JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
10 Years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES
10 Years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.
Written by Lester Somrah - June 2, 2023
Wellington, New Zealand - On Friday 2nd June 2023, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Limited filed an application for judicial review against the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in Care, New Zealand. According to its media release on its website, the Royal Commission stated:
The Royal Commission confirms that the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Limited has filed an application for judicial review, arguing that it is outside the scope of the Royal Commission’s terms of reference. The church seeks declarations from the High Court that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not assume responsibility for the care of children, young people or vulnerable people in New Zealand and there are no instances of abuse by the Jehovah Witnesses’ faith within scope of the Inquiry based on the evidence before the Royal Commission, together with several other declarations about the Royal Commission’s process.
The Terms of Reference Reprint as at 5 August 2021 Full version outlines the following scope regarding the Royal Commission’s investigation of faith-based institutions, in its preamble.
Reflecting on the period between the 1950s and late 1990s, when many children and young persons from all communities were removed from their families and placed in care;
Reflecting also that a number of children, young persons, and vulnerable adults entered the care of faith-based institutions;
Acknowledging that a significant number of those removed from their families and placed in care were from Māori and Pacific communities;
Recognising that many of these children, young persons, and vulnerable adults were people affected by disabilities, mental illness, or both.
It further states the following:
Purpose and scope - The matter of public importance which the inquiry is directed to examine is the historical abuse of children, young persons, and vulnerable adults in State care and in the care of faith-based institutions. – page 6.
In the care of faith-based institutions means where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual, including faith-based schools, and for the avoidance of doubt, care provided by faith-based institutions excludes fully private settings, except where the person was also in the care of a faith-based institution. – pages 11 and 12.
Examples of “faith-based institutions” can be found in the Royal Commission's Size of cohorts and levels of abuse in State and faith-based care 1950 to 2019 Report. They include children’s homes, orphanages, borstals, hostels, family homes and foster homes, as well as disabled or disturbed children’s residences; religious boarding schools; disability care settings included homes for disturbed children, those with behavioral problems and those with disabilities; wider care settings within the church, such as Sunday schools and youth groups, and programs run or affiliated by a church or other religious group such as holiday programs (pages 72 and 73).
Jehovah's Witnesses do not own or operate any of the above institutions and programs in New Zealand.
Terms of Reference Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (ARC) – Australia (May 2013 to November 2017).
The Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was outlined in extensive detail in Volume 1, Our inquiry. They included the following:
An ‘institution’, for the purposes of the inquiry, was defined broadly. It included, for example, any entity that ‘provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families’. – page 17
Child sexual abuse occurs in different contexts, including in the family and in the community. However, our inquiry was directed to consider child sexual abuse in an ‘institutional context’. The Terms of Reference provided that child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:
it happens on premises of an institution, where activities of an institution take place, or in connection with the activities of an institution;
or (ii) it is engaged in by an official of an institution in circumstances (including circumstances involving settings not directly controlled by the institution) where you consider that the institution has, or its activities have, created, facilitated, increased, or in any way contributed to, (whether by act or omission) the risk of child sexual abuse or the circumstances or conditions giving rise to that risk;
or (iii) it happens in any other circumstances where you consider that an institution is, or should be treated as being, responsible for adults having contact with children. – page 18
This broad Terms of Reference meant that all religions and faith-based groups in Australia, as well as all their institutions owned and operated by them, all of whom in some way interacted with children, were subjected to investigation by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Terms of Reference for Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) – England and Wales (March 2015 to November 2022).
The Terms of Reference for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was outlined in extensive detail in The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. They included the following:
Its purpose and scope were set out in its Terms of Reference, which stated that it was to consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation…..
……..State and non-State institutions referred to in the scope as examples of those within its remit included government departments, the Cabinet Office, Parliament and ministers, local authorities, the police, prosecuting authorities, schools including private and specialist education, religious organisations, health services and custodial institutions.- page 112
Like it’s Australian counterpart, all religions and faith-based groups in England and Wales, as well as all their institutions owned and operated by them, all of whom in some way interacted with children, were subjected to investigation by IICSA.
The Terms of Reference of both Inquiries left no wiggle-room for guessing who would be included in their investigations. No religious institution was exempted.
There was no “hiding place from the wind and a place of concealment from the rainstorm” for Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was none for Australian national and Governing Body member Geoffroy Jackson as well as Paul Gillies, then Director of the Office of Public Information of Jehovah’s Witnesses (London, United Kingdom).
It is clearly evident from the above that the Terms of Reference of both IICSA and the ARC are vastly different to that of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in Care, New Zealand. The scope of the former two were very broad to ensure that all religions faith-based groups as well as the various institutions that they operate, were held accountable for their handling of child sexual abuse in the community. The scope of the latter Royal Commission however is narrow, focusing on care institutions operated by religious bodies; and holding these faith-based groups accountable for their handling of child sexual abuse in their care institutions.
In view of the above, I believe that the Jehovah’s Witnesses should have the judicial review ruled in their favour. Many former Jehovah’s Witnesses would like to see their former religion held accountable for child sexual abuse in New Zealand. However, for historical child sexual abuse in religious settings and child sexual abuse by members of faith-based institutions to be investigated by the Royal Commission, its present Terms of Reference should be updated to reflect this new scope.
CCJW Australasia
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Limited (‘CCJW Australasia’) is the legally registered entity responsible for the religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in New Zealand.
The previous legal body, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New Zealand, was removed from the Charities Register at the said charity’s request on April 10th 2014.
CCJW Australasia is being represented at The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-Based Institutions.
Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference “describe the purpose and boundaries of the inquiry” (Terms of Reference). It places investigative authority and limitations on what the Royal Commission of Inquiry can investigate.
The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference were recently updated in June 15th 2023. According to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions Order 2018 (LI 2018/223), it states the following:
The matter of public importance which the inquiry is directed to examine is the historical abuse of children, young persons, and vulnerable adults in State care and in the care of faith-based institutions – para. 9, page 7.
In the care of faith-based institutions means where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual, including faith-based schools, and:
- for the avoidance of doubt, care provided by faith-based institutions excludes fully private settings, except where the person was also in the care of a faith-based institution;
- for the avoidance of doubt, if faith-based institutions provided care on behalf of the State (as described in clause 17.3(b) above), this may be dealt with by the inquiry as part of its work on indirect State care;- as provided in clause 17.3(d) above, care settings may be residential or non-residential and may provide voluntary or non-voluntary care. The inquiry may consider abuse that occurred in the context of care but outside a particular institution’s premises;- for the avoidance of doubt, the term ‘faith-based institutions’ is not limited to one particular faith, religion, or denomination. An institution or group may qualify as ‘faith-based’ if its purpose or activity is connected to a religious or spiritual belief system. The inquiry can consider abuse in faith-based institutions, whether they are formally incorporated or not and however they are described (para. 17.4, pages 12 -13).
The Final Report - Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions - 1 October 2020 provided clarification on the term ‘faith-based institutions’. It stated on page 69:
Paragraph 17.4 states: “In the care of faith-based institutions means where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual, including faith-based schools …”. The paragraph also states “care provided by faith-based institutions excludes fully private settings, except where the person was also in the care of a faith-based institution”.
For faith-based settings we have measured people in:
- Faith-based residences, children’s homes, orphanages and foster homes
- Faith-based residential disability care settings
- Faith-based boarding schools.
The Royal Commission’s Minute 16 dated 31 January 2022 also provided the following:
A care relationship may also arise in many “pastoral care” situations in the faith-based context. For example, those with authority or power conferred by a faith-based institution may assume a trust-based relationship with a child or vulnerable adult. Where such a relationship is related to the institution’s work or is enabled through the institution’s conferral of authority, the child or vulnerable adult may properly be described as in the care of the faith-based institution.
Examples may arise in the context of youth group activities (including day trips and camps); Bible study groups; Sunday school or children’s church activities; day trips and errands; pastoral or spiritual direction, mentoring, training or counsel in groups or individually (including visiting congregation/faith community members in their homes, outside the institution’s grounds, or elsewhere) – para. 15, page 3.
CCJW Australasia and Minute 16
There is no evidence in my possession at this time that CCJW Australasia conferred “authority or power” upon any individual Jehovah’s Witnesses including congregation elders, to have “youth group activities (including day trips and camps); Bible study groups; Sunday school or children’s church activities; day trips and errands; pastoral or spiritual direction, mentoring, training or counsel in groups or individually”, exclusively for children.
CCJW Australasia and the Terms of Reference
There is no evidence in my possession at this time that CCJW Australasia owned and operated:
The media articles Jehovah's Witness church spends 3 years fighting scrutiny of Royal Commission of Inquiry, Jehovah's Witness church seeks exemption from royal commission abuse in care inquiry and Jehovah’s Witness church spends three years fighting scrutiny of Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, did not provide any reliable evidence that CCJW Australasia owned and operated those facilities mentioned above; nor did they provide any reliable evidence that CCJW Australasia authorized any individual Jehovah’s Witnesses to have religious activities for specifically children.
Lester Somrah writes about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses on his social media platforms and was baptized as a member in 1998.