Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims

[Ann O'Maly]

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims

Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims after supreme court rejects its attempt to block inquiry

 A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: ‘We are in no position to, and

neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.’

Photograph: Fairfax Media via Getty Images

The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.

Last month a judge upheld a ruling against the UK’s leading Jehovah’s Witnesses charity, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain (WTBTS), that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to protect a woman, known in proceedings as A, from sexual abuse starting when she was four years old.

Now the supreme court has rejected a highly unusual attempt by the WTBTS to block a Charity Commission inquiry into how the Jehovah’s Witnesses charity handles allegations of abuse.

The extent of the charity’s challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission said.

In A’s case the high court awarded damages and the WTBTS have been left facing legal fees totalling about £1m after attempting to appeal against the judgement three times.

The decision in A’s case sets a precedent that could expose the organisation to further claims. It continues to fight Charity Commission orders to provide documents on sexual abuse allegations, as well as other aspects of the inquiry, in lower courts.

Fay Maxted, chief executive of the Survivors Trust, a national sexual assault charity, said: “These are cases where someone has been sexually violated and had their whole trust in the safety of their religious community blown away.

“It’s deeply disappointing that a faith-based organisation appears to be so determined to try and avoid answering questions about its own behaviour …

“This is something the Catholics and Church of England have also had to deal with – these big institutions will fight and fight every step of the way.”

The ways in which large institutions – from the BBC to the Church of England – respond to allegations of sexual abuse has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. But the governmental investigation into the issue, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA), was thrown into turmoil following the unexpected resignation of its chair, Lowell Goddard, last week. The home secretary on Thursday appointed Prof Alexis Jay as the new chair.

The Guardian understands that some survivors of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are considering making submissions to the inquiry’s truth project, a strand gathering survivors’ testimony.

A, the woman at the centre of the civil case, was abused by a senior member of her congregation for five years from the age of four. It emerged during court proceedings that he had confessed to a different attack and was removed from a senior role, but had “repented” and was allowed to continue within the congregation.

The police were not told and her mother said in court that she had no recollection of being warned about him.

A said her mother told leading members, known as “elders”, about the abuse when she was about 14. Her attacker had been released from jail for other sex attacks and was asking to return to the congregation, she said.

“All the while I had it hanging over my head that if I wanted to raise any allegations … I would be forced into a judicial committee, I would have to confront him face to face,” she told the Guardian.

Although the church can “disfellowship” – expel – people for minor offences, A says her abuser was allowed to remain. “Had they discovered he was playing the lottery, he would have been disfellowshipped without question, but he admitted to them he had abused children, and he still wasn’t disfellowshipped,” A said.

She finally reported the abuse to the police after the elders did nothing. “I came to the view that I would either try and kill myself again, run away or just go to the police.”

He died before the police could question him about the allegation.

The judge ruled the congregation was “either not warned at all or not adequately warned” about the risk posed by A’s abuser.

A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “Anyone who commits the sin of child abuse faces expulsion from the congregation … Any suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses cover up child abuse is absolutely false.”

He added: “Congregation elders do not discourage [reports to the authorities] or shield abusers from the authorities or from the consequences of their actions.”

Another woman, Jane*, who is also suing the organisation after she was raped by a member as an adult in 1990, said she was urged to face her rapist at a private hearing known as a judicial committee. It left her “completely traumatised” and led to the breakup of her marriage, she said.

Her attacker was eventually jailed in 2014, and she decided to sue after watching elders on the witness stand. “I thought, nobody’s taken responsibility for this. You could have held up your hands and said, ‘I’m sorry, we were in the wrong’,” Jane said. 

The Charity Commission launched statutory inquiries into Jehovah’s Witnesses charities in May 2014. This was shortly after claims emerged that elders in the Manchester New Moston congregation held a meeting at which three adult survivors of child sex abuse were brought face to face with their abuser, shortly after his release from prison for their abuse.

A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.”

The commission, which has the power to investigate how charity trustees handle safeguarding, launched separate inquiries into the Manchester New Moston congregation and the WTBTS, which oversees the nation’s 1,500 congregations and is believed to play a significant role in handling allegations of abuse.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged both inquiries in the courts, arguing that they would breach the trustees’ human right to religious freedom. They also challenged orders to produce documents on how they had handled allegations of sexual abuse in recent years.

Chris Willis Pickup, head of litigation at the Charity Commission, said: “Following two years of legal proceedings in five different courts and tribunals, the supreme court has finally brought Watch Tower’s challenge to our inquiry decision to an end.”

The commission had received only “limited information” from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he said. The Charity Commission is encouraging anyone with similar complaints to come forward.

While a small number of charities launch legal appeals against the commission’s decisions, the extent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed.

A’s solicitor, Thomas Beale, said: “Sadly, given our experience of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to litigation in cases involving survivors of child abuse, it comes as no surprise that WTBTS has at every stage relentlessly challenged the legal basis and scope of the Charity Commission’s inquiry.

“In our case … they adopted similar tactics, dragging our client through years of painful and distressing litigation … We have always maintained that this is a time for apologies, not appeals.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses said in a statement: “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse, a crime that sadly occurs in all sectors of society … We are committed to doing all we can to prevent child abuse and to provide spiritual comfort to any who have suffered from this terrible sin and crime.

“We also see a need to protect the confidentiality of those who seek spiritual comfort. Nevertheless, we shall diligently abide by court judgments.”

Name has been changed at the individual’s request

- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claims

[HollyW]

Hmmmm......."No different than any other religion " doesn't sound like a very good excuse for a religion that claims to be God's sole channel of communication to mankind.

[Ann O'Maly]

25 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem.

Any religion that has the same problem, that has mishandled the problem, that has negligently allowed victims to be harmed, needs their failings exposed - whether it's the Catholics, the Church of England, the Jewish or Muslim faith communities, the LDS, Moonies, Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Damn right that the JW Org is feeling the pressure too. The Org has a history of naivety and stubbornness in this area and has to be dragged by 'worldly' authorities into improving their safeguarding protocols. The Org is still lagging too far behind current best practice - even now after the latest BOE letter guidelines.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem.

I tend to agree.

The following are just my thoughts and current opinions. I don't claim to have studied the subject in any depth.

To avoid making any assumptions I might reword what AllenSmith said as: "Probably not very different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." In fact, I would say that the problem among JWs is not likely as bad as the problem in the Catholic Church where sexual repression based on required celibacy of the priests probably attracts a number of priests who have not adequately dealt with their sexuality and sexual proclivities before selecting the priesthood as a profession. It may also attract those who already realize that their abnormal sexual fantasies are deplorable, but who therefore hope(d) that choosing the priesthood as a lifestyle would bring them closer to God and would therefore help them to never act upon those fantasies. I would also add that the Catholic religion is one of those religions that tends to promote the idea that specific activities (works & rituals) can absolve one of the guilt from sinful actions and sinful fantasies. In addition, the Catholic Church promotes several activities which would afford priests the opportunity to be alone with children. (Priests as teachers and disciplinarians in Catholic schools; priests who train altar boys, priests who teach choir, etc.)

Therefore, many priests with sexual problems will likely find themselves closer to children instead of finding themselves closer to God.

But this is only a portion of the story with the problem of sexual abuse of children. Problematic proclivities might be higher among priests and opportunities for sexual abuse crimes might also be higher among Catholics, but it's the other portion of the story that affects not just Catholics, but many other religions (and secular organizations, too.)

I hope to add some more thoughts on that in another post.

[HollyW]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I tend to agree.

The following are just my thoughts and current opinions. I don't claim to have studied the subject in any depth.

To avoid making any assumptions I might reword what AllenSmith said as: "Probably not very different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." In fact, I would say that the problem among JWs is not likely as bad as the problem in the Catholic Church where sexual repression based on required celibacy of the priests probably attracts a number of priests who have not adequately dealt with their sexuality and sexual proclivities before selecting the priesthood as a profession. It may also attract those who already realize that their abnormal sexual fantasies are deplorable, but who therefore hope(d) that choosing the priesthood as a lifestyle would bring them closer to God and would therefore help them to never act upon those fantasies. I would also add that the Catholic religion is one of those religions that tends to promote the idea that specific activities (works & rituals) can absolve one of the guilt from sinful actions and sinful fantasies. In addition, the Catholic Church promotes several activities which would afford priests the opportunity to be alone with children. (Priests as teachers and disciplinarians in Catholic schools; priests who train altar boys, priests who teach choir, etc.)

Therefore, many priests with sexual problems will likely find themselves closer to children instead of finding themselves closer to God.

But this is only a portion of the story with the problem of sexual abuse of children. Problematic proclivities might be higher among priests and opportunities for sexual abuse crimes might also be higher among Catholics, but it's the other portion of the story that affects not just Catholics, but many other religions (and secular organizations, too.)

I hope to add some more thoughts on that in another post.

I agree that JWs are no different than any other religion, but the thing is, JWs condemn all religions, including Christianity other than themselves, as being led by Satan, so when you say JWs are no different than any other religion, it places them in a group they try to maintain they are no part of. 

To excuse the WTS by pointing to the faults in other churches does not make the WTS right, and there is no basis for their two witness rule for child abuse nor for allowing the predator to question the victim in a private meeting nor for not reporting this crime to the proper authorities.  I mean, they aren't trying to be like the Catholics, are they?

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I don’t see your handle in other religious websites making the same claim.

You do not know all the websites I post on and the handles I use. This section of the forum is for 'JW news' - not 'Catholic news' or 'Scientology news' or even 'Nuwaubianism news.' The article I posted falls into the category of 'JW news.' Can you at least try to make comments pertinent to the article and not make the thread about personalities (yet again)? Thanks. 

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

An instigator, not a problem solver.

As you well know, the problem of inadequate safeguarding procedures can only be addressed by the Org's leadership or those secular bodies involved with legislation.

 

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Interesting how hypocrisy works.

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.

The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.

"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.

"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 

"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.

"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.

Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.

I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.

I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  

Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.

More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.

I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.

And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.

Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.

[Alexa]

Im sorry for that 

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, I was referring to a direct contribution of your criticism to a different religious website, which is none.

Again, you cannot know what criticisms I make elsewhere ... unless you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient. Do you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient, Allen?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And how does that differ with any other Religion. ...

Your initial allegation was that I was an "instigator, not a problem solver," to which I replied that the power to change policies and legislation was in the hands of the Org's leadership and secular authorities. Yes, there have been appalling failings in numerous institutions globally, and now those institutions are being investigated and called to account - rightly so. 

So with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures?

I don't know why you referred to Mark 13:9. It's talking about being brought before the authorities for bearing witness to Jesus - not for doing wrong. A more applicable passage is the first few verses of Rom. 13.

[HollyW]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.

The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.

 

Maybe the level of authority is something to consider in this since it's the policies of the WTS that are causing them trouble with how they deal with child abuse, and those policies are made by those with the highest authority in the WT hierarchy.  No doubt those with higher authority want to protect the organization at all costs and they are the ones responsible for the poor procedures they insist on for child abuse cases.

For instance, elders are told to report these crimes, not to the police but to the WTS legal department. Nor are the elders told to tell the victim and/or the victim's parents to report it to the police.  

In addition to the ghastly two witness rule the WTS has invented for this, the WT procedure flat out takes the word of the accused over that of the victim.  To stop this they need to report each and every accusation to the civil authorities.  Child abuse, child molestation, child rape are all crimes. 

[JW Insider]

14 minutes ago, HollyW said:

No doubt those with higher authority want to protect the organization at all costs and they are the ones responsible for the poor procedures they insist on for child abuse cases.

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.

44 minutes ago, HollyW said:

For instance, elders are told to report these crimes, not to the police but to the WTS legal department. Nor are the elders told to tell the victim and/or the victim's parents to report it to the police.

I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .

This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.

I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

[Ann O'Maly]

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Please! I believe in checking Recreants overall attitude about the WTS ... [etc.]

I'll take that as a 'no.' 

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is that why you changed your “ICON” your handle picture. What are you hiding.

... asks somebody with two or more accounts and whose handle picture is of Wyatt Earp. 

Anyway, moving back more in line to the topic at hand, you criticize those who criticize the Org's mishandling of child abuse. I ask again - as we do not want to lose sight of the important central issue that children need to be protected and victims of abuse need redress and to see their abusers stopped and punished - with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures? Can you offer any possible improvements to the Org's child protection policies and its procedures after disclosure?