Norway’s Court Ruling: A Setback for Children’s Rights in the Face of Religious Control

Jan Nilsens comments on the Judgement, where you can find a link to it to the right.

Pages 13-18 of Judgement:

“The Court of Appeal assumes that the allegations/information the State has regarding JW’s practice of exclusion are correct. The testimonies and the evidence confirm this. We have believed in all our information about the facts of the case, despite JW’s attempts to discredit it. Good.

Page 20, regarding the right to free withdrawal

 “The court states: It is not doubtful, nor disputed – that a withdrawal could have dire consequences for the person who withdraws regarding the possibility of contact with those who are still Jehovah’s Witnesses. This also applies to close family members. This could be very difficult for many, both those who have withdrawn and those who remain Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is confirmed by the witnesses in the case who had withdrawn or been excluded, and the professional literature presented.”

“The question is whether the social consequences as a result of losing or at least having greatly reduced contact with, members of Jehovah’s Witnesses – including family members
– if one withdraws, conflict with the right to free withdrawal.”

This is where the court differs from all the others that have considered the case by writing:

“As stated above, it is practically effortless to withdraw from 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 mainly tries to persuade the member to re-join. Therefore, the possible obstacles to withdrawal are related here to the consequences of withdrawal, which are 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 tough and burdensome for most people.”

Based on the evidence, the Court of Appeal assumes that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so harmful that some members choose not to withdraw 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 of the ECHR.

The Court has therefore accepted the facts that withdrawal entails extreme consequences implemented by those who receive state aid, assuming that this means that people end up being members against their will (!!), but still believes that this is not “sufficient undue pressure”.

This is where the law in the Court of Appeal completely falls away from the psychological, emotional and human. If the systematic use of family ties as a weapon to prevent people from withdrawing, which the Court acknowledges that it is, is not sufficient undue pressure, then what is it? Where can this paragraph be used?

So when it comes to the processes against children, I repeat: CHILDREN, the Court of Appeal writes this on page 27:

“Although the process can be very unpleasant, and in part also humiliating, the Court of Appeal nevertheless believes – under doubt – that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence. The process will normally last for a relatively short period of time until a possible exclusion.
The process cannot therefore be said to constitute a “pattern of offensive acts or behaviour that is repeated or persists over time”, cf. that this is something that would normally be the case for something to be considered psychological violence, cf. the committee’s understanding in NOU 2024:13 reproduced above. .
The fact that the process is short-lived means that, in the Court of Appeal’s view, it does not have the character of psychological “abuse”

So, what can one say? First of all, the abuse is not long enough for the Court of Appeal, that in itself is…well? But the most egregious thing is that the court ignores the fact that this is not something that lasts beyond the moment the expulsion is carried out. The child must continue to live with the consequences! This is not short-lived. It is for the rest of his life.

So, on page 28, the court says this:

If the process ends with the minor baptized member being expelled, there is no doubt that it will generally be very difficult and challenging for everyone involved that the
social contact with other baptized members of Jehovah’s Witnesses is broken off or significantly reduced. For family members who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and with whom one does not live, the contact will be reduced to contact in “necessary” family matters. This must be assumed to be
incredibly demanding for children who will then, for example, have significantly reduced contact with grandparents, 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 challenging to lose contact with them.

The Court of Appeal, however, still believes – here also with doubts – that the social distancing that a minor child may experience through exclusion cannot be considered psychological violence.”

So look at what they write. JW’s practice is UNDER DOUBT, not within the definition of psychological violence against children.

This is what they are celebrating. The Court of Appeal ended up using its DOUBT, WHETHER IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS MENTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN, as a reason to grant JW’s case.

They repeat this on page 29:

“According to this, the Court of Appeal believes that even though both the exclusion process and the social distancing in the event of exclusion will be very stressful for most children,

as mentioned – with doubts – it has not been proven probable that the practice constitutes psychological violence against children.” Really something to celebrate? JW says in its response that we can now celebrate this as a great victory for the freedom of Norwegians?

Really? That one just escapes the definition (with doubts) of psychological violence against their children.

Would you celebrate if someone said that about you and your child?