Editor’s Note: As many people in the community of former Jehovah’s Witnesses know, Daniel Walker, who writes under the pseudonym “Covert Fade” on the website JWsurvey.com, announced that he is writing a book about the Australian Royal Commission Inquiry of 2015, of which Jehovah’s Witnesses were a part. One woman who testified at that Inquiry, under the pseudonym “BCG,” objected to his plans, as he had not even spoken to her about this issue, and she was very uncomfortable with having him handle her story of molestation and abuse.
What followed were several days of disgusting and downright horrific behavior on social media, aimed at BCG by Daniel Walker, Lloyd Evans aka John Cedars, and their followers. Daniel Walker issued an “apology” for the matter; screen captures below. This is BCG’s response to that apology.
To learn more about this issue and see screen captures of those attacks yourself, please see the links at the bottom of this page.
*** ***
While you may think that I should be grateful about receiving Daniel Walker’s apology, I am not. I am all for apologies, if people actually mean them.
You may think that I am being pretty tough on Daniel, but it is this process that helps me to avoid getting hurt.
Unfortunately, Daniel keeps missing the point (and John Cedars has not addressed anything). [Editor’s note: Please see footnotes for Lloyd Evans’ aka John Cedars’ “apology” and BCG’s response.]
Let me explain my reasons for this response:
In Daniel Walker’s apology, he again defends himself by saying he had good intentions. This sentence is an attempt to justify his actions.
One of the most important lessons that I have learned is that anyone can say anything in an attempt to persuade people to their side of thinking. Ironically, I think Daniel has used some theocratic warfare techniques. These are the tactics designed to camouflage the reader’s power of perception. They include:, not telling the whole truth, leaving out information, and sidetracking the reader with a heap of information that distracts them from the real issue.
As an example, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that they ‘abhor’ child sexual abuse, but are their actions different to the facts? The RC found that were over an 1006 alleged pedophiles and of that, 579 confessed, and not one was reported to authorities by JW.
We are now independent thinkers; we should keep questioning everything. The old saying that persons actions speak louder than words is truly relevant to this issue.
Sometimes it is hard to know the difference, and evaluate whether someone really means what they say. We have all been subject to manipulation from the elders and the GB into believing their interpretations of the bible, for instance.
My study of law has helped me evaluate words and issues logically. I first identify the issue. In this case the issue is consent. I did not give Daniel consent to write anything about me, any documents subpoenaed on my behalf, letters that I wrote, court transcripts, and findings.
Now I look at the facts. The real truth of what someone is saying is generally found in their actions. Please examine Daniel’s actions prior to, and subsequent to, writing his public posts.
The purpose of this exercise is for you each of you to evaluate each of these points yourself. I am going to suggest how I feel, but the evaluation and decision is ultimately yours to make.
These questions might be helpful in examining any situation:
1. What caused Daniel write the apology?
2. Why did Daniel take down his post?
3. Look at the ‘point in time’ that Daniel decided to remove the post
4. What do Daniel’s words really describe about his actions?
5. What words have been left out of his statement?
I think that Daniel wrote the apology because he has been backed into a corner, after he manufactured the social media attack. The truth is Daniel was ‘told’ to take down the post by someone else, then Daniel alleged that he took down the post for my ‘benefit.’
The point in time is relevant here. Daniel took down the post after I began to receive a very strong army of support. When you examine his actions, it seems to me that the most likely scenario is that he did not like it when I received that army of support.
Secondly, once again he has been misleading in his response; what he is saying is still deceptive. For example, he states that, “There will be no reference to BCG, no discussion of her testimony, or of the events to which she testified.”
What information has been left out? We all know that Daniel used this tactic on me, when he conveniently left out that BCG was objecting to his work. Daniel’s words are not demonstrated by his actions.
For instance, Daniel’s words exclude everything ‘related to my testimony’. Daniel’s words still mean that he intends on writing about all documents, letters, court transcripts, and findings relating to my evidence. It still includes testimonies of the witnesses who were called and who appeared on my behalf.
Daniel already proposed this to me, and I did not give him my consent then, and I still do not give my consent now.
I recall that Daniel said that it was his goal to collate all the documents, to put them in an easy-to-read format. Is he now denying that he said this? From his statement, he is now stating that he never said that. Which is true, the former or the latter?
I would really like to be clear with my next few points.
Unlike Daniel, I do not care if people know who I really am; it does not bother me, however, I am still the protection of the ARC’s Do Not Publish Order, so this is not at the issue of consent.
What bothers me is that, my right to say ‘no’, was ignored and dismissed. Daniel purposefully manufactured a social media attack aimed directly at me to force me to say, ‘yes’. Both John Cedars and Daniel Walker said, in effect, that consent does not matter, they can do what ‘they’ want without my consent.
I am unsure if either of them have been victims of sexual assaults, from their lack of insight, I am guessing that they have not. They clearly lack the ability to understand why I am upset by their recent behaviour.
Do you all realise that I said ‘no’ to my father during his repeated assaults to me? It didn’t stop him, he just did what he wanted regardless of the fact that I did not give him my consent. He also justified in his actions too, by saying that they were for my ‘training’, and benefit.
How does taking away consent now give me a benefit? The truth is it does not; he is the only person gaining any benefit.
Let’s put the same type of behaviour in a legal context, that is, taking away my consent. Rape is defined as having un-consented sexual intercourse with someone else, without their consent. The legal elements for assault, is the un-consented contact to the body of another person.
The key criteria is ‘consent’. Consent is the determining element of a crime. For abuse survivors, consent is something has been taken away from them. It is so powerful that it has affected their whole life. For some, the lack of consent has caused victims to take their own lives. The lack of consent causes significant damage to other people.
Consent is an essential concept for us as survivors.
Consent, is something that Daniel took away from me, and advocated that behaviour for other people to follow. John Cedars and this Daniel told everyone that consent does not matter.
Well, it matters a whole lot to survivors.
This apology is not enough of a genuine apology. Especially when he has been forced into a corner. Until Daniel Walker, John Cedars, and those who still support them understand that the this issue is all about consent. They need to stop doing things that they want and start respecting all survivor’s wishes and feelings. They seriously need to think about who they are and whether they are still acting and treat survivors like the JWs do.
Saying something does not make it true, they both need to make public apologises, and their actions must reflect this. To address the damage of their public remarks and attitudes need to consistently reflect this.
It is obvious from these words from Daniel Walker, and the continued silence of John Cedars, that they have no intent or ability to learn and understand this concept, and their actions are from a place of selfishness, not compassion for the victims.
Thank you for your time efforts and continued support in making sure that the Ex JW is a safer place for all.
Kindest Regards
BCG
*** ***
For more information and background regarding this matter, please see, “Activism Should Never Be At The Expense Of The Victims.”
Read BCG’s public statement regarding these social media attacks at, “Public Statement of “BCG” In Response to Recent Manufactured Social Media Attacks.”
Read my personal statement in response to Daniel Walker’s apology at, “My Personal Response to Daniel Walker’s Apology to Victim “BCG””
Lloyd Evans has offered an “apology” to BCG, who has not accepted it. Please read her statement on the matter at, “Public Statement of “BCG” and Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology.” Read my response to Lloyd Evans’ apology at, “My Personal Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology to Victim “BCG””
Please also note “My Personal Response to Lloyd Evans Calling Me a “Regressive Activist’“
