Originally posted by divegeesterI would respect my sister's wishes on the matter. Do you think the victims want the 'whole world' to know every detail of what happened to them? She actually choose not to go to the authorities, and her perpetrator is now rotting in jail for a murder he committed years later. Karma is a b!tch.
No.
No.
Considering the global scale of this abuse scandal and the serious heinous nature of these alleged crimes over decades, are your questions representative of you thinking the Jehovah Witness leadership are right to block investigations?
Would you have welcomed a similar investigation into the sexual abuse of your sister by her religious group, or would you have bene happy for them to have blocked any investigation?
02 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkFrom the OP: "The Charity Commission launched an inquiry into safeguarding at the religion’s main UK charity in May 2014 after receiving allegations that survivors of rape and sexual abuse, including people abused as children, were forced to face their attackers in “judicial committees”."
Do you think the victims want the 'whole world' to know every detail of what happened to them?
So me victims do, some victims don't. No victims were compelled to come forward in the recent Australian Royal Commission for example.
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by FMFI agree the victim's decision should be respected.
From the OP: [b]"The Charity Commission launched an inquiry into safeguarding at the religion’s main UK charity in May 2014 after receiving allegations that survivors of rape and sexual abuse, including people abused as children, were forced to face their attackers in “judicial committees”."[b]
So me victims do, some victims don't. No victims were compelled to come forward in the recent Australian Royal Commission for example.
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe questions you are asking and the way you seem to be trying so hard to find a trolling angle on this serious subject make it sound like you fabricated the story about this "sister" of yours.
Only one. I know you have a hard time believing what I say.
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by FMFLike I said before, I don't care if you believe me. If the JW leaders were blocking the investigations due to the wishes of the victims who don't want the details of the abuse leaked out to the public, would you have a problem with the investigations being blocked?
The questions you are asking and the way you seem to be trying so hard to find a trolling angle on this serious subject make it sound like you fabricated the story about this "sister" of yours.
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWho would be making the allegations in such a scenario? You sound either like [1] you've never spent a moment in your life thinking about this issue and have no experience of it or anyone affected by it, or [2] you are desparate to find a gormless-question-driven trolling angle.
If the JW leaders were blocking the investigations due to the wishes of the victims who don't want the details of the abuse leaked out to the public, would you have a problem with the investigations being blocked?
Originally posted by FMFPeople in whom the victims had confided or family members who found out about the abuse. Or anyone else that was aware of the allegations.
Who would be making the allegations in such a scenario? You sound either like [1] you've never spent a moment in your life thinking about this issue and have no experience of it or anyone affected by it, or [2] you are desparate to find a gormless-question-driven trolling angle.
02 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkUnless the victim makes the allegations and provides testimony, there would be no case. Do you believe that, in cases like the one in the OP, and the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases looked at by the Royal Commission,in Australia that "the JW leaders were blocking the investigations due to the wishes of the victims"?
People in whom the victims had confided or family members who found out about the abuse.
Originally posted by FMFSo you are saying only a victim is allowed to press charges? And no one can be charged unless it is the victim pressing the charges? 🙄
Unless the victim makes the allegations and provides testimony, there would be no case. Do you believe that, in cases like the one in the OP, and the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases looked at by the Royal Commission,in Australia that "the JW leaders were blocking the investigations due to the wishes of the victims"?
02 Mar 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAnyone can report a crime. Whether it ends up in a prosecution depends on the victims, witnesses, and the law enforcement authorities. The issue - in Australia for example - is how allegations of child sex abuse - made by victims - were handled by the JW organization, and how the way the allegations were handled contributed to a situation where the organization did not report a single one of these serious crimes to the authorities - despite in some cases taking action against the perpetrators - for fifty years. Not a single one in fifty years.
So you are saying only a victim is allowed to press charges?
If you are interested in how such a state of affairs might have come about, and if you are unaware of the kinds of pressures brought to bear on members seen as disrupting or threatening the group in a cult situation, then I suggest you spend some time having a look at the material here http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/public-hearings/case-studies
02 Mar 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMake a straight forward declaration of your own opinion and perspective on how instances of ~ or allegations of ~ sex abuse and child sex abuse - whether it be ongoing, or in the past - should be handled by institutions like the Catholic Church.
So you are saying only a victim is allowed to press charges? And no one can be charged unless it is the victim pressing the charges? 🙄