Do Jehovahs Witnesses shun Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

[Evacuated]

8 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But would a naive, true-believer 10-year old really absorb the implications of how the 'disassociation rules' would affect them personally once they were dunked?

Would a naive, true-believer 10-year old  'disassociate' themselves? At what age would  someone be likely to "disassociate" themselves? It's not a rubber stamping excercise you know.

[INTREPID TRAVELLER]

It's not a rubber stamping excercise you know [Exercise / Maybe you meant Exorcise?] Well it is when the 3-man tribunal meets and decides your everlasting fate ! S-77 + Blue Envelope So very officious !

[Anna]

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

If that isn't what he meant, he worded it poorly

Yes, I agree, he worded it poorly, but whoever put the video together was wanting to make sure we believed he worded it very well.

[Anna]

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Would a naive, true-believer 10-year old  'disassociate' themselves? At what age would  someone be likely to "disassociate" themselves? It's not a rubber stamping excercise you know.

I think she means would he now, as a 10 year old, understand the implications if at some point in the future he decided to disassociate.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I think she means would he now, as a 10 year old, understand the implications if at some point in the future he decided to disassociate.

Got it, but I mean, who on dedication and baptism is considering disassociation and disfellowshipping? Maybe those who get married while planning their separation and divorce???

[Guest]

I am a Jehovah's Witnesses and what exactly is the Australian Commission saying that the JWs did wrong in handling of sexual abuse cases?  I only want answers from other JWs, not from haters of us!  If we report molestation to police when we have the legal responsibility, why is the commission involved?  What are they claiming that we did that was illegal, and if they find fault, what is our defense?  The reason that I want to know, is to be better able to respond to people when they bring this up! 

 

I watched the video and it is VERY unfair to JWs, and I will tell you why!  Most people who get baptized are adults, or approaching adulthood, so the first brother was being honest!  His statement did not exhaustively include every age, but rather was a general statement!  However, there are some younger ones who on their own decide that they truly want to dedicate their lives to Jehovah and are ready!  The particular ten year old must have been very mature for his age!

The age of ten is around the time in life that a youth has developed reasoning abilities!  It is around the age that I became associated with the JWs and began believing as one!  My parents divorced when I was 8, my dad began studying with them when I was around ten, and when I was in fifth grade he began sharing it with me!  What he said about Christmas, Hell fire, that we are living in the last days, and other things made sense!  My brother and I went on visitation visits with my dad and my brother didn't want the truth!  I did and in fact, I asked my dad if I could go to the K Hall with him! 

When my mom found out that I went to the meetings with my dad and was reading the literature, the result was awful!  I would be screamed at every time I went to a meeting, she tried to stop me from reading the Bible and books, so I snuck and did it when she wasn't around

I remained committed for four years, in spite of her awful treatment of me, but sadly at age 15 fell away from the truth because I got involved in a bad crowd at school!  I later returned to Jehovah however, and got baptized when I was 19!  I am now 50, and I can honestly say that I knew it was the truth when I was around age ten, and I know it is the truth 40 years later! 

I stood up to my mom back then for 4 whole years of abuse, and was not around the brothers and sisters much to get any fortification, plus my dad was very flawed and not baptized until years later, so it was pretty much me and Jehovah, no one else!  I went to two meetings a month, every other Sunday!

The fact that I was so strong and committed at that age, and so sure of what I believed, shows that a ten year old can be reasoned enough to make a commitment to Jehovah!  I wasn't ready at that age for baptism, I had lots of family dysfunction to deal with and much progress to be made, but I was still dedicated to Jehovah and I knew what I knew! 

So when these people argue against a ten year old being able to decide to be baptized, there are some who are ready, but it has to be their own decision of course

And the fact that some do get baptized at that age, does not invalidate the words of the brother who said "adults or those approaching adulthood get baptized" as generally this is true, and in the rare cases a ten year old does they are most likely ready to

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Nicola said:

what exactly is the Australian Commission saying that the JWs did wrong in handling of sexual abuse cases?

You can read it all for yourself in this report from the Australian Commission regarding Jehovah's Witnesses HERE

3 hours ago, Nicola said:

I was still dedicated to Jehovah and I knew what I knew! 

I had similar feelings as a 9 year old when I spent some time with an older sister that my mom knew. My mom was studying at the time, and this sister told me so much about Jehovah. I felt it very deeply that this was the truth. I didn't get baptized till I was 18, but if I had got baptized then, at 9 years old, nothing much would have changed.

[Guest]

Anna I am not going to read that whole thing, I would rather spend my time reading the Bible!  Can anyone sum it up?  What are the things that we did that are supposedly mishandling it?

[Anna]

11 minutes ago, Nicola said:

Anna I am not going to read that whole thing, I would rather spend my time reading the Bible!  Can anyone sum it up?  What are the things that we did that are supposedly mishandling it?

Nicola, I don't have time right now, but I will try and give you a brief summary tomorrow

[Guest]

I did read part of it, and the Commission is very unfair to the JWs!  And the girl who left the organization, can't complain about being "shunned" because she chose to disassociate herself!  She didn't just fall away, she took an active stand against the organization!  She knew that she would be "shunned" for that, so she was essentially asking for that!  Other things the commission said about JWs are unfair as well!

The commission acted like it was wrong that we didn't allow women to be a part of the decision making process, how can we?  There aren't female elders, and we correctly interpret the Bible as not allowing that!  We can't be expected to start having female elders because there are some members who do bad things to children!

The commission do not have a Biblical understanding, nor do they appreciate our beliefs or what goes into constituting them! 

That said, I had issues with my Jehovah's Witness father, not anything so severe as that, nor any wrongdoing that would require a judicial committee, but he and I did go before elders to iron out our differences and I felt a couple of those elders were biased on the side of him!  A mature sister who I knew suggested that she would like to meet with them too, to help explain my feelings and the situation!  Sometimes a woman's sensitivity is an asset, but she can't actually be a part of the decision making

I read more!  Wow, were they unfair to us!  They found it "problematic" that we shun those who leave the organization!  That is like a spouse leaving the other one, and then complaining that they they don't have a relationship anymore!  The Australian Commission has no right telling us what our beliefs should be!  Freedom of religion gives us the right to organize our religion according to the requirements of the Bible

The girl didn't just quit going to meetings and withdraw herself, she actually made an official declaration!  I have already tired out and quit attending meetings, and went away!  I always wanted to come back of course, and if the brothers and sisters saw me around they were friendly to me!  I hadn't taken a stand against the organization

[Guest]

Also they faulted us on making the accuser bring up the charges with the accused present before 1998, which is the year that we changed that policy

We changed that 19 years ago, so it isn't a current issue

In any case, even if there have been some imperfections in the way issues have been dealt with, we are imperfect people like everyone else, and as I understand when things have been mishandled it was at an elder level and they did not consult with the society like they should have!  And never have we done anything like other churches that have knowingly transferred priests to other parishes to re-offend!  We don't cover up anything

[Anna]

22 hours ago, Nicola said:

In any case, even if there have been some imperfections in the way issues have been dealt with, we are imperfect people like everyone else, and as I understand when things have been mishandled it was at an elder level and they did not consult with the society like they should have

It goes deeper than things mishandled at elder level, which of course is true as well, but some of our policies needed changing too, or made more clear, and the proof of that is that a new Child Safeguarding policy has been written up (2017), which is available to elders, but publishers also if they ask for it. I am not sure if this is the case in the USA yet, but definitely in Australia and I think the UK as well (not 100% sure about that though) but will be available in all countries eventually.

In addition to what you have already read, here is a summary of the points brought up by the Commission which they felt needed changing: (This is an extract of what I thought were the most pertinent points, page 61-69)

1.General practice of not reporting child sexual abuse to secular Authorities.

Although the Jehovah’s Witness organisation instructs elders to comply with mandatory reporting laws where relevant, there was no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation has any general policy requiring or advising elders to report child sexual abuse to the authorities when not required to do so by law, even in cases involving a child complainant. Mr Toole and Mr O’Brien both told the Royal Commission that there may be some circumstances in which there would be a need for elders to report child sexual abuse to the authorities. However, the Royal Commission heard evidence that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has no specific policy or procedure instructing elders to report to the authorities where a child has been sexually abused, that child or other children remain at risk of abuse and there are no other means of protecting that child.

In our view, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation should always report allegations of child sexual abuse to authorities where a complainant is still a minor at the time that the abuse comes to the attention of the organisation or where there are others who may still be at risk at the hands of the alleged abuser. In the case of a complainant who is still a minor, the organisation’s justification that it is a survivor’s ‘absolute right’ to make the report themselves is wrong and does nothing to protect that child and other children from sexual abuse.

2.Complainant to face abuser

What the documents and Mr Spink’s testimony suggest is that since about 1995 the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has reviewed its policy and contemplated circumstances, at least at the investigative stage of the process,in which a complainant of child sexual abuse may be exempt from the requirement that they face their abuser. However, the documentary evidence only contemplates application of the exemption if the complainant is a child at the time of making their complaint

It is clear – and Mr Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body, agreed – that there are no circumstances in which a complainant of child sexual abuse, whether they are a child or an adult, should be required to make their allegation in the presence of their abuser.

Any such policy would be inherently wrong because of the inevitable further trauma to a survivor, regardless of their age, that will invariably result from being in the presence of their abuser. The documented policies and procedures in evidence before the Royal Commission do not make clear that a complainant of child sexual abuse must never be required to confront their abuser. Given that the oral evidence before the Royal Commission was that this confrontation is no longer a requirement in cases of child sexual abuse, the written policies and procedures that Jehovah’s Witness elders are required to adhere to should clearly state this. Similarly, members of the organisation more generally should be advised in writing of the specific exemption from the requirements in cases of child sexual abuse.

3.The two-witness rule

The two-witness rule remains a current procedural rule that is applied today within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in all cases of complaints of ‘wrongdoing’, including child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse invariably occurs in private, where the only witnesses to the abuse are the perpetrator and the child victim. Mr Spinks accepted that this is the case. Both Mr Geoffrey Jackson and Mr Spinks also acknowledged that allegations of child sexual abuse are almost always justified and that this fact is reflected in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s own publications on the subject. Regardless of the biblical origins of the two-witness rule, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s retention of and continued application of the rule to a complaint of child sexual abuse is wrong. It fails to reflect the learning of the many people who have been involved in examining the behaviour of abusers and the circumstances of survivors. It shows a failure by the organisation to recognise that the rule will more often than not operate in favour of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, who will not only avoid sanction but will also remain in the congregation and the community with their rights intact and with the capacity to interact with their victim.

The Watchtower & Ors submitted that the two-witness rule is not a danger to children because, even if there are not the requisite two witnesses to authorise elders to take action, elders will  nevertheless ensure that precautionary measures are in place to protect the complainant and other children in the congregation.As discussed in section 7.6, on the basis of the evidence before the Royal Commission,we do not consider that the precautionary or protective measures available within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation are sufficient to protect a child victim of sexual abuse or other children in the community when the child victim is the only witness to the abuse and the perpetrator does not confess. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should revise and modify its application of the two-witness rule, at least in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse.

4.The absence of women from the process

Mr Geoffrey Jackson said that the organisation’s ‘decision-making arrangement ... is based on the headship principle that we have in the family and in the whole Jehovah’s Witness community as a whole that Scripturally the men make the final decisions’. Mr O’Brien and Mr Geoffrey Jackson both told the Royal Commission that women could nevertheless be involved in the investigation of an allegation of child sexual abuse and that a survivor need not present their allegation directly to three elders.

Mr Jackson said that, if elders cannot talk to a victim because to do so might traumatise the victim too much, two women close to the victim may take the victim’s testimony and convey it to the investigating elders.

The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should explore ways in which women can be involved in the investigation and assessment of the credibility of allegations of child sexual abuse. This will offer survivors a choice about who they divulge the detail of their abuse to.

5. No clear provision for a support person

The documented policy of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation on support of a survivor witness during a judicial committee hearing appears to be that no ‘moral support’ is allowed. However, Mr Spinks told the Royal Commission that, today, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation does allow a person complaining of child sexual abuse to have a support person present.

Under the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s current documented internal disciplinary process, it is not clear that a survivor of child sexual abuse would be allowed to have a person or persons present with them for support during that process. The organisation should formally document its stated policy of allowing a survivor to have a support person or persons present in the process if a survivor chooses that.

6. Sanctions and risk management

The Jehovah’s Witness organisation currently deals with perpetrators of child sexual abuse through assessment of how repentant they are. A genuinely repentant perpetrator may be allowed to stay in the congregation (and in their family) but will be subject to the sanction of reproval. An unrepentant perpetrator may be disfellowshipped (or expelled) from the congregation (but will remain in their family) until they can demonstrate that they are genuinely repentant. Mr O’Brien accepted in evidence that, unlike child protection authorities, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation does not have the power to intervene in a family situation to ensure a child is protected. Since it is the policy and/or practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities other than if required by law to do so:

• if a known abuser is found to be repentant and for that reason is merely reproved, the abuser remains at large in the congregation and the community

• if a known abuser is disfellowshipped and not otherwise dealt with by the authorities, the abuser remains at large in the community.

Mr Spinks told the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation understands the risk of reoffending, but he agreed that the processes used by society generally to evaluate that risk are not used by the organisation. He gave evidence that elders do not formally consider the risk of reoffending, other than reliance upon the word of the perpetrator, when they assess the degree of repentance of a perpetrator of child sexual abuse.Therefore, a decision to reprove a person, rather than expel or disfellowship them from the congregation, involves no objective consideration of the risk that that person might reoffend.

The Royal Commission considers the management of the risk of reoffending to be an essential factor in the development of an institution’s policies and procedures on the protection of children from sexual abuse.

There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation has properly considered that risk in developing its precautionary measures for dealing with known or alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse. This suggests a serious lack of understanding on the part of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation about the nature of child sexual abuse and the risk of reoffending, and it places children within the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse.