Lawyer for JW Admitted He Overstated Things

Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).

– I got a bit carried away

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES: Before the weekend, the religious group’s lawyer claimed that a certain word was not used by the group itself, but only by their critics. He had to retract that statement.

SUPREME COURT: Monday was the last day in the Supreme Court for the case between Jehovah’s

Witnesses and the state.

By Erlend Berge and Sondre Bjørdal

Published 09.02.2026 – 16:00

Last updated 09.02.2026 – 16:01

– My client actually made me aware over the weekend that I had gotten a bit carried away regarding the expression “shun.”

The admission from Jehovah’s Witnesses’ lawyer, Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal, came after the state presented new evidence Monday morning, challenging Ryssdal’s statements before the weekend that the religious group itself does not use the expression “to shun” or “shunning” regarding its treatment of former members.

On Friday, Ryssdal had argued that the group’s practice is rooted in 1 Corinthians 5:11, where Paul writes: “Do not associate with anyone who is called a brother, who is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. Do not even eat with such a one.”

– This is the basis for what the state calls

“shunning,” which is a term used by critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but not by the group itself. In Norwegian context, the term used is rather “stop associating with,” the religious group’s lawyer said before the weekend.

After the claim that the group does not use the term, the state’s lawyer, Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen, presented a transcript from one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ websites, showing a video that had already been presented in lower courts. Gabrielsen explained the presentation of this evidence as follows:

– The state understood Jehovah’s Witnesses to mean that this word “shun” is not used in their texts and is used derogatorily. The state therefore wanted to present something that sheds light on this, namely a text where the word is used.

“To avoid”

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the verb “to shun” means “to avoid deliberately and habitually” (Vårt Land translation).

– The word is in itself fairly neutral and not especially loaded when used on its own. Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer use it, but there is no doubt that the English word has appeared in various Jehovah’s Witness publications over the years, said Ryssdal.

He also clarified that the group does not use this word in Norway:

– My point is that the expression is very far from the Norwegian word “å sky,” which the state uses.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use “sky.”

The Norwegian Language Council’s dictionary defines “å sky” as “to stay away from” or “avoid.”

The background to the semantic discussion was that the state’s lawyer argued before the weekend that the Borgarting Court of Appeal had sugarcoated Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice toward former members when describing it as “social distancing.”

– This is not the wording Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves use. And according to the state, the wording is misleading, Gabrielsen said when the case began on Thursday.

She argued that a more accurate description of the practice is the English term “shunning.”

– That is, they shun them. The Court of Appeal has softened this to “social distancing.”

In Norwegian, the phrase is “stop associating with,” as in Corinthians.

A condition for the state to present the new evidence was that Jehovah’s Witnesses were allowed to show how the relevant document had been translated into Norwegian.

– Here we see this difference: In English, it says

“shun,” while in Norwegian it says to “avoid” contact with sinners. The expression “å sky” does not appear. In Norwegian, the phrase is “stop associating with,” as in Corinthians.

The word was also brought up again at the end of the day when the state’s lawyer, Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen, replied to Ryssdal’s statement.

– You should not answer the phone, do not make contact. The general rule is to cut off all contact and not even say hello. It is Jehovah’s Witnesses who encourage members to “avoid” those who leave.

Closing remarks

Ryssdal concluded with a few key points he believes are decisive for rejecting the state’s appeal of the Court of Appeal’s ruling:

• The European Court of Human Rights has in similar cases found that interference with the religious group has been illegal.

• The state’s intervention in this case is not in line with the intention of the Religious Freedom Act.

• The state interprets religious scriptures as a basis for intervention, which he argues infringes on religious freedom.

• The state has hardly investigated how widespread the alleged problem is in practice.

The case is still under consideration. It is not clear when a verdict will be issued, but it will be within a few weeks.