THE NORWEGIAN STATE HAS APPEALED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
There are three errors in the news report on jw.org regarding the victory of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Norwegian Court of Appeal. (https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/norway/Court-of-Appeal-Unanimously-Overturns-Unconstitutional-Ruling-in-Norway/):
NO REQUIREMENT OF CHANGING THE SCRIPTURAL PRACTICE
The news report says:
The State based its decision on the assertion that we should change our Scriptural practice of removing unrepentant wrongdoers from the congregation.
The Court of Appeals said the opposite on page 23:
The state has clarified that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of breaking contact with adult members on grounds other than resigning, such as disfellowshipping as a result of norm violations, is not included as part of the state’s justification for its decisions. (Italics in the original)
The state did not object to the removal from the congregation of unrepentant adult wrongdoers or to their treatment. However, it objected to the removal of baptized minors and their treatment. The state also objected to the treatment of those who resigned, which includes shunning and complete isolation. The state claimed that this was a hindrance to free resignation, which is required by the law.
THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The news report says:
This latest decision overturns the lower court’s unconstitutional rulings. (Italics in the original)
By using the adjective “unconstitutional,” the report claims that the ruling of the Court of Appeal was that the ruling of the District Court upholding the loss of registration and state subsidies decided by the County Governor was a violation of the Norwegian Constitution.
This is completely wrong! It was Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that the decision of the County Governor was a violation of the Norwegian Constitution. However, the Court of Appeal made its decision based on the law of Religious Denominations and not on the Norwegian Constitution. We read on page 34:
It is therefore not necessary for the Court of Appeal to rule on the other issues in the case, including whether the decisions are invalid as a result of procedural errors or whether the decisions are contrary to the Constitution and constitute a violation of human rights obligations by which Norway is bound.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal ruled on the basis of the principle of “probability preponderance”; given the evidence presented, what the most likely conclusion is in relation to the Law of Religious Denominations.
In other words, the District Court considered the evidence presented by the state and the evidence presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the conclusion was that the “probability preponderance” showed that the decision of the County Governor should be upheld.
The Court of Appeal considered the same evidence and came to the conclusion that the “probability preponderance” showed that the decision of the County Governor should not be upheld. The situation is not that the Court of Appeal found that the District Court had violated the Norwegian Constitution. The decisions of both courts were based on the “probability preponderance.”
Now, the Supreme Court, if it accepts the appeal, will make the final ruling, also based on the “probability preponderance”.
THE INSTITUTIONAL LIE OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
The two quotations from the news report discussed above directly contradics what the written decision of the Court of Appeal says. I will now add some comments on a statement in the news report that is based on a lie that Jehovah’s Witnesses made both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal:
In direct contradiction to the State’s claims, the Court of Appeal determined that limiting contact with an unrepentant wrongdoer who has been removed from the congregation is not a violation of his rights. (My bold font)
The words “limiting contact” represent a lie. It is not true that Jehovah’s Witnesses limit contact with disfellowshipped and resigned members. But the requirement from the Governing Body is that all such persons must be shunned and completely isolated, except in situations when contact is unavoidable.
The claim that the contact with disfellowshipped and resigned members is limited, but that these persons are not shunned and completely isolated, was presented by the representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Kåre Sæterdal, to the District Court and to the Court of Appeal. That this lie is repeated in the news report shows that it is an institutional lie that goes right up to the members of the Governing Body.
The decision of the Court of Appeal says on page 17:
Jehovah’s Witnesses have, however, 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 of avoiding/limiting contact with disfellowshipped or resigned members. Jehovah’s Witnesses have, among other things, referred to an article from the newspaper Vårt Land from April 27, 2024, in which 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 disfellowshipped members based on one’s own conscience is embodied in the written texts of Jehovah’s Witnesses that were reviewed during the appeal hearing.
Even though the judges could not find any evidence for Sæterdal’s claim, what they wrote shows that they did not fully understand how bad the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses is. This may have contributed to their decision that the “probability preponderance” was in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that they annulled the decision of the County Governor.
A discussion of the treatment of disfellowshipped and resigned Witnesses based on the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses is found at:
HOW TO TREAT DISFELLOWSHIPPED PERSONS? (II) TREATING THEM IN THE BIBLICAL WAY
