Revisiting the subject of the U.N. vs. religion

At least 20 former Jehovah's Witnesses are suing the group over historical sexual abuse they say they suffered.

The group has a policy of not punishing alleged child sex abuse unless a second person, alongside the accuser, has witnessed it - or an abuser confesses.

It says its elders "comply with child-abuse reporting laws even if there is only one witness", though, and always tell police if a child is in danger.

But one former elder said it had been failing to involve the authorities.
John Viney, who says he was abused between the ages of nine and 13, by "a distant family member who was an active Jehovah's Witness", added children were still being abused and the religious organisation was "inadvertently" protecting their abusers.

"The way that Jehovah's Witnesses handle matters within the congregation, it's a closed shop," he told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.

"I know for a fact now that there are parents that haven't done anything about the abuse of their children by others because they don't want to bring reproach on Jehovah's name."

Mr Viney's own daughter, Karen, was abused as a child - and has since spoken out about it publicly.

But when she left the organisation, Mr Viney disowned her - something he has regretted ever since.

"When I was an elder and a dad, I put being an elder absolutely first," he said. "And that was a mistake."

Mr Viney said he had eventually reported his own abuser to the police, in 2019, after years of being too "ashamed", only to be told the man had gone on to abuse other children and died in prison.

"What would have happened if I had had the courage and common sense to come forward [at the time]?" he said.

Thomas Beale, a solicitor representing some of the former members, said they had decided to seek compensation after asking the group for an apology only to find it "denying what has happened or refusing to engage".

Those taking the legal action say the organisation is "vicariously liable" for the abuse they say they suffered. Some claim it was negligent.

One woman, Emma - not her real name - said after she had been abused she had been visited by elders who had repeated scripture "about why we should keep it in-house, not follow the laws of the land".

And she had been asked to recount explicit details, with the elders "glaring at me".

Several former members have also told BBC News they were made to discuss their allegations with elders at a "judicial committee", while their alleged abuser sat next to them.

Emma's abuser was jailed for two years.

But, she said, following his release, he had been welcomed back into the organisation.

Labour's Sarah Champion, the chair of a cross-party group of MPs looking at adults who experienced child sexual abuse, said she had "very serious concerns" about a convicted child abuser being allowed "back into a community where they have access to vulnerable people".

She said she had met elders who "believe that there is more than enough safeguarding in place... [but] couldn't think of an example when they would go to the police about their concerns".

And the group saw child abuse as "a sin that they need to deal with internally".

"That's really concerning to me," she added.

The Charity Commission has been investigating the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation since 2013.

A spokeswoman said the inquiry remained ongoing, but would not comment further.

A Jehovah's Witnesses spokesman said: "The only way that a child abuser can gain access to children in a religious organisation like ours, which does not have any programmes that separate children from their parents, is through parents themselves."

He said that for "decades", the organisation had educated parents "about the dangers of child abuse and how they can protect their children" and parents and victims were informed they had the right to report the matter to the authorities.

"If a congregant has been guilty of child sexual abuse, our elders inform parents with minors so that they can take measures to protect their children," he added.

UN human rights experts have demanded Iran cease harassing and intimidating journalists working for BBC Persian and other Persian-language news outlets.

The journalists have endured death threats, criminal investigations, the freezing of assets and defamation.

Some relatives have been held in degrading conditions and ordered to tell family members to leave the BBC.

The harassment reportedly intensified when the journalists covered the mass anti-government protests in November.

The unrest prompted a bloody crackdown by the security forces. Amnesty International said more than 300 people were shot dead, while a Reuters news agency report put the death toll at 1,500.

Iranian authorities dismissed those figures, but acknowledged killing some "rioters".

It would follow that you disagree with the UN's stance on Iran. Is that the case? If not, why?