Article from Fædrelandsvennen.
The congregation Samfundet and other religious groups that want to exercise negative social control can rejoice in the victory of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Court of Appeal. The losers in the case are some children who live with deep fear of internal punitive processes that are “very unpleasant”, “burdensome” and “humiliating”. Has the court not realized that the results of the processes – the ostracism, the deep and life-threatening loneliness, the trauma, shame and grief – last a lifetime? asks the author of the article.
Photo: NTB Bjorn Markussen journalist and author of ALONE OUT – from the Church Society to eternal perdition
You are now reading a column. It expresses the opinion of the submitter. In the ruling handed down in March this year, the Court of Appeal does not doubt that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ brutal exclusionary arrangements – with ruptures between parents and children, grandparents and children, and between close friends – will “for most people” be “very difficult and burdensome.”
Photo: Astrid Snipsøyr, Gyldendal
“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,” the judgment states. They don’t dare leave the church even though their faith disappeared long ago.
Children in criminal proceedings
Leaders in Jehovah’s Witnesses do not throw out empty threats. They systematically follow up on threats. This is what the court has established. And children in Jehovah’s Witnesses have known this their whole lives. When members – children and adults – break one of the congregation’s strict rules of conduct, a fixed process is initiated in which the rule-breaker must explain himself to an internal “judgment committee” consisting of some of the leadership; “the elders.” “The very process of violating norms , which can end in exclusion, will be demanding for everyone, and especially for children,” the court writes. Yes, more than that: The meeting with a judging panel “could be very uncomfortable and humiliating” for the children.
A loving arrangement
“The Court of Appeal assumes that the elders normally do not have sufficient child-related expertise to fully safeguard the child’s interests in such a conversation,” they write.
The court has good grounds to “assume” this. The ruling mentions that Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves refer to the judicial committees, exclusion, and family ostracism as a “loving arrangement.” Perhaps it is here that the religious community reveals something central and terrible about itself. What can people who say in the name of Jehovah that humiliating and cruel acts are expressions of love – and who live by this; what are they capable of doing to the least of them?
Parents participate
One might hope that it would help terrified children that parents are “normally present” during these interrogations, but the judges are learning that “the parents [do] not only have the child’s best interests in mind…” Because in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own regulations, it is stated that parents “should cooperate with the sentencing committee and not attempt to shield the young offender from necessary disciplinary measures.” Taste that sentence. But here’s more: To avoid exclusion, the minor must show genuine remorse. This can “be a burden,” the court writes, “especially if there is no real remorse.” And “having to go through a process where the child must explain himself about sometimes very personal matters could also be in conflict with the child’s right to privacy under the Convention on the Rights of the Child…”, the judges note.
The doubt benefits the strong
When the court has written about everything adults and minors are subjected to – about the degrading sentencing committees, about what is obviously stressful, very unpleasant, and humiliating – they write several times that they are in doubt, in doubt about what the sentence will be. But in the end, they let the doubt benefit the large, resourceful, international movement, Jehovah’s Witnesses, – at the expense of some kids. Psychological violence, well, no… If it were proven that children in the exclusion processes are exposed to “psychological violence”, the court writes, “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 denial [of state subsidies] and registration under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act…”. But the systematic humiliations in the judging committees do not last long enough to be defined as psychological violence!
“Under doubt,” repeat the team judges. Because in a NOU from 2024 it says that “normally psychological violence will be a pattern of offensive actions or behavior that repeats or persists over time…” (emphasis added). The unpleasant process that disobedient children are subjected to “will normally last for a relatively short period of time until eventual exclusion,” the judges write.
Brutal, but fast. Has the court not realized that the results of the processes – the ostracism, the deep and life-threatening loneliness, the trauma, shame and grief – last a lifetime?
Judicial committee at the state’s expense
Henrik Erhard Hermansen is the general secretary of the Norwegian Christian Council, an association of most Christian religious communities. According to Fædrelandsvennen, Hermansen believes that “it may be difficult to prevent some state subsidies based on the Religious Communities Act” if the Court of Appeal’s ruling stands. The Christian leader is probably absolutely right: After this, Christians and other religious communities can treat members of all ages almost exactly as they want – at the state’s expense. The State Administrator, the Ministry and the District Court wanted it differently.
No one advocated taking away freedom of religion from Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the state would not pay for the activities. With the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Jehovah’s Witnesses will once again receive about 18 million a year to run the judicial committee and the rest of their congregational work.
Hope in the Supreme Court
This ruling puts the religious freedom of groups above the freedom of belief of the individual. The hope is that the state will appeal and that the Supreme Court will once again protect children and the most vulnerable more than the right of different religious communities to humiliate young and old.