Satadhanya

[Guest guest]

> At 8:42 -0400 8/11/2000, Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA)

> wrote:

> > > Why is he allowed to do anything on this case? In the US child

> > > molesters are not allowed to do anything signifigant. Why are out

> >standards less than

> > > the so called"meat-eating karmis"?

> >

> >While I don't disagree with your sentiment in general, bear in mind that

> >two of those standards are "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a

> >reasonable doubt", two standards that do put a lot of restraint on

> >action.

>

> According to the judgement issued by the OCP, Satadhanya has admitted to

> at least some of the charges against him, incl. having had sex with a

> minor, which does make him a child molester. From what I understand, he as

> also written at least one letter of apology to a victim and provided some

> money for counseling. However, I do not know about his compliance with all

> the other parts of his sentence.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

 

I am interested in your definition of child molestor. The cases of which

the CPO have had before them in regards to Satadhanya's sexual behaviours

with minors clearly define him as an agressive perpetrator and not one of

mutual agreeance between himself and those of his victims. Being familiar

with the case and one of his victims we should be so quick to think lightly

of his actions.

 

y.s

Visnupriya-devi dasi

[Guest guest]

>>Madhusudani wrote:

> > According to the judgement issued by the OCP, Satadhanya has admitted to

> > at least some of the charges against him, incl. having had sex with a

> > minor, which does make him a child molester.

>

>Visnupriya-devi commented:

>I am interested in your definition of child molestor.

 

What I wrote above: i.e. an adult having sex with a minor. Minors

can't give meaningful consent, so regardless of force or consent

issues, it would be considered molesting/statuatory rape.

 

>Being familiar with the case and one of his victims

>we should be so quick to think lightly of his actions.

 

Who is taking his actions lightly?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I am interested in your definition of child molestor. The cases of which

> the CPO have had before them in regards to Satadhanya's sexual behaviours

> with minors clearly define him as an agressive perpetrator and not one of

> mutual agreeance between himself and those of his victims. Being familiar

> with the case and one of his victims we should be so quick to think lightly

> of his actions.

>

> y.s

> Visnupriya-devi dasi

 

I am not advocating taking anything lightly - simply pointing out the need for

due process. Otherwise anyone can an accusation against anyone.

 

I am just reading in yesterday's paper where in England there has been a rash

of vigilante action AGAINST THE WRONG PEOPLE, who by accident of fate had the

same names as those of published molestors.

[Guest guest]

On 1 Sep 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote:>

> I am not advocating taking anything lightly - simply pointing out the need

for

> due process. Otherwise anyone can an accusation against anyone.

>

> I am just reading in yesterday's paper where in England there has been a

rash

> of vigilante action AGAINST THE WRONG PEOPLE, who by accident of fate had

the

> same names as those of published molestors.

 

One lady doctor had her offices vandalized because she was a “pediatrician”.

Close enough to pedophile. Got that “ped” in there. I guess there's no testing

involved to become a vigilante.

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> > I am interested in your definition of child molestor. The cases of

> > which the CPO have had before them in regards to Satadhanya's sexual

> > behaviours with minors clearly define him as an agressive perpetrator

> > and not one of mutual agreeance between himself and those of his

> > victims. Being familiar with the case and one of his victims we should

> > be so quick to think lightly of his actions.

> >

> > y.s

> > Visnupriya-devi dasi

>

> I am not advocating taking anything lightly - simply pointing out the

> need for due process. Otherwise anyone can an accusation against anyone.

>

> I am just reading in yesterday's paper where in England there has been a

> rash of vigilante action AGAINST THE WRONG PEOPLE, who by accident of

> fate had the same names as those of published molestors.

 

 

With the investigation carried out by the CPO I feel we can safely conclude

that in the case of Satadhanya and abuses committed by himself that there

are no false judgements. It is just unfortunate that it takes so long to

reveal sexual perpetrators within the society. That is something that we

can only work on with the co-operation of all members of Iskcon realising

the need to protect all members whether they be male/female or the young.

 

y.s

Visnupriya-devi dasi

[Guest guest]

At 12:14 +1030 9/2/2000, Visnupriya-devi (dd) PVS (Adelaide - AU) wrote:

>

>With the investigation carried out by the CPO I feel we can safely conclude

>that in the case of Satadhanya and abuses committed by himself that there

>are no false judgements.

 

I agree completely. Besides, he confessed (not to all, but to

sufficient charges to conclude he molested some boys). I don't think

anyone familiar with his case is saying he's innocent.

 

> It is just unfortunate that it takes so long to

>reveal sexual perpetrators within the society.

 

Yes. It's also unfortunate that ISKCON's lawyers don't want these

judgments published widely. Dhira Govinda has been told that he can

only send them to a limited list of people. The lawyers don't want

the judgments posted on any public website for example. Yet, that is

exactly where they would need to go so that mainstream devotees can

become informed and protect themselves and their children.

 

Of course, if someone who *is* on the mailing list gets a copy and

wants to distribute it, there is no rule that prohibits him or

her.....

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

I inquired specifically from Dhira Govinda Prahbu about whether or not

Satadhanya's decision was confidential. He replied that the CPO decision is

public and it could be forwarded to interested parties.

 

As for posting it on public websites, that might be going beyond the

necessary and desirable. I can understand why ISKCON's lawyers might

consider it ill-advised and if that is the case, I think their reasonable

desires should be respected.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net], or

[sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com] < Please note new address.

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

 

 

|

|Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net

|[Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

|Friday, September 01, 2000 11:04 PM

|CAP (Child Abuse Prevention); India (Continental Committee) Open

|(Forum); Varnasrama development

|Re: Satadhanya

|

|

|At 12:14 +1030 9/2/2000, Visnupriya-devi (dd) PVS (Adelaide - AU) wrote:

|>

|>With the investigation carried out by the CPO I feel we can

|safely conclude

|>that in the case of Satadhanya and abuses committed by himself that there

|>are no false judgements.

|

|I agree completely. Besides, he confessed (not to all, but to

|sufficient charges to conclude he molested some boys). I don't think

|anyone familiar with his case is saying he's innocent.

|

|> It is just unfortunate that it takes so long to

|>reveal sexual perpetrators within the society.

|

|Yes. It's also unfortunate that ISKCON's lawyers don't want these

|judgments published widely. Dhira Govinda has been told that he can

|only send them to a limited list of people. The lawyers don't want

|the judgments posted on any public website for example. Yet, that is

|exactly where they would need to go so that mainstream devotees can

|become informed and protect themselves and their children.

|

|Of course, if someone who *is* on the mailing list gets a copy and

|wants to distribute it, there is no rule that prohibits him or

|her.....

|

|Ys,

|Madhusudani dasi

|

[Guest guest]

At 0:41 -0700 9/2/2000, Srirama (das) ACBSP wrote:

> I inquired specifically from Dhira Govinda Prahbu about whether or not

>Satadhanya's decision was confidential. He replied that the CPO decision is

>public and it could be forwarded to interested parties.

 

Yes, the decisions are public. No one ever said otherwise. However,

the lawyers have told the CPO that they may not forward the judgments

to public web pages. I know this for a fact because they initially

did do this and Chakra was cc:d on the subsequent correspondence.

Dhira Govinda has also informed me directly that other people are

free to "leak them". The only prohibition is against *his office*

sending them there. All of this information is first hand.

 

> As for posting it on public websites, that might be going beyond the

>necessary and desirable. I can understand why ISKCON's lawyers might

>consider it ill-advised and if that is the case, I think their reasonable

>desires should be respected.

 

I disagree. It's important that devotees around the world find out

what these individuals did. Most leaders who wrote in on this topic

agreed. They were just concerned about potentially being sued for

libel by the abusers. Personally, I think that's erring in the wrong

direction. It's time we start worrying more about the impact on

victims (both past and future ones) and trust that Krsna will protect

us if we expose those who have abused ISKCON's children.

 

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 10:57 -0500 9/2/2000, Yasomati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur - IN) wrote:

 

>There was a concession given to Satadhanya that the details of his offenses

>not be unnecessarily publicised, in consideration for his wife and daughter.

>

>Since this was granted to him, by CPO, as we were informed at MCPT, it

>should be followed.

 

Satadhanya's case is one thing (even though I disagree with the

concession), but I think the general decision not to let the CPO

forward the judgments to public websites is wrong as a policy. We

need to be more sensitive to past and future victims and stop

fretting so much about what the abusers may do to us as a result.

Until we do, we are really showing how clueless we are about the

dynamics involved in abuse. To me, it also reveals a lack of faith,

showing that those in charge don't believe Krsna will protect them if

they in turn protect the most vulnerable members of our society. What

happened to doing what is right and not being attached to the results?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi