STAY IN THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS
Origin of black-collar crime goes back to a reference to the color of a collar upon a religious or judicial figure in traditional garb. The term black-collar crime has been used to refer to priests who commit crimes. Black-collar crimes are subsequently covered by the Church. Child molestation by a priest is black collar crime. The church may be guilty of black collar crime transferring pedophiles around in order to hide the victims and perpetrators. The term "Black Collar Crime " also comes from the Australian group Broken Rites who began operation in 1993, when the victims realized the absence of any support for the victims of Church based abuse coming from the Church. The different types of collar crimes include Blue-collar Crime, White-collar Crime, Red-collar Crime, Pink-collar Crime, Green-collar Crimes, grey-collar crime, and also gold-collar crime. Black-collar Crimes are usually covered up by members of the religion in order to protect the faith.
After the Pennsylvania Grand Jury investigated Catholic dioceses in their state, the attorney general found that unreported black collar crime was shockingly high. The US based Freedom From Religion Foundation publish the Black Collar Crime Blotter that tracks and monitors crimes committed by those involved in the churches. Bruce Gerencser regularly publishes accounts of clergy crime, dubbing them “Black Collar Crimes.” The Black Collar Crime series has exposed those who self-righteously claim that Evangelicals don’t have the same sort of sexual abuse problem as the Catholics do.
Black Collar Crimes: An Encyclopedia of
False Prophets and Unholy Orders
by Michael Newton. "Michael Newton (born 1951) is an American author best known for his work on Don Pendleton's Mack Bolan series.
CONCEAL OR REVEAL? THE ROLE OF LAW IN BLACK COLLAR CRIME
Lesley Townsley. Public Space: The Journal of Law and Social Justice (2007) Vol 1, Art 4 pp 1-35.
Abstract: This article reconsiders the way in which the State deals with the suppression or concealment of crimes, particularly child sexual abuse, by members of institutions such as churches. There are legal mechanisms available to bring such prosecutions and yet they are not being utilized. The article deconstructs the three major justifications underpinning the legislative provisions. These justifications overlap, but can be isolated under the following headings: history, freedom of religion, and spiritual considerations. I argue that interpretation of section 316 (4) of the Crimes Act 1900 should, at a minimum, be confined to the scope of the religious confession privilege in section 217 of the Evidence Act 1995. Further, I argue that the justifications underpinning the legislative scheme and the assumptions they are based on are untenable in a secular society.