Child Protection Office Response to Zero Tolerance Petition

[Guest guest]

The Child Protection Office Response to the Zero Tolerance Petition

Tamohara das, Director - ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection

 

Recently, there has been a widely circulated petition calling for a "zero

tolerance" policy towards child abusers. Specifically, devotees are

demanding that no confirmed child abuser should hold any position of

authority in ISKCON.

 

As the Director of the Child Protection Office, I am grateful and encouraged

by the heightened awareness of the devastating consequences of child abuse,

which is reflected by the demand that perpetrators of abuse have no place

within our leadership. This vocal show of conviction attests to a deepening

understanding of these issues over the last twenty years.

 

Many devotees may not be fully aware of the work of the Child Protection

Office. Since its inception in 1998, the CPO has investigated over 300

allegations of child abuse. Of course, in all cases, CPO policy and ISKCON

law (enacted by the GBC in 1991) requires reporting alleged child abuse to

the civil authorities for possible criminal prosecution. Additionally, our

internal CPO system makes determinations of the relationship between the

abuser and the Society. Of the cases investigated, about 80 cases with

substantial evidence were fully adjudicated through the CPO system of

rulings by panels of trained judges. According to the severity of abuse, a

range of restrictions is placed on the abuser, as well as any requirements

deemed necessary.

 

In the 80 cases adjudicated, over 90% of the decisions restricted the

abuser from any future position of leadership, consistent with the aim of

the zero tolerance petition. In effect, the CPO practically has a zero

tolerance policy. The only exceptions are those cases where restrictions may

be less severe, or more time limited, due to findings of milder forms of

abuse. The devotee must have been shown to be of minimal risk to children,

and they must meet all requirements imposed by the CPO. So, while I support

the spirit of this petition, I feel that the CPO judges should have some

latitude to invoke a range of restrictions appropriate to the facts of each

case.

 

Additionally, in 2005 the GBC ratified a CPO proposal for more strict "zero

tolerance" language in certain cases. There are some cases of such severe

abuse, where the judges will be allowed to totally restrict the abuser from

any connection with our temples whatsoever, including a ban on even visiting

ISKCON property. Again, this is handled on a case-by-case basis, and invoked

where the severity of abuse presents an unacceptable level of risk to our

children and Society.

 

But what about the case of Dhanurdhara Swami? First, the CPO decision of

1999 restricted him for life from any position of leadership within ISKCON.

However, while the CPO restricted his ability to initiate disciples for five

years (which has recently expired), the CPO did not make a definitive ruling

on his position as guru. Rather, it left the decision of guruship up to the

GBC. It is the position of the Child Protection Office that the GBC must

decide upon this important issue, and has advocated strongly that they take

action in this case.

 

Currently, the GBC is actively discussing and will soon decide this issue.

As of Thursday, June 21, 2006, a call for a vote on the issue is being sent

to the full GBC body, at the request of the North American GBC and other

leaders. Soon, we will see a decision on this important issue.

 

My personal feeling is that in all future CPO decisions, any restrictions on

leadership should also include restrictions on the right and privilege to

act as spiritual master. I will introduce a clarifying proposal on this

matter at the next GBC meetings.

 

I hope that this helps clarify the situation. The CPO is working hard to

assure that our children are protected and that ISKCON is represented by men

and women of integrity and character.

 

Tamohara das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection