Jehovah's Witnesses Confront Big Trouble in New Zealand With CSA | Watchtower
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Jehovah's Witnesses have failed in an eleventh hour attempt to block part of a lengthy report about abuse in care that is about them.
#jehovahwitnesses #newzealand @watchtower
About time they get publicly exposed for who they are.
The WT Cult is very very dangerous and distractive organisation and should be stopped now
It's always nice to see JWs exposed publicly as the normal people they actually are
He shouldve been present in the court case to see just how many witnesses there actually are.
And jet,most western countries would continue to give them big money handouts in support for their activities.
Countries should follow the lead of Norway and take away charity status from the org ...
Brother. Was concerned about you. Imagined the worst, but hoped for the best.
For d algorithm! Looking forward to the next video now you are back. Saddened about the content of CSA in this organisation and children suffering and the stubborn refusal to acknowledge this.
Which church are preaching the gospel of the kingdom around the world to all nations as Jesus Christ said? Matthew 10:16, 24:14, 28:19-20, Mark 13:10, if not only only only the Jehovah's witnesses..
Thank you for covering this issue.
Which church are preaching the gospel of the kingdom around the world to all nations as Jesus Christ said? Matthew 10:16, 24:14, 28:19-20, Mark 13:10, if not only only only the Jehovah's witnesses..
@vusimngomezulu2500; if you can't seem to stop parroting the same question over and over, get out. We are getting tired of seeing it. Yes, it is getting stale.
@@vusimngomezulu2500
Gospel of the Kingdom is "PROTECTING PEDIPHILES under a law that is around 3,000 years old when there were NO forensic science, truth drugs, hypnosis, lie detector machines available ??
The 2 Witnesses is, under Jesus days, 2,000 years old.
The WTS (WARLOCK'S OR WICKED TOWER OF SINS) will NOT engage in forensic science as NO doubt they see it as "demonic".
Such science would expose Jehovah's Witnesses to the world as a CULT worshipping men who claim to be ANNOINTED by Jehovah's Spirit but are NEITHER INSPIRED NOR INFALLIBLE.
FALSE SHEPHERDS !!
WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!!
CHARLATANS!!
Greedy for money to continue their falsehoods, their criminal activities.
Preaching "Wait on Jehovah" while criminal activity abounds.
CULPABILITY is on their shoulders.
Blood of those who were left out in the cold is on their hands.
At this point I recommend readers Google this song: "I'm a stranger in my home".
Singer (Duet) Kitty Wells.
It is an old ding going back to the 1950s.
It might be taken as the THEME SONG for every person treated badly by these 9 geriatrics called the Governing Body.
The faithful and discreet slave class.
Be warned !! This song is HEART BRAKING !!
@@georgebrown8312 I just report him for Spam. Me too I am sick and tired of his spamming and promoting the interest of that business corporation.
@@vusimngomezulu2500have you took your medicine? Where's your contience?
Nice to see your back.ive missed your videos.looking forward to the next one
Hello nice to see you back, and you're looking well. I was only trying to remember the name of your channel yesterday (old brain forgets easily) because of all the work you did on Fishkill.
Welcome back. Always enjoyed your videos.
Wow so nice to know you were fine. Thank you for being back!
Thank you
Dude! Where have you been?
Welcome back!! Let's get this ball on the roll.❤
Great Job Thanks
Why are the JWs stonewalling this ? It is an inquiry, now they looks suspicious...😮😮😮
⭐He's back! 💜💙💜
Thank you
Part 2
In addressing child sexual abuse (CSA), it's crucial to recognize that the battle extends beyond merely capturing or preventing perpetrators. An equally important fight involves confronting those who push a malicious agenda against specific religious or institutional groups. Such actions can distract from broader issues and serve to protect the most significant culprits by focusing public outrage on particular organizations, while the most egregious offenders escape scrutiny. These individuals or groups often fuel hatred against specific institutions, despite the fact that all CSA victims deserve equal attention and support. It's noteworthy that many who comment disparagingly about certain groups rarely engage in meaningful support for CSA victims, such as participating in support groups or providing financial assistance. They present themselves as champions of CSA protection, yet their contributions to real, impactful support are scarce. Additionally, the inquiry's initial focus on state-run institutions, followed by an extension to faith-based institutions, did not originally include Jehovah’s Witnesses. The subsequent 2023 amendment that included JWs as the only religious group fitting a broader application raises serious questions about the fairness and scope of the investigation. This late and selective inclusion appears to serve a narrative that detracts from the larger CSA crisis, allowing others to manipulate media content and obscure their own involvement in CSA activities. Such targeted negativity and narrow focus hinder genuine progress in addressing CSA and protecting victims comprehensively.
Comprehensive Review of the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Overview of the Inquiry’s Original Scope
The commission established to investigate child sexual abuse (CSA) aimed to address systemic failures across a wide range of institutions and organizations. Initially, the inquiry's terms of reference were designed to be broad and inclusive, covering various potential abuse scenarios to ensure a comprehensive investigation. The objective was to uncover systemic issues and failures without singling out any particular group or institution. This inclusive approach was intended to examine CSA across different contexts, identifying problems in policies and practices that could lead to abuse. By doing so, the inquiry sought to provide a thorough understanding of CSA, ensuring that all relevant parties were examined fairly and equitably.
The amendment to include Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) in the inquiry's scope occurred just before the final report was due, which has led to significant scrutiny. Critics argue that this late addition could indicate an attempt to target JWs specifically, raising concerns about potential external influences or agendas behind this decision. The timing of the amendment is particularly contentious, as it may suggest that the inclusion was not based on objective criteria but rather on reactive measures or external pressures. The key question remains why Jehovah’s Witnesses were added so late in the process and how this impacts the perceived fairness and thoroughness of the overall investigation. This late inclusion raises concerns about whether the inquiry has been conducted with full impartiality.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have faced significant scrutiny over CSA allegations due to their unique internal judicial processes and confidentiality norms. While the organization condemns CSA and asserts its commitment to protecting victims, its handling of such cases has been controversial. The internal processes, including their approach to confidentiality and the protection of alleged perpetrators, have been criticized in various legal and public contexts. Despite efforts to address these issues, the specific practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses have faced legal challenges and public debate, which adds complexity to their inclusion in the inquiry. The scrutiny of their practices raises questions about how well these issues are addressed compared to those of other organizations.
The role of biased reporting and online content creators in shaping public perception of CSA issues is significant. Many online platforms and media sources have disproportionately focused on CSA cases within the Jehovah’s Witnesses community, often presenting them in a sensationalized manner. This selective focus can reinforce negative biases and contribute to an unbalanced view of CSA across different groups. Online content creators frequently highlight specific allegations or controversial aspects of JWs’ handling of CSA, which can skew public perception and overshadow similar issues within other religious groups.
Media coverage of CSA varies significantly across different religious groups. The Catholic Church has received extensive media attention due to high-profile scandals, while CSA issues in other religions are often less prominently featured. The focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses in media reporting, particularly in the context of the inquiry, may overshadow broader CSA issues affecting multiple organizations. Balanced media coverage is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of CSA across different contexts. The current emphasis on JWs, coupled with limited coverage of CSA in other religions, contributes to a skewed perception of the problem.
Public perception of the CSA inquiry and its focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses is influenced by misconceptions and misinformation. The perception that JWs are being unfairly targeted can be exacerbated by biased reporting and selective media coverage. This can lead to a one-sided understanding of CSA issues, neglecting the broader context and complexities of the problem. Addressing these misconceptions and providing accurate information about CSA across different contexts is essential for fostering a balanced view and promoting justice.
The late addition of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the inquiry, combined with the focus on their practices, may have significant implications. The perception of targeting can affect public trust in the inquiry’s objectivity and fairness. It may also impact the reputation of JWs, reinforcing negative stereotypes and biases. Ensuring that the inquiry addresses CSA issues across all relevant groups with equal rigor is crucial for maintaining credibility and promoting a fair outcome. The targeted focus can undermine the perceived integrity of the inquiry and affect how CSA issues are addressed and reported.
To address the concerns raised by the late inclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, several aspects should be examined. First, transparency in decision-making is essential; clear justifications for including JWs should be provided to address perceptions of targeting. Second, a comprehensive investigation should cover CSA issues across all relevant groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and other major religions, to ensure equitable scrutiny. Third, balanced media reporting is necessary to avoid reinforcing negative biases and provide a fair representation of CSA issues across different religions. Finally, addressing public misconceptions and providing accurate information about CSA is crucial for fostering a balanced understanding and promoting justice for all victims.
It is important to state unequivocally that I do not support or condone child sexual abuse (CSA) in any context. CSA is one of the most heinous crimes and requires urgent and comprehensive action to eradicate it wherever it occurs. My concern lies in the broader context and the perceived focus of the inquiry. While Jehovah’s Witnesses are included in the inquiry, the overall percentage of cases within this group is relatively small compared to the total number of abuse cases globally. This focus on a smaller group raises concerns that millions of cases, occurring across a range of institutions and organizations, may not receive the same level of attention. My abhorrence of CSA is clear, and it is crucial to address this issue comprehensively and equitably, ensuring that no group is unfairly targeted while larger problems are overlooked.
The late inclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the CSA inquiry, alongside the relative lack of detailed investigation into other religious groups with significant CSA concerns, raises important questions about the fairness and objectivity of the inquiry process. The perceived targeting of JWs, combined with biased reporting and selective media coverage, contributes to a skewed view of CSA across various organizations. A comprehensive approach to addressing CSA requires balanced scrutiny of all relevant groups and equitable reporting in the media. Ensuring fairness and objectivity in the inquiry process and public discourse is essential for a thorough and impartial examination of CSA issues. By addressing these concerns, the inquiry can better serve its purpose of uncovering the truth about CSA and promoting justice for all victims, regardless of the religious or institutional context.
This review integrates detailed analyses of the inquiry's focus, compares CSA issues across major religions, and addresses the impact of biased reporting and public perception. It aims to provide a thorough and balanced perspective on the inclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the broader implications for the CSA inquiry, reflecting a deep concern for justice and a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved.
YOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I missed you bro!!!!! U beeen gone awhile !!!!!! Great to see ya!!!!! You doin ok!!!!????
All is well, thanks
Only because the opposition cheated.
Explain?
@@peterkotara They changed the meaning of "being under an organization's care" so that they could chastise the Watchtower for something they do not do, care for kids.
Bull. This argument has been covered in both Australia and the UK previously. They have adult volunteers that do baptism questions and other closed door meetings with kids. Predatory adults can also find ways to be alone with kids during field service assignments. There are known cases where perpetrators used that exact arrangement to commit their crimes. And no organization probed was held to a standard where incidents that occurred during officially sanctioned and planned activities was the only scenario considered. All other institutions were under scrutiny for what employees or volunteers did on their free time that they knew about. You can keep throwing out this red herring alongside the organization as if it changes anything. The issue is that the organization knew of members, many of them in appointed leadership roles, who were targeting kids, and they mishandled their response to that information. And their mishandling keeps following the same patterns. It's pathetic for anyone who actually knows about these cases to defend them at this point. @@koppadasao
Would you be interested in explaining this on video?
@@watchingtheworld777 No, it should be easy enough to understand the term 'care'.
The Watchtower own no orphanages where they care for children, or any other institution for children. All Watchtower do is produce literature, books and leaflets, and supply guidelines for the congregations and the members of the congregations. Watchtower does not care for children, that's for the parents or guardians.
Ask yourself these questions:
When you leave the kids you care for with other members of the family, friends of the family, and friends of the kids, do you trust that they will treat them well?
When you do this, whose care are the kids under, yours or whomever you allow them to visit?
Who's responsibility is it to ensure that anyone you're willing to leave the kids with, will treat them well?
Of course you trust that whomever you leave the kids with will treat them well, and while they visit someone else, they are still under your care, as it is your responsibility to ensure that those they are visiting treat them well.
It's the same among JWs. Can the kids end up being assaulted when parents and guardians allow them to visit other people? Yes, but the risk is the same for you as it is for a JW.
Part 1
In reviewing the recent coverage of the child sexual abuse (CSA) inquiry and its focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs), it is crucial to address the misleading tactics used by certain content creators. The TH-cam content creator’s video begins with a dramatic introduction and a misleading title such as “Jehovah's Witnesses Confront Big Trouble in New Zealand With CSA | Watchtower.” This title is crafted as sensational clickbait, designed to suggest that the primary focus of the report is on JWs, even though the inquiry covers a broader spectrum of abuse across multiple institutions. Such titles intentionally set up an expectation that JWs are at the center of the issue, skewing viewers’ perceptions before they even engage with the actual content.
The video then continues with a dramatic narrative that frames JWs as the central figure in the controversy. Phrases like “troubling story” and “shadow over the Jehovah's Witnesses” are deliberately chosen to create an association between the allegations of abuse and JWs, despite the inquiry’s broader scope. This framing intentionally prepares viewers to perceive the subsequent factual news content as primarily about JWs, thereby misrepresenting the inquiry's focus and findings.
The news report, in contrast, provides a more balanced and factual account, detailing the legal battles of JWs regarding their attempt to suppress parts of the report. While JWs are mentioned, the report also covers abuse across various state and faith-based institutions. By selectively emphasizing JWs in the video title and narrative, the content creator minimizes the broader context and leads viewers to believe that JWs are disproportionately targeted in the report. This selective focus creates a distorted perception that unfairly highlights JWs while overshadowing the comprehensive examination of abuse across multiple institutions.
This approach by the content creator is ethically concerning as it misrepresents the nature of the inquiry and the scope of the report. The misleading clickbait title and the subsequent framing of the discussion are deliberate tactics to skew audience perception, reinforcing existing biases against JWs and inflaming public sentiment. Such tactics not only misguide the audience but also undermine the integrity of the inquiry by diverting attention from the broader issues of CSA.
The impact of such misleading content is significant. It fosters an erroneous belief that JWs are the central subject of the inquiry, overshadowing the extensive examination of abuse across various institutions. This not only distorts the findings of the inquiry but also contributes to a biased narrative that unfairly targets a specific group. It is essential to recognize that the inquiry’s purpose is to address systemic issues and failures across all relevant institutions, not to single out any one group.
Moreover, this content creator’s approach highlights a broader issue in media reporting on CSA. By focusing narrowly on JWs and using sensationalist tactics, there is a risk of diverting attention from the full scope of the problem. This can perpetuate a skewed understanding of CSA and hinder efforts to address the issue comprehensively. Responsible reporting should aim to provide a balanced view that reflects the full extent of the inquiry's findings and avoids reinforcing negative stereotypes or biases.
In conclusion, the misleading tactics used by certain content creators, including the sensationalist clickbait title, not only distort the public’s perception of the CSA inquiry but also undermine the overall discussion of abuse. It is crucial for media coverage to remain objective and comprehensive, addressing all relevant institutions and cases fairly. By focusing on the broader context and ensuring balanced reporting, we can better understand and address the complexities of CSA and work towards effective solutions that acknowledge the experiences of all victims, not just those associated with specific groups.
@@jahtruthdefender his channel is covering developments on JW. He is a former Bethelite who makes videos about Watchtower. Everyone that watches the channel and follows JW news elsewhere knows he is covering specifically the JW involvement. He never claimed only witnesses are involved. This is the typical strawman argument that active witnesses have to employ in order to defend the organization online because God forbid you look at the actual inquiry and the number of cases and how the cases were mishandled by Watchtower higher ups. You get to write 3 paragraphs setting up and knocking down this strawman and then never actually addressing the developments relevant to JW and their participation in this government inquiry, which follows the same pattern of past government inquiries. They spend time trying to get out of it with their own strawmen about how these investigations are only supposed to look at abuse cases that happened by appointed religious leaders on the clock of official church-sanctioned events with kids officially under their care, which therefore disqualifies them from being investigated or held accountable because they "don't sponsor activities that have children under their care." That narrow standard was not applied to the other organizations either. The other organizations are also facing scrutiny for what their members did, which they found out about and documented, in unofficial church activities and in their free time. Watchtower lawyers also constantly lie about kids being alone with adults never being part of JW activities when their own video lessons show children and teens of single parents being mentored by other adults in the congregation. Once these panels see through their lies and pointless strawman arguments, they press on with the investigations, they always find a bunch of cases of CSA that all follow the same patterns. Their level of involvement with members' lives means victims often go to them with abuse claims, and they also summon the accused for internal discipline hearings. They often extract more details and in some cases extract confessions of the offender targeting multiple kids. They find out members, some of them appointed leaders, have credible or confirmed accusations against them, give them some brief internal discipline, reinstate them into the congregation, and since there are no mandatory reporter laws compelling them to report in any of the countries that have done these royal commissions so far, they don't report any of the predators to police or child services, leaving current victims, other kids in the congregation, and other kids in the wider community in danger of future abus*. This is what they find every single time. They also broaden the scope of their report to how abus* victims who disclose to them are treated, which is absolutely a role JW elders take on and have taken on, which also makes them qualified participants in the investigations. Australia suggested a process other than 3 adult men alone in a room with female victims. They suggested sisters in the congregation could be appointed a role to be with female victims in these meetings as an advocate. These are all things that make JW's qualified to be looked at for these inquiries, and all relevant details as to how they deserve the criticism they have received for their policies and procedures. But you won't discuss that will you? That might mean you'd have to question the superiority of "God's Earthly Channel," even though their track record with these things is no better than the Catholic church, and in some ways worse, when you consider the leader of the Catholic Church had the humility to publicly acknowledge their mishandling of past cases and apologize for them, while the Governing Body continues to lie and gaslight about it even being a problem in the first place.
@@Angry20Something I understand exactly what this channel is about: promoting hatred. My issue is with the willful and deliberate misuse of facts to fuel such animosity. This is the premise of my comments, and I am still waiting for a response from the content creator, who was eager to hear my perspective. Are you their spokesperson?
Your comment does not effectively address the specific issues I raised regarding the video’s portrayal of the inquiry into JWs. Let me clarify why your response is irrelevant and fails to counter my original concerns.
Firstly, your characterisation of my critique as a “strawman argument” is inaccurate. My main concern was that the video misrepresented the scope of the inquiry and selectively highlighted certain aspects while neglecting broader context. This selective portrayal distorts the true nature of the inquiry, which is the essence of my critique. The issue isn’t whether the inquiry itself is valid, but rather how the video inaccurately reflects its findings.
Secondly, you incorrectly imply that my critique is about disputing the overall scope of the inquiry. In reality, my concern lies with how the video narrows the focus to mislead viewers about JWs’ involvement and the handling of abuse cases. The video’s failure to present a complete and accurate picture of the inquiry’s findings is central to my argument, not the general scope of the inquiry itself.
Moreover, the discussion in your comment about JWs’ practices involving children does not address my issue with the video’s representation. The video’s selective focus and misrepresentation of the inquiry’s findings are the core problems, not the specifics of JWs' internal practices. This discrepancy in focus undermines the viewer’s understanding of the inquiry’s true scope and implications, potentially fueling biased feelings and emotions among viewers. This disingenuous portrayal can have a misleading and negative effect on innocent viewers who are not aware of the full context.
Your points regarding reporting and accountability, including mandatory reporting laws and internal disciplinary actions, are also red herrings. These aspects do not pertain to the video’s selective portrayal of the inquiry. My critique is about how the video distorts the comprehensive findings of the inquiry, not about the specific legal or procedural issues surrounding JWs' handling of abuse.
Additionally, the inclusion of JWs in the inquiry and criticisms of their handling of abuse, as mentioned in your comment, are irrelevant to my main concern. The problem with the video is its biased representation of the inquiry’s scope and findings, not the legitimacy of JWs’ inclusion or the nature of the criticisms against them.
Lastly, comparisons to other institutions, such as the Catholic Church, do not address the heart of my critique. The key issue is the video’s misleading portrayal of the inquiry, which skews the viewer’s understanding of JWs’ involvement and the inquiry’s findings. Comparing JWs’ handling of abuse to other organizations does not resolve the issue of the video’s biased representation.
In conclusion, your response completely fails to address the central issue of my critique, which is the video’s selective and misleading portrayal of the inquiry into JWs'. By focusing on unrelated issues, your comment does not effectively counter the core problem I highlighted. Furthermore, the video’s disingenuous presentation risks providing a distorted view to unsuspecting viewers.
@Angry20Something This really made my day... I need you on the team.
This video is the usual will deceptive information. Look at all the loves given to those that have fallen for it.
Feel free to explain how it's deceptive.. would love to hear your explanation
Please explain cult member.
@@HenriettaMRiley Your comment has much to say on the nature of your character and personality, and I don't mean in a positive way either!
You don't know the first thing about who I am or what I do in life. Yet you have the audacity to label me as a "cult member"
If only people like you were libel for your words and worth suing, our courts would be inundated.
@@jahtruthdefender
Did your feelings get hurt?
(Of course you say they weren’t just to protect yourself and not look silly, that’s some little complex you got there bro)
Would that be the basis of your lawsuit? Hurt feelings? If only the courts would accept such a claim I’d love to turn up and see your face when they tell you to grow up.
Get a grip wall flower and answer the question.
Give an explanation for what you wrote…
@@HenriettaMRiley Nothing you could say would have an iota of an adverse effect on me.
If comprehension was one of your skill sets, you’d know it’s only to do the content of your character. Evidence from your choice of judging. Don’t worry your small minded self as it’s coming.