The court gave the strongest the benefit of the doubt

First Published on Vårt Land by Bjørn Markussen on March 21st, 2025.

In the Court of Appeal, a powerful group is protected despite hindering individuals’ freedom of religion – Bjørn Markussen

Oslo, Norway—RULING: The Court of Appeals does not doubt that the main rule of Jehovah’s Witnesses requires members to avoid contact with disfellowshipped and disfellowshipped members. The court also understands that this is “very burdensome for most children.” Then they condemn taxpayers to finance the exclusionary practice.

The leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses can rejoice that, with the court’s approval, they can still subject members, including children, to undignified trials – trials that the court itself describes as “very unpleasant, and in part also humiliating”. Because on Friday, March 14 of this year, they won the appeal against the state; Jehovah’s Witnesses will once again have tens of millions in state subsidies to continue as they do. The benefit of the doubt was given to them – instead of the children who were subjected to it.

"Very difficult"

Intimidating threats force members to stay – Bjørn Markussen

The judgment from the Borgarting Court of Appeal states that it is “not doubtful, nor disputed – that a withdrawal could have very serious consequences for the person who withdraws in terms of the possibility of contact with those who are still Jehovah’s Witnesses. This also applies to close family members. This could be experienced as very difficult by many…”

The Court of Appeal therefore does not doubt those who testified in the witness box how traumatizing and painful this is.

The court does not doubt that brutal breakups between parents and children, grandparents and children, and between close friends that, “for most people,” will “be very difficult and burdensome.”

“The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members choose not to withdraw for that reason.”

Put another way: Intimidating threats force members to stay.

Not scary enough, sort of

Write. Submit. Done. It’s that easy [to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses]. – Markussen sarcastically summarising the Court’s view

But the court does not think that the threats of losing everything and everyone – threats, specifically described in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own documents – “constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member’s right to free resignation.” Dissatisfied members can simply submit a resignation, the three judges believe.

Write, submit, done. It’s that easy.

What kind of threats are the legislators referring to when they write in Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act that religious communities that “make threats […] may be denied funding…”? Must a religious community make threats of physical violence or murder before the state grant is withheld?

The judges are in doubt

Court puts Jehovah’s Witnesses’ freedom above children’s freedom of religion and children’s rights – Bjørn Markussen

No. The Court of Appeal also considers psychological violence: “It is […] beyond doubt that if a religious community has a practice that involves children being exposed to psychological violence, this would be a violation of children’s rights under both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children’s Act, and could thus provide grounds for refusal and registration under Section 6, first paragraph, of the Religious Communities Act.”

The judgment further describes the intimately scrutinizing processes Jehovah’s Witnesses use when dealing with members who have done something wrong: “For minor children in particular, it must be assumed to be very unpleasant…”, the court writes. “Partly humiliating,” the judgment says. Yes, this has made such a strong impression on the judges that they had doubts!

What do they do then?

Then they let the doubt benefit the large, resourceful, international movement – all at the expense of some children. Because the Court of Appeal believes “nevertheless – under doubt – that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence”. “Under doubt.”

Psychological violence must last longer

That’s almost how the court consoles itself: They point to NOU 2024:13*: “Normally, psychological violence will be a pattern of abusive acts or behavior that is repeated or persists over time…”, it says (emphasis mine). The abusive process that disobedient children are subjected to “will normally last over a relatively short period of time until possible exclusion,” the judges write.

Yes, you read that right: The humiliations in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “judicial committee” simply do not last long enough to qualify for the term “psychological violence.” The exclusionary practice is too effective. That the result of the processes – the ostracism, the deep and life-threatening loneliness, the trauma, shame and grief – “persists over time.” Yes, this psychological violence persists for life. This escaped the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

* NOU stands for “Norges offentlige utredninger” or “Norway’s public investigations”. See page 30 of NOU 2024:13, second paragraph entitled “Psykisk Vold”. It translates as:

Psychological violence
The Committee uses the term psychological violence to refer to ways of harming, intimidating or violating another person that are not physical. Normally, psychological violence will be a pattern of abusive acts or behaviour that is repeated or persists over time; see more about the Committee’s understanding in Chapters 3 and 7.

Freedom at the expense of children

A powerful group is being protected despite the fact that they are hindering individuals’ freedom of religions – Bjørn Markussen

A misunderstanding has crept in – that the Norwegian state and previous legal proceedings have threatened the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their right to practice their religion. This is wrong; the state has simply not wanted to pay for the activity and all that it entails.

Now, however – in the Court of Appeal – a powerful group is being protected despite the fact that they are hindering individuals’ freedom of religion. The court is putting the freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses above the freedom of religion and the rights of children. That’s how wrong it went this time.

The role of the Helsinki Committee

Who is standing up for those who – year after year – have been subjected to what the Court of Appeal describes as “humiliating” and “very difficult and burdensome” on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses? In the public debate, former members stand sadly alone. It must be difficult. Why are other religious communities so silent?

Perhaps a group of defectors took it as encouragement when the Norwegian Helsinki Committee invited them to a meeting on March 6 of this year. The important committee wanted to listen; those who “work to ensure that human rights are respected and translated into practical action” wanted to gain insight.

It is then unfortunately painfully tragicomic that the Helsinki Committee itself, seven weeks before they gained this insight, sent the Court of Appeal a report with unreserved support for Jehovah’s Witnesses and their right to humiliate. The judgment also indicates that the Borgarting Court of Appeal read the Helsinki Committee’s report well.

The Helsinki Committee had been offered to provide a simultaneous response to Markussen’s article, but declined.

Links

Norway's Public Investigations (NOU)

NOU 2024:13

About Markussen:

Bjørn Markussen is a trained educator, but throughout his professional life he has worked mostly with journalism, marketing and management. For about 25 years he was a journalist and editor at Vårt Land, Varden and Fædrelandsvennen. He worked particularly with material on life views, and not least with religious communities and religious practices that limit ordinary life expression. He is not and has never been a Jehovah’s Witness.

He is author of the book and booklet, Alene Ut (Out Alone), available to purchase in Norwegian at gyldenhal.no.