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 details of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, 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 stated 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.

—OVERSKRIFT—

[/vc_column_text] [/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]