02 Jun 2008
Posted July 4th, 2006
Many, or most BKs, will be unaware if they are or are not members. Or indeed when was the point that they became a “member”. Many, or most, will never have been formally asked to join or offered the opportunity not join. Many, or most, will be unaware that at centers registers of members are kept documenting their attendance and, indeed, personal records on individuals both within and without the institution are also kept.
These records are not public and such practices vary from center to center.
The BKWSU, as an legal entity, appears to be skating over an ocean of abiguities and prepared to changes its position according to the will of ... whom? It is almost impossible to tell.
Legally, who carries the liabilities for any such actions performed by individual BKs either under the “Shrimat”, [instructions of a Senior Sister] or on their own accord? Where are the divisions between personal and instutitional responsibility? When is any action performed considered to be performed personally by the individual or performed by theindividual on behalf of the instution.
Indeed, who is the BKWSU? Apart, of course, from its registered trustees.
The BKWSU enjoys the spiritual privilege of being able to dismiss any ill effects onto an individual as “their bad karma”, or bad luck, thereby dismissing any liability on its behalf. It teaches its members “not to take sorrow” or concern for the bad karma of others. Vulnerable individuals within the organsiation have no place to question this. Injured individuals outside of institution even less so. Especially in an area of psychic influence and collusion where the law is particularly weak.
Let us take the case of the repeated child sex abuse at two of the institution’s Indian headquarters. Incidents of which, having originally acknowledged by senior memebrs, the organization is now currently re-writing as merely “allegations” and bringing into question the child’s integrity. If these were to have been done by, say, a police or governmental officer acting whilst on duty there would have been public outcry and an open instutional inquiry. The individual member in question would have had to have been immediately removed and reported to the police by law.
If it was found that there had been a cover up by senior “members”, and no action taken, then in all probability the public would have quite rightly demanded a public apology and the resignation of such senior individuals. Enjoying as they did the privileges and responsibilities of a high public position.
Was the sex offender a BK “member” or not when they were carrying out their responsibilities for the BK institution? Was the abuse carried out during the time and within the BK property that they were meant to have been at their office? What liability does the instution then have?
In the case of the BKWSU sex offenses, it is know that the offender was not removed from their position. How do we then judge the responsible senior members? Is the BKWSU some how immune to its legally responsibilities over its volunteers acting at their property?
At what point does a “member” cross over from being a volunteer to being staff in a many multi-million Dollar global organisation that does not have any “paid employees” as such.
In the press release for the Mount Abu Media Conference & Exhibition 2006, “Media For Promoting Peace & Good Wishes”, senior member of the BKWSU Dadi Janki, Additional Administrative Head of the Brahma Kumaris and a “world-renowned spiritual leader”, is referred to by the BKWSU as “enlightened”, in the same paragraph as Buddha, Mahavir, Moses and Christ.
BK Watch
Many, or most BKs, will be unaware if they are or are not members. Or indeed when was the point that they became a “member”. Many, or most, will never have been formally asked to join or offered the opportunity not join. Many, or most, will be unaware that at centers registers of members are kept documenting their attendance and, indeed, personal records on individuals both within and without the institution are also kept.
These records are not public and such practices vary from center to center.
The BKWSU, as an legal entity, appears to be skating over an ocean of abiguities and prepared to changes its position according to the will of ... whom? It is almost impossible to tell.
Legally, who carries the liabilities for any such actions performed by individual BKs either under the “Shrimat”, [instructions of a Senior Sister] or on their own accord? Where are the divisions between personal and instutitional responsibility? When is any action performed considered to be performed personally by the individual or performed by theindividual on behalf of the instution.
Indeed, who is the BKWSU? Apart, of course, from its registered trustees.
The BKWSU enjoys the spiritual privilege of being able to dismiss any ill effects onto an individual as “their bad karma”, or bad luck, thereby dismissing any liability on its behalf. It teaches its members “not to take sorrow” or concern for the bad karma of others. Vulnerable individuals within the organsiation have no place to question this. Injured individuals outside of institution even less so. Especially in an area of psychic influence and collusion where the law is particularly weak.
Let us take the case of the repeated child sex abuse at two of the institution’s Indian headquarters. Incidents of which, having originally acknowledged by senior memebrs, the organization is now currently re-writing as merely “allegations” and bringing into question the child’s integrity. If these were to have been done by, say, a police or governmental officer acting whilst on duty there would have been public outcry and an open instutional inquiry. The individual member in question would have had to have been immediately removed and reported to the police by law.
If it was found that there had been a cover up by senior “members”, and no action taken, then in all probability the public would have quite rightly demanded a public apology and the resignation of such senior individuals. Enjoying as they did the privileges and responsibilities of a high public position.
Was the sex offender a BK “member” or not when they were carrying out their responsibilities for the BK institution? Was the abuse carried out during the time and within the BK property that they were meant to have been at their office? What liability does the instution then have?
In the case of the BKWSU sex offenses, it is know that the offender was not removed from their position. How do we then judge the responsible senior members? Is the BKWSU some how immune to its legally responsibilities over its volunteers acting at their property?
At what point does a “member” cross over from being a volunteer to being staff in a many multi-million Dollar global organisation that does not have any “paid employees” as such.
In the press release for the Mount Abu Media Conference & Exhibition 2006, “Media For Promoting Peace & Good Wishes”, senior member of the BKWSU Dadi Janki, Additional Administrative Head of the Brahma Kumaris and a “world-renowned spiritual leader”, is referred to by the BKWSU as “enlightened”, in the same paragraph as Buddha, Mahavir, Moses and Christ.
BK Watch