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.
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.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee made a submission to the Borgarting Court on the first day of the Appeal hearing
Published: February 18th, 2025
As we see it, there is no basis for concluding that the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute such an offence, even though they may have significant costs for those involved. – Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Oslo, Norway—The Norwegian Helsinki Committee submitted a report dated January 17, 2025 to the Borgarting Court where Jehovah’s Witnesses were appealing their loss of funding. In their report, they state that they believe that the Court of Appeal should agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses. We analyze that report.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee believes that the exclusionary practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not constitute a clear violation of children’s rights. They claim that the court places too much emphasis on the negative consequences of exclusion and not enough on the fact that members are aware of the practice in advance.
The committee questions whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are treated more strictly than other religious communities with similar exclusionary practices. They call for a comparison with other religious groups that also practice exclusion or social exclusion.
They point out that Jehovah’s Witnesses have historically been subjected to persecution in, among other places, Nazi Germany and Russia. They believe that this should make the authorities extra cautious about adopting restrictions against them.
They point out that the ECHR has previously confirmed that states have a limited right to intervene in the internal affairs of religious communities, as long as members are free to leave.
It is true that the exclusion practice has costs – Norwegian Helsinki Committee
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee present leaving as a free choice, but ignore the serious social consequences. There are not only “costs” of exclusion, but often total social isolation, including loss of contact with family and friends, which can have serious psychological consequences. This isn’t a “cost”; this is a harm. It is not acceptable that a cohort of humanity is harmed so that a religion has the freedom to receive funding.
The Helsinki Committee overlooks the fact that children and young people in the Jehovah’s Witnesses community do not have a real choice, because they grow up in an environment where deviation is severely punished. It is not enough that a practice is known in advance when the alternative is social ostracism. Therefore, the freedom of choice is an illusion.
There are Christian communities with strict moral rules, but few practice exclusion as harshly as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They mention Islamic movements, but many of these do not practice exclusion in the same organized way as Jehovah’s Witnesses. And even if they did, then it is imperative that victims of this harmful practice notify the Norwegian authorities so that they can determine if the law has been broken.
Even though Jehovah’s Witnesses have been subjected to persecution, this is not an argument to exempt them from national laws. The authorities must protect the rights of individuals, especially children’s right to choose their faith without fear of social punishment.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee acknowledges that the practice of exclusion has consequences, but they argue that the state should not interfere. This is problematic because the state has a responsibility to protect children from harmful practices, even when they take place within religious environments.
The harm towards humans, whether it is a few people or many, can never be justified to continue funding a religion – AvoidJW.org
At the outset, we express our sincere appreciation for the Norwegian Helsinki Committee’s unwavering commitment to upholding freedom of religion and belief. Their dedication to ensuring that individuals can freely practice their faith is commendable and essential to any democratic society.
However, based on our extensive experience and deep understanding of the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we believe there are critical nuances that require clarification. The current framing of the debate does not fully capture the reality of how their policies affect individual rights, particularly regarding the freedom to leave the religion without undue hardship. It is crucial to examine the issue in its entirety, especially concerning the consequences of their practice of exclusion.
This case is not about restricting religious freedom; rather, it is about protecting fundamental human rights—especially the right of individuals, including children, to make independent choices about their faith without the threat of social isolation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of exclusion is not merely a religious doctrine but a powerful social control mechanism. It creates an environment where leaving the community is so costly—emotionally, socially, and psychologically—that it is often not a genuine choice at all. This reality is particularly severe for individuals raised within the faith, who may lose their entire social support system simply for deciding they no longer wish to be part of the religion.
Consider, too, when members (former or otherwise), criticize the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ exclusion practice, they are treated more harshly than those who do not. Critics are labelled “apostate” and are not welcome to return in the same way as those who silently go along with the practice. The former are the ones they refer to in court submissions as “disgruntled former members” and they try to portray them as liars. This is very concerning for reasons that should be obvious as it creates a culture where questioning harmful practices is met with severe repercussions.
When individuals leave Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are not just changing their religious affiliation; they are being completely cut off from their entire social network, including family members. This level of social punishment constitutes coercion, not freedom.
For those born into the faith, there was never an initial “choice” to become a Jehovah’s Witness. Yet, if they decide to leave, they face severe consequences. This is not an expression of free will but rather an institutionalized form of social ostracism.
Norwegian authorities have recognized that the practice of exclusion violates children’s rights to freedom of religion. Once a child is baptized into Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are bound by a system that does not allow them to freely choose to leave without extreme consequences, including the loss of their family connections.
The Helsinki Committee’s comparison to legal punishment for criminal behavior is deeply flawed. There is a fundamental difference between facing legal consequences for breaking the law and suffering severe social punishment for making a personal decision about one’s faith.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not treated unfairly compared to other religious communities.
While many religious groups enforce strict norms, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ policies on exclusion are extraordinary in their severity. The practice results in total social ostracism, even by immediate family members, making it uniquely harmful.
The issue at hand is not whether the state “likes” or “dislikes” Jehovah’s Witnesses but whether their exclusionary practices are compatible with fundamental human rights. The extreme consequences of these policies set them apart from other faith groups and warrant scrutiny.
What is more important – the funding of religion or the harm to humans? Remember, this case isn’t so much about religious freedom as it is about religious funding. Jehovah’s Witnesses still have their freedom to meet together in worship, they can go door-to-door sharing their beliefs, they can read their Bible, and pray to their god without any hindrance from the government. Therefore, the harm towards humans, whether it is a few people or many, can never be justified to continue funding a religion.
We urge the Norwegian Helsinki Committee to take a deeper look into the exclusionary practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses by engaging with former members who have firsthand experience of the severe consequences. Understanding these personal testimonies will provide invaluable insight into why these practices are problematic from a human rights perspective.
Freedom of religion is not just about the right to receive funding for one’s faith—it must also include the freedom to leave a religion without facing undue punishment. We welcome any opportunity for further dialogue and we are more than willing to provide additional information about how exclusion within Jehovah’s Witnesses truly affects people in practice.
Innlevering på norsk
Submission in English