Rakel and Jan: Some Positives in Norway Ruling

Published: March 16th, 2025. Originally published in Norwegian on Vartland on March 15th, 2025

“Psychological Violence, Negative Social Control, the Right to Opt Out” – Do these words mean anything to us? – Rakel and Jan”

Oslo, Norway—So we have now received the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in the years-long dispute between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Norwegian state, a process that in practice has been going on continuously since 2019.

Extensive investigations and legal proceedings gave us full understanding and a decision from the State Administrator, confirmation in the appeal case with the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, victories in the injunction case in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal, and finally a full victory in the District Court. Many people have supported our case.

Now we faced three judges in the Court of Appeal who came to the opposite conclusion, under doubt.

When the disappointment has subsided, there are still many positive things to take away from reading the judgment. “We’re not lawyers and leave the in-depth legal analysis to those who know about such things. When we comment, we do so with our own expertise in the form of lived lives – an insight that lawyers and spectators will never be able to fully grasp. We write with the hope that this, too, has value.

About Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning practice and the court's finding

The practice is considered proven and that the State’s view of this is correct – Norwegian Court of Appeal

Jehovah’s Witnesses went into the trial with claims that the State had been misled by a few disgruntled former members and thus gained a completely wrong impression of the exclusion scheme. The court dismissed this completely. “Like the district court and the administration, the judgment is very clear that our stories correspond to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own instructions and the practice as we describe it. The practice is considered proven and that the state’s view of this is correct.” (point 3.3, from page 14)

The Court finds it proven that the practice applies to adult members who are thrown out, that it applies to those who opt out themselves, and that it will apply to children. The court also states on page 18 that “unnecessary socializing” with those excluded from the Elder Book is considered “shameless behavior” and entails reprisals.

So we have been fully vindicated here. Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed the opposite in court, but this was rejected. I wonder what the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses think about this?

For us, it is reassuring that all parts of both the administration and the legal system have now established this as a fact. We also hope that the media will now use this as a basis in future cases. These are not just loose allegations from dissatisfied members, as the Witnesses claim, but recognized and proven.

About free withdrawal

The court finds that such consequences of withdrawal are so negative that some members for that reason choose not to withdraw. – Norwegian Court of Appeal

Central to this point is what “free withdrawal” means. Here, the Court of Appeal arrives at the opposite conclusion of all the preceding paragraphs because the opportunity to withdraw in writing is given the greatest weight, so that the psychological burden of the subsequent sanctions is given less weight. An example of the fact that law and psychology are two completely different disciplines.

The court writes on page 22, recognizing that those who opt out experience extensive sanctions: “reduced contact with…in particular close family members…will for most people be very difficult and burdensome…. The court assumes that such consequences of withdrawal are so negative that some members for that reason choose not to withdraw.”

The court has thus recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of social ostracism, including within close family, is so burdensome that for many people it will result in them not daring to opt out. At the same time, these people then generate financial support for the same organization that carries out these sanctions.

It may be legally right, but in what other contexts than religion would we accept something like this? And what do the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves think about the fact that the court has found it proven that several of their members are members against their will, held hostage because they want contact with close family?

Is this what taxpayers want? That payments should be made in this way? What do the people who wrote the Religious Communities Act and included section 6 think?

About children's rights to protection from psychological violence and negative social control

Jehovah’s Witnesses … barely escape being labelled as an organization that perpetrates psychological violence against its children. – Rakel and Jan

Rakel Fjelltvedt, a former Jehovah's Witness in Norway who testified against JWs - Photo: Vartland

Jan Frode Nilsen in Court testifying against Jehovah's Witnesses - Image: Vartland

This is the passage in the judgment that is most shocking to us. If the Court of Appeal’s judgment stands as a consensus, at worst the extensive work that has been done in recent years regarding children’s protection from psychological violence in Norway could be seriously set back.

As we interpret it, the verdict lands primarily in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ favour because the terms “psychological violence” and “negative social control” are too poorly defined in the legislation. Better definitions of the terms are part of the important work that needs to be done in the future in order for these terms to have legal value.

Regarding the process of judicial selection and social exclusion of children, the court writes on page 27: “Although the process can be very unpleasant and humiliating, the court nevertheless believes – under doubt – that the process as such cannot be regarded as psychological violence”

The argument from the court is that in order to meet the definition of psychological violence, this process must constitute a “pattern of abusive acts” that “persists over time”.

The Witnesses’ practices are documented as persistent acts over time. And the consequences of the ostracism persist for many for the rest of their lives. They often never get their family back. Nevertheless, the court believes that since the actual process of ostracism at the individual level is quick, it is not psychological violence in the sense of the law. We would very much like the Supreme Court to rule on such a claim.

So it is this loophole that Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrate as a great victory. That under doubt, with the help of a very special definition, they barely escape being labelled as an organization that perpetrates psychological violence against its children.

The court writes on pages 28 and 29 that “both the exclusion process and the social distancing of an exclusion will be very stressful for most children, it is, under doubt, not likely that the practice constitutes psychological violence against children.”

This is an assertion that we expect Bufdir (Child Welfare Services) and others who work with children’s mental health to follow up in the future. If this remains the consensus, it could apply not only to children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also to other minorities. Systematic, organized use of force to remove a child’s family and social circle if he or she does not follow his or her parents’ religious rules could be defined as approved by the Court of Appeal, and not something the state and the administration can do anything about.

Rakel Fjelltvedt (left) and Jan Frode Nilsen (right) have both testified against Jehovah’s Witnesses in court.

Further thoughts

A lot of our motivation for doing this has been about public education and insight into the practice. We have achieved this, regardless of the Court of Appeal’s ruling. But there is still a lot of work to be done.

The verdict is characterized by the fact that the court calls for documentation, they call for data. Professional expertise in the area. Data on the consequences of mental illness among those who fall outside these systems. “Those of us who have experienced this and been in the thick of it know first-hand that these harmful effects are there. We have people around us who are in the middle of the process and are shattered. We’ve lost friends who couldn’t take it anymore. We know what this means. But we have no way of scientifically collecting this data so that it can be used legally. Society must help us with this.

Is there the will to do this, or is everyone comfortable with the court’s conclusion that as long as the harmful effects are not sufficiently documented, it is unlikely that they exist?

When it comes to the conclusion itself, we trust that the State will make the right decision and see the importance of this being decided in the Supreme Court, and that the opportunity is taken to legally define what “the right to free withdrawal”, “psychological violence” and “negative social control” actually mean.

If there are no definitions that the law can accept, it will also be hopeless for the administration to comply with the Religious Communities Act’s requirement to take these conditions into account.

Links

References

Elders’ Book: Download a Copy in your language

Court Judgment (English Translation)

Vårtland March 15th, 2025: When the disappointment has subsided, there is still much positive to be gained

Legal Representatives:

Office of the Attorney General, representing the State of Norway

Glittertind AS Law Firm representing Jehovah’s Witnesses

Appeal Reporters:

Reporter

Translator

Analysis