AvoidJW Icon 512
JEHOVAH’S

WITNESSES

More than 10 years revealing secrets because there is no excuse for secrecy in religion – w1997 June 1; Dan 2:47; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 12:2; Acts 4:19, 20.

Norway: “The Price We Pay” Jehovah’s Witnesses Appeal – Day 2

Counsel for the State of Norway makes a point of shaking hands with counsel for Jehovah's Witnesses
From Left to Right: Jehovah's Witnesses representatives, including Kristian Foss Aalmo, and Anders Ryssdal shaking hands with Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik

Published By: Miss Usato, Last Updated: February 4th, 2025

“We remind you that the state must protect those who opt out and do not. If one is in danger of losing family and networks, and if dealing with these is sanctioned.” - Government attorney Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik

Oslo, Norway—On Monday, 9:00 A.M., February 4th, 2025, the trial between the Government of Norway and Jehovah’s Witnesses continued in the Borgarting Court of Appeals Courtroom K-31.

Jehovah's Witnesses Views and Behaviour

Before the State’s turn for opening arguments, a journalist from DAGEN, a Norwegian Newspaper, was turned down many times from interviewing Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for one couple—Magnus and Marie Louise Dahlberg, who hope for a favorable outcome for the Organization. The couple emphasized that the case “affects our everyday lives” and expressed concerns that it could complicate their missionary work if the state wins. The Dahlbergs stressed the importance of regaining their community’s registration, believing it would help counter prejudices against them. “We are naturally concerned that people have a correct picture of who we are,” they stated. You can find the DAGEN article in the link bar tab.

A friend who’s an inside source stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses pushed to get in the courtroom first like madmen, even before the proceedings began, possibly so that the media nor the journalists could sit in the courtroom and expose todays arguments.

The State's Opening Arguments

The Norwegian government attorney Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik began by bringing up a video they showed the court last year, 2024, in the trial. Since then, it has been removed from the organization’s site.  It’s titled “Loyally Uphold to Jehovah’s Judgements,” it discusses how the organization treats disfellowshipped people; you can find this video in the link bar. The defense, led by attorney Anders Stray Ryssdal, seemed visibly irritated and exclaimed that this video had been removed from the organization’s site and was “no longer relevant.” Aarvik responded that if Watchtower knew the video was wrong, how could they at the same time make a lawsuit against the Norwegian state for using the video as evidence of something wrong in 2021? The Judge allowed the video to be played.

Aarvik argued strongly against Jehovah’s Witnesses’ exclusion practices, asserting that they prevent members from freely withdrawing from the religious community without consequences. Using Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature, she cited the September 1981 Watchtower on Disfellowshipping to illustrate how expelled members are shunned:

“The Bible shows that one cannot go to the beach, join in a game, or enjoy a meal with an expelled person.”

“-No one who is a Jehovah’s Witness would greet such a person.”

Aarvik emphasized that the government is not interpreting religious texts but is concerned with the real-world impact of exclusion. She stated, “The state is concerned with how Jehovah’s Witnesses treat members who resign or are expelled, not the religious justification for it.”

Though Aarvik did say some excluded members supported the practice and returned, she still stressed, “We remind you that the state must protect those who opt out and do not. If one is in danger of losing family and networks, and if dealing with these is sanctioned.”

A screenshot from Jehovah's Witnesses 2016 video "Loyally Uphold Jehovah's Judgments" where members are trained how to shun family.
A screenshot from Jehovah's Witnesses 2016 video "Loyally Uphold Jehovah's Judgments" where members are trained how to shun family.

"Imagine if I lose my daughter"

After the afternoon break, the state presented quotes from Jan Nilsen’s pseudonym, “Frederick,” which he created in 2018—seven years ago—while he was PIMO (Physically In, Mentally Out). They referenced a compelling article by Bjørn Markussen, a journalist for Fædrelandsvennen (fvn.no), a Norwegian news outlet covering religious freedom and critiquing specific religious communities. In 2018, Markussen wrote an article interviewing Jan, “Imagine if I lose my daughter.” The article is an emotional journey on his fears of losing his family and friends due to being shunned from the only lifestyle and community he’s known. The full article is linked, “Jan Nilsen as Frederick -Imagine if I lose my daughter.” 

The state quoted from the emotional article of Jan saying “It hurts to disappoint our parents so much that we are no longer their children.another powerful statement in the article, among many, is “Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have contact with a disfellowshipped relative. Their loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moves them instead to support the biblical disfellowshipping arrangement.”

Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses must break contact with family members who are expelled from the congregation. In several articles, we write about what it feels like to choose to leave or stay in the congregation. Jan is not alone, and if you are dealing with these challenges, know that you are not alone either.

Frederik hides his true identity behind a bunch of leaves while on a walk in the park
Frederik hides his true identity behind a bunch of leaves while on a walk in the park

The State reinforces the evidence of shunning at hand

Throughout the day, Rysdal tried to intervene, interrupting and attempting to talk over the State’s arguments, but they did not allow him to phase them. He argued that the state interfered in religious matters, So Aarvik maintained that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves extensively describe their exclusion practices in official communications, reinforcing the state’s case. She stated, “The state is not concerned with whether there is a biblical principle underlying the restriction of contact, but that the state is concerned with what happens in practice.” Many sources and documentary evidence clearly describe this. There is consensus about the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide, an enforcement to shun. Aarvik continues, “Children are not equipped to make such a choice; this practice undermines children’s rights by exposing them to the potential of severed family ties if they depart from the faith.” The state believes this violates the right to free entry and exit from religious communities, as well as children’s rights. At the end of the State’s arguments, the state refutes discrimination claims, explaining that other religious groups have also faced funding cuts under the new Religion and Beliefs Act, enacted in 2021. Aarvik emphasized that “this is a fairly new law, and we need to see how practice develops.”

A Jehovah’s Witness following the trial told a Norwegian newspaper, Dagen, that exclusion is a key reason for his continued membership, stating, “Then things don’t flow out… You either follow the Bible, or you don’t.” He admits that he has also experienced firsthand how this can affect you. “No one is saying this is not difficult; we do not hide that.”

At the end of the day, Vart Land released two articles, one expressing the State’s arguments for the day, and another interviewed Gunnar M. Ekeløve-Slydal, an assistant secretary general of the Helsinki Committee. From Vart Land, Ekeløve-Slydal stated ” “This is not about agreeing with the exclusionary practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses. What we are concerned about is the human rights of this group.” He also argued that Jehovah’s Witnesses are being mistreated compared to other religious communities and are calling on the Court of Appeal to deliver a better assessment of the core points in the case and what freedom of religion means in practice.”

Day 3 of the Appeal will be the Witnesses and Cross Examination.

Counsel for the State of Norway
Courtroom K-33 where the State of Norway make their opening statement

Closing Comments

The state came in like a well-prepared prosecutor, systematically picking apart Jehovah’s Witnesses’ defense with their own texts. Armed with Watchtower excerpts and legal precedent, the government made its case crystal clear: faith can’t operate outside the bounds of fundamental rights.

Government attorney Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik didn’t mince words: “Children will, in most cases, not be equipped to make such a lifelong choice.” The state emphasized that it’s not just about how many people get disfellowshipped, but the “fear that this could happen, and the consequences it entails.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses leaned on religious freedom arguments, citing a European court ruling, but the state wasn’t buying it. “Any interference is authorized by law and is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others,” Aarvik argued. With the government on offense and the Witnesses scrambling to defend their stance, the balance of power in the courtroom is tilting toward the state. We will see how things go tomorrow for the Cross Examinations. 

Links

Related Articles:

Day Two: February 4, 2025

DAGEN: “Affects our everyday lives – A Jehovah’s Witness Couple attends the Appeal”

AvoidJW: The Sunning Video Removed 2016 “Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgement”

2021 Report on International Religious Freedom Act in Norway 

DAGEN February 4, 2025, “In Court: Strongly accuses exclusion Practices”

Vart Land February 4, 2025, “This is how the State defends itself in Court”

Jan Nilsen as Frederick, 2018 Article “-Imagine if I lose my daughter.”

Vartland February 4, 2025, “Believes Jehovah’s Witnesses should win against the state”

Legal Representatives:

Office of the Attorney General, representing the State of Norway

Glittertind AS Law Firm representing Jehovah’s Witnesses

Trial Reporters:

Representing former Jehovah’s Witnesses