do that? I don't know why you'd suggest this.

On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

How do you do that without terrifying the child, their generation already being far more anxious than ones preceding. I think our video does it better than yours.

By depicting scary boogeymen predators? You think that's an improvement on the more levelheaded Fight Child Abuse video? Smh.

On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

. You are correct that ours makes no allowance for mommy or daddy being the abuser.

Thank you.

On 3/14/2017 at 11:08 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Everything about JW training and life serves to strengthen families ties, lessening chances of such abuse. Many things promoted in the greater world are destructive to families, increasing the chances of abuse.

It only works if families actually do practice good ethics, and love and care for their children. Abusers are often great performers and hide what they are - JW or otherwise. Child abuse is prevalent everywhere, and some institutions' culture and beliefs serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring - JWs included.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Abusers are often great performers and hide what they are - JW or otherwise.

I would say always rather than often. This is how they progress to the abusive action without detection. I am hard pushed to think of a reason why I should not consider these perpertrators to be the most devious, dangerous, and pathetically evil criminals on the planet.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

some institutions' culture and beliefs serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring - JWs included.

This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.

[Ann O'Maly]

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I would say always rather than often.

OK.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.

It is a fair assessment. There has been a long-standing culture for JWs to handle child abuse internally rather than report to or at least consult with outside agencies (this is slowly changing, but only due to outside pressure). It has been a long-standing belief that allegations of child abuse can only be acted upon when there are at least two witnesses to the abuse. Both these mindsets serve to increase the likelihood of abuse occurring.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

two witnesses

Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

handle child abuse internally

Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

report to or at least consult with outside agencies (this is slowly changing, but only due to outside pressure).

Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change. And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart? (I'll cite UK examples in view of the impending investigations).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39234390

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy

"7.3 The so-called ‘two-witness’ rule only applies to the issue of whether an individual may continue to be a member of the congregation. Jehovah’s Witnesses are prohibited by Scripture from altering the application of the so-called ‘two-witness rule’.³² 

[Footnote 32] "The so-called “two witness rule” refers to a Scriptural rule of evidence that, absent a confession or other evidence, must be satisfied before the elders can form a judicial committee for an accused sinner (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16)."

- p. 14, Watchtower Australia’s response to the Royal Commission’s letter dated 4 November 2016 

Definition is not the problem. They have a definition. The problem is their belief that they must apply it to instances of child abuse allegations, despite the fact that there is scriptural precedent for accepting only one witness, under certain circumstances, for rape allegations (Deut. 22:25-27). Their belief that they correctly apply the 'two-witness rule' prohibits them from changing it and so, coupled with JWs' long-standing culture of not reporting the allegation to the authorities but to handle it only within the congregation, child abuse has been allowed to continue.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.

Naivety - partly. But the JW culture and mindset have been contributory too: not taking a 'brother' to court; not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name by airing congregation members' dirty linen before outsiders; mistrust and even contempt of outsiders; viewing child abuse as a sin yet forgetting it's a crime (this is slowly changing too); over-confidence that scriptural counsel and/or comfort is the answer; etc. I also think organizational pride has a lot to do with it as well.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change.

To borrow Angus Stewart's question to the Watchtower Australia representatives:

"... why do you legalise it all the time
and rely always on what the law provides? Why do you as an
organisation not just adopt the policy, as many other
organisations do, of reporting as a matter of course if
there are still children who might be in harm's way?"

- p. 26521, Transcript of ARC Case 54

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart?

Indeed it would. But society has to move together in this. That there were or are inadequacies elsewhere doesn't give the Org a free pass not to bother improving its own policies and procedures to come up to current governmental safeguarding standards. For heaven's sake, JW Org, as God's own favored people, is supposed to be the shining beacon that all the world should look up to, is it not?

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Definition is not the problem

It does appear as a problem to me in that "two" is not adequate as a definition. It is not clear what form their evidence takes, whether direct or circumstantial. Citing Deut.22:22-27 is relevant but inconclusive as there is no description of its application in fact that I know of.

7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Angus Stewart's question

Seems to have been addressed in the response letter you linked at page 8. 2:8c "if the elders and branch office determine that a child is in danger, the elders are directed to call law enforcement authorities, even if such reporting is not mandated by law."

The question seems to be prompted by Mr Stewart's exasperation in the midst of a rather muddy discussion looking at your linked reference.

7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But society has to move together in this

Excuse me feeling a tad dubious about "society's" commitment here in the light of the unfolding extent of this ever burgeoning problem.

However, I did notice the ARC invitation to Watchtower Australia to participate and contribute to improving matters. 

There are obviously well motivated individuals indicating their genuine concern in the area of child protection, and a number of specialists providing invaluable insights into understanding and handling the problem. However, as noted elsewhere in the postings, the continued mud-slinging and jibe trading that seems to accompany discussions on this subject, (not limited to this forum), are an impediment to any joint approach in dealing wih this criminal activity.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 3/14/2017 at 10:04 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

What if Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers? What does the cartoon advise the child to do then?

A point on the thread that was taken down fits nicely here. Unfortunately, I did not save it, as I had not a clue that it would disappear. Imagine, being assigned a role and title against your will: TrueTom vs the Apostates, and then having the thread pulled by the same forces that started it when I warmed to the idea and went after those ones like a pit bull! What - did anyone expect I would allow it to become a friendly and open exchange of ideas, ideas that have been stated countless times before?

I'm on my best behavior, now, for I do not want to have to wear another Scarlet A - one is enough. I did, indeed, become abusive (by some standards). It won't happen again. Still, I was surprised to find, not just the offending comments, but the entire thread removed, muzzling even the fine points that my opponents had made.

Here, however, let us restate a point that was made there. 'What if Mommy or Daddy are the abusers?' It's a valid point. Our video does not allow for that possibility. I will submit, however, that were a child unfortunate enough to be stuck with such sickos, he would have already noticed that his folks are far from the ideal folks of Caleb and Sophia's, which is a series, and so the child becomes familiar with them. That perception will affect who he runs to tell.

It's not foolproof or ironclad. I understand that. The following point, however, IS ironclad:

Our video told the children to run from ANYONE who would touch them improperly. Ann's preferred video not only does not protect children in the event that the doctor is the abuser, but it specifically says that it is okay for the doctor to touch private areas! Let's ask the 200 young women molested on the U.S. Olympic team. Which video do they think would have protected them more?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

There is a difference between INDIVIDUALS practicing these things, and the INSTITUTIONS that they belong to, whether it be the United States Marines, the Boy Scouts, the Vatican governed Roman Catholic Church, or the Governing Body led Jehovah's Witnesses as an institutional PRACTICE covering it up, and punishing the ones who threaten their "HOLY" reputation with scandal, based on real Truth, with excommunication, or disfellowshipping.

Administrative "due process" then becomes institutionalized evil, in contempt of God, his Christ, and the Soldiers, Scouts, Parishioners, or the Brotherhood that has faith in their reasonable expectations of righteous judgements, and to keep them alive, whole, and safe from predators.

The word for such things is TREACHERY!

... and what it always produces is always EVIL.

... and a million words repeated a thousand times in consoling, soothing ways will not change that.