Kommentar

This speaks in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway trial

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practices is brutal. Still, some key considerations work in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ favor in the norwegian court case.

Dette er en kommentar. Den gir uttrykk for skribentens analyser og meninger.

Imagine being sixteen years old and beginning to doubt the faith of the church you grew up in. The rules and restrictions have become too tight—you want to go to parties like everyone else, drink alcohol, have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend, and maybe even join a political youth party.

Such a lifestyle is not compatible with being a member of the church, and you risk being excluded. You can leave voluntarily, but you know the consequences will be severe.

Friends and acquaintances from the church will cut off contact with you and won’t even greet you on the street. Your parents will do the same when you eventually move out. Maybe they’ll help you if you become seriously ill or send you a message once a year. But beyond that, you’re on your own.

When the price is so high, are you truly free to leave?

Several dilemmas

Oslo District Court says no. Last year, the court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses violate Norway’s Religious Communities Act. The court sided with the Norwegian state, which had withdrawn Jehovah’s Witnesses’ government funding and their registration as a religious community.

The court found that Jehovah’s Witnesses violate children’s rights by making it difficult for them to leave the community freely, which is a fundamental human right. Teenagers can already be baptized and accepted as full members. According to church guidelines, if a member leaves the church—whether voluntarily or through exclusion—remaining members must avoid normal contact with them.

These consequenses makes it nearly impossible for baptized minors to exercise their right to leave freely, the court wrote in its ruling.

On February 3, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal. From a humanitarian perspective, it’s easy to conclude that the church’s guidance is brutal. At the same time, it is far from certain that the district court’s ruling will be upheld.

The case involves several dilemmas. Some key considerations work in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ favor.

The price of leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses is extremely high

State Funding and Religious Freedom

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ guidance stems from their faith. For them, remaining in the church has eternal consequences. Avoiding contact with former members is considered a «loving provision», intended to encourage those who have left to repent and return—an option always available to them.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to practice this belief. If Norway prevents them from doing so, it would be a clear violation of religious freedom. However, this case is not about banning the practice but rather about denying them government funding and official registration.

Oslo District Court ruled that the Norwegian state can withdraw funding under the Religious Communities Act without it violationg their religious freedom. However, it is not certain that the Court of Appeal will reach the same conclusion.

Denying Jehovah’s Witnesses state funding—amounting to between 16 and 18 million NOK annually—limits their ability to finance organized religion in Norway. It also creates a form of discrimination that conflicts with Norway’s constitution, which states that all religious and belief communities should be supported on equal terms.

The district court argued that this discrimination has a valid and reasonable justification: the practice infringes on another fundamental right—children’s right to leave freely.

The question then becomes whether the infringement is so significant that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ constitutional rights must yield.

Jehovas vitner har gått til søksmål etter at myndighetene vedtok å frata dem registreringen som trossamfunn og dermed også statstilskuddet som følger med. Norske myndigheter mener de har kunnet gjøre dette fordi de anser Jehovas vitners eksklusjonspraksis til å være i strid med trossamfunnsloven. Oslo Tingrett. Jehovas vitners advokat, Anders Ryssdal.

A real choice?

For religious freedom to have any real meaning, it must include the freedom to choose which religion to belong to. On paper, Jehovah’s Witnesses members are free to leave. No one physically restrains them, locks the doors, or prevents them from walking away. However, the court found that freedom is not real when the consequences of leaving are so severe.

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that while it may be difficult to leave, members are not prevented from doing so.

This point deserves further discussion.

In other contexts, someone might hesitate to leave their Pentecostal church out of fear of disappointing their grandmother. In other parts of the world, people may have a genuine fear of being killed if they convert to another religion.

The price of leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses is extremely high, but it is not unique for their members to face significant consequences for leaving their faith.

Oslo District Court emphasized that the right to change religion provides «strong protection against pressure or coercion that obstructs the exercise of this right.» It is particularly significant that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ guidance is so explicit that it constitutes a systematic practice.

But when do personal costs become so great that the freedom to choose is no longer real? Where is the line?

Oslo District Court did not address this question in its ruling.

Evidence presented in court has shown that this fear is very real

State Regulation of Family Relationships?

It is not uncommon in Norwegian culture for family and friends to cut contact with those who break established norms. Not long ago, women who had children out of wedlock or entered same-sex relationships were sometimes disowned by their families.

It would be difficult for the state to regulate the quality of relationships between family members beyond the legal responsibility parents have for their underage children. Jehovah’s Witnesses account for this responsibility in their guidance.

Parents are only encouraged to minimize contact with their children after they move out, except for «necessary family matters.»

The question is whether these nuances are relevant. The state is not claiming that Jehovah’s Witness parents neglect their children. The violation concerns the pressure placed on minors, who fear that leaving the church will isolate them from their parents and family in the future.

Evidence presented in court has shown that this fear is very real.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses case is far from settled. As the Court of Appeal now takes it up, the fundamental dilemmas at stake must be thoroughly examined.


Morten Marius Larsen

Morten Marius Larsen

Morten Marius Larsen er konstituert redaktør for religion, feature og debatt i Vårt Land.

Vårt Land anbefaler

1

1

1

1

Mer fra: Kommentar