NORWAY: Jehovah’s Witnesses Denied State Subsidy

Here we list some of the key points of the State Administrator’s response to Jehovah’s Witnesses complaint and why it has upheld their decision to refuse the grant to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The State Administrator points out that Jehovah’s Witnesses are clear that members should not have contact with excluded members and members who have withdrawn from the religious community. The state administrator assumes that this practice can lead to members feeling pressured to remain in the religious community. The practice is thus considered to be an obstacle to the members’ right to express themselves freely, and in violation of the Religious Communities Act.

Referring to Organized to do Jehovah’s Will (pages 153-155), the State Administrator points out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses encourages its members to avoid contact with de-registered persons; and that children are socially isolated from the congregation, as a reaction to a child’s behaviour. It says that this treatment is to “be regarded as negative social control on the part of the religious community and that the treatment infringes on the child’s rights”.

Pointing to Chapter 12.17 of the elder textbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, the State Administrator maintains that members who defy the call to avoid de-registered persons can have consequences for the remaining members, “and thus the religious community’s claims that it is only the members themselves who decide who they want to have contact with are not true.” In reality, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a ban on contact with former members.

The first paragraph of Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act states, ““If a faith or religious community, or individuals acting on behalf of the community, use violence or coercion, make threats, violate children’s rights, violate statutory prohibitions on discrimination or in other ways seriously violate the rights and freedoms of others, the community may be denied a grant or grants may be shortened. Grants can also be refused or cut short if a community encourages or provides support for violations mentioned in this section.”

In the first paragraph of Section 11 of the Religious Communities Act, in explaining the reason(s) for the denial of state funding, it clarifies, “particular emphasis must be placed on measures the community has put in place to prevent such conditions. Emphasis must also be placed on how serious the relationship is and whether it appears intentional.”

The right to refuse grants in light of human rights should be reserved for cases where, after a concrete assessment, the awarding of grants will appear unreasonable. Broadly speaking, it is about safeguarding the public’s trust that the community’s resources are used in an efficient way to achieve socially beneficial purposes. The State, after all, is bound by human rights as described in the Norwegian Constitution and through the Human Rights Act. The state has a duty to both respect and secure human rights.

The State Administrator makes it clear that state funding falls outside the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Articles 9 and 11. Neither Article entitle religions to state subsidies. Quoting from the European Court of Human Rights, it says, “The freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs under this Article [9] does not confer on the applicant association or its members and entitlement to secure additional funding from the State budget.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that no statistics are kept on the age of baptized young people in Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, they could not say with certainty that pre-teens are not baptized.

It must be noted that the State Administrator based its decision mainly on information relating to shunning from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own publications. The information indicates that shunning involves a form of strict, systematic and targeted social exclusion, which the State Administrator finds to be a form of negative social control and psychological violence.

The State Administrator believes it unreasonable to wait for several violations of the Religious Communities Act to have occurred before taking action when Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice and documents clearly point to such violations of the Act. In its assessment, emphasis is placed on how serious the violation is and whether it appears to be intentional. If the violation appears to be systematic, persistent or intentional, the grant must be refused in full. The violation was found to be systematic, persistent and intentional.

The criteria in the Religious Communities Act are objectively designed, where the purpose is to protect rights, not to affect specific religious groups or faiths. The State Administrator points out that the best interests of the child must be a fundamental consideration in all actions taken by the state that affect children. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ shunning practice applies to baptized children, and to baptized children who leave the group. Therefore, the protection of children’s rights must be given decisive weight in a balancing of rights.