COMMENTS ON THE COURT OF APPEAL’S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES VERSUS THE STATE

It is noteworthy that the District Court and the Court of Appeal drew diametrically different conclusions based on the same factual basis.

FREE RESIGNATION FROM THE ORGANIZATION

If a child or adult withdraws from Jehovah’s Witnesses, that person will be shunned and completely isolated by all Witnesses, including close family, except those living in the same household.

Due to the threat of total isolation, the District Court concluded that it is almost impossible for a child to resign from the organization, and it is also difficult for adults to resign. Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have free resignment from the organization.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the only requirement of the Religious Communities Act is that withdrawal must be in writing. Jehovah’s Witnesses meet this requirement, and therefore they have free resignment. The fact that there are serious consequences associated with resigning does not invalidate the conclusion of free resignment.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE AGAINST CHILDREN

When children and adults violate Jehovah’s Witnesses’ moral laws, they undergo an interrogation in which many intimate questions are asked. When they are disfellowshipped, they are shunned and completely isolated from family and friends and all Jehovah’s Witnesses, except those living in the same household.

The total isolation that comes with disfellowshiping violates children’s rights, and it constitutes psychological abuse against children, according to the District Court. The Court of Appeal concluded, with some doubt, that the total isolation that children experience through disfellowshipping is not psychological abuse.

I believe that most ordinary people’s sense of justice leads them to agree with the District Court that when resigning leads to total isolation, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have free resignment and that it is almost impossible for minors to change religion due to the threat of total isolation — and that this is psychological violence against children and violates their rights.

I will first comment on the factual basis used by the Court of Appeal. Then I will go into more detail about the ruling  of the Court of Appeal, and finally compare it with the District Court’s ruling. First, a couple of definitions: Social distancing: That family and friends avoid all contact with the person concerned except for “necessary” family matters.Violation of norms: That a person violates one of the laws that Jehovah’s Witnesses have made. The Court defines the state’s claim as follows:

State subsidies and registration are denied on the grounds that Jehovah’s Witnesses seriously violate the rights and freedoms of others, cf. Religious Communities Act Section 6, cf. Sections 2 and 4. The state claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses prevent the right to free resignment and expose baptized children to psychological violence and negative social control. This is seen to be the effect of a religiously motivated practice that states that no one in the congregations should have contact with former members who have been disfellowshipped (expelled) or who have resigned. In the state’s view, children’s rights are also violated by another practice that applies to unbaptized minors who have the status of publishers. If they commit a serious sin, they cannot be expelled as unbaptized, but they risk exclusion and social isolation from the community of the congregation — because the advice is that one must be careful about associating with the child.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES LIED ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DISFELLOWSHIPPED PEOPLE

In my testimony in court, I claimed that representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses lied about how the Witnesses treat disfellowshipped people:

GG: But is that how Jehovah’s Witnesses teach their members that it is up to each individual how much contact they want to have?

RF: No! And there is a lot of misinformation out there. I will give an example. A few weeks ago, there was an article in the newspaper Dagen about a married couple who had left Jehovah’s Witnesses. The branch office was asked for a comment on this, and Jørgen Pedersen commented. He wrote that it was up to each individual Witness’s personal conscience to decide how much contact he or she wanted with disfellowshipped people.And to put it bluntly. This is not true. It is an outright lie!

I will clarify. If a Witness had practiced what Pedersen wrote, which he wrote was representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then that person could be disfellowshipped. Because if a person chooses with his conscience to have contact with a disfellowshipped person, the elders will immediately say that he must stop. If he does not, they will say again that he must stop. And if he continues, he will be disfellowshipped. This is stated in the Elders’ Book, chapter 12, paragraph 17.1. You do not have to go far into the literature to see that total isolation is the Governing Body’s requirement.I will give a good example. There is a video about a young girl who was disfellowshipped, which is about Sonja Eriksson being disfellowshipped.

GG: We have already seen this video.

RF: Then I will not say anything more about it. It shows that even the slightest contact is forbidden. This video has now been removed from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website. When I read what Pedersen writes, that the video has been removed from the website, and what many other leading Witnesses write, it seems to me that there are systematic attempts to make the way disfellowshipped people are treated harmless, and in a way make this much less than it is.

And perhaps even more important, systematic attempts to take responsibility for how disfellowshipped people are treated away from the Governing Body and the elders, and put it on the shoulders of the individual Witnesses. After all, it is the personal conscience of the individual Witnesses that should determine how much contact they should have with disfellowshipped people — and this is not true.

The findings made by the Court of Appeal agree with my explanation:

Based on the review above, it is not in doubt that the main rule is that Jehovah’s Witnesses should avoid contact with disfellowshipped and disfellowshipped members, with the exception of family members in the same household and for contact with other family members in “necessary family matters”…

However, Jehovah’s Witnesses have argued that it is a personal decision for each individual Jehovah’s Witness, based on one’s own conscience, how strictly one practices the rules to avoid/limit contact with disfellowshipped or disfellowshipped members. Jehovah’s Witnesses have here referred, among other things, to an article from the newspaper Vårt Land from April 27, 2024, where a spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses states that the degree of “unnecessary contact” with disfellowshipped family members is a personal decision based on the individual’s conscience.

However, the Court of Appeal cannot see that this possibility of more contact with disfellowshipped or resigned members based on one’s own conscience is embodied in the written texts of Jehovah’s Witnesses that were reviewed during the appeal hearing.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have also pointed out that there have been no concrete cases where someone has been disfellowshipped due to association with excluded/expelled people beyond what the rules on social distancing dictate. Sæterhaug explained that he is not aware of any such cases.

It is somewhat unclear to the Court of Appeal whether Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by this that the rules on the consequences of association with disfellowshipped or resigned people beyond what is “permitted” should not be taken at face value. (p. 18)

The Elders’ book, chapter 12, paragraph 17 (1), states:

Unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated ones: There is a basis for appointing a judicial committee if a person, despite repeated admonitions, willfully continues to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated ones who are not related to him.​—Matt. 18:17b; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13; 2 John 10, 11; lvs pp. 39-40.

If a member of the congregation is known to have unnecessary association with disfellowshipped or disassociated family members who are not members of the household, the elders should counsel him and reason with him from the Scriptures. Review with him information from Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, page 241. If it is clear that a Christian is acting contrary to the intent of the disfellowshipping arrangement and is not responding to counsel, he is not qualified to receive privileges in the congregation, for that requires setting a good example. A judicial committee should not be appointed unless there is ongoing spiritual association or ongoing open criticism of the decision to disfellowship.

Contrary to the quotation above, which states that the individual decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped individuals, a person who chooses to have contact with a disfellowshipped individual will receive one or more warnings. If he continues to have contact, he will be disfellowshipped.

The process goes further for family members, and one is only disfellowshipped if a baptized member has “persistent spiritual association” with a disfellowshipped family member or has “persistent open criticism of the decision to disfellowship.

Ever since Jehovah’s Witnesses responded to letters from the County Governor in 2021 about their disfellowshipping practices, they have systematically lied about how much contact each individual may have with disfellowshipped and resigned individuals. The Judges note that they have found nothing in the writings of Jehovah’s Witnesses supporting the claim that each member decides how much contact he or she will have with disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses. However, in view of my testimony that this is an attempt to mislead the Court, the Court should have placed more negative emphasis on this, which they clearly did not.

DIFFERENT VIEWS ON FREE RESIGNATION

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have “free resignation” in the sense of the law?

THE STATE’S CLAIM IS THAT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DO NOT HAVE FREE RESIGNATION

There is agreement on the facts that those who have resigned are treated in the same way as those who have been disfellowshipped:

As stated in point 3, a person who has resigned will be treated in the same way as someone who has been disfellowshipped, and thus will initially be avoided by the other members, including family members. (p. 19)

The state’s claim is that treating those who have resigned in the same way as those who have been expelled prevents free resignation:

The state claims that this practice is contrary to the right to free resignation, and thus provides grounds for refusing grants and registration under Section 6, first paragraph and/or Section 6, third paragraph, cf. Section 2, second paragraph, of the Religious Communities Act.

The state’s argument that the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses prevent resignation is not based on the fact that there are formal obstacles to resignation, but on the fact that resignation has such great social consequences that many people fail to resign for that reason. (p. 19)

THE COURT OF APPEAL CONCLUDED THAT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES HAVE FREE RESIGNATION

The Act on Religious and Belief Communities § 2 states:

Registration in and resignation from religious and belief communities

Persons who have reached the age of 15 may themselves register in or out of a religious and belief community. Those who have parental responsibility for a child under the age of 15 may register the child in or out of a religious and belief community.

The religious and belief communities themselves determine the conditions for membership and the procedure for registration in the community. Withdrawal must always be possible in writing.

The Court has the following comments on free resignation:

The state’s claim is that treating those who have resigned in the same way as those who have been disfellowshipped is an obstacle to free resignation. The only requirement according to the wording of the law is that withdrawal must be possible “in writing”.

The practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses is therefore, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, not in conflict with the Religious Communities Act, Section 2, second paragraph, second sentence. (p. 20)

Since the law is very brief, the Court’s comments, which are quoted above, are formally correct. However, as other comments show, the Court does not take into account the preparatory work for the laws and the legislator’s intentions in this context. The question here is whether the legislator would accept that major obstacles were placed in the way of resignation.

THE COURT’S CONCLUSION THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESIGNATION IS INCORRECT

One of the Court’s arguments for the freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses to resign is that all Witnesses know when they join (get baptized) that if they withdraw, they will be completely isolated. The following quote shows this:

The Court of Appeal emphasizes here, among other things, that the social consequences of resigning – which can undoubtedly be very difficult for many – are stated in the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses and are something that the members are familiar with; both those who withdraw and the remaining members. Thus, there is no new and unknown “sanction” that is implemented when one withdraws. (p. 22)

What the Court says here is not true. The words “something that the members are familiar with” must be qualified. If these words are to be used as the Court does, to show that those who choose to resign know what they are getting into, then the words “are familiar with” must refer to the moment one joins (is baptized).

Having served as an elder for 56 years and having a thorough knowledge of the inner workings of the organization, I can say that the Court is wrong here. This applies both to those who are baptized without any previous relationship with the Witnesses and to many children who grow up and are baptized.

When a Witness meets an interested person in the door-to-door ministry, a Bible study is often started using the book What Can the Bible Teach Us?. This book does not say anything about disfellowshipping or resigning, and since the publisher will be pointing out the positive aspects of Bible teachings, he will clearly not discuss disfellowshipping or disassociation.

If the interested person, on the basis of his study of the book, desires to get baptized, he will go through 33 questions that do not mention disfellowshipping or resignation. Of those who are baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses, about a third are found in the house-to-house ministry. The vast majority of these have never heard of disfellowshipping or the consequences of resigning.

As for children who grow up in Witness families, they will be well-acquainted with disfellowshipping and that disfellowshipped ones lose all contact with family and friends. But I would imagine that the vast majority of these children have never heard of the fact that those who resign will be treated in the same way as disfellowshipped ones, Because resignation rarely happens and is not something people talk about.

The Court’s argument that total isolation of those who resign is known to everyone (= was known to everyone when they became members; were baptized) is not correct. The vast majority of those who are baptized have never heard of the total isolation of those who resign.

COURT OF APPEAL: JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DO NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO FREE RESIGNATION

The Court of Appeal says that if there is undue pressure on people not to resign, this is contrary to free resignation. But the court believes that no undue pressure occurs among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Court of Appeal assumes that there may be cases where a religious community has rules and sanctions for resignation that can be considered to constitute undue pressure against those who want to resign and that in that case, this may involve a violation of the right to free resignation under Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 18 of the Norwegian Convention on Human Rights, etc. However, the Court of Appeal believes that such a threshold has not been violated in our case. (s. 22)

THE REASONS WHY FREE RESIGNATION IS NOT VIOLATED

The Court has a long justification to show that Jehovah’s Witnesses have free resignation, and I bring the quote here:

As stated above, it is practically easy to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sufficient to send a letter to the congregation about the resignation. There is no evidence that a resignation is not respected or that the congregation is particularly trying to persuade the member to re-join. The possible obstacles to withdrawal are therefore related here to the consequences of withdrawal, which is reduced social contact with remaining members, including family members.

Such reduced contact with former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and especially close family members such as parents and children with whom one no longer lives, but also, for example, grandparents and grandchildren, will be very difficult and burdensome for most people.

The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members for that reason choose not to resign.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member’s right to free resignation under Article 9 (1) of the ECHR or other human rights obligations or the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal emphasizes here, among other things, that the social consequences of withdrawing – which can undoubtedly be very difficult for many – are stated in the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses and are something that members are familiar with; both those who withdraw and the remaining members. Thus, there is no new and unknown “sanction” that is implemented when one withdraws. Furthermore, the practice, as reviewed under point 3.3, does not imply that family ties are severed. (p. 21)

Under the previous point, I showed that the clause in yellow is not correct. At least a third of those who join (are baptized) have not heard about disfellowshipping and certainly not that if one resigns, one will be completely isolated. Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses who grow up in the congregation are well aware of disfellowshipping and its consequences. But many are unaware that those who disassociate themselves (resign) are treated in the same way as those who are disfellowshipped.

THE SANCTIONS FOR RESIGNATION ARE CONTRARY TO THE RIGHT TO FREE RESIGNATION

I will now bring three quotes to show that the isolation experienced by those who resign from the Jehovah’s Witnesses is contrary to Norwegian and international law:

ARTICLE 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Art 9. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion: (Human Rights Act)

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Special comments on § 2 cf. Prop. 130 L (2018- 2019) p. 254:

Freedom of religion requires that withdrawal be possible unconditionally and without obstacles from the religious- or view-of-life community. Therefore, the law states that resignation should always be possible by sending a written request to the community.

There is no dispute about what happens when one resigns. The person is treated in the same way as someone who is disfellowshipped. He will be completely isolated from family and friends who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, with some minor exceptions. The Court’s comment on this is:

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member’s right to free withdrawal under Article 9 (1) of the ECHR or other human rights obligations or the Constitution. (p. 22)

Both the ECHR and the Norwegian Human Rights Act state that everyone has “freedom to change their religion.” To resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses entails the sanctions that no Witness, including close family, will have contact with him. The fact that sanctions are attached to resigning is contrary to the right to change religion. This is, in my opinion, undue pressure not to change one’s religion.

The special remarks cited show, in my opinion, even more clearly that the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses is contrary to the legislator’s intentions. The special remarks state that “resigning shall take place unconditionally and without obstacles from the religious or view-of-life community.” The Court claims that this is fulfilled by the fact that one can send a letter of dismissal, and then one is dismissed without any obstacles.

One cannot only look at the purely formal fact that one receives a certificate that one has resigned without problems. The resignation does not take place “unconditionally and without obstacles,” because the consequence, which is enshrined in the laws of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is that one loses one’s family and contact with all Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Court says that this is not “undue pressure that entails a violation of the member’s right to free resignation under Article 9(1) of the ECHR”. I would strongly dispute this and argue that “free resignation” implies that there must be no conditions or consequences attached to the resignation from the religious community. The fact that it is a systematic situation, that one loses contact with one’s family and other Jehovah’s Witnesses upon resignation, shows that the Witnesses do not have a way of resignation that is “unconditional and without obstacles.”

My conclusion is that “free resignation” means that there must be no conditions or negative consequences attached to the resignation. When those who withdraw from Jehovah’s Witnesses are completely isolated from other Witnesses and from their family it shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have “free resignation.”

 THE COURT OF APPEAL: JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DO NOT VIOLATE CHILDREN’S RIGHTS OR PRACTICE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE 

The State’s claim is as follows:

The State has clarified that the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses of breaking contact with adult members on grounds other than resignation, for example, disfellowshipping as a result of norm violations, is not included as part of the State’s justification for the decisions.

What the State has asserted, and which is assessed in this point 5, is whether the practice of social distancing of minor baptized members violates “children’s rights,” cf. the first alternative in the Religious Communities Act, section 6, first paragraph, and then more specifically whether the practice constitutes psychological violence or negative social control directed at children. Whether Jehovah’s Witnesses have a practice towards unbaptized publishers that constitutes a violation of children’s rights is discussed in point 6. (p. 11)

The terms “children’s rights” and “psychological abuse” are unclear concepts that the Court interprets. I will not say anything about the interpretation of these terms, but I will point out some factual circumstances. The basis for the Court’s assessments is described as follows:

The Court of Appeal has therefore mainly based its assessment of what the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of social distancing is on what can be deduced from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ writings, and has not found it necessary to explain in detail the individual testimonies. (p. 14)

The fact that the Court mainly emphasizes the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ writings and not so much on the testimonies of the witnesses is a major weakness, as I will show.

THE INTERROGATION OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE NORMS

The Court calls violations of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ laws “norm violations,” and the vast majority of cases when minors are guilty of norm violations are when they have been intimate with someone of the opposite sex. When this happens, the child is either called before two elders or before a panel of three elders. This is of course unpleasant for the child, but this i downplayed by the Court:

Although the process can be very unpleasant, and in some cases also humiliating, the Court of Appeal nevertheless believes – with some doubt – that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence…Furthermore, the Court of Appeal assumes that the conversation with the elders will be as gentle and as little detailed as possible, as the rules require. (p. 26)

The elders will decide whether the person in question should be disfellowshipped, and contrary to what the Court assumes, the elders will ask a lot of unpleasant questions, and not be “gentle and little detailed” as the rule states. I illustrate this with  quoting again from The Watchtower of July 15, 2006, page 29:

Suppose an engaged couple has repeatedly had intense cuddling in a way that inflames passions. The elders may judge that even though this couple has not had the brazen attitude that characterizes loose conduct, their conduct has nevertheless been associated with a certain degree of greed. Therefore, the elders may want to appoint a judicial committee because it is a matter of gross uncleanness. (Italics mine)

The example is illustrated with an engaged couple. But in all situations of norm violation, including when children are involved, the aforementioned questions will be considered.

The elders’ task is to find out in detail what has happened and what the motives and attitudes of the sinner are. The words “has repeatedly had intense cuddling” require many intimate questions. The concept of “loose conduct” is vague, and in order to form an opinion as to whether the sinner is guilty of this and has “loose conduct,” it is necessary to ask several questions. The same is true of “gross uncleanness.” To determine the degree of uncleanness, several intimate questions are necessary.

Whether a person should be disfellowshipped or not depends on the person’s motives. How is it to be determined whether the person has displayed “a certain degree of greed”? Again, many questions are necessary. Several of the state’s witnesses told of situations in which the elders asked many intimate and uncomfortable questions. If the content of the 2006 quotation had been considered by the judges, and the witnesses’ explanations had been given weight, the preponderance of probability should be that minors are subjected to psychological violence when they commit norm violations.

However, the Court’s conclusion is:

Although the process can be very unpleasant, and in some cases humiliating, the Court of Appeal still believes – with some doubt – that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence. (p. 27)

It is a weakness that the Court has made a selective reading of the writings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and placed little emphasis on witnesses’ statements. This has led to the Court not taking into account what really happens when questioning children who commit norm violations. The questioning is much more detailed and much more unpleasant than the the Court has taken into account.

It is a weakness that the Court has made a selective reading of the writings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and placed little emphasis on witnesses’ statements. This has led to the Court not taking into account what really happens when questioning children who commit norm violations. The questioning is much more detailed and much more unpleasant than the ones the Court has taken into account.

THE TOTAL ISOLATION OF CHILDREN BY DISFELLOWSHIPPING

Being interrogated by elders, who ask a multitude of intimate and detailed questions, will be a great strain for a child. Being disfellowshipped, and being totally isolated from one’s entire family, except in one’s own household, and from all others who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, is an even greater strain than the interrogation itself. Despite this, the Court states the following:

If the process ends with the minor baptized member being disfellowshipped, there is no doubt that it will normally be very difficult and difficult for all involved that social contact with other baptized members of Jehovah’s Witnesses is broken off or greatly reduced. For family members who are Jehovah’s Witnesses with whom one does not live, contact will be reduced to contact for “necessary” family matters.

This must be assumed to be particularly demanding for children who, for example, will have significantly reduced contact with grandparents and aunts and uncles who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as with siblings who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and who have moved away from home. Furthermore, the child will lose contact with other members of the congregation, for example friends in the congregation. For children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it must be assumed that much of the social circle will be other children and young people in the congregation, which makes it extra difficult to lose contact with them.

However, the Court of Appeal still believes – here too, with doubt – that the social distancing [= total isolation with minor exceptions] that a minor child may experience through disfellowshipping cannot be considered psychological violence.

The fact that a child is no longer allowed to have contact with anyone in their family, except those living in the same household, and is not allowed to have contact with their friends or any other Jehovah’s Witnesses, is an enormous burden on the child. I would think that the Court’s conclusion that this is not psychological abuse and a violation of the child’s rights would go against most people’s sense of justice.

THE COURT OF APPEAL: JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES DO NOT EXERCISE NEGATIVE SOCIAL CONTROL OVER CHILDREN

In the preparatory works for the Religious Communities Act, cf. Prop. 130 L (2018-2019) p. 80,

“Negative social control” is described as follows: Negative social control is various forms of supervision, pressure, threats and coercion that are exercised to ensure that individuals live in line with the norms of the family or group. The control is characterized by being systematic and can violate the rights of the individual according to, among other things, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Norwegian law.

The Court points out that the concept of “negative social control” is difficult to define precisely. In connection with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the concept is explained as follows:

The question in our case is whether Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of social distancing [= total isolation with minor exceptions] of baptized minors by disfellowshipping or resignation constitutes negative social control directed at children, which means that children’s rights are violated.

The definition shows that “negative social control” is very close to psychological violence and violation of children’s rights. The question here is whether social distancing (= total isolation with minor exceptions) as a result of norm violations means that minors are subjected to pressure not to commit norm violations. In that case, this would be perceived as “negative social control”. Psychological violence may be committed after norm violations — it is the punishment for norm violations. Negative social control seems to refer to what happens before a possible norm violation — the pressure not to commit norm violations. Both would be a violation of children’s rights.

In my opinion, both the interrogation by elders when breaking norms and the total isolation if one is disfelloowshipped are concepts that can give a fairly clear content. But the expression “negative social control” is so diffuse that I think it is difficult to apply it to the situation with minors who are interrogated and disfellowshipped.

A COMPARISON OF THE JUDGMENT PREMISES

My assessments are as follows:

GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Court placed the main emphasis on what some of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ writings say and gave little weight to the testimonies of the witnesses. Only a selective reading of the writings was possible, and several testimonies contradicted some of the conclusions of the judges. In my opinion, it is a weakness in the basis of the judgment that the testimonies were not given weight.

A COMPARISON OF THE JUDGMENT PREMISES IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

THE DISTRICT COURT

The conclusion is that the conditions have been met to deny Jehovah’s Witnesses state subsidies and registration under the Religious Communities Act, and that the decisions are valid. (p. 25)

The Court believes that there is sufficient basis for denying subsidies and registration in that Jehovah’s Witnesses violate children’s rights. This applies in particular to their right of free resignation. (p. 25)

Section 104, third paragraph, of the Constitution gives children the right of protection of their personal integrity. The provision safeguards children’s special vulnerability, dependence on adults and special need for protection. A suitable synonym for integrity here is “inviolability.” The right is not limited to specific situations and applies to everyone, both parents, other private individuals and the public sector, cf. Michalsen, Grunnloven, Historisk kommentarutgave 1814- 2020 (2021) p. 1175.

In addition, the best interests of the child are a fundamental consideration, cf. The Constitution, Section 104, second paragraph, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3, first paragraph.

What is mentioned here must mean that children must be protected against the effects of disfellowshipping practices, which seriously violate the freedom to change religion or belief.

In Norway, the age of religious majority is 15 years, cf. the Religious Communities Act, Section 2. For baptized minors of that age, it will be virtually impossible to exercise the right of free resignation, when the consequence is losing normal contact with family and friends, and also parents, siblings and others in the household after they move away from home. It will also be very difficult in adulthood.

Children should not be placed in a situation where they are bound by rules that in practice will result in major obstacles to their right and freedom to change their religion or beliefs, both as minors and later in life. It is not sufficient to show that the minor is well acquainted with the disfellowshipping practice before baptism, or that the age of religious majority is 15 years. Children are particularly susceptible and vulnerable to socialization and other influences, and in most cases will not be equipped to make such a lifelong choice.

As for younger children, who can be enrolled in or out of religious communities by those with parental responsibility, the autonomy of the individual is safeguarded by the right to free resignation.

Children’s rights are also violated in that the social isolation that accompanies the disfellowshipping practice, or the fear of being exposed to it, poses a risk of serious harm to their health and well-being. The treatment then qualifies as psychological violence and a violation of Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cf. General Comment no. 13 (2011) and John Tobin, The UN Convention on the rights of the child (2019) pp. 694 and 695.

COURT OF APPEAL

The Court of Appeal assumes that there may be cases where a religious community has rules and sanctions for withdrawal that can be considered to constitute undue pressure on the person who wants to resign, and that in such a case this may involve a violation of the right to free resignation under Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. However, the Court of Appeal believes that such a threshold has not been violated in our case.

As stated above, it is practically easy to withdraw from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sufficient to send a letter to the congregation about the withdrawal. There is no evidence that a withdrawal is not respected or that the congregation is particularly trying to persuade the member to re-join. The possible obstacles to withdrawal are therefore related here to the consequences of withdrawal, which is reduced social contact with remaining members, including family members.

Such reduced contact with former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and especially close family members such as parents and children with whom one no longer lives, but also, for example, grandparents and grandchildren, will be very difficult and burdensome for most people. The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members choose not to resign for that reason.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member’s right to free withdrawal under Article 9 (1) of the ECHR or other human rights obligations or the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal emphasizes, among other things, that the social consequences of withdrawing – which can undoubtedly be very difficult for many – are stated in the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses and are something that members are familiar with; both those who withdraw and the remaining members. Thus, there is no new and unknown “sanction” that is implemented when one withdraws.

A COMPARISON OF THE DETAILS

When looking at the conclusions, one might think that the District Court and the Court of Appeal have discussed two completely different events. But with some exceptions, the same factual basis is used as a basis by both courts.

THE RIGHT TO FREE RESIGNATION

What is special here is that there is no disagreement regarding the facts. But the interpretation of these facts is diametrically opposed.

THE DISTRICT COURT:

What is mentioned here must mean that children should be protected from the effects of the disfellowshipping practice, which seriously violates the freedom to change religion or belief.

In Norway, the age of religious majority is 15 years, cf. the Religious Communities Act § 2. For baptized minors of that age, it will be virtually impossible to exercise the right to free resignation, when the consequence is losing normal contact with family and friends, and also parents, siblings and others in the household after they move away from home. It will also be very difficult for adults.

THE COURT OF APPEAL:

The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members choose not to resign for that reason.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member’s right to free withdrawal under Article 9 (1) of the ECHR or other human rights obligations or the Constitution.

With my long experience as an elder, I would say that the District Court’s assessment is absolutely correct: It would be virtually impossible for a baptized minor to resign when the consequence is that he loses his entire family and all his friends. It would also be difficult for adults to resign. To me, it is quite incredible that the judges in the Court of Appeal did not understand this.

A FALSE PREMISE

Both courts assume that minors, from the day they enroll (get baptized), know the consequences of disfellowshipping. As I have shown above, most people whom the publishers meet and study the Bible with, and who get baptized, regardless of whether they are minors or older, will never have heard of disfellowshipping and its consequences, or of disfellowshipping and its consequences.

THE DISTRICT COURT:

It is not sufficient to show that the minor is well acquainted with the disfellowshipping practice before baptism, or that the religious age of majority is 15 years. Children are particularly susceptible and vulnerable to socialization and other influences, and in most cases will not be equipped to make such a lifelong choice.

THE COURT OF APPEAL:

The Court of Appeal emphasizes, among other things, that the social consequences of disfellowshipping – which can undoubtedly be very difficult for many – are stated in the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses and are something that the members are familiar with; both those who resign and the remaining members. Thus, there is no new and unknown “sanction” that is implemented when resigning.

The District Court considered that if minors know about the consequences of being disfellowshipped or resigned, this does not weaken the fact that the consequences of being disfellowshipped or resigning prevent free resigning. 

The Court of Appeal uses what they believe to be a fact, that minors and others know the consequences of being disfellowshipped or resigning, as an argument that resigning does not violate children’s rights — they know what they are doing.

As shown above, the factual basis itself is incorrect, but the fact that the two courts use it in diametrically opposed ways again shows the judges’ completely different viewpoints.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE

THE DISTRICT COURT:

 Children’s rights are also violated in that the social isolation that accompanies the disfellowshipping practice, or the fear of being exposed to it, poses a risk of serious harm to their health and well-being. The treatment then qualifies as psychological abuse and a violation of Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cf. General Comment no. 13 (2011) and John Tobin, The UN Convention on the rights of the child (2019) p. 694 and 695.

THE COURT OF APPEAL:

(ii) If the process ends with the minor baptized member being disfellowshipped, it is beyond doubt that it will normally be very difficult and burdensome for all involved that social contact with other baptized members of Jehovah’s Witnesses is severed or greatly reduced. For family members who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and with whom one does not live, contact will be reduced to contact in “necessary” family matters. This must be assumed to be particularly demanding for children who will then, for example, have significantly reduced contact with grandparents, and aunts, and uncles, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as with siblings who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and who have moved away from home. Furthermore, the child will lose contact with other members of the congregation, for example, friends in the congregation. For children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it must be assumed that much of the social circle will be other children and young people in the congregation, which makes it extra difficult to lose contact with them.

However, the Court of Appeal still believes – here too, with some doubt – that the social distancing [total isolation] that a minor child may experience through exclusion cannot be considered psychological violence. (p. 28)

During the Corona pandemic, many children were physically isolated for months at a time. But they were not isolated from their immediate family, and they could communicate with their friends via mobile phone or the Internet. Nevertheless, this temporary and short isolation led to many harmful effects on children

I quote an NOU report:

Consequences for living habits and mental health in the population

Covid-19 may have caused fear and uncertainty even in people who did not get sick. In addition, the infection control measures have reduced social contact with family, friends, colleagues, classmates and other acquaintances. Reduced social contact can have negative consequences in the form of loneliness and various forms of mental ill health. The major changes in people’s lives with less activity and less social contact could affect both the quality of life and living habits in the population. Children, young people and people who live alone will be particularly vulnerable. We discuss this in more detail in chapter 33.

The report correctly states that children and young people and people who live alone are particularly vulnerable to isolation and lack of contact with other people. During the Corona pandemic, there was a short-term isolation, which nevertheless caused many psychological problems. Against this background, we can understand that the total isolation of  children from all friends and family through disfellowshipping or resignation is a great strain for those concerned.[1]

In 2022, a study of 424 disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses was conducted by researchers at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. The study was published in the article “Characteristics of health and well-being in former Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austria, Germany and Switzerland”, and it was published in the journal Mental Health, Religion & Culture Volume 26, Issue 7, 2023. I quote the following:

Regarding coping after the exit, after the contact with the faith community ended, 31% of participants reported that they depended on professional support and 38% reported that they got into a crisis and did not know what they should do with their life anymore (multiple answers possible, see Table 2 for an overview). Furthermore, 33% reported that they had thoughts about taking their own life and 10% attempted to take their own life following the exit. However, 37% reported that they enjoyed their lives to the fullest and did things that they were not allowed to do before, and 58% formed new friends/contacts and reactivated previous contacts.

Those considered in this study were adults, who have more support mechanisms than children. When they had such great problems as the quotation shows, we must assume that the problems are even greater for children. This supports the conclusion that both the interrogation of children and the subsequent disfellowshipping should be characterized as “psychological violence.” The same must be the case for children who resign and are completely isolated.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeal incorrectly assumed that the Witnesses know the consequences of disfellowshipping and resignation. They also incorrectly assumed that the interrogation of children and adults who violate the norms is “gentle”, when in reality it is a detailed interrogation.

In addition, both the District Court and the Court of Appeal built on the same factual basis. When the judges in the two legal institutions drew diametrically opposed conclusions, there is, in my opinion, a need for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

[1] NOU 2021: 6 Myndighetenes håndtering av koronapandemien Rapport fra Koronakommisjonen.

 

ADDENDUM

On March 18, 2025, I wrote an article that was published in the newspaper Dagen, showing how the laws of the Governing Body have shortened the lives of a great number of persons. A translation of this article follows:

DISFELLOWSHIPPING IS NOT AN ACT OF LOVE

Jehovah’s Witnesses had a victory in the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the rules and actions of the Witnesses can be very burdensome for individuals. But this is not so serious that it represents a violation of the Religious Associations Act, according to the Court. A major weakness here is that the court based its assessment mainly on some of the writings of the Witnesses and did not take into account the details of the testimonies.  As the Court’s comments show, this is a selective method, and the weakness here is that the judges, by reading it too narrowly, have overlooked important aspects of the practices that the leaders require of the elders and the members. Here, the details of the testimonies would have been essential.

I will illustrate what a cruel and unloving act of disfellowshipping is by discussing some who have been particularly hard hit, namely disfellowshipped drug addicts, many of whom are minors and youths. There has been an “epidemic” of painkiller use that has led to addiction. As a result, many Witnesses have also become hooked on narcotics and have been disfellowshipped. The problem for these is that the leaders have made laws that prevent them from being helped to quit their abuse.

When someone uses hard drugs, it leads to “a chronic, relapsing brain disorder” that makes it very difficult to quit. An article from the American Addiction Center states:

When people become addicted to heroin, their cravings for the drug are so strong that, even though they know the consequences of using it, they find it impossible to stop using it. Often, those struggling with heroin addiction experience many relapses on the road to overcoming their addiction.

This shows that quitting is extremely difficult. But there are five things that can help:

1) The addict must have a strong desire to quit.

2) Various therapists must help during the withdrawal process.

3) Continuous support from family members.

4) Continuous support from friends.

5) The medicine methadone.

All of these are essential to quitting. But because the leaders from 1952 onwards have demanded that those who are disfellowshipped must be completely isolated, support from family and friends is forbidden. On the road to quitting drugs, more relapses are expected. The reason is that hard drugs act on receptors in the brain, which leads to a strong craving for drugs, as the quotation above shows.

Methadone acts on the same receptors in the brain as heroin, and therefore the craving stops, and relapse is prevented. Maintenance doses of methadone do not get you high, but you are allowed to drive a car. In 1973, the leaders banned the use of methadone, and this ban lasted for 40 years until 2013. The fact that the medicine can be used today is positive. However, it is still forbidden for family and friends to help disfellowshipped drug addicts.

It is with great sadness that I must say that since 1973, a large number of disfellowshipped drug addicts have died far too early, because the leaders have forbidden to give them the help they needed. Many of these had a desire to quit, but in order to do so they needed continuous help from friends and family, and they needed the opportunity to use methadone.

I have experienced this myself. While the ban on methadone was in force, I was contacted by a father who had a young son who was a drug addict. The son had called and said that he was determined to stop his abuse. “What can we do,” the father asked. The elders agreed that in this case, we would defy the leaders’ demands for total isolation of the disfellowshipped one and we would help him.

I was assigned to be his contact person, and the young man knew that he could contact me at any time day or night if he needed help. Within a few months, he made a great effort to reduce his use. Finally, he was able to quit completely. He was reinstated in the congregation and functioned well for almost a year. But then he died, according to the police, of an overdose.

Because methadone stops the craving that leads to relapse, it is very likely that this young man would not have died if he had been able to use methadone. But the leaders had forbidden this. Jehovah’s Witnesses write that disfellowshipping is a loving act. However, a study by researchers at the University of Zurich in Switzerland from 2022 of 424 disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses found that one third had had suicidal thoughts and 10% had attempted suicide.

It is impossible to agree that disfellowshipping is a loving act!