Some child abuse victims won't get redress

[Isabella]

Some child sexual abuse survivors will miss out on compensation because organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the national redress scheme.

Religious, community, charity, education and sporting groups that fail to meet Tuesday's deadline to join the scheme will be "named and shamed" and face possible financial sanctions and changes to their charitable status.

The Jehovah's Witnesses refuses to join despite the threatened action and legal service Knowmore expects other survivors will also miss out because the organisation responsible for their abuse has not signed up.

"This will result in survivors receiving nothing," Knowmore principal lawyer Anna Swain told AAP.

Institutions have had two years to opt into the redress scheme, with some Knowmore clients saying "they're punishing us" or "they're waiting for us to die".

Read more: https://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/story/6809515/some-child-abuse-victims-wont-get-redress/

#childabuse

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

The report also said this. which is of course a direct lie. 

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have not sponsored any programs or activities that separate children from their parents at any time," it said in a statement to AAP.

Well in fact JWs do separate children from their parents in field service. Elders have been known to take other people's children on field service and in fact this has been proven in some court cases. Just an Elder or an older brother or sister with a child, and no 2 witnesses. I've been on the ministry in the past and a child has actually asked to be with me on the doors. I've declined as I think children should be with their parents. 

Also Elders do private Bible study or 'shepherding calls' with children, without parents being in the room. A Bible study can last an hour, just that Elder and child in the room, no 2 witnesses.

Please remember I was a JW for 50 years. I do know what I'm talking about.  

Now a bit of balance :- the report says this, but 

"This will result in survivors receiving nothing," Knowmore principal lawyer Anna Swain told AAP.

I don't think this is true either.  It just means that each survivor will have to take the CCJW or the individual Elder / brother / sister to court individually.  It will mean lots of separate court cases but that will cost lots of money of course. 

[TrueTomHarley]

22 hours ago, Isabella said:

organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the national redress scheme.

Actually, I rather like their reasoning:

“The Jehovah's Witnesses have not sponsored any programs or activities that separate children from their parents at any time," it said in a statement to AAP.

The statement said the Jehovah's Witnesses did not operate boarding or Sunday schools, did not have youth groups, choirs or sponsor any programs for children, nor run youth centres.

"Jehovah's Witnesses simply do not have the institutional settings that result in children being taken into their care, custody, supervision, control or authority."

Less than 10 redress scheme applicants have referred to the Jehovah's Witnesses, it said.

How many groups did the ARC look at? Was it not 30 -40? Every one of them involved some program in which children were separated from parents as a condition of participation. Separation was necessary for participation, and in the case of government schools, mandated by law. It seems reasonable that if you sponsor a youth group and/or even require children to congregate, you have a greater responsibility to provide a safe environment for them.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they alone (so far as I can recall) of the scrutinized groups, have never had any such program. They ought not be lumped into the same basket of mutual culpability with those that do.

11 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I've been on the ministry in the past and a child has actually asked to be with me on the doors. I've declined as I think children should be with their parents. 

I take from this that you were not stalking the child. Are there no situations where an adult might come into contact with a child not his own? Of course there are. Your own experience testifies to one. But they are the sort of incidental thing that could happen anywhere—if your child frequents the home of a friend and it turns out that friend’s dad is a pervert, for example. 

There was a time when my father-in-law, a man with little formal education, asked elders to study with his high school son. The elders said no—it was for him to study with his own son. It may not have even been a wise decision, but the point is there is no program for elders to wrestle children away from their own parents.

The typical abuse case among Witnesses involves congregation members—often members within a step-family. The culpability of the organization, if there is one, is that elders left it to the disgression of the aggrieved parties to report it. The culpability of the other groups is for systemically separating children from the parents and then allowing someone in authority to abuse them.

11 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Please remember I was a JW for 50 years. I do know what I'm talking about.  

I doubt this. So single-minded and vitriolic are you that I think you’ve come unhinged.  On other issues, you seem so unaware of how JWs think that I’ve even questioned whether you ever were one. I’ll accept on your say-so that you were—but only barely. This statement of yours on the other thread is suggestive: “Even if I get into the 'New World' (very doubtful) I would still prefer peace and quiet and being alone. ”

So here you are—purer than anyone because you could not bear to look upon anything bad—and yet you still think it doubtful you will make it into the new world. There is something very unbalanced here, very unhealthy. Jesus doesn’t want his followers on pins and needles that he will bar them at any time from life. If you think your spirituality is in danger, then DO something about it. You appear to be moving in the opposite direction. For all that you carry on about how you don’t need the CCSW / JVWWT / JWBWKFC you don’t appear to be doing so hot on your own. With you it is an almost a literal “promising them life while they themselves are living in corruption.”

[Space Merchant]

@TrueTomHarley As I pointed out in the other thread, a factor to the Redress is the fact the JWs do not have educational institutions and or youth clubs and a list of other things, granted, most who signed up for the Redress and or have not signed yet, have one and or more of these things. There's bound to be alternatives anyway for victims and those that have done the sin will meet consequence.

That being said, the articles from Australia are sporadic, and not easy to come by due to the whole paywall issue, something for a techy like me find annoying.

As for the whole 2 witness ruling, I believe it was clarified a while back, for even a piece of evidence can count as a witness within the theology of JWs.

 

EDIT:

I found it, however, back then it was brief, I had researched what the ruling was after I had posted it, and made note of what it actually is and what it is often used for vs. the misconception. I have also found out even the Justice System use a similar two witness ruling in come cases, something of which I will post soon if there is a thread about it:

That being said, the information from what I pointed out from the MSM claim vs what is true is below:

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@TrueTomHarley  You don't want to believe the things I say because they upset your little 'dream world' of your 'wonderful organisation'. 

Elders take young children, that are not their own children, on the ministry. Older brothers ans sisters do likewise. Brothers or sisters take children, that are not their own, to meetings in their cars. Elders, older brothers and older sisters do home Bible studies for children that are not their own. Some parents cannot give their own children a bible study because the children will not behave well enough for their parents but will behave 'better' for an older adult. 

I quote you here to show how perverted you are Tom,  "I take from this that you were not stalking the child."  it's a sort of semi-accusation i know. It is a thing that JWs do well. It's sly and it's meant to bring shame on the person accused. 

Not long ago, and for no reason it seems, you mentioned masterbation in one of your comments. Prior to that you have mentioned 'Getting all wet' over something. Now you mention stalking a child.  You seem to have a serious problem and I'm trying hard not to accuse you of anything. But the topic of CSA does seem to upset you. 

And you doubt I was a JW for 50 years. OK, if that fits your agenda. I'm not single minded and in the last couple of months I've put up 6 topics on this forum not related to CSA. 

Another quote :- " On other issues, you seem so unaware of how JWs think that I’ve even questioned whether you ever were one. "

Just another accusation from you Tom.  Please give me examples of this if you can. But bare in mind that American JWs may think differently to English JWs. Different cultures, especially South of England. We are so cold hearted and rather blunt with people, it seems. 

I may have mentioned previously that when I started studying the teaching was of the 7,000 year Creative Days and then the 6,000 years of human existence, then the 1,000 year reign of Christ. It all seemed so simple and 'true' back then in the 1960's. No Governing Body back then. NO F&DS mentioned as far as I can remember. But serious restrictions on teenagers. No parties or gatherings at all. No modern music or modern dancing. No modern 60's clothing. Very restrictive here in Southern England in the 1960's and 70's. The good thing was that Italian mohair suits and slim knitted ties were a Mod thing and were just about allowed though frowned upon by many.  .  Oh yes Tom I remember it well. But of course you don't believe me.  Have a good day. I continue to forgive you as Jesus said we should forgive one another. 

Just one last note and another quote of you, "and yet you still think it doubtful you will make it into the new world."  Your GB and it's ORG say that a person HAS TO BE A JW TO SURVIVE ARMAGEDDON. So according to your GB and it's Org, I won't be in the New world.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I quote you here to show how perverted you are Tom,  "I take from this that you were not stalking the child."  it's a sort of semi-accusation i know.

It’s not a “semi-accusation” at all. I’m clearing you of any ill-intent. The very fact that you get all exorcized over this makes me reexamine that ‘clearing’—maybe it was unwise for me to have done this.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Not long ago, and for no reason it seems, you mentioned masterbation in one of your comments. Prior to that you have mentioned 'Getting all wet' over something....You seem to have a serious problem

These are earthy things that are part of the universal human experience, and I occasionally make reference to them when if fits the context. If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is the fellow who basks in his “righteousness,” going apoplectic at hearing a “naughty” word, and imagining he is thereby proving his holiness to God. It is stomach-turning—that sort of self-righteousness.

The only point I made in the prior post was that groups that insist upon separating children from parents and then fail to protect them ought to be held to more stringent standards than those that do not. There is nothing wrong with that point. It makes perfect sense. 

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Elders take young children, that are not their own children, on the ministry. Older brothers ans sisters do likewise. Brothers or sisters take children, that are not their own, to meetings in their cars.

Of course it has happened, and still does—though in view of persons like yourself who want to stunt children by suggesting any contact an adult other than their own parent is perverted, they do it less and with much more caution. Always in the situations you describe, it happens with full approval of the parent & often at their request. I’ll give you an example:

My wife and I were in the ministry, along with a sister with her two children—ages probably 2 and 4. We’re all going at a snail’s pace, working In and out of the car, for the sake of the children. The sister, too, needs adult encouragement—she doesn’t get out all that much—and that’s why the “righteous” solution you might hit on: ‘work with your wife, and let her work with her two kids,’ does not work. 

When I am alone in the car with the two-year old, I get impatient to do another door or two. “C’mon, Seth,” I swoop the kid up, “Let’s take a door.” I ring the bell and a woman answers. I tell her I am working with my friend Seth, whom I am carrying, and “he wants to show a video to you.” I thumb through a few Caleb and Sophia videos on my IPad, ask Seth which one did he have in mind, and act as though it is he making the decision. .Meanwhile, the woman seems bemused by this—she’s playing along—it doesn’t happen all the time. We play the video, she views it attentively, Seth even more so, and when it is all done, I thank her, acknowledging “You’re a sport,” and we take our leave. I had the feeling that she was playing along simply for the child’s sake, and I stopped in sometime later to discover that I was right. I still reaffirmed that she was a good sport.

Now, I know child’s the mother well. I know the chemistry here. This was not a stranger’s child. I know you are probably dying to make a molestation scene out of this, but anyone not completely warped in own their values will instantly see if for what it is—a win-win-win for the child, the householder, and me—and even another win if you include God, for it is advancing the ministry.

22 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I've been on the ministry in the past and a child has actually asked to be with me on the doors. I've declined as I think children should be with their parents. 

You probably did the child a favor by not exposing it to your screwy personality. That point notwithstanding, why in the world would you not agree to this?—unless there is some twisted background that you are not conveying. I would do it in a heartbeat if a child asked it of me and if I knew the parents would have no objection.

Do you think you are proving yourself virtuous by your all but criminalizing contact between adults and their non-offspring? Do you think the interests of the world’s children are advanced by the Boy Scouts of America being driven into bankruptcy as retribution for the injuries inflicted upon a handful of children? The Boy Scouts take you out camping. They teach you how to tie knots. They teach responsibility. “Eagle scout project” are seen everywhere in my area—deeds of civic enhancement, education, historical illumination, ecological projects—deeds that are not likely to be done otherwise. They provide opportunities for children growing up that parents will most likely not be able to provide. And now your type deprive them of that by bankrupting the organization—all the time basking in your holiness about how you are ‘protecting children.’

You suggest all contact with a non-related child is wrong, even twisted, and then you think you are doing the village of children a favor? Back in JoePa days—American example, you may not know of it, when a man outstanding for molding generations of youth was suddenly destroyed because in a certain instance, he did not go “beyond the law” to penalize something he didn’t know was happening—a former coach of youth sports, Bob Cook, wrote: “The most upsetting thing about many child-protection rules is they assume any adult is capable of doing something bad. If you think of yourself as a good person, and the people around you as good people, you can’t help but be taken aback. You can’t help but think a wall has been put between yourself, the children you coach, and the families you deal with. It’s a wall that seems patently ridiculous when, in the case of the Catholics involved in my Virtus meeting, were tight-knit, south side Chicago parishes where families had known each other for generations.”

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I quote you here to show how perverted you are Tom,  "I take from this that you were not stalking the child."  it's a sort of semi-accusation i know. It is a thing that JWs do well.

I cleared you previously on this, but now I walk it back some. With you, it may well be an example of the verse: “All things are clean to clean people; but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled.” Nothing is clean to you, and with you vengeful crusade, you would penalize generations of children from the adult interaction that helps them grow into balanced adults themselves.

I surprise myself for getting into this thread so. I hadn’t intended to. I literally wrote the book on this topic of JW accusation—several chapters are on the topic, and I think there is not another like collection anywhere. Since it is free, I can link to it as simply another information source.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311

It covers events up to the initial verdict against JWs in Montana, and has not been updated to include that verdict being thrown out. Maybe there will be a “Round 2” or maybe I will tack additional chapters on Round 1: At any rate, I’ve done my share on this and did not intend to involve myself much beyond—because the topic will never be dropped, and there are other things to explore. But your demented notion of ‘nothing being clean’ draws me in despite myself.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

On other issues, you seem so unaware of how JWs think that I’ve even questioned whether you ever were one. "Just another accusation from you Tom.  Please give me examples of this if you can.

You donkey—it’s in the other thread, in a comment you attached a heehaw emoji to without reading. It’s found in your obtuseness as to how JW’s will not construe the many attacks on them as but examples of what Jesus said—how ‘if you were part of the world, the world would be fond of its own. Now because you are no part of the world, on that account the world hates you.’

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@TrueTomHarley  Thank you for a good laugh Tom. I've said it before, that you are a writer with a very BIG imagination.

You have made up so much it is funny.  Now another Quote with another semi-accusation :-

"That point notwithstanding, why in the world would you not agree to this?—unless there is some twisted background that you are not conveying. " 

Do you see that accusation Tom ?  Now the reason I did not agree to take the child with me on the ministry is quite simple. I was obeying the Organisations procedure. It's called being humble. In the congregations I have been in, the rules have been that at meetings children must sit with their parents, and on the ministry children must be with a parent. If this is UK rules I don't know but that's how it was. However, other people did not obey those rules, but that was their choice. 

Then you ramble on, two paragraphs, about Boy Scouts, Joe Pa Days and Catholics. Why ? It has nothing to do with the CCJW or Watchtower Soc'. 

The whole point that i was making is this. And you have helped my prove my point. Quote :- 

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have not sponsored any programs or activities that separate children from their parents at any time," it said in a statement to AAP.

You have helped me by admitting that as a JW, you spent time alone with a child that wasn't yours. 

Thank you Tom. You said "Of course it has happened, and still does— "  Once again proving my point. 

As for your silly idea of me pretending to be righteous, I've said I doubt if I will be counted worthy of the 'New world'. So I think that disproves your accusation on that one. 

Just as a note. Here in England the congregations i have been in tell Brothers and Sisters that are not married to each other, not to travel in a car together, and not to enter a house together.  It's all about being seen to be innocent, or not leaving room for accusation. Now, use that same idea with adults spending time alone with someone else's child. 

As for court cases and verdicts, JW Lawyers tell so many lies that they could 'get away with murder' in court rooms. A verdict in either direction does not proof truth or justice. So following court cases seems a lost cause. However I do honestly believe that God though Jesus Christ, through Holy Spirit, will sort the CCJW out and make it safe and clean for honest hearted ones to be able to serve God properly. But i cannot be part of the Org now as it is so unclean. A person does not have to be 'righteous' to see it. Even if not all of the accusations Earthwide are true, say only half of them are true, it is still too much, and also many other problems regarding misuse of scripture and mistreatment of the Anointed. It all has to be sorted long before Armageddon. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I was obeying the Organisations procedure.... In the congregations I have been in, the rules have been that at meetings children must sit with their parents, and on the ministry children must be with a parent.

To the extent that this is true, it undermines everything else you have said. You should take a month—it will take that long—to delete all of your tweets.

They have “rules,” do they, that children must sit with their parents, and in the ministry they must be with a parent? Then what is all your eternal beefing about, since you here state there is nothing to it?

Are you sure you are sane? A sub theme of virtually every post of yours is that JWs do anything the GB tells them to and do not do whatever they are not told. Well, here they tell them to do what in your eyes is the safest, most wholesome, practice in the world! What is it with your nasty tweets?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

It's quite simple, Elders are known to break the Org rules when it suits them, and it is accepted. Whereas I didn't break that rule.

 You said "Of course it has happened, and still does— "  You admitted to doing it yourself. So you must ask yourself if it is a rule in your area, and do the Elders in your congregation break the rules of the Organisation ?  If so, and if then CSA happens, who is to blame ? The Elders who break the rules are to blame it would seem. But the Elders get protected by the Org. It's a vicious cycle, but always the victims that suffer. 

The Elders have obeyed the GB by hiding CSA in congregations and by hiding paedophiles in the congregations too. By not telling the whole congregation who the paedophile is, it endangers all congregants children. But, the Elders do those things by following instructions from their hierarchy. The thing is Tom, what I'm saying has been proven many times in courts of law. Even though the courts of the 'world' are not the best places, when a paedophile has confessed to police or in court then truth has been proven, and things that I've mentioned have therefore been proven to be true. 

A quote from your earlier comment " Bob Cook, wrote: “The most upsetting thing about many child-protection rules is they assume any adult is capable of doing something bad. "

Of course any adult is capable of doing something bad.  Bad in different ways maybe, but anyone alive is capable of doing bad things. It seems that most paedophiles are known to their victims. And in the JW congregations people 'know' each other closely, (they think they know each other, that is). And that has been proven so many times. That is why parents allow other adults to take their children off, but the Elders allow it to happen in the Kingdom halls and on the ministry. 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Elders are known to break the Org rules

They do not—not according to what you say again and again and again and again—that they are complete puppets of the GB, do not do anything without being told, and would never go beyond what the GB has ordered them to do.

[Space Merchant]

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have not sponsored any programs or activities that separate children from their parents at any time," it said in a statement to AAP.

So can you name one Hospital, Youth Club, Pre-School and or any educational institution by Jehovah's Witnesses that is for children and only children? After all, you said you have to be a JW to know, this should be elementary to you.

This is indeed a factor because the articles brought this up regarding the Redress Scheme.

The article reads:

The Jehovah's Witnesses said the religion does not have the institutional settings that the voluntary redress scheme is designed to cover and it will not join. (Note, this was also cited in the article linked by Witness)

"The Jehovah's Witnesses have not sponsored any programs or activities that separate children from their parents at any time," it said in a statement to AAP.

The statement said the Jehovah's Witnesses did not operate boarding or Sunday schools, did not have youth groups, choirs or sponsor any programs for children, nor run youth centres.

"Jehovah's Witnesses simply do not have the institutional settings that result in children being taken into their care, custody, supervision, control or authority."

Less than 10 redress scheme applicants have referred to the Jehovah's Witnesses, it said.

"Jehovah's Witnesses have responded and will continue to respond directly to individual claims for redress in a caring, fair, and principled manner, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each claim.

[Space Merchant]

@TrueTomHarley True. Also the accompany of another guardian. As long as there is heighten supervision of the child if the parent, one or none, is not present. This is so there is more cover, an indirect practices by a multitude of institutions, even the schools whereas there is usually more than one teacher in the classroom when there is a few students.