Skip to main content

THE DECISION OF THE NORWEGIAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE GRY NYGÅRD VERSUS JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

By 14. May 2022May 16th, 2022Disfellowshipping

—REVIEW—

The most important reason why Jehovah’s Witnesses were acquitted in the Norwegian High Court was that the High Court made incorrect use of the book “Shepherd The Flock Of God”. The High can consider whether the rules of the religious denomination have been followed. These rules are found in the Shepherd book. But the High court wrote that this book only contains advice for the elders, and therefore, it cannot be used to test whether the committees have handled the case correctly in accordance with the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Shepherd book does not contain advice for elders but exclusive requirements that always must be followed. If an elder consciously violates one of these rules, he will lose his position as an elder, or he can even be disfellowshipped. Here are two of the exclusive requirements of the Shepherd book (12. 40. 1 and 2)

Confession: Admission of wrongdoing, either written or oral, may be accepted as conclusive proof without other corroborating evidence. (Josh 7:19) There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous…

Eyewitnesses: There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just people repeating hearsay; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15-17; John 8:17; 1. Tim. 5:19, 24, 25)

Nygård was disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality. But she has consistently denied that she has committed sexual immorality. There were no eyewitnesses (because the man refused to witness), and she has not made any clear and unambiguous confession. If the High Court had used the exclusive requirements of the Shepherd book as the basis for its decision, the judges had to decide that her disfellowshipping was invalid.

As far as the supposed sexual immorality of Nygård is concerned, there were no witnesses, and all the information comes from Nygård herself. None of the testimonies of the witnesses in court contradicts Nygård’s explanation that a man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping.

The following issues will be discussed:

The Shepherd book is rejected by the High Court as a source for the handling of the case by Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Court of Appeal did not view the Shepherd book as rules of law. But the judges used the book and referred to it.  Contrary to the view of the High Court judges, there can be no doubt that the Shepherd book contains exclusive requirements that always must be followed.

The consideration of the High Court of whether the case handling was appropriate or not

The committees did not tell Nygård which sin she had committed in their view

The document the High Court uses as proof does not say anything about sexual immorality

The High Court does not give any weight to the testimonies of the four members of the committees because these were given a long time after the disfellowshipping. But they use the document written by the judicial committee as proof. But this document does not show which of Nygård’s actions the committee view as sexual immorality. On the contrary, the document says that Nygård claimed that she slept when the sexual immorality occurred.

Nygårds denial that she was raped is used against her by the High Court

According to the Court of Appeal the handling of the case by both committees was superficial

The committees have found Nygård guilty of sexual immorality without considering whether she willingly was a part of sexual immorality.

The basis for the decision of the High Court that the handling of the case was correct  

The High Court: the committees build on a total evaluation of Nygpård’s actions

The decision in the Court of Appeal was that the disfellowshipping of Gry Nygård from the Ski congregation was invalid. The decision in the High Court was the very opposite, and Jehovah’s Witnesses were acquitted. I will compare the grounds of judgment in both courts. I will show that the judges in the Court of Appeal and the High Court agreed as to which sides of the decisions of a religious denomination that can be considered by the court. But the way the judges in the two courts handled these different sides were very different.

WHICH DECISIONS MADE BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT?

The High Court refers to a decision in the Norwegian High Court from 2004 (Rf-2004-1613, section 34) and to The European Court of Human Rights (EMD) as to which sides of the decisions of a religious denomination that the court can consider. The quotations with numbers are from the decision of the High Court of May 3, 2022.

(64) According to my view, it follows in any case from the freedom of religion that a decision made by a religious denomination on religious grounds can not be set aside by the courts only because it is unreasonable.

(73) Because of this, my view is that a consideration of a decision of disfellowshipping in a religious denomination must be restricted to the sides that especially are stressed in  Rt-2004-1613, section 34.

(74) The consideration of the court can first include the proceedings. The courts must always be able to consider whether the basic requirements of a sound procedure are fulfilled. This can include a justifiable illumination of the case and contraindication. If the denomination has statutes that include clear and concrete rules for the proceedings of the case, the court can consider whether these have been followed.

(75) And further, the courts can consider whether a decision builds on fundamental wrong facts. The requirement of the word «fundamental» must be that the error is important for the decision — if there is an error in connection with the view of the fact that is important for the content of the decision.

The following points are important:

1)  Decisions with a religious basis cannot be considered by the court.

2)  Whether the rules and procedures of the denomination regarding its handling of cases have been followed, can be considered by the court.

3)  Whether the decision of the denomination is built on fundamental wrong facts, can be considered.

4) Whether the basic legal protection of the person is violated, can be considered by the court.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

It is important to understand that this is a case where there are no witnesses and no proof. All the information about the case comes from Gry Nygård. It means that if Nygård will be judged for sexual immorality (porneia), she must have given a clear and unambiguous confession. But she has done the very opposite; she has consistently denied that she has committed sexual immorality. The majority of the Court of Appeal understood this. But the judges of the High Court did not understand what the case was all about.

As mentioned, Nygård is the only one who has information in connection with the case, and she tells that she had dinner with a man whom she knew on the top floor of Hotel Plaza in Oslo. The man had rented a room at the hotel, and on the way up to the restaurant, Nygård had left her coat in the room of the man. After dinner, she took the elevator to the floor where the man had the room in order to get her coat and travel home. She has the fatigue syndrome ME. She was exhausted and lay down on the bed fully clothed with long boots over her knees. She did not wake up before the next morning, and then she was naked. The man told her later that he had oral sex with her while she was sleeping.

In the document written by the judicial committee, it is stated that after she and the man came to the room, they drank alcohol and embraced. Nygård denies this. The document also says that the next day she and the man had breakfast together, and they have continued their contact on a friendly basis. Nygård also denies this.

I have studied all the transcribed witness accounts from the District Court and the Court of Appeal, including the accounts of Nygård and of the four members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee who were witnesses. And none of the witnesses has said that he has heard Nygård admit one of the things that she denies. Because all information comes from Nygård, and no witness contradicts her, we can conclude that there is no basis for the points that she has denied.[1]

I will now discuss the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court in the light of points 2, 3, and 4 that are quoted above.

[1]. I have translated all the witness testimonies into English, and they are found in two articles in the category “Disfellowshipping” on this website.

WERE THE RULES OF THE DENOMINATION FOR THE HANDLING OF CASES FOLLOWED?

This point is particularly important because the judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, have treated this point differently. Point 87 in the decision of the High Court says that “If the denomination has statutes that include clear and concrete rules for the proceedings of the case, the court can consider whether these have been followed.” The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” (2019) has exclusive requirements that always must be followed. But the High Court refused to accept that the rules in the Shepherd book are exclusive and always must be followed and that the court, therefore, can consider whether these rules have been followed.

The Shepherd book is rejected by the High Court as a source for the handling of the case by Jehovah’s Witnesses

The attorneys of Nygård have in their writings to the court used the Shepherd book in order to show the procedures for the handling of cases and the requirements of what can be used as proofs. But the judges of the High Court do not accept this. We read:

(86) A [Nygård] has claimed that the Shepherd book contains rules for the handling of cases that the congregations are obliged to follow, and that the court can consider whether these rules have been followed. In connection with this, she has referred to the  words of the Shepherd book that a judicial committee can only be formed if there is proof that “the supposed offense factually has been committed.”

(87) In my view, the courts cannot consider whether the rules of the Shepherd book have been followed. As I have stressed, this book is exclusively for the use of the elders in the congregations and are not known by the members. It is written as advise to the elders, built on the Bible, as to how they may proceed in different contexts. Even though it also contains advice regarding the handling of cases, I cannot see that it expresses rules of the nature that the courts can consider whether they have been followed.

(88) The consideration of the handling of the case will now be based on whether the handling by the congregation fulfills the basic requirements of properly secured procedures.

The quotation contains several wrong conclusions. Of particular importance is to note the claim that the book contains advice and not rules. This is clearly wrong. The truth is that the Shepherd book contains exclusive requirements both for the handling of cases and for what can be used as proof. If an elder consciously refuses to follow what the Shepherd book says, he will lose his position as an elder and possibly be disfellowshipped. The majority of the Court of Appeal has the following view of the Shepherd book, as seen on page 16 (4):

The majority agrees with the District Court that the contents of the book for Elders cannot be viewed as rules of law, but as internal guidance for the elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The book for elders gives procedures in connection with what the elders must follow. But at the same time, it is said that these must be interpreted in the light of religious texts. The interpretation and understanding of these texts are central elements. The fact that the Shepherd book also contains elements of rules for the handling of cases for judicial committees and appeal committees, elements of how to view proofs, and considerations connected with disfellowshipping, does not mean that the Shepherd book contains rules of law. The fact that the contents of the book is valid in all the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, probably in the whole world, does not change the nature of the contents.

Here is a serious misunderstanding. The Court of Appeal says about the Shepherd book, “The book for elders gives procedures in connection with what the elders must follow. But at the same time, it is said that these must be interpreted in the light of religious texts.” That the elders must follow the procedures is correct. But the claim that the procedures must be interpreted in the light of religious texts is wrong. The attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses has in his writings to the court repeated over and over again that everything, in this case, is religious. And this has evidently influenced the judges. The problem with classifying something as religious is that the court cannot consider it.

The truth is that in the Shepherd book there are no rules or procedures regarding how to view proofs that must be interpreted in the light of religious texts. The requirement of proof is two or three eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession. And even because several of the reasons for disfellowshipping are ambiguous, these shall not be interpreted in the light of religious texts.

Because the requirement of the Governing Body is that everything in the Shepherd book must be followed slavishly, it is obvious that the book contains “statutes that include clear and concrete rules for the proceedings of the case,” which is what the court can consider, according to the judges of the High Court. But the High Court refused to accept that the Shepherd book could be used to consider whether the committees had followed the statutes of the religious denomination. Even though the Court of Appeal did not view the Shepherd book as laws of the court, this court used the book and referred to it in connection with their conclusions. We read on page 17:

But it is a natural conclusion that the elders have violated their own procedures for the handling of cases in a very important area in the issue that was considered and that is the reason for the disfellowshipping. It is difficult to see that Nygård at any time has “confessed” porneia, in the way Jehovah’s Witnesses define it in their own rules.

The High Court has previously concluded that whether a religious denomination has followed its own procedures for the handling of cases, can be considered by the court.  When the High Court denies using the Shepherd book, it has renounced the possibility of considering whether Jehovah’s Witnesses have followed their own procedures for the handling of the Nygård case.

The Shepherd book has the heading: “Evidence establishing wrongdoing.” Regarding what can be used as proof we read the following in 12.40 (1) and (2):

  • Confession: Admission of wrongdoing, either written or oral, may be accepted as conclusive proof without other corroborating evidence. (Josh 7:19) There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous…
  • Eyewitnesses: There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just people repeating hearsay; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15-17; John 8:17; 1. Tim. 5:19, 24, 25)

We can hardly find more explicit “statutes that include clear and concrete rules for the proceedings of the case” than the evidence for establishing wrongdoing. These rules for what can be accepted as proof are valid for all Jehovah’s Witnesses, are valid in all situations, and they can never be set aside. The Shepherd book must therefore be viewed as exclusive requirements of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the handling of cases and for what can be accepted as proof.

The judicial committee and the appeal committee have concluded that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality (porneia). Nygård has all the time consistently denied that she has committed sexual immorality, and there are no eyewitnesses. This means, according to the Shepherd book, that when the committees have concluded that she is guilty of sexual immorality, and she has not given a clear and unambiguous confession, the committees have violated their own procedures for the handling of the cases.

The consideration of the High court as to whether the case handling was appropriate or not

Point (88) in the decision of the High Court says “The consideration of the case proceedings will after this be based on whether actions of the congregation  fulfills the basic requirements of a properly secured case handling.” Let us take a look at this.

The committees did not tell Nygård which sin she had committed in their view

The Court of Appeal stressed that Nygård never was told which sin she had committed that was sexual immorality, according to their view (page 22):

For Nygård’s security under the law it is important that she at no time has received a clear explanation of why she has been disfellowshipped. Even though it must be accepted that porneia (sexual immorality), which is a faith issue, can be the basis for disfellowshipping, it must be expected that it must be clearly explained exactly what action constituted the sexual immorality. Nygård has been orally informed that she would be disfellowshipped, and she has understood that the reason is that she has been guilty of “porneia”.

The judges of the High Court have a view that is different from the view of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

(91) The decision is not based on anything but on the conclusion that «porneia» had been committed. Nevertheless,  I cannot see that the fact that grounds are not given in itself is a violation of properly secured case handling.

(92) After this, I have concluded that the handling of the case of disfellowshipping does not violate the basic requirements of a properly secured case handling.

The basic issue is whether the decision of disfellowshipping was valid. Both courts point out that Nygård has not received an explanation of exactly which actions were sexual immorality. But contrary to the Court of Appeal, the High Court does not consider this a violation of the basic requirements of secure case handling. But when Nygård has not received any explanation regarding what her disfellowshipping is based on, what is the opinion of the High Court as to what makes her disfellowshipping valid? Here I find a situation that seems to be self-contradictory.

The document the High Court uses as proof does not say anything about sexual immorality

In the Court of Appeal, two members of the judicial committee and two members of the appeal committee served as witnesses, and all the four witnesses contradicted each other regarding what Nygård said to the committees. One claimed Nygård and the man had sexual intercourse, one claimed that Nygård woke up with the man on top of her, one claimed that she woke up when the man performed oraql sex, she liked it and participated, and one claimed the the man perforemed oral sex while Nygård was sleeping. It is obvious that the testimonies of the four committee members cannot be trusted.

But the High court does not put any importance on these testimonies, as we read;

84) Two members of the judicial committee and two from the appeal committee gave testimonies for the District Court and the Court of Appeal about the handling of the cases and the reasons for the disfellowshipping. Transcripts of these testimonies have been given to the High Court, and both parts have to some extent referred to these testimonies.

(85) However, these are testimonies that have been given a long time after the decision of disfellowshipping. According to my view, the consideration of the handling of the case and the reason for the disfellowshipping must especially put weight on the written account that the judicial committee worked out before the handling oif the case by the appeal committee.

The High Court put special weight on the document that the judicial committee wrote, and I quote the document below.

GN [Nygård] sent a text message that she possibly was guilty of porneia. On the basis of the first conversations with her, a judicial committee was formed, consisting of  Rolf Erik Angel, Tommy Gustavsen and Kim Steen (coordinator).

GN tells that she made an appointment with a brother from Nittedal to have dinner together at a restaurant. Later in the evening, they went to the hotel room that the brother from Nittedal had rented for this occasion. More alcohol was consumed, and they embraced each other. On the basis of what GN tells, she does not remember anything more of what had happened. GN falls asleep and she wakes up in the morning naked. They had breakfast together, and after that they go home. They have also had contact on the telephone in the days after the incident.

GN is of the opinion that because she fell asleep and do not remember anything, she is not guilty of porneia. The committee asks her if she feels that she has been raped or assaulted, something she consistently denies. GN says that they spoke about the incident the next day, and as she says, “everyone can make errors.” GN and the brother from Nittedal evidently are not foes, and this situation has not created a tense relationship between them. They still have contact and speak together on the telephone. GN calls her separated man some days after the meeting in the judicial committee and tells him that he is free to marry again.

Both GN and the brother from Nittedal are separated from their spouses at that time and not free to marry again.

The Court of Appeal rightly says about this document:

The review of the meeting in the judicial committee on March 29, 2018,  which is not meant for Nygård but for the appeal committee, does not say anything about what qualifies for “porneia” in this concrete case. Neither does the report from the appeal committee of April 4, 2018, which even is shorter.

We should note that Nygård denies several of the claims in this document. She has told that she went to the room of the man to get her coat and then go home. She has the fatigue syndrome ME, and she fell asleep because she was exhausted; and she was fully clothed with long boots above the knees.

She denies that they drank alcohol in the room and that they embraced each other. She also denies that she and the man had breakfast together the next day and that they continued to be friends and continued to have contact. She called her separated man, not as an admission of guilt of sexual immorality, but because the elders asked her to do so. This is the document that is the primary evidence of the High Court. And how do the judges use this document?

Nygård’s denial that she was raped is used against her by the High Court

As I have shown above, the members of the judicial committee do not say which acts of Nygård that they view as sexual immorality. But the High Court questions her testimony because she denied that she had been raped. We read:

(100) One question that can be raised is whether A [Nygård] when she answered the question about whether she felt that she was raped, viewed rape as an action that contains violence and includes accomplished sexual intercourse. In that case, it would be correct to answer no the question of whether she had been sexually assaulted while she slept. In my view, there are no clues that the answer of A could be viewed in this way. Both the account of the judicial committee and A’s testimony in the District Court shows that the question about rape was posed several times by the committee. In the account we read that she was asked if she “felt that she had been subjected to abuse,” and this was also rejected. In any case, my view is that if A meant that she had been subjected to sexual abuse, would it, in the actual situation, have been natural for her to express this for the judicial committee and the appeal committee.

What the High Court here is saying seems strange, particularly in view of the detailed presentation of this issue in the Court of Appeal. Nygård sent two text messages to the elder Kim Steen, and in one of them she says that she was abused by porneia when she slept, The document written by the judicial committee confirms that she insisted upon the same claim that the sexual immorality occurred while she was sleeping. The last clause in the quotation above is illogical. We cannot expect that Nygård shall give the correct definitions. But from a judicial point of view, Nygård had already presented a situation of rape — oral sex while she was sleeping. Instead of insinuating guilt on the part of Nygård, the Court of Appeal went to the bottom of the issue and shows why she answered the questions the way she did. We read on page 19:

For the majority, on the basis of the presentation of evidence, it was decisive for the members of the judicial committee and the appeal committee that Nygård in a text message to Steen asked whether she was guilty of “porneia,” and that she at the same time at the meeting of the judicial committee denied that she had been abused. She has also repeated this for the Court of Appeal. But she has elucidated the issue by saying that she was not concerned about whether the man had violated the law and that she did not think of reporting him to the police. At that time she did not feel that she had been raped, and she did not know that what she had experienced would be classified as rape by the criminal law.

We must accept that the judges in two different courts can stress different things and look differently at the same thing and the same situation.  But it is difficult for me to understand that when the Court of Appeal in detail shows why Nygård denied that she had been raped, that the High Court blame her because she did not answer yes to the question of rape and decides that she was not raped because she did not use the word “rape” in the meeting with the judicial committee.

According to the Court of Appeal, the handling of the case by both committees was superficial

Nygård claims that she was told by the man that he had performed oral sex on her while she was sleeping. In order to judge her, the committees must demonstrate that she willingly participated in the oral sex. Kim Steen, who was the coordinator of the judicial committee, got the following the question in the Court of Appeal; “Have you considered the question of voluntariness (on the part of Nygård) in connection with the sexual criminal offense?” He answered: “Now we did not consider that.” So the committees found her guilty without considering whether she willingly participated in the sexual immorality.

In the District Court and the Court of Appeal, there were two members of the judicial committee and two members of the appeal committee that gave their testimony. The judges carefully followed the testimonies and drew their conclusions. Regarding the handling of the case the Court of Appeal wrote on pages 19 and 21:

The majority of the court concludes that the preponderance of evidence shows that the question about oral sex — or other forms of sexual relations — have been treated in a superficial way or not treated at all at the meetings of the judicial committee or the appeal committee…

That the issue of willingness or not on the part of Nygård was not discussed in the judicial committee, while the opinion of the member of the judicial committee, TGU, is that Nygård was sleeping when the sexual relation occurred, indicates that the decision of disfellowshipping was not connected with the question of whether rape had occurred or not.

The explanation of Nygård during the whole process is a description that there objectively speaking according to the criminal law there has been a situation of rape (comp. the criminal law § 291 letter b). Basically, the understanding of the majority is that both the judicial committee and the appeal committee keep the question open whether Nygård objectively speaking has been raped. The exception is the member of the appeal committee Gundersen who seems to factually have the opinion that the sexual immorality occurred while Nygård was sleeping.

In view of the detailed consideration of the Court of Appeal of the testimonies, where the court concludes that there are different opinions among the elders as to which sin Nygård has committed, that willingness on the part of Nygård has not been considered, and that the decision of disfellowshipping is not connected with the issue of rape or not, I read with great astonishment the conclusion of the High Court that the committees have handled the case in a correct way.

The basis for the decision of the High Court that the handling of the case was correct

We have already seen that the High Court refuses to use the Shepherd book as an expression of rules and procedures for the handling of cases among Jehovah’s Witnesses. So we can ask on what the decision of the High Court builds. We read:

(89) The decision of the judicial committee and the appeal committee must be understood to build on her own account in the courts. My opinion, then, is that the basic requirements  of contraindication and an appropriate illumination of the case, was fulfilled.

Nygård was disfellowshipped because of sexual immorality. The problem with this is that Nygård consistently has denied that she was guilty of sexual immorality. The committees have not described actually which actions of her that is sexual immorality. Moreover, as mentioned, I have translated her testimonies of all witnesses into English, and if you read these testimonies you will not find anything supporting the claim of the High Court that the decision of disfellowshipping was built on her own testimonies.

The words of the High Court are also contradicted by all the other testimonies of the witnesses in the District Court and the Court of Appeal. What the High Court has done is to present speculations without any real basis. This is confirmed by what the Court of Appeal writes on page 17:

It is difficult to see that Nygård at any time has “confessed” “porneia”, in the way Jehovah’s Witnesses define it in their own rules. Nygård has asked the elders, whom she at that time greatly trusted and from whom she wanted counseling. But she has never confessed to being guilty of “porneia” in the normal sense of the word.

The High Court concludes that the committee’s decision to disfellowship Nygård was based on her own testimony. But her testimony in the English translation that is found in the category “disfellowshipping” on this website denies this. Thus the decision of the High Court has no real basis.

I am not a lawyer, but I have a doctoral degree in Semitic languages and culture. My special fields are linguistics and semantics, and I have been the external examiner at exams for students in different languages. When I carefully have read the reasons given by the Court of Appeal why Nygård’s disfellowshipping is invalid, and the reasons given by the High Court that the disfellowshipping is valid, I see a great quality difference between what the courts say. The Court of Appeal has penetrated deep into the different issues, and it has managed to illuminate important nuances in the handling of the case by the committees. But the High Court has done a much more superficial work and has even drawn conclusions that contradict each other.

The High Court: the committees build on a total evaluation of Nygpård’s actions

I will now point to an expression of the High Court that is strange to say the least:

(101) The fact that the judicial committee and the appeal committee had, and on which they built, that the man had oral sex with Nygård while she was sleeping, but at the same time that she had not experienced sexual abuse. In my view, the conclusion that she was guilty of “porneia” must then have been built on a total evaluation of her actions — before she slept and after she woke up.

Here the High Court returns to the claim that she did not claim that she had been sexually abused. That this claim is not correct has the Court of Appeal discussed in detail. Nygård has all the time claimed that the man performed oral sex on her while she slept, and this is according to criminal law the same as rape. That she denied the question about rape has the natural explanation that is mentioned above. And this does not contradict her claim that oral sex was performed on her while she was sleeping.

The committee’s conclusion that she was guilty of sexual immorality “has been built on a total evaluation of her actions — before she slept and after she woke up,” as the High court concludes is strange indeed. The High Court has already rejected the testimonies of the four committee members because the testimonies were given so long time after the events. But now these testimonies are used in order to show that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality.

The problem is that there are no testimonies of what happened after Nygård woke up except for some speculations from two of the witnesses. Nygård has told that she woke up naked, she dressed, and immediately traveled home without any contact with the man.

The report from the judicial committee says that she and the man drank alcohol in his room and embraced before she fell asleep, but Nygård denies this. We must remember that there were no eyewitnesses and all information about what happened came from Nygård. None of the witnesses in the courts say that they heard Nygård say that they drank alcohol and embraced each other. This supports the denial of Nygård. And similarly, none of the witnesses have said that they have heard Nygård say that she had breakfast with the man and that she and the man continue to have friendly relations. This supports Nygård’s denial of these claims.

If the judges in the High Court had studied the testimonies of the four committee members and Nygård in the District Court and the Court of Appeal, they would have seen that there are no data, no evidence or proof regarding what happened before Nygård fell asleep and after she woke up. So it is clear that what the High Court ascribes to the committees as the basis for the disfellowshipping of Nygård only is based on speculations.

There is also another side to the claim of the High Court that we now are discussing. This is the fact that it is a violation of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ requirement of proof to “build on a total evaluation” of the actions of someone. As I already have shown with a quotation from the Shepherd book, a person can only be viewed as guilty if there are two or three eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession. It is quite ironic in this situation that the High Court has acquitted Jehovah’s Witnesses by ascribing to them the action — guilt after a total evaluation — something that is a violation of the basic principles and procedures of what can be viewed as proof by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The High Court concludes that the committees’ decision to disfellowship Nygård was based on a total evaluation of her actions. If that were the case, the committees had violated the exclusive requirements of Jehovah’s Witnesses of what can serve as proof, and the disfellowshipping of Nygård would be invalid.

CONCLUSION

For me who knows Jehovah’s Witnesses from the inside, the reasons given by the High Court for their decision are shocking reading. The Shepherd book contains exclusive requirements for the handling of cases and for what can be accepted as proof, and these rules must always be followed. When the High court refuses to consider the actions of the committees in the light of this book, they take away the objective basis for considering whether Nygård’s disfellowshipping was valid or not. This must be viewed as the wrong use of the extant evidence.

It is peculiar that the High Court has accepted the handling of the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses without any proof or evidence. The High Court claims that the decisions of the committees “were based on her own testimony.” But there is no point in her transcribed testimonies where she admits guilt. And the Court of Appeal says that “It is difficult to see that Nygård at any time has «confessed» “porneia”, in the way Jehovah’s Witnesses define it in their own rules.”

The High court also says that the committees’ decision of disfellowshipping is built on “a total evaluation of Nygård’s actions.” If that were correct, the committees had violated the rules and procedures of the Shepherd book, and the disfellowshipping of Nygård must be declared invalid. The reasons given by the High Court for their decision are both strange and shocking.

ADDENDUM

Massimo Introvigne has written the article:

The Jehovah’s witnesses in Norway: The Supreme Court Corrects a Mistake

(https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-in-norway-the-supreme-court-corrects-a-mistake/)

Introvigne describes the proceedings of the court in a basically correct way with some exceptions. But his description of the role of Gry Nygård is hopelessly flawed. That may to some extent be ascribed to an inaccurate translation from Norwegian to English. But the whole setting of his description of Nygård’s role is biased. He tries to show that Nygård was guilty of sexual immorality and that the judicial committee and the appeal committee correctly disfellowshipped her.

The background of the case is as follows: As I already have shown, to judge a Witness guilty of sexual immorality, either two or three eyewitnesses or a clear and unambiguous confession is necessary. There are no witnesses, and Nygård has consistently denied that she is guilty of sexual immorality. This means that the case is crystal clear: The committees violated the rules and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses when they disfellowshipped Nygård.

One important thing to note is that all the information about the case comes from Nygård. She has described the situation, and the committee members have added something to her description that she denies. Because all information comes from her, to substantiate the claims that she denies, the committee members have to produce witnesses saying they have heard Nygård admit what she now denies. But the transcripts of the testimonies of the witnesses from the District Court and the Court of Appeal show that none of them can be trusted. With reference to what Nygård told the committee, one says that she and the man had sexual intercourse, one says that she woke up with the man on top of her, one says that she woke up when the man performed oral sex on her, she liked it and participated, and one says that the man performed oral sex on her while she was sleeping. It is obvious that these testimonies regarding what Nygård told the committees cannot be trusted.

I will now point to several errors:

Introvigne says:

she accepted to have dinner with a male Jehovah’s Witness, himself divorced, in a restaurant in Oslo, after which they went to the man’s hotel room. They started kissing and fondling. Then, she fell asleep and woke up the next morning, naked and with the man on top of her.

(1) The phrase “they started kissing and fondling” has no basis. The report from the Judicial committee says that Nygård and the man “embraced each other” after they came to his room. Nygård denies this, and none of the witnesses has said that they have heard Nygård admit this. Therefore, the claim is baseless.

The claim is of course important because, if they embraced, it can be argued that Nygård had some responsibility for the later sexual immorality. But as mentioned, the claim is baseless.

(2) The words that Nygård “woke up the next morning naked with the man on top of her” are also baseless. Nygård has expressed in all her testimonies that she woke up alone and naked. One of the committee members said that she woke up with the man on top of her. But when asked about this he was uncertain, and he had not heard Nygård say this.

Introvigne says:

When the ecclesiastical judicial committee of Jehovah’s Witnesses examined her case G.N. said that she had drank more alcohol than usual and had willingly lied in the bed with the man, “kissing and fondling.” In the court case, however, she denied these circumstances and said she went to the man’s room just to recover a coat she had left there, decided to take a nap because she was tired, but while sleeping she was raped.

(1) Here Introvigne is guilty of manipulating the case because he claims Nygård said something to the judicial committee and the very opposite in her court testimony. He claims that she said to the judicial committee that “she had drunk more alcohol than usual.” The report of the judicial committee says regarding what happened when they came to the man’s room: “More alcohol was consumed.” The words do not mean that Nygård drank more alcohol than usual, but they mean that in addition to the alcohol consumed at the dinner some alcohol was also consumed in the room of the man. Nygård denies that alcohol was consumed in the room of the man, and none of the witnesses has heard Nygård say that. In the Court of Appeal, Nygård was asked about alcohol consumption at the dinner, and she answered that the consumption was moderate.

(2) Introvigne also says regarding Nygård that she “had willingly lied in the bed with the man.” This is a particularly biased clause because of what it insinuates. The adverbial “willingly” is meant to signal to the reader that she consented to the situation. But there is nothing in the report of the judicial committee supporting this claim. The report just says that she fell asleep and woke up the next day naked.”

She has claimed she was told that the man had oral sex with her while she was sleeping —against her will. And interestingly, the coordinator of the judicial committee was asked in the Court of Appeal: “Have you considered the question of voluntariness (on the part of Nygård) in connection with the sexual criminal offense? He answered: “Now we did not consider that.” This is the opposite of what you say.

(3) The words “lied in the bed with the man” are also without basis. The report of the judicial committee does not say that Nygård lied in the bed “with the man.” This claim suggests consession on the part of Nygård of sexual immorality. The idea that she and the man lay down in the bed is not supported by the report of the judicial committee, and it has never been mentioned by any one of the witnesses in court.

(4) The claim of Introvigne that Nygård said something to the judicial committee that she denied in her court testimonies has no basis whatsoever. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the High Court have concluded that this was the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal says regarding the testimony of Nygård:

There are, for example, different explanations of what happened before and after Nygård was sleeping. But these differences do not seem to be based on her account — which we must use as a basis because it has been consistent all the way.

The testimonies of the two elders from the judicial committee and the two from the appeal committee contradict each other. But the testimony of Nygård has been consistent all the way.

(5) Introvigne is also misrepresenting the situation by failing to tell about the sickness of Nygård. She has the fatigue syndrome ME, and the reason why she lay down on the bed in the man’s room fully clothed and with long boots reaching above her knees was that she was exhausted, not that she wanted to have physical contact with the man.

Introvigne writes:

At the time, she did not feel raped, and continued to have contacts with the man after the incident. However, she had moral scruples about what happened, and told the story to the elders of her congregation, who convened an ecclesiastical judicial committee… Only after she had been disfellowshipped, she started describing what has happened to her as rape.

(1) The words that at that time she did not feel that she was raped but started to say that after she was disfellowshipped are factually correct but still mislead the reader. The judges of the Court of Appeal tell that after the incident and for a long time Nygård did not realize that oral sex with someone who is sleeping is defined in the criminal law as rape. Therefore, it is wrong to use this situation against her.

(2) The report of the judicial committee says that she had breakfast with the man the next morning, and that she continued to have contact with the man afterwards. This is denied by Nygård and no evidence for this has been presented in the courts. But in this case the reporting of Introvigne is justified because of the mentioned report.

(3) Introvigne claims that Nygård had moral scruples. That may not be correct. If a sister falls asleep in a man’s room and later is told by the man that he performed oral sex with her while she slept, it is natural that she contacts one elder in order to get some advice regarding what to do. This does not indicate moral scruples or a bad conscience.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply