A legislator in my birth state of Maryland, where the majority of the sexual abuse committed against me took place, is fighting to enact a change in state law that will extend the statute of limitations for suing one's abuser to when the victim reaches age 50.
"Since that increase, victims and mental-health professionals have told [State Senator Delores G.] Kelley that 25 is still too young because abuse victims need more time to understand and confront the source of their chronic depression, problems with intimacy, alcoholism and inability to hold down a job, she said."
I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. It's been only quite recently, at age 39, that I have been able to begin to deal effectively with the lingering aftereffects of my abuse, to the chagrin of the national office of the Boy Scouts of America.
Naturally, groups such as the Catholic Church are vehemently against this proposed change:
"The proposed 25-year increase to the limitations period has drawn opposition from Catholic groups, who voiced concern that the additional time to sue could leave the church potentially facing litigation for years to come against allegations that are decades old and, thus, not easily defended against."
Tough. If the Catholic Church would have dealt with the issues promptly and correctly when they occurred, rather than simply transferring the pedophile priests to other parishes to prey on fresh kids, they wouldn't be in the legal and financial mess they find themselves in today.
Should this legislation be approved and signed into law, my lawsuits against both my abuser and the National Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America will be filed as soon as possible, in order to publicly force them to accept responsibility for their actions (and inactions, when it comes to both the Patuxent District and the National Capital Area Council's reprehensible ignoring of mine and other boys' plights after my abuser was arrested).
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
This doesn't surprise me
Several local Boy Scout councils have been caught clear-cutting trees in forested areas under their control, in many cases illegally and most definitely in clear violation of their own stated philosophies and policies towards nature, as the article points out:
"But for a high-profile organization such as the Boy Scouts, which touts itself as pro-environment, conducting high-impact, commercial timber harvests that at times violate regulation, or simply push the limits of ecological best practices, smacks of hypocrisy, they say." (Emphasis mine)
Now where have I heard the Boy Scouts been called hypocrites elsewhere, albeit about other aspects of their organizational behavior? Oh, that's right, right here on this blog, about their willful ignorance of their own stated sexual abuse avoidance policies, as well as their shameful lack of help for victims of such abuse.
Back to the subject at hand. We're not talking about managed harvesting, which is quite good for forests when wisely and carefully done. This is the equivalent of strip-mining the land, even after they made explicit promises never to do so in specific areas:
"The old woman who donated that property to the Scouts had entered into an agreement with the state to protect it from logging," said Keene, senior forester for the Institute for Wildlife Protection."
Why are the councils engaging in such activities? Money seems to be the answer, as usual, with making up for the lack of donations due to their bans on gays and atheists given as the chief reason in the article, along with the rich salaries earned by the Scouting leadership for their excellent stewardship of their natural resources and outstanding protection of the boys under their supervision (cough, cough):
"Local and regional executives can earn annual compensation of $100,000 to $300,000 per year. At the national level, Scouting executives make even more."
But they're too poor to help out local councils with dedicated funds for counseling and legal fees for the victims of predatory Scout leaders. Nope, they're on their own on that one.
I would be remiss if I didn't also bring up the likely additional factor of multi-million dollar judgments and settlements of sexual abuse cases also bringing financial pressure, although I'm positive the Scouts would never admit to such a reason.
We know better, of course. This article originated out of Seattle, and I have knowledge of eight currently pending sexual abuse cases in that area alone. That's gotta hurt the ol' pocketbook just in legal fees, to say nothing of the eventual damages sure to be awarded.
It seems that just like with the Catholic Church, financial woes partly resulting from the payment of money to settle sex-abuse cases is starting to eat the Scouts up from the inside out. Unfortunately, if the leadership doesn't soon wake up and realize their mistakes, they're not going to have an organization left, not to mention those cushy salaries.
If they don't care enough about the boys' safety to prioritize a national protocol for helping victims of abuse, and they don't seem to care a fig about the environment, what's left to make the Scouts worth joining?
"But for a high-profile organization such as the Boy Scouts, which touts itself as pro-environment, conducting high-impact, commercial timber harvests that at times violate regulation, or simply push the limits of ecological best practices, smacks of hypocrisy, they say." (Emphasis mine)
Now where have I heard the Boy Scouts been called hypocrites elsewhere, albeit about other aspects of their organizational behavior? Oh, that's right, right here on this blog, about their willful ignorance of their own stated sexual abuse avoidance policies, as well as their shameful lack of help for victims of such abuse.
Back to the subject at hand. We're not talking about managed harvesting, which is quite good for forests when wisely and carefully done. This is the equivalent of strip-mining the land, even after they made explicit promises never to do so in specific areas:
"The old woman who donated that property to the Scouts had entered into an agreement with the state to protect it from logging," said Keene, senior forester for the Institute for Wildlife Protection."
Why are the councils engaging in such activities? Money seems to be the answer, as usual, with making up for the lack of donations due to their bans on gays and atheists given as the chief reason in the article, along with the rich salaries earned by the Scouting leadership for their excellent stewardship of their natural resources and outstanding protection of the boys under their supervision (cough, cough):
"Local and regional executives can earn annual compensation of $100,000 to $300,000 per year. At the national level, Scouting executives make even more."
But they're too poor to help out local councils with dedicated funds for counseling and legal fees for the victims of predatory Scout leaders. Nope, they're on their own on that one.
I would be remiss if I didn't also bring up the likely additional factor of multi-million dollar judgments and settlements of sexual abuse cases also bringing financial pressure, although I'm positive the Scouts would never admit to such a reason.
We know better, of course. This article originated out of Seattle, and I have knowledge of eight currently pending sexual abuse cases in that area alone. That's gotta hurt the ol' pocketbook just in legal fees, to say nothing of the eventual damages sure to be awarded.
It seems that just like with the Catholic Church, financial woes partly resulting from the payment of money to settle sex-abuse cases is starting to eat the Scouts up from the inside out. Unfortunately, if the leadership doesn't soon wake up and realize their mistakes, they're not going to have an organization left, not to mention those cushy salaries.
If they don't care enough about the boys' safety to prioritize a national protocol for helping victims of abuse, and they don't seem to care a fig about the environment, what's left to make the Scouts worth joining?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sellouts
The Boy Scouts, panicking at their ever-dwindling numbers, apparently are willing to chuck their own background check procedures over the side in order to attract more Hispanic Scouts:
"We go in a uniform that looks like the Border Patrol," said Paul Moore, head of the Scouts' Los Angeles Area Council. "Then we ask (adult volunteers) to fill out complex applications that ask for their Social Security numbers. I think we've found some good ways in L.A. to deal with some of these things, but we have to do a better job of getting parents to see Scouting as something that aligns with their hopes and dreams for their kids." (Emphasis mine)
Those "complex" applications (perplexing because they're in English, maybe?) that ask for SSN's are required for a very specific reason - to conduct background checks on prospective Scout leaders, so that previously convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to join troops. The fact that Mr. Moore is complaining about the fact that prospective leaders have to fill them out is quite disheartening, to say the least, and flies directly in the face of statements made to me personally regarding ensuring Scout safety.
Also, what's with the cheap Border Patrol crack? Both uniforms are shades of brown, that's about it. That fact shouldn't be a problem, unless the BSA is willing to go on record as sanctioning law-breaking and wishes to specifically attract illegal immigrants. There goes "obedient" in the Scout Oath, I suppose. The Border Patrol is an honorable agency attempting to do an impossible job with no support from the Federal government. It's not some sort of evil group that scares law-abiding people away.
I guess diversity and tolerance of illegal immigration, along with that desperate attempt to gain numbers, trumps any policy of ensuring the safety of the boys in the troops.
This is yet another eye-opening story that shows that the Boy Scouts aren't serious about following their own system of checks and balances. Enroll your child at your risk.
"We go in a uniform that looks like the Border Patrol," said Paul Moore, head of the Scouts' Los Angeles Area Council. "Then we ask (adult volunteers) to fill out complex applications that ask for their Social Security numbers. I think we've found some good ways in L.A. to deal with some of these things, but we have to do a better job of getting parents to see Scouting as something that aligns with their hopes and dreams for their kids." (Emphasis mine)
Those "complex" applications (perplexing because they're in English, maybe?) that ask for SSN's are required for a very specific reason - to conduct background checks on prospective Scout leaders, so that previously convicted sex offenders aren't allowed to join troops. The fact that Mr. Moore is complaining about the fact that prospective leaders have to fill them out is quite disheartening, to say the least, and flies directly in the face of statements made to me personally regarding ensuring Scout safety.
Also, what's with the cheap Border Patrol crack? Both uniforms are shades of brown, that's about it. That fact shouldn't be a problem, unless the BSA is willing to go on record as sanctioning law-breaking and wishes to specifically attract illegal immigrants. There goes "obedient" in the Scout Oath, I suppose. The Border Patrol is an honorable agency attempting to do an impossible job with no support from the Federal government. It's not some sort of evil group that scares law-abiding people away.
I guess diversity and tolerance of illegal immigration, along with that desperate attempt to gain numbers, trumps any policy of ensuring the safety of the boys in the troops.
This is yet another eye-opening story that shows that the Boy Scouts aren't serious about following their own system of checks and balances. Enroll your child at your risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
