1. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    05 May '16 03:481 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    My first observation is that "penitent privilege" does not apply when there is an accusation, it applies when someone is confessing. The second is that your complaint seems to be not with their formal rules, but with their actual behaviour. So the complaint there would be that "mandatory reporting" is a little empty if no reporting takes place.
    I make no secret of the matter: I am only interested in the protection of children, in calling out morally abhorrent behaviour for what it is, and in the punishment of very serious criminal acts ~ something that society is entitled to see, and has nothing to do with whether one happens to be called "Elder" by certain people or whether one feels some sort of self declared obligation to keep sex crimes confidential. I am not impressed by partisan rhetorical and discursive sophistry and contortions seeking to understate, deny or rationalize the covering up of such despicable and damaging behaviours.
  2. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    05 May '16 03:53
    Originally posted by DeepThought

    You seem to be arguing that if they did not have the rule that it was mandatory to report these things then some Elders would not report them, so you're trying to condemn them on a counterfactual - which is probably what's annoying robbie.

    But in that case they were either breaking their own rules or in the meantime the rules have been change ...[text shortened]... haven't looked at the Royal Commission's report and was going by what it said in robbie's post.
    Only going by what robbie said about the Royal Commission's report is, to put it delicately, rather injudicious of you. 🙂

    Take a look at how many allegations of sexual abuse of children were reported by the JW organization to authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

    You will find that it was zero. Not even one.

    There is substantial evidence that there were hundreds and hundreds of cases affecting hundreds and hundreds of children spanning several decades.

    The JW organisation did not report a single allegation to the authorities, even though almost 600 of those against whom allegations had been made had confessed to the JWs to having committed acts of sexual abuse against children.

    robbie has simply dismissed all this out of hand, which amounts to defending the cover up.

    What "counterfactual" is it you think I am offering here? 😉
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 May '16 07:244 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    So there are situations where an Elder can hear of some serious offence which is treated in confidence unless the "Law" requires that it is reported. When you say the "Law" I'm working under the assumption that you mean the relevant nation state's laws rather than JW internal rules. You seem to be saying that if a member of the JW's confesses to an Eld ...[text shortened]... e. You answered this point quite well.

    I'm not desperately interested in your feud with FMF.
    Ok I will make it clear. In the case of Jehovahs witnesses ALL confessions are treated as confidential except where the Law of the land demands mandatory reporting for certain offences. In such an instance if a penitent confesses a serious crime the Elders in adherence to the law of the land are duty bound to report it. Where this is not the case they instruct those involved to go to the relevant authorities. In other words mandatory reporting supersedes penitent privilege.

    Actually Jehovahs witnesses do investigate all serious matters because if a serious sin has been committed then the elders are duty bound to tackle it. But you rather astutely highlight the practicalities for they are not trained in law enforcement nor as professional counsellors and can only act within their respective realm of jurisdiction, that being the congregation.

    I am not so much interested in these things but in the breakdown of rational thought when anything like these matters are raised. Let me give you an example. There was a case in which a plaintiff was awarded substantial damages against the brothers who were held to have been negligent. After reading the considerable weight of court testimony for both plaintiff and defendants I disagreed with the judgement. I told the forum why. Let me tell you what happened.

    Robbie: its unprecedented that a minister of religion is held accountable for penitent privilege when there is no mandatory statute.
    Dullards: You are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse.
    Robbie: err no I am only saying that its unprecedented

    Robbie: The plaintiffs testimony contradicts that of her natural parents.
    Dullards: You are undermining and victimising the victim.
    Robbie: err no I am only stating that the testimony is contradictory.

    Robbie: after having read the testimony I disagree with the courts findings.
    Dullards: You are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse.
    Robbie: err no its an informed decision based on having read the court transcripts.

    and what have we? a complete meltdown. Think a kind of Chernobyl of the mind with all kinds of poisonous fallout. Its really mental darkness, a kind of alienation from reality, distorted because of a judgemental, finger pointing, one dimensional approach to life resulting in a complete breakdown of rational thought.
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    05 May '16 07:45
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok I will make it clear. In the case of Jehovahs witnesses ALL confessions are treated as confidential except where the Law of the land demands mandatory reporting for certain offences.
    How many allegations of sexual abuse of children that were made against its "elders" and members were reported by the JW organization to authorities in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s?
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36571
    05 May '16 07:55
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Do JW's have confession? The issues surrounding child abuse in various faiths are not connected with the confidentiality of the confessional.
    That's a good question.

    Apparently they only have a Eucharist once a year. Perhaps they also have confession once a year.
  6. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    05 May '16 08:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok I will make it clear. In the case of Jehovahs witnesses ALL confessions are treated as confidential except where the Law of the land demands mandatory reporting for certain offences.
    How are allegations treated?
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    05 May '16 08:103 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    That's a good question.

    Apparently they only have a Eucharist once a year. Perhaps they also have confession once a year.
    Wow please don't think I am being rude but your ignorance is truly astonishing. Kind of like an R J Hinds in solitary confinement for twenty years with nothing but cockroaches and toilet paper for company ignorant. Only worse!
  8. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    06 May '16 00:12
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok I will make it clear. In the case of Jehovahs witnesses ALL confessions are treated as confidential except where the Law of the land demands mandatory reporting for certain offences.
    Let's consider two scenarios in which an adult JW has been having sex with a child (or children).

    Scenario A: the JW tells the authorities or the authorities are told. What happens? The JW is prosecuted. He is found guilty of statutory rape. He receives a custodial sentence. He is added to a sex offenders list for the protection of the community in which he lives.

    Scenario B: the JW tells another JW and the authoritries are not told. What happens? The JW is not charged. He is therefore not prosecuted for statutory rape. He does not receive a custodial sentence. He is not added to a sex offenders list and so there is no protection afforded to the community in which he lives.

    If you defend Scenario B, what is the moral basis for doing so?
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    06 May '16 05:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    Let's consider two scenarios in which an adult JW has been having sex with a child (or children).

    Scenario A: the JW tells the authorities or the authorities are told. What happens? The JW is prosecuted. He is found guilty of statutory rape. He receives a custodial sentence. He is added to a sex offenders list for the protection of the community in which he l ...[text shortened]... community in which he lives.

    If you defend Scenario B, what is the moral basis for doing so?
    This "manadatory reporting" angle is a desperate red herring.
  10. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    07 May '16 05:10
    It would seem that, having both defended and denied the cover up of child sex abuse allegations in his organization, robbie has simply skulked off.
  11. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36571
    07 May '16 11:442 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Wow please don't think I am being rude but your ignorance is truly astonishing. Kind of like an R J Hinds in solitary confinement for twenty years with nothing but cockroaches and toilet paper for company ignorant. Only worse!
    Oh, sorry, The Lord's Evening Meal (the only Eucharist ceremony of the year, as I said, occurring usually on or near Passover) is only partaken of by the 144,000 (who are all JWs, of course). Everyone else can observe, but not partake. According to your bizarro overlords, these 144,000 are the only ones who are going to heaven.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005155

    Better?
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 May '16 12:261 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Oh, sorry, The Lord's Evening Meal (the only Eucharist ceremony of the year, as I said, occurring usually on or near Passover) is only partaken of by the 144,000 (who are all JWs, of course). Everyone else can observe, but not partake. According to your bizarro overlords, these 144,000 are the only ones who are going to heaven.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005155

    Better?
    Meh I suppose something is better than nuthin, ok ill give you the droolgeester in solitary confinement with nothing but the Daily Mail for company badge! 😵
  13. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 May '16 20:591 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I kinda suspected that the issue would woosh over your head as you clamour to put the proverbial boot in. The issue is not me, its not even Dasa, heck its not even what Dasa actually said! The issue is whether you can be condemned and punished for merely 'thinking'. This is the issue being discussed in this thread.
    Is it possible that the rumour I have heard is true and that Red Robbie has complained to the moderators and had someone banned from the forum for posting things Robbie does not like?
  14. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    10 May '16 23:271 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Is it possible that the rumour I have heard is true and that Red Robbie has complained to the moderators and had someone banned from the forum for posting things Robbie does not like?
    I notice that the thread on this forum " Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" ~ in which robbie was called out for denying that there can be such a thing as marital rape and yet claiming on a different forum that he had never made such comments about rape ~ has been removed.
  15. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 May '16 23:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    I notice that the thread on this forum " Evidence Ignored in Moving Between Forums?" ~ in which robbie was called out for denying that there can be such a thing as marital rape and yet claiming on a different forum that he had never made such comments about rape ~ has been removed.
    I'm not convinced that that was in any way justified.

    It is clearly true that he did make such claims, and clearly true that he is denying that fact.

    I personally would like my posts on it back 'on the record' and I'm probably not the only one.

    If RC is going to go crying to the mods every time someone accuses him of lying the mods are going to be very busy.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree