CPO is a Necessary Component of any Societal Organization
BY: KAPILA
Jun 24, EUROPE (SUN) — This is in response to the absurd idea that the Child Protection Office can be compared with a vigilante. Yes, a vigilante is one who takes the law into their own hands, for the sake of self-perceived justice. But who would deny a victim the right to avoid at any cost someone who perpetrated a crime against them?
What some would term "punishment" by the CPO is, in fact, simply regulation of association. The CPO has no direct punishment authority and cannot imprison or otherwise restrict the movement of a person. Nor can it cause that person physical harm. Nor can it impose with the force of law any monetary damages.
The fact is that every school in America is meant to run a background check on all proposed teachers. This is to pick up anyone who may be on a sexual offenders list. Those schools are then not allowed to hire these people.
That isn't punishment. That is common sense. That person may have been given a conditional discharge, or have served their time, etc. But given how many abusers there are in the world, cutting out at least a portion of them makes sense.
Furthermore, there are statutes of limitation on court cases, as little as 5 years in some places. So if a child is molested at 8 years of age, and hasn't the courage to speak about it until older, in many cases it is then too late.
Further, because our society did not in the past treat these kinds of issues with seriousness, the perpetrators were let go to move temples.
I hope that one day the CPO will be both a preventative and first port of call for abuses, before and immediately after. It is the CPO that would call the police to deal with any allegations. In a more formal and professional manner than the fearfulness and complete and utter lack of responsibility of the past.
Of course, there needs to be due process, investigations, witness statements, and the opportunity for rebuttal. But given the factual disasters of the past, and given the utter impossibility of the criminal justice adequately protecting the specific society, we have an obligation, if we are serious about our community, to have a sensor tuned into child abuse. That sensor is the CPO, and the role is vital.
It is unfortunate that the history of the movement is replete with extreme cases of child abuse, and that the CPO is dealing with this legacy. But it is a vital part of maturing as a society, and the most that it does is to limit association after due process.
That is not the same as vigilantism.
I would ask Vishnugada dasa if he feels that someone should be allowed to live in the temple if they eat meat, play loud rock music, invite random partners to visit them for sex, swear at people and otherwise cause distress to the residents of the temple? Is it vigilante punishment to ask them to leave? They can still come to the temple on Sunday, they are still welcome to chant, and hopefully benefit from positive association. But their association is restricted.
If they did these things but dressed in a dhoti and had a shaved head, would it then make a difference? Should we reserve our right as a society to restrict their leadership? In fact, the legal system wouldn't even have a position on these things, as they are all legal.
I would encourage Vishnugada to seriously contemplate his understanding, his sympathies, the history of ISKCON child abuse, and what he is actually suggesting. Because without the CPO, there would be many child abusers in positions of leadership in this movement. If he thinks that's reasonable, then frankly, there is nothing left to say.
If he simply wants to strengthen the CPO, focus it's powers, and ensure there is no abuse of power in relation to protecting abusers, or harming the innocently accused, then there is still room for dialogue.
Sincerely,
Kapila
