Just speaking for myself here, but I think that if I was an elder and somebody advised me of a case of child sexual abuse, I'm pretty sure an incident like that would stand out clearly in my memory. Because of the shocking nature of that kind of behaviour, I think that sort of memory would stay with me, mentally. Another explanation is that the elders had a selective memory (I noticed that their memories seemed to work better when they were questioned by the lawyers from the Watchtower Society.) There is also the situation that perhaps the frequency of child sexual abuse is so widespread throughout the congregations, that hearing a report of an incident is a common occurrence and has become a "run-of-the-mill" type of experience.
I remember a witness friend of mine whose little girl was interfered with by an older witness in the congregation in the 80's - I'm not sure what was done about it - back in those days it was such a hushed up crime that it's exposure left me feeling bewildered - the sister and her children except maybe one son have left the org as far as I know -I'm not sure how many people knew about it - she was a close friend so she felt she could tell me about it - I had 3 children as well - nothing was mentioned on the platform - that's the part that bothers me is the lack of transparency - the congregation should be warned if there is a child ,molester in their midst - that was one incident that has stayed entrenched in my memory
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 18 and 19, paragraphs 5.5 to 5.10) Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse (“CSA”) and parental responsibility 5.5 Jehovah’s Witnesses consider that the prevention of child sexual abuse must start with educating parents, so that they can actively educate their children about the dangers of abuse and protect them from the same even from within the family.19 In that regard, their approach is supported both as a matter of common sense and by specialists in the field of prevention of child sexual abuse. It is self-evident that the State simply does not have the resources to prevent child sexual abuse from occurring and it must look to others, including individuals, parents, families, and institutions to assist in that regard. The State is far more likely to achieve that objective if it respects the role of parents than if it shifts the responsibility to the shoulders of others. Indeed many international and national laws recognise that parents and care-givers have the primary responsibility in such matters.20 The position of Jehovah’s Witnesses is consistent with that approach. They believe that parents are in the best position to protect their children. 5.6 When child sexual abuse does occur, Jehovah’s Witnesses take the matter seriously. Congregation elders investigate every instance or complaint whether involving a meeting attender, a congregation member, a ministerial servant, or an elder. Reporting to the secular authorities 5.7 Jehovah’s Witnesses regard child abuse as both an abhorrent sin and a crime. Jehovah’s Witnesses consider it is the right of the victim and/or the victim’s parents to report. The reporting of the crime to the secular authorities by victims or their parents is not discouraged. Elders report such matters to the secular authorities in those States where it is required by law to be reported (mandatory reporting). Regardless of reporting requirements, an elder can report a crime to secular authorities if he believes there is a risk to a child.21 5.8 The decision to take away that right from a victim or the parents of a child must be left to the legislatures of each State or the Federal Parliament. The consequences of doing so may be thought to be good or adverse. It may reveal more cases of abuse, in which case the question will be whether the governments will provide the resources to ensure that such matters will be investigated and followed through (only 20% of the matters reported in Queensland could be followed up, according to the testimony of Mr Davies)22. On the other hand, victims and their families may hesitate to seek the assistance of ministers out of fear of the consequences of coming forward (hence the need for anonymity in some cases of reporting).23 5.9 Recognition of the right of the adult survivor to make the decision whether to report is important or the adult survivor may feel disempowered and further traumatised. 5.10 If a child is unable to report the matter to the secular authorities and the parents are unable or unwilling to do so,24 then an elder may feel compelled to report the matter to the authorities, particularly if he believes there is a risk to a child.25 Furthermore, it is apparent from the number of cases where the secular authorities have been involved that reporting to the authorities by Jehovah’s Witnesses takes place.26
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 20 to 22, paragraphs 5.11 to 5.19) Reporting within the faith 5.11 As was acknowledged in the Commission, there are times when victims may wish to have their matter dealt with confidentially within the faith.27 To deny them that opportunity may disempower the victims and may lead to further traumatisation. 5.12 As explained above and elsewhere, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not purport to offer a competing or alternative process for dealing with crime; rather their internal religious process deals with sin and its consequences based on their religious beliefs and practices. Investigation of CSA by elders: procedural matters 5.13 There are established practices and procedures within the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith for dealing with the abhorrent sin of child abuse. The present day practices and procedures were canvassed in some detail by Mr Rodney Spinks in his evidence.28 As was readily apparent from his evidence, the procedures are flexible and can be adapted to the individual’s circumstances.29 5.14 A victim of child sexual abuse is not required to confront his/her abuser.30 It is possible that in the past, on occasion, local elders asked victims to confront the accused, just as happened within the criminal justice system at that time. Since at least 1998, elders have been instructed not to require victims of molestation to confront the accused.32 5.15 Although not demonstrably a problem for elders in practice, the fact that all of the practices and procedures are not contained in one document was acknowledged as an area for improvement, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are in the process of considering that suggestion. Evidential matters 5.16 It is not an evidential requirement that a child or adult survivor confront their abuser and, unfortunately, there was some confusion about that aspect of the matter during the Royal Commission hearings.33 5.17 The evidential requirements for the establishment of sin are based upon Scripture.34 In the absence of a confession, the testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the charge.35 However, sin can also be established if there are two witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing even though each individual is a witness to a separate incident. The admission of guilt by the sinner is sufficient and no eyewitnesses are required.36 5.18 Jehovah’s Witnesses consider that the requirement for two witnesses is not a matter for debate as it is based on Scriptural requirements found in the Mosaic Law and reiterated by Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.37 Even when the requisite Scriptural evidence is lacking, elders nevertheless take precautionary measures. 5.19 If ministers of religion are covered by a mandatory reporting regime, Jehovah’s Witnesses comply with the legislation.38 As was stated at the Royal Commission on several occasions, where reporting is mandated congregation elders report even in those cases where there is insufficient Scriptural evidence to take congregation judicial action.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From page 22, paragraphs 5.20 and 5.21) Handling CSA offenders within the faith 5.20 Jehovah’s Witnesses handle the sin of child sexual abuse based on Scripture and the circumstances of each case. This may result in a variety of disciplinary measures based on the circumstances of the sin, the circumstances of the victim, repentance or the lack of it on the part of the sinner, and other related Scriptural considerations.39 5.21 So long as there is no violation of the secular law, the handling of the sin of child abuse by Jehovah’s Witnesses based on Scripture cannot be faulted from a secular point of view. The principles are somewhat analogous to those operating in the criminal justice system, save that, once a person has served his/her time in prison and is released, there is often no supervision of that person and no further assistance offered to such a person let alone protection for the community. That is not the case within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation. The communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses are small enough that a sinner will be understood to have sinned by those within the community. A truly repentant sinner will cooperate with the elders in respecting any restrictions imposed for the protection of others. (From pages 24 and 25, paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5) Then and Now 6.1 The abuse in the two cases occurred between 1982 and 1988. The attitudes, values and beliefs surrounding child sexual abuse 27 to 33 years ago in the criminal justice system were quite different then to the way they are now.43 In the 1980’s, a female complainant might have or would have had her allegations investigated by male detectives, most likely have a male prosecution counsel, be cross-examined by male defence counsel, give evidence in public before a jury comprising men and women, all of whom would be strangers and, given the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes see a perpetrator walk free from the courtroom. Until the law changed, it used to be a requirement that evidence given by a child complainant always required corroboration and juries were warned not to act upon their evidence unless it was corroborated.44 6.2 The point is that, in the last 27 years the criminal justice system has come to understand that the way in which it dealt with sexual abuse cases could have resulted in further trauma to victims. It would be unfair to judge what occurred in the cases of BCB and BCG in light of contemporary attitudes, values, and beliefs, when 27 years ago the secular authorities either offered or delivered no better response.45 The two cases and improving responses 6.3 Jehovah’s Witnesses are sympathetic to victims who experience traumatic events. If abuse is to be prevented from happening, then why it occurred in the two cases and the motivations of those who perpetrated these wrongs need to be considered. 6.4 In terms of the responses to the accounts of abuse brought forward by the two victims, the responses by the elders were, in part, a product of their backgrounds, in part a product of the times, and in part, a product of the connections between the victims and the abusers. Whether the secular authorities would have acted differently is open to question46 as we did not hear from any prosecutor of his/her experience in the 1980’s of prosecuting sexual abuse cases. 6.5 Improving responses to child sexual abuse is something that can be achieved, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have improved and will continue to do so. The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses respond to the sin of child sexual abuse is something that should not be discouraged, but encouraged. Material published under the auspices of the Australian Government revealed that in one study of sexual assault cases between 1990 and 2005, possibly only 1 in 10 matters were seen through to conclusion by prosecutorial authorities.47 In other words, resorting to the criminal justice system is not a “cure-all” of the problem.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 24 to 26, paragraphs 6.6 to 6.8) Section 316 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 6.6 Counsel Assisting raised a question about s.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Jehovah’s Witnesses presently consider that s.316 does not apply where a victim complains to an elder that he or she has been abused, because, at that stage, the elder’s knowledge is not the “knowledge” required by the section, although it may satisfy the “belief” required by the section. Nevertheless, the elder is not required to report the same to the authorities because of the application of the qualification in s.316(1) of “without reasonable excuse” when those words are considered and understood in light of the requirements of s.316(4) of the Act, s.127 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 6.7 The combined effect of the qualification in s.316(1) and s.316(4) of the Act and s.127 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is that where an elder forms the belief in the “course of practising or following a profession, calling or vocation …” he has a “reasonable excuse” within the meaning of s.316(1) to not report the information and thus no offence is committed; that interpretation is supported by the section’s natural meaning, the highest common law authorities, its legislative history, and a consideration of the section by the NSW Law Reform Commission. 6.8 Consequently, Mr Toole was correct in thinking that elders who were informed of complaints were not required to report the matter to the authorities. In any event, in the absence of an authoritative determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction about whether a requirement exists in the circumstances contemplated (and none is referred to by Counsel Assisting) there is no basis for any criticism or referral to the Law Society of New South Wales even if questions of professional competence to advise on such matters were within the Commission’s Terms of Reference, which, clearly, they are not.
Curl my hair!.......I rolled my eyes in my head so hard, that I thought I was gonna bruise my corneas! Did the Watchtower Society's lawyers have a blank moment here, and forget whom they were writing to? They are responding back to the Royal Commission.....not some Watchtower study article to be fed to the "rank and file" publishers.
They are just digging themselves deeper and deeper.....that's another reason why this hedge fund thing you are thinking about or some serious matter of handling manners will come out....the the OT it mentions bribes etc that the leaders get involved in....The UN and UNOSCE , the child abuse has come out..now the money matters will be revealed....the world and the brothers and sisters may be conned by the previous....but money's different....everyone reacts to money....my guess is it wil be the nail in the coffin..for all to see.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 27 and 28, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7) 7.1 The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection and none is identified by Counsel Assisting. 7.2 For example, consider the suggested findings on “shunning” in F69 and F70. One can ask rhetorically, if an adult person is “shunned” or avoided because he or she has formally disassociated or resigned from the faith, how is the same connected to the prevention of sexual abuse of a child or a response to child sexual abuse? In our submission, it is not or at least, it is not obvious that it is and no evidence connecting the same was placed before the Commission. In fact, the opposite was the case. Mr Monty Baker, an adult who was disfellowshipped, said that being shunned “... wasn’t really a problem for me …”.48 Indeed, as a matter of common sense, an adult person who makes a decision must expect that the consequences that ordinarily follow upon such a decision will be attracted. 7.3 When considered against the broader matters mentioned above, it will be seen that several of the findings suggested by Counsel Assisting are indeed problematic. The problems with the findings can be broken down into the following broad categories. 7.4 First, some of the findings are too broadly stated to be of assistance to the Commission. An example is suggested finding F1. The finding does not identify what is the “teaching” that is supposed to be “conflicting” and “ambiguous”. It does not refer to relevant literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses which address the view taken of the superior authorities49 and, in any event, one may ask rhetorically, how does or would such a broad finding assist the Royal Commission in its difficult task of making recommendations that will be acted upon by governments so as to reduce the incidence of sexual abuse and to better respond to it? 7.5 Secondly, some of the suggested findings are based on events that occurred 27 years ago and they do not reflect what Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, nor are they reflective of any systemic issues within the faith. In such circumstances, the Commission is not given the assistance to which it is entitled. 7.6 Thirdly, some of the findings are either not supported by any reliable, credible or empirical evidence or are inconsistent with evidence given in the Commission, in some cases by persons called by Counsel Assisting. For example, suggested findings F43(a) and (b). No evidence was presented which could support such a finding, nor is it within the Commission’s Terms of Reference. 7.7 Fourthly, some of the findings even if, arguably, within purview of the Terms of Reference could not realistically, or meaningfully, be properly investigated because there is no means by which any reliable evidence could be ascertained. For example, suggested finding F70. There appears to be no Term of Reference that requires the Commission to investigate the “shunning” of adults. Nor could, or will such a finding, assist the Commission in making recommendations about what changes ought to be made so as to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse or to better respond to child sexual abuse, as the so-called “shunning” arises not because of any abuse of a child but because of a decision to reject the beliefs of a faith.50
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 28 to 30, paragraphs 7.8 to 7.13) Appropriate findings and systemic considerations 7.8 Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly expressed the desire to cooperate fully with the Commission and are sympathetic to victims of child sexual abuse. 7.9 One of the most important questions is: What should be done today to better protect children? Another is: What can be done to better respond to cases of child sexual abuse when they occur? In answer to those two questions, findings addressed to systemic issues could be made. 7.10 It has also been accepted that, whatever procedure is adopted, the procedure should respect the rights of the victim and should not further traumatise the victim. The present-day practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to address such concerns. 7.11 If it is borne in mind that the Commission’s findings and recommendations will be read by persons around the world, it emphasises the importance of dealing with “systemic”, and not isolated, issues. 7.12 The Commission’s task of studying institutional responses to child abuse requires findings as to what Jehovah’s Witnesses do: (a) to prevent child sexual abuse from occurring; (b) to protect children from further abuse when it occurs; (c) to report such abuse to the authorities; (d) to deal with the perpetrators of such abuse; and (e) to alleviate the impact of such abuse . 7.13 In respect of such questions, the short answers are: (a) Jehovah’s Witnesses have for several decades published and disseminated literature warning of the dangers of child abuse and helping parents to protect their children from abuse.51 Jehovah’s Witnesses will continue to do so. (b) Jehovah’s Witnesses endeavour to protect children from abuse.52 To that end, they encourage parents to protect their children. They respect that the victim or his/her parents may decide to seek professional help. (c) While most of the 1,006 case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there was no legal obligation for ministers of religion to report, contrary to Counsel Assisting’s assertion, the files on hand confirm that close to 400 cases of abuse have been reported to secular authorities by victims or others. In some cases, the victims or their families have exercised their right not to report the matter to the secular authorities and their decision has been respected by congregation elders. In still other instances, the victims or their families have later decided to report the matter and congregation elders have provided support. Jehovah’s Witnesses, consistent with Australian and international instruments, consider that it is the right of the survivor and/or the survivor’s family to report the matter to secular authorities.53 Where the secular authorities require that it be reported by elders, the elders report the matter to the authorities.54 (d) Those who commit the sin of child abuse are reproved and placed under restrictions or disfellowshipped.55 Even if reinstated, the wrongdoer will be placed under continuing restrictions in order to protect children.56 (e) Like organisations in the secular arena, the procedures and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been improved and changed over the last 27 years in an endeavour to better respond to and alleviate the impact of child sexual abuse. (From page 31, paragraphs 8.3 and 8.5) 8.3 If the Commission’s views are to be respected around the world, as they undoubtedly will and should be, it is of the utmost importance that those reading the Commission’s report and recommendations understand that its approach to the universal problem of child sexual abuse is free of any perception that the findings and recommendations it makes are antithetical to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 8.5 Jehovah’s Witnesses view child sexual abuse as both a sin and a crime. They have fully cooperated with the Commission in fulfilling its task, and are committed to continuing their efforts to prevent child sexual abuse.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From page 32, paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3) 9.2 Counsel Assisting considers that the following finding is available on the evidence: F1 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation presents its members with conflicting and ambiguous teachings regarding their relationship with secular authorities, thereby fostering a distrust of such authorities. 9.3 The evidence referred to by Counsel Assisting at CAS 1.3 does not and, could not, justify such a finding. The suggested finding is not, in any way, relevantly connected to either preventing or responding to child sexual abuse by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It follows, the proposed finding, has little direct bearing on the Terms of Reference. 9.4 The tangential relevance appears to be that if the finding that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a “distrust of authority” is accepted, it justifies a further implied finding that Jehovah’s Witnesses only deal with child sexual abuse internally and are reluctant to report child abuse to authorities because of that distrust. The logic is flawed. It is based on the conflation between dealing with the sin of sexual abuse and the crime of sexual abuse and Counsel Assisting’s lack of understanding of the faith’s teachings on the Scriptures.
Hi Frank Yes, the Royal Commission knows that, too. Additionally, while reading through the document, I notice that the Watchtower Society focuses a lot on how secular authorities and the government legislation deals with child abuse (both now and in the past.) That is not meant to be the focus of this document. The submission of the Counsel representing the Royal Commission (Angus Stewart) analysed the Watchtower Society's policy and procedure and identified its flaws. The submission from the Watchtower Society is supposed to address how it will resolve those flaws. The Watchtower Society is missing the point.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 34 to 36, paragraphs 9.11 to 9.23) Available findings on historical child sexual abuse data 9.11 Counsel Assisting considers that the following two findings are available on the evidence: F2 Since 1950, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia has received allegations of child sexual abuse against 1,006 of its members relating to at least 1,800 victims, and has in that period not reported a single allegation to the police or other authorities, even though 579 of those against whom an allegation was made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse. 9.12 The actual statistic referred to (1,006) needs to be understood in the following context for the following reasons. 9.13 First, it is wrong to assert that 1,006 were “members” since, of those, approximately 200 persons were involved in child abuse, or were the subject of an allegation, prior to their becoming Jehovah’s Witnesses.61 9.14 Secondly, there is no evidence that 1,800 persons were, in fact, victims. An allegation does not mean that a person is a victim. It is well known that in parenting disputes in the context of family law, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse of children may be made.62 Not all such allegations are substantiated, nor are they necessarily true. 9.15 Thirdly, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a broad definition of sexual misconduct that includes, for example, “sexting” between minors.63 Elders are instructed to call the branch office if they learn that a minor is involved in “sexting”. 9.16 Fourthly, when an allegation is made by an adult survivor of child sexual abuse, it is not the right of an organisation to make a report on that adult’s behalf unless the adult requests that it be done. Adults have the right to make such a choice and organisations are not entitled to deny them that right. 9.17 Fifthly, becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is voluntary. Its organisational structure, modelled on the first century Christian congregation, exists to serve God’s purposes. The faith is not an agency or instrumentality of government entrusted with the responsibility for the supervision and care of children. 9.18 Sixthly, while most of the 1,006 case files referred to by Counsel Assisting occurred in jurisdictions where ministers of religion were not mandated reporters, congregation elders are directed to adhere to mandatory reporting regimes when they apply to ministers of religion.64 9.19 While Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia is not legally obligated to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the secular authorities, since August 25, 1989, congregation elders have been directed to contact the branch office in relation to compliance with reporting requirements.65 Further, congregation members are free to report such matters to the secular authorities and many have done so, as is apparent from information provided to the Commission.66 9.20 The suggested finding is unlikely to assist the Commission in making appropriate recommendations about what can be done to better respond to child sexual abuse because it is not placed into any factual context. A mere recitation of numbers will not assist the Commission. 9.21 It should be noted that in many cases, victims or their families did not want the secular authorities involved. In still other cases, the victim may have chosen not to report the abuse until later in life, by which time he or she is an adult. F3 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia receives approximately three to four reports of allegations of child sexual abuse each month. 9.22 In order to ensure that allegations of child sexual abuse are properly handled by congregation elders, they are instructed to contact the branch office if they learn of any broadly-defined sexual misconduct involving minors. The evidence given by Mr Toole was, when read in context, that he received three to four calls a month about “allegations” of child sexual abuse and not reports of ”actual” child sexual abuse.67 9.23 No inquiry was made during the public hearing as to the circumstances of each of the calls made by the elders to the branch office in order to determine if the report involved a non-Witness perpetrator, occurred before the wrongdoer’s association with Jehovah’s Witnesses, if the allegation was historical in nature, or if it was in fact, by definition, child sexual abuse.
It amazes me how long the legal system can stretch things out. Synthetically creates a sort of job security, I guess. Frank
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 63 and 64, paragraphs 9.192 to 9.194) 9.192 Counsel Assisting considers that the following three findings are available on the evidence: F41 There are no circumstances in which the survivor of a sexual assault should have to make her allegation in the presence of the person whom she accuses of having assaulted her, and, contrary to the present position, the documents, manuals and instructions produced by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation should make this clear. 9.193 Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that a child victim of sexual abuse should not have to confront their abuser. Jehovah’s Witness procedures and practices did not and do not require such a confrontation. In those cases where the adult survivor wishes to confront the abuser, however, different considerations may be involved.160 9.194 The suggested finding refers to what may have happened in one particular case of an adult survivor, rather than to the long-standing policies and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses that do not require a victim to confront his/her abuser. The suggested finding is misleading concerning the policies and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The suggested finding implies that: (a) Jehovah’s Witnesses presently require a survivor of a sexual assault to make her allegation in the presence of the accused; and (b) The documents, manuals and instructions produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses are unclear about whether a survivor of sexual assault must face the accused, both of which are contrary to oral testimony161 given before the Commission and documentary evidence162 provided to the Commission. (From page 65, paragraph 9.197) F42 The requirement that two or more eyewitnesses to the same incident are required in the absence of a confession from the accused, the testimony of two or three witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, or strong, circumstantial evidence testified to by at least two witnesses (i.e. the two witness rule): (a) means that in respect of child sexual abuse which almost invariably occurs in private, very often no finding of guilt will be made in respect of a guilty accused 9.197 The suggested finding at F42(a) is a criticism of the Bible’s rule of evidence for establishing sin.164 Counsel Assisting asserts that because abuse occurs in private, “very often no finding of guilt will be made”. If that assertion were true, then one would expect to see that in the vast majority of cases, there would be no finding of guilt of a person within the faith. That assertion is not supported by the statistical evidence presented to the Commission165 and is not supported by the experience in the secular arena. (From pages 66 and 67, paragraphs 9.204, 9.205 and 9.208) (BCB is a survivor of child abuse. She advised Mr Horley, an elder, that she had experienced child abuse.) F42 [The two witness rule]: b) causes victims of child sexual abuse to feel unheard and unsupported when it results in allegations of child sexual abuse not being upheld 9.204 First, in her evidence, BCB stated170 that when she told Max Horley about what had happened to her, “…Max was very kind and supportive. He told me that what has happened was not my fault and that I shouldn’t blame myself”, although BCB also states that,171 “Overall however, I remember that I didn’t feel supported”. Nevertheless, nowhere in her statement does BCB assert that the existence of the two witness rule caused her to feel either “unheard” or “unsupported”. 9.205 Moreover, it is not possible to draw such an inference based upon the experience of these two witnesses, whose abuse occurred in the 1980’s. Every person’s responses in life are unique to that person. Some may consider it “unfair” or “disappointing” or they may be “angry” but they may not consider that they have been “unheard” or “unsupported”. 9.208 Fourthly, even if it were true, no process dealing with the crime of child sexual abuse could abandon a requirement that some evidence be presented. Whether the Scriptural requirement that there be a confession or two witnesses to establish sin should be altered is beyond the Terms of Reference of the Commission and contrary to the fundamental right of freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From page 68, paragraphs 9.210 and 9.211) F42: [The two witness rule]: c) is a danger to children in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation because its consequence is that very often nothing is done about an abuser in the organisation 9.210 No credible or reliable or tested evidence was in fact presented to the Commission to support such a generalised finding that the Scriptural requirement for two witnesses “is a danger to children” and it ought not be made. It also ought not be made for the following additional reasons. 9.211 First, there is no causal connection between the existence of a rule of evidence and whether children within a religious community are at risk of sexual abuse and the assumption that the two are connected is not borne out by any evidence presented to the Commission. It is tantamount to saying that, the requirement of proof of criminal guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that “very often nothing is done about an abuser” secularly if they are not convicted; or that, the hearsay rule should be abandoned because it means that “very often” a truthful person is not relied upon. The rules of evidence are based upon the experience of the Courts in dealing with matters over at least two centuries. The Scriptural rules of evidence are thousands of years old. One aspect of the rules of evidence is to ensure a fair trial of allegations and to ensure that innocent persons are not wrongly convicted. (From pages 69 and 70, paragraphs 9.216 and 9.217) 9.216 However, the event that triggers Jehovah’s Witnesses to take protective action for a victim (and other at risk children) is an allegation of child sexual abuse. Elders are instructed to investigate every allegation of abuse.178 In every case where an allegation of child sexual abuse is made, Jehovah’s Witnesses instigate a range of measures to protect children: (a) The safety of the victim and other children in congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the first concern of elders, the Australia branch and the Governing Body;179 (b) The elders are directed to call the Service Department to “discuss the situation and work out how best to be able to protect the child”;180 (c) The branch office informs congregation elders that steps need to be taken to protect the child;181 (d) The branch office Service Department gives clear advice to the elders on the need to protect the child;182 (e) If the abuser is an elder or ministerial servant, he is deleted and does not continue to function in this capacity;183 (f) The conduct and activities of the accused are closely monitored and the elders implement the directions set out in paragraph 11 of the Letter to Bodies of Elders dated October 1, 2012 Re: Child Abuse;184 (g) The elders may warn the accused or place restrictions on his contact with children; and subsequently disfellowship the accused for breaching those restrictions;185 (h) Two elders may be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning as set out in paragraph 13 of the Letter to Bodies of Elders dated October 1, 2012 Re: Child Abuse;186 (i) If an elder ultimately believes a child is in danger, and the parent or guardian is unwilling to protect the child, the elder can report the matter to the police.187 9.217 At all times during this process, the stated policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that: “If the victim wishes to make a report [to the authorities], it is his or her absolute right to do so.”188
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From pages 71 and 72, paragraphs 9.219 to 9.222) F42 [The two witness rule]: d) does not seem to be applied by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in the case of an accusation of adultery, which suggests that adultery is taken more seriously by the organisation than child sexual abuse 9.219 The suggested finding “that adultery is taken more seriously by the organisation than child sexual abuse” is contrary to the oral evidence given by Mr M Baker, formerly one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, called by Counsel Assisting. Mr Baker, who had no reason to give evidence favourable to Jehovah’s Witnesses having been disfellowshipped and shunned by others, acknowledged that adultery was not regarded as more serious than child sexual abuse.189 9.220 Indeed, no oral evidence of any person with any authority or relevant experience to speak on such matters was presented to the Commission in which it was asserted that it was the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses to take adultery more seriously than child sexual abuse. No one would seriously contend that adultery was a more serious sin than the sin of sexual abuse of a child.190 9.221 For those and other reasons, the assumption regarding the evidence required for establishing adultery is incorrect and is not supported by the oral testimony that was placed before the Commission191 and the literature published and disseminated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.192 9.222 The suggested finding “that adultery is taken more seriously by the organisation than child sexual abuse” is incorrect193 and ought not be made.194 Jehovah’s Witnesses have for decades warned against the abhorrent sin of child abuse195 and have advised that in order to protect a child, the sinner may need to go to jail,196 and Jehovah’s Witnesses will not protect an abuser.197 No one in Australia today is sent to jail for committing adultery.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From page 71, paragraphs 9.223 to 9.225) F42 [The two witness rule]: e) needs to be revisited by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation with a view to abandoning it or at least reformulating it to ensure that safe decisions as to someone being guilty of child sexual abuse can be made more easily. 9.223 The evidential requirements laid down in Scripture for establishing sin are not matters that can be “revisited” or “abandoned” by Jehovah’s Witnesses;198 just as belief in the Bible’s record of Jesus Christ curing the blind or resurrecting the dead cannot be abandoned by Christians, notwithstanding modern-day evidence that such miracles are not humanly possible; nor will the criminal justice system abandon the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, although many no doubt think that such a requirement allows some who are guilty to go free. 9.224 Moreover, the free exercise of religion protected by s.116 of the Constitution means that a person is free to hold a religious belief and is free to act upon that religious belief in respect of matters of sin without interference from the secular authorities.199 It would be beyond the scope of the Terms of Reference of the Commission to require a member of a religious faith to “revisit” or “abandon” their beliefs in order to satisfy another person’s idea of what constitutes a “safe” decision. 9.225 This suggested finding is based on a number of incorrect assumptions. A “safe decision” is not necessarily one that “can be made more easily”. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a determination of guilt in respect of a sinner is based on their understanding of Scriptural evidentiary requirements.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2649236-Submissions-on-Behalf-of-Watchtower-Bible-and.html (From page 73, paragraphs 9.228 to 9.232) F43 The requirement that only elders (i.e. men) can participate in the making of decisions in the investigation process on whether or not someone has committed child sexual abuse: a) is a fundamental flaw in that process which weakens the decisions by excluding women, and b) needs to be revisited by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to ensure a meaningful role for women 9.228 As set out in Part I, no empirical or credible evidence has been placed before the Commission suggesting that a decision made only by men was or is necessarily problematic. 9.229 In relation to F43(b), Jehovah’s Witnesses repeat their submissions in response to suggested finding F42(e). It would be inconsistent with and contrary to the free exercise of religion in Australia for the Commission to find that the members of a religious institution must “revisit” a Scriptural belief. 9.230 It is beyond the scope of the Commission’s Terms of Reference to make findings on what is or is not a “meaningful role” for women within the belief system of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 9.231 In any event, as noted at CAP 351, Mr Geoffrey Jackson gave evidence: “that there is no Biblical impediment to women being involved in the investigation and that two women close to the victim may take the victim’s testimony and convey it to the investigating elders.” 9.232 However, with regard to making decisions or judgments in the Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, this responsibility is assigned to the men who are appointed as elders.