—REVIEW—
Jehovah’s witnesses are persecuted in Russia, in Eritrea, and in several other countries because they do not follow all the requirements of the leaders of these nations. The decision of the District Court in Oslo shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses are persecuting some of their members and some of their former members because these are not following all the requirements of the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost their registration as a religious community and their yearly grants from the State. The Witnesses sued in order to get back these privileges. But they lost on both counts.
One strategy of Jehovah’s Witnesses was to try to show that the issues of the case were of a religious nature, and therefore, neither to County Governor, nor the Court could make decisions regarding these issues. This was exactly the same strategy that Jehovah’s Witnesses used in the court cases about the female Witness who was disfellowshipped because she was raped by another Witness. The purpose of this strategy is to prevent anyone from acquiring an accounting of what the Witness have written or said. In reality, they hide behind a religious façade.
The other strategy was the claim that the Count Governor had misunderstood what Jehovah’s Witnesses stand for, and that the decisions of the County Governor was made on a wrong basis.
The State argued that both strategies were wrong, and the Court sided with the State.
There was a shocking side of this case, namely, that the representative of the branch office, Kåre Sæterhaug, lied to the Court regarding how Jehovah’s Witnesses treat disfellowshipped and disassociated persons. The attorney of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Anders Stray Ryssdal repeated and expanded these lies. But because he had received his information from the Witnesses, he probably was not aware of the fact that he told lies.
INTRODUCTION
The County Governor of Oslo and Viken decided to withdraw the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious community as well as grants from the State that all registered communities get. Jehovah’s Witnesses sued the state, and the case in the District Court lasted from January 8 to 19, 2024. The decision of the Court was published on March 4, 2024, and Jehovah’s Witnesses lost the case on all counts. In what follows is a translation of the most important parts of the decision of the Court of 30 pages and a few comments of mine.[1]
[1]. Some abbreviations that the reader will not immediately understand are not in my translation.
CAN THE TEXTS OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN THE COURT?
In accordance with their strategy, Jehovah’s Witnesses argued that their printed books and magazines could not be used as evidence to the Court. The reason was that these were religious texts, and only Jehovah’s Witnesses could interpret these texts. The attempt of the County Governor to quote excerpts from these texts were wrong. I quote from the words of Jehovah’s Witnesses on page 6:
The State’s understanding of the religious practice builds basically on their own interpretation of religious texts. This is to transgress a forbidden border. Religious issues, such as the relationship to disfellowshipped and disassociated persons cannot be examined and judged by authorities and courts… In addition, the evidence of the State are fragmented histories and observations from disgruntled former members.
The practice of disfellowshipping is not what the decisions have described. It is not proven that there is a harmful “practice” with disfellowshipping of minors or a harmful “practice” that prevents the right to free resignation.
Each member decides how he, on the basis of biblical principles, treats disfellowshipped and disassociated acquaintances and family members.
The Court writes on pages 13 and 14:
Jehovah’s Witnesses have argued that religious texts—such as those quoted by the Court—cannot be used as evidence for the refusal of giving State grants and registration because they require a religious interpretation that lies outside of the competence of the Court…
The State rejects such a prohibition of evidence and is of the opinion that these texts are relevant as far as they show what is the practice [among Jehovah’s Witnesses]…
The Court agrees with the State.
This means that what Jehovah’s Witnesses have written in their literature can be used as evidence in Court.
WHAT SHUNNING MEANS
As I have quoted above, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the description of the situation of shunning among the Witnesses is not correct. Kåre Sæterhaug from the Scandinavian branch office said that each Witness would decide how much contact he or she would have with a disfellowshipped and disassociated person, and that the organization did not have strict rules for this contact. In his final comments, the attorney for Jehovah’s Witnesses, Anders Stray Ryssdal, expanded on what Sæterhaug had said. Among other things, he said:
There is no established and cemented practice for how disfellowshipped and disassociated persons shall be treated.
There is nothing in their teaching requiring that they break the contact with disfellowshipped persons.
There is no established practice among the Witnesses. But it is the conscience of each one that decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped persons.
All who are acquainted with Jehovah’s Witnesses know that Sæterhaug lied. The attorney repeated these lies and expanded them. However, the attorney got his information from the Witnesses, so he probably made his statements in good faith.
The court concluded, against the claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that the practice of shunning disfellowshipped and disassociated Witnesses was just as strict as the State claimed.
As evidence for what shunning includes, the Court quoted from Store Norske Lexicon (The Big Norwegian Lexicon), from what the Supreme Court wrote in connection with the woman who was disfellowshipped because she was raped, and from the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court did not believe the lies of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Court heard the testimony of 24 Witnesses, who were Jehovah’s Witnesses or had been Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court described the testimony of 7 witnesses for Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7 witnesses for the State. The court concluded that the testimony of all 24 witnesses to a great extent agreed with the view of the State regarding the strictness of the treatment of disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.
The Court did not believe in the lies of Jehovah’s Witnesses that each Witnesses on the basis of his or her conscience would decide how much contact he or she would have with disfellowshipped and disassociated persons.
THE JUDICIAL BASIS FOR THE DECISION OF THE COURT
The Judicial basis for the decision of the County Governor in Oslo and Viken to withdraw the registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses and refuse the State grants are the laws, The Religious and Life Stance Communities Act, § 6, and The Decree of Religious and Life Stance Communities Act, § 6. The District Court also refers to different comments on the mentioned laws and to decisions of The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and to The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and from other sources.
THE RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Below is an English translation of parts of the relevant laws. The first part of § 6 in The Religious and Life Stance Communities Act (The law of religious communities) says:
Reasons for refusing grants
If a religious and life stance community, or persons who act on behalf of the community, exercise violence or coercion, make threats, insult the rights of children, violate prohibitions against discrimination based on law, or in other ways violate the rights and freedom of others, the community can be denied grants or the grants can be reduced. Grants can also be denied if the community call for or support violations that are mentioned in this paragraph.
The first part of § 6 in The Decree of the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act says:
Withdrawal of registration
If a religious and life stance community no longer fulfills the requirements of registration or other requirements or demands that are made with the authority of the law of religious denominations [The Religious and Life Stance Communities Act ], the County Governor can make a decision to withdraw the registration…
In the consideration of whether the registration shall be withdrawn from a community on the basis of what is mentioned in the law of religious communities § 6, first to third clauses, it should be put particular emphasis on measures that the religious and life stance community has made to prevent such situations. Emphasis should be put on how serious the situation is, and whether is appears as intentional. Systematic, continuing and intentional violations of what is mentioned in the law, § 6, first division, shall as the main rule lead to the withdrawal of the registration.
THE DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT
The decision of the Court is described in a document of 30 pages. Below is an English translation of the main points of the decision of the Court:
Quotations from page 24:
There has been given instructions as to how the Decree of Religious and Life Stance Communities Act shall be effectuated.
According to § 11, first clause, the County Governor can make a decision to refuse to give a grant, among other things, if the religious and life stance community is guilty of, call for, or support the violations that are mentioned in the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act § 6, first clause, or do not follow the rules of the law for registering members or logging out members. In § 4, fourth clause, instruction is given that registration can be refused if there are situations that are mentioned in the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act § 6, first clause.
It should be put particular emphasis on measures that the religious and life stance community has made to prevent such situations. and how serious the situation is, and if it is intentional. If there are systematic, continuing, and intentional violations, the grants shall be refused, and the registration shall as the main rule be withdrawn. Cf §§ 6 and 11.
Quotations from page 25:
3.3 Are the requirements for refusing grants to Jehovah’s Witnesses fulfilled?
The conclusion is that the requirements for refusing state grants to Jehovah’s Witnesses and registration according to the law of religious communities are fulfilled, and that the decisions [of the County Governor] are valid.
Through the guidelines and practice of disfellowshipping, Jehovah’s Witnesses urge members to shun those who are disfellowshipped or who resign, with the result that, with few exceptions, they are experiencing social isolation from the remaining members of the community.
The Court agrees with the State that this has effects that must be viewed as serious violations of the rights and freedom of others, and this gives basis for the refusal of state grants and registration, § 6, cf §§ 2 and 4.
The County Governor has in his decisions referred to that both the right of free resignation and the rights of children are violated, while the Department — in the case dealing with state grants for 2021 — only pointed out that the right of children were violated with the procedure of disfellowshipping baptized children.
The Special remarks to this part of the bill say that if adult members of free will follow rules that restrict their rights and freedom, this cannot be viewed as violations in connection with this rule. This is also basically the case if the commitment can be viewed as damaging. The members can normally react by resigning. Therefore, this rule can be applied to communities that prevent resignation, or who exploit a member who is in an exposed or vulnerable position.
The Court is of the opinion that there is a sufficient basis for refusing State grants and registration because Jehovah’s Witnesses are violating the rights of children. This relates particularly to their right of free resignation.
The freedom of religion is protected among other things of ECHR [The European Convention of Human Rights], article 9, and the Norwegian Constitution § 16. The right to freely change religion or conviction is absolute and inviolable. This gives a strong protection against pressure and coercion that may infringe the practice of this right. ECtHR [The European Court of Human Rights] has several times stressed that the purpose of the convention is to secure the rights that are not theoretical or illusory but are practical and effective.
The Norwegian Constitution § 104, third clause, gives children the right to protect their personal integrity. The law protects the vulnerability of children, their dependence of adults, and their special need for protection. One good synonym for integrity is “inviolability.” The rights are not limited to particular situations. But they are valid for all, both for parents, other private persons, and the public.
In addition, the best interests of the child are a fundamental consideration, cf The Norwegian Constitution § 104, second clause, and The convention of children [UN Convention on the rights of the child], article 3, first clause.
What is mentioned here, is that children must be protected against the effects of the practice of disfellowshipping, which seriously violates the freedom to change religion and conviction. In Norway, the religious legal age is 15 years, cf the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act § 2. For baptized minors at this age, it would be practically impossible to apply the right of free resignation, when the consequence is to lose the normal contact with family and friends., as well as parents, siblings and others in the household when they move out of the home. Also, when they reach adulthood, it will be very difficult.
Quotations from page 26:
Children must not be put in a situation where they bind themselves to rules that in practice put great obstacles for their right and freedom to change their religion and conviction, both as minors and later in their lives. It is not sufficient to show that the minor has been informed about the procedure of disfellowshipping before baptism, or that the religious legal age is 15 years. Children are particularly receptive and vulnerable for socializing and other impacts, and will in most instances not be prepared for making such lifelong choices. As in connection with younger children, who can be registered or can be logged out of religious communities by those who have the responsibility as parents, will the right of each one be taken care of by the right of free resignation.
The rights of children are also violated by the social isolation that is connected with disfellowshipping, or the fear of experiencing this. And this represents a danger of serious harmful effects on their health and well-being. The treatment qualifies then as phychological violence and a violation of the Convention of children, article 19.
Here, it must be stressed that it is reasonable to expect that several youths, during the process of becoming adults—as part of the development of creating their own identity—will violate rules that can lead to disfellowshipping, such as sexual relations to a girlfriend or distancing oneself from an outlook on life that he is not certain of.
As Tobin stresses, both subjective and objective elements must be considered in evaluating the child’s exposure. There is no requirement of an instant and permanent effect, and it can be enough to put the child at a risk of injury. There is no threshold that must be reached for an action, and neither is there a requirement that the action must have been intentional.
The court does not find it necessary to consider the claims of negative social control, and whether there is a practice in connection with unbaptized publishers that violates the rights of children.
The current violations are continuing, systematic, and intentional. Cf the Decree of Religious and Life Stance Communities Act §§ 6, second clause, and 11, second and fourth clauses.
It is beyond doubt that Jehovah’s Witnesses are responsible for the violations in connection with the assessment of the refusal of State grants and registration according to the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act. Jf § 6, clause one, third comma, and The Decree of Religious and Life Stance Communities Act, § 11, letter a, and The Proposal of the bill, page 257.
It is also clear that the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act §§ 6, cf 4, fulfills the requirement of law basis, cf. The Norwegian Constitution § 113. The requirement is that the law must be “available and be as accurate as the conditions allow,” cf. HR-2014-2288-A. The violations is in the core area of the law, and the consequences are not unclear.
Quotations from page 27:
Refusal of registration and state grants implies discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious and life-stance communities that receive State grants and are registered. The discrimination is connected with religion.
The protection against discrimination implies that the discrimination must have a purpose based on the law and objective and reasonable justification.
The State has fulfilled these requirements.
It is clear that the decisions are intended to manage public resources (subsidies) and public functions (performing the marriage ceremony) in a way that serves socially beneficial purposes and protects the rights and freedoms of others. These are legitimate purposes, cf The Proposition of the bill, pages 191 and 192.
As the State has stated, it follows from the practice of ECtHR [The European Court of Human Rights] that the states have the right to establish arrangements where religious communities can apply for a particular status that gives particular privileges. The criteria in the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act are formed in an objective way, which implies that any community that acts, calls for, or supports the things that are mentioned in the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act § 6, first clause, may be refused State grants. These communities can also be deprived of a previous registration and can be denied a new registration based on the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act § 4, third clause. In the Proposition of the bill, it is assumed that these new regulations can imply a sharpening of the practice. Because the law is new, we can expect that there will go some time before there can be comparable practices of some magnitude.
It is reasonable to consider rights and interests in assessing discrimination. It must also be determined whether discrimination is necessary to achieve legitimate purposes.
Several factors suggest that Jehovah’s Witnesses should still receive state grants and be registered according to The Religious and Life Stance Communities Act.
The most important one is that religious freedom gives Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to express their religion through teaching and practice, compared with the principle that all religious communities shall be supported in the same way. Cf The Norwegian Constitution § 16.
The practice of disfellowshipping is generally known, and we know that it has been part of the teaching in all the years when Jehovah’s Witnesses were registered based on the previous law of religious communities.
Religious teaching and practice are the same worldwide, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have made it clear that loss of registration and State grants will cause some changes in their religious practice. There is no doubt that registration and State grants are of great significance for Jehovah’s Witnesses and their members.
The State grants are a significant part of the income basis for the community in Norway. For the years 2021 to 2023 the yearly grants were between 16 and 18 million kroner.
Quotations from page 28:
Registration is also important because it means that the community fulfills particular requirements for organizing and reporting. And this does not be viewed as serious insult on the rights and freedom of others. In addition, it is a requirement for performing marriages. Cf The Religious and Life Stance Communities Act chapter 2. We must assume that these things are important for many in the congregations, in connection with the preaching for others.
Throughout history, Jehovah’s Witnesses have experienced persecution and discrimination. It is easy to understand that the members of the community react extra strongly when being connected with serious violations of the rights of others. For them, this has a religious basis, an arrangement that is based on love and is meaningful.
As mentioned by Sæterhaug, there are few Witnesses who are disfellowshipped, and there are fewer resignations. It must be assumed that the practice of disfellowshipping contributes to stability in the congregations and that this is experienced as important for the community and its members. Several Witnesses, also those who have had bad experiences when they left the community, stressed that they experienced security in the congregations. NN said that growing up among Jehovah’s Witnesses is the best child-rearing in the world and that the denomination is like an international family.
The court agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses that the refusal of state grants and registration has a stigmatizing effect. The witness NN, who is a member, expressed that she was worried about the view of people when Jehovah’s Witnesses lost their registration as a religious community. The members are known as law-abiding people all over the world, and it is hurtful and assaulting that one is not allowed to marry in their own House of God. The Court understood Ben Elder from The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses that reasons like these are more important than financial grants.
The view of the Court is that these reasons are not weighty enough to view the discrimination as unreasonable.
The practice of disfellowshipping means that the right of children of free resignation is violated. This is an inviolable part of religious freedom that the state must exert itself to protect. Refusing grants and registration is a reaction that agrees with of the legitimate purposes of the decisions. In order to get democratic support for the arrangement of registration and grants, it is important that the right to free resignation is a reality in the communities that receive registration and grants. The state has, in a difficult case, chosen a solution that all in all is balanced and reasonable. The decisions mean that the spotlight has been directed towards a practice that is very problematic. This can in itself be a protection mechanism for children who are in line for becoming members. The Court does not see any reason to differentiate between grants and registration, in connection with the validity of the decisions.
The Court does not find it necessary to make a closer consideration of whether the decisions are an intervention in the right of the community to make expressions of its religion, or other freedoms or rights that naturally can be connected. The requirement of intervention authorized by the law, necessity, and a legitimate purpose, is in any case fulfilled. This is shown in the discussion of the protection against discrimination.
Quotations from page 29:
The same is true with the claim that the decisions violate property rights according to ECHR [The European Convention of Human Rights], additional protocol 1, article 1, because Jehovah’s Witnesses have an eligible expectation of receiving grants. An intervention is also in this case proportionately.
Further, it is clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have any independent claim to be registered as a community, neither according to the Religious and Life Stance Communities Act nor according to ECHR [The European Convention of Human Rights].
CONCLUSION OF JUDGMENT
- The State, by the Ministry of Children and Family, is acquitted.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses are sentenced to pay the State by the Ministry of Children and Family the court costs of 1,140,505 kroner.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The balance of the Court decision can be connected with the following axis: Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as a law-abiding people, who do their utmost to follow the principles of the Bible. It is important for them to be registered as a religious community and get State grants. There are many good reasons why Jehovah’s Witnesses should be treated as most other religious communities and both have registration and grants.
But there is one right that is absolute and inviolable that the community is violating. That is the right to freely change religion or conviction. The disfellowshipping procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses make it almost impossible for children to resign from the religion, and there are also great obstacles for adults. Because of this, the rights of children are violated.
This is a violation of the requirements of Norwegian law for a community to be registered and receive State grants. Therefore, the Court agrees with the State that the judicial basis for the decisions of the County Governor for refusing to register Jehovah’s Witnesses and to give them State grants are valid.
