The criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their various regulations, from handling of child abuse matters to the prevention of medically accepted procedures such as the transfusion of blood, have resulted in a “smear” campaign against opposers of Witness policies.

Those who find themselves as dissenting, former members of the religion are referred to as “apostates” who are “mentally diseased” according to Witness publications.

The religion of Scientology has a parallel term – they call that person a “suppressive” individual. As stated on their website:

“To be declared a Suppressive Person is extremely rare and results in expulsion from the Scientology religion. This occurs in instances of serious offenses against the Scientology faith and can also occur when an individual is found to be actively working to suppress the well-being of others” “When someone has been expelled from the religion, that person loses both his or her fellowship with the Church as well as with other Scientologists” – Scientology website

For Jehovah’s Witnesses, the overwhelming fear of mingling with such individuals or reading their books, articles or web sites is so ingrained, that anyone caught reading or agreeing with this information is subject to the disfellowshipping process, leaving the questioning Witness completely isolated, without friends, family, or the support network he or she desperately needs to function as a normal human being.

That said, it is a welcome relief when independent news or governmental organizations publish facts and data which originate, not from “apostate” sources, but from agencies and professionals who seek the well-being of all members of our society, particularly the most vulnerable, our children.

While there is no escaping the fact that these pseudo-religious organizations will attempt to paint the negative reports as propaganda inspired by “Satan”, the modern day Jehovah’s Witness can indulge himself in further research without the same stigma associated with reading blatant “apostate” material. This is a loophole created by the reality that most Witnesses will at least read or watch some measure of media reports and articles to keep up with the news, while being adamantly told by Governing Body leaders that they MUST avoid opposition websites.

The end result is that some Witnesses (though not the majority) can feel justified in reading unbiased court documents, research surveys, or government reports without directly connecting them with apostate material.

This brings us to the latest report from the Australian Government and its ongoing investigation into institutions which have fallen dreadfully short of the mark when it comes to reporting cases of child abuse, in particular among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In the past 2 years, JW Survey has published dozens of articles on the subject of child abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness organization, with a climax in 2015 when we learned that the Australian Government initiated an investigation into multiple institutions whose policies seriously endangered children. For Witnesses, it was the result of the archaic application of the “two-witness” rule, and the policy of failing to contact police or child protection authorities when abuse was discovered by Witness elders.

While Witnesses still remain in denial over the allegations and findings of such commissions, the presentation of vast volumes of evidence, witness testimony, and cross examination of Jehovah’s Witness elders, attorneys and even Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson has left no doubt that the inquiry was thorough, well documented, and available for the worldwide public to view live from the comfort of their own homes. The exhibits are published HERE, and recorded video for all testimony can be viewed on YouTube following this link.

If you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please view those links, we assure you they are not apostate material.

The 2015 Australian Royal Commission changed everything, and the awareness created has led to countless individuals coming forward to share their stories of abuse and the subsequent cover up by Witness elders due to organizational policy. One very recent example is the case of Tricia Franginha, whose YouTube video immediately went viral when she revealed the extreme trauma of her sexual abuse at the hands of her father, and the unbelievable cover-up which resulted from the lack of action from congregation elders.

While the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is still ongoing, we are pleased to report that as of November 28th 2016, the Commission has released a 110 page report on Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to put it mildly, there is not a single positive determination revealed, either from the original investigation in the summer of 2015, or in the subsequent submissions by both the Royal Commission and the defense of Jehovah’s Witness leadership.

For those who wish to read the entire report, the document can be read and downloaded here

Though we have not yet had time to process and post every finding, there are some key sections of this document which reveal the unfortunate results of this extensive investigation. On page 77 of this document we find the following topic: (italics and bold ours)

“Response of the Jehovah’s Witness Organisation to the Sexual Abuse of Children”

“Having regard to the various matters we have discussed in this report, we have reached a number of general conclusions on the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s response to the sexual abuse of children.

We do not consider the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to be an organisation which responds adequately to child sexual abuse. We do not believe that children are adequately protected from the risk of sexual abuse for the following reasons:

• The organisation relies on outdated policies and practices to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse. Also, those policies and practices are not subject to ongoing and continuous review. The policies and practices are, by and large, wholly inappropriate and unsuitable for application in cases of child sexual abuse. The organisation’s retention and continued application of policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse shows a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse.

• The organisation’s internal disciplinary system for addressing complaints of child sexual abuse is not child or survivor focused in that it is presided over by males and offers a survivor little or no choice about how their complaint is addressed.

• The sanctions available within the organisation’s internal disciplinary system are weak and leave perpetrators of child sexual abuse at large in the organisation and the community.

• In deciding the sanctions to impose and/or precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator, the organisation has inadequate regard to the risk that that perpetrator might reoffend. This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the nature and impact of child sexual abuse.

• The organisation’s general practice of not reporting serious instances of child sexual abuse to police or authorities – in particular, where the complainant is a child – demonstrates a serious failure by the organisation to provide for the safety and protection of children in the organisation and in the community.”

The statements by the Commission as quoted above require very little explanation. In addition to to the outright and obvious flaws in the Jehovah’s Witness treatment of sexual abuse victims, the authorities involved delved even deeper into the psychology of Witness mind control, and revealed just how devastating it is to be subjected not only to abuse, but the anguish experienced by victims who were further victimized by being shunned by an organization which often sides with the perpetrator rather than the victim. One example is the case of victim BCG. The Commission reported:

“BCG has at times feared being ostracised, shunned and vilified by those around her. She said that she has always lived in fear of her father and that she had lived in fear of Jehovah. BCG told the Royal Commission that, during the criminal proceedings against her father, she was terrified that Jehovah would kill her for having reported to the police and for bringing reproach upon his name

Fear and control of the emotions of victims was not overlooked by the team of investigators who examined every aspect of Witness culture.

In terms of raw processed data, the following information was presented in the 110 page report:

“Analysis of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s files also showed that:”

“• the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse • 579 of those against whom allegations were made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse • of the 1,006 members against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made, 108 were elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse • 28 alleged perpetrators were appointed as elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them • 401 alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse and 230 of those alleged perpetrators were later reinstated • of those disfellowshipped, 78 were disfellowshipped on more than one occasion as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse • In relation to the data, The Watchtower & Ors submitted that: • there was no evidence before the Royal Commission that there were 1,800 victims • the Jehovah’s Witness organisation uses a broad definition of reportable sexual misconduct and that definition includes ‘sexting’ • it is the right of an adult survivor of child sexual abuse to decide to report his or her abuse to the police and not that of the organisation • there was no relevant legislated mandated reporting obligation in most of the jurisdictions in which the 1,006 alleged perpetrators were reported • in many cases, ‘victims or their families did not want the secular authorities involved’ • a ‘mere recitation of numbers will not help the [Royal] Commission’. We do not find it necessary to comment on these submissions. The numbers tell their own story. Most of these matters are addressed elsewhere in this report.”

During the initial inquest, Watchtower attorney Vincent Toole openly admitted that Sydney Bethel headquarters received at minimum 3-4 calls regarding sexual abuse cases every month (in Australia alone), which was followed by this comment from the commission:

“Mr Toole’s evidence on the frequency of calls about child sexual abuse is consistent with the number and frequency of allegations of child sexual abuse that is shown in the files that Watchtower Australia produced to the Royal Commission. Therefore, we are satisfied that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia receives approximately three to four reports of allegations of child sexual abuse each month.”

One needs to recall that the information provided by Mr Toole is current information, revealing that despite minor changes in Witness child abuse policies in the past 20 years, there has been no decrease whatsoever in child abuse allegations, leading one to conclude that the image of “Jehovah’s protection” upon his visible organization is just that – an image, or an imagined truth with no foundation.

In further testimony under oath, Watchtower solicitor Toole was forced to admit that the sexual abuse cases which eventually made their way to the police and other civil authorities did so without the cooperation of Jehovah’s Witness elders. The Commission concluded:

“There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation either had or did not have a role or any involvement in bringing to the attention of secular authorities any complaint of child sexual abuse that was investigated by secular authorities. We are satisfied that it is the general practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities unless required to do so by law.”

The Two Witness Rule

Another topic covered extensively during the Royal Commission was the archaic application of what Jehovah’s Witness call the “two-witness” rule, a device which demands a 2nd Witness to a crime (such as child abuse) – which clearly never exits in cases of child molestation. Yet the JW Governing Body cling to this doctrine despite every opportunity to abandon this teaching without compromising their core beliefs. The commission concluded:

“A complainant of child sexual abuse whose allegation has not been corroborated by confession by their abuser or a second ‘credible’ eyewitness is necessarily disempowered and subjected to ongoing traumatisation. To place a victim of child sexual abuse in such a position is today, and was 30 years ago, unacceptable and wrong. The Royal Commission considers that, in the interests of child safety, institutions should review and improve all of their policies on child sexual abuse. The two-witness rule is an example of a policy position that, on the evidence before the Royal Commission, has not been revised or improved since the Jehovah’s Witness organisation was founded in the late 19th century. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on, and applies inflexibly even in the context of child sexual abuse, a rule which was devised more than 2,000 years ago.”

Sanctions against Abusers

The internal tribunals held among Jehovah’s Witness elders lead most Witnesses to believe that they are safe from sexual predators, but in reality, even when such individuals are spiritually “convicted” and reproved or disfellowshipped, the danger to additional victims still exists. The commission correctly observed:

“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.”

As proven by the details of the Australian investigation as well as common knowledge of sexual predators, even Watchtower representative Spinks admitted that JW elders most often do not take into consideration recidivism among child molesters. The commission stated as a result:

“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.”

Shunning Condemned

It is no mystery that the Australian Commission has taken into account the extreme trauma faced by victims who have not only been abused (in many cases by Witnesses in authority) – but when they extricate themselves from this toxic organization to salvage their mental health and well being, they are further traumatized by experiencing complete shunning, either by disassociating themselves from the organization, or by being disfellowshipped for speaking out against the harms inflicted on them by Watchtower’s policy. While we cannot divulge details at the moment, JW Survey is currently investigating one case where multiple elders were recently removed from their positions as the direct result of speaking to the police regarding the molestation charges brought against one Jehovah’s Witness member.

It’s bad enough that JW elders would be removed and disciplined for cooperating with the authorities, but worse yet, abuse victims receive a double-dose of anguish when faced with the inability to speak up about the injustices they faced, for fear of extreme congregational discipline. Said the Commission:

“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”

Report Conclusion:

It is no surprise that with all of the evidence presented in the findings of the Commission, including the woefully damaging testimony of hired Watchtower “expert” Dr. Monica Applewhite, The report found no other recourse but to indict the Watchtower organization as lacking any proper consideration, sympathy and meaningful handling of the child abuse cases it had been made aware of for more than 50 years. Justice McClelland and his team were clearly appalled that the highest ranking member subpoenaed, Geoffrey Jackson, openly admitted that he had not even read or reviewed the testimony of the women whose lives were destroyed by Watchtower policies, but who bravely came forward to tell their stories.

The summary stated:

“Having regard to the various matters we have discussed in this report, we have reached a number of general conclusions on the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s response to the sexual abuse of children.

We do not consider the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to be an organisation which responds adequately to child sexual abuse. We do not believe that children are adequately protected from the risk of sexual abuse for the following reasons:

The organisation relies on outdated policies and practices to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse. Also, those policies and practices are not subject to ongoing and continuous review. The policies and practices are, by and large, wholly inappropriate and unsuitable for application in cases of child sexual abuse. The organisation’s retention and continued application of policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse shows a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse.

The organisation’s internal disciplinary system for addressing complaints of child sexual abuse is not child or survivor focused in that it is presided over by males and offers a survivor little or no choice about how their complaint is addressed.

The sanctions available within the organisation’s internal disciplinary system are weak and leave perpetrators of child sexual abuse at large in the organisation and the community.

In deciding the sanctions to impose and/or precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator, the organisation has inadequate regard to the risk that that perpetrator might reoffend. This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the nature and impact of child sexual abuse.

The organisation’s general practice of not reporting serious instances of child sexual abuse to police or authorities – in particular, where the complainant is a child – demonstrates a serious failure by the organisation to provide for the safety and protection of children in the organisation and in the community.”

As recently reported by JW Survey, the Royal Commission of Australia is far from finished with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Beginning March 20th 2017, an additional inquiry will be opened, with emphasis on the policies and procedures of the Witness organization which have contributed to the thousands of cases of abuse reported so far, and the methods by which the government will deal with this organization.

The real tragedy is that for both victims and Watchtower alike, most of this could have been avoided. The light at the end of the tunnel is the assurance that the unbiased investigation and exposure of Watchtower’s destructive policies will certainly lead to the awakening of countless individuals who have placed their trust in an organization that has victimized its own adherents.

Further reading…

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2016-11/report-into-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witness-organisations-releas

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney

Related video…