A text by
Mr. Massimo Introvigne, on the website
https://bitterwinter.org/fecris-sentenced-in-germany-for-defaming-jehovahs-witnesses/,
(Cult apologists linked to Cesnur) pro-Jehovah's Witnesses author, indicating
that German Jehovah's Witnesses won a case against FECRIS (an anti-cult
organization). The latter would be condemned, among other things, for elements
affirmed during a conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. In fact, the Witnesses have
been found guilty of many particularly serious matters, including human rights
violations. Here are the comments translated into English by an informant of
the judgment - Germany Wt / Fecris on which the WT did not appeal. Consequently
the judgment is final.
Translated
with Google translate:
The
German Jehovah's Witnesses had sued FECRIS before the Hamburg Court
( Landgericht Hamburg) to request the removal of several quotes from
the German-language version concerning various contributions from speakers at
several conferences.
By
judgment of November 27, 2020 (file n ° 324 0 434/18) which today has the
force of res judicata after the Jehovah's Witnesses renounced the appeal they
had lodged, the Tribunal dismissed the Witnesses of Jehovah on the points that
FECRIS considers essential.
FECRIS
has therefore redacted from the German version of its site (the only one
concerned by this judgment), the comments of the speakers on which it succumbs,
comments that had been posted online during various conferences (Brussels 2017,
Sofia 2016, article “ sects and European values ” 2015, Brussels
2014, Perpignan 2012, Saint-Petersburg 2009).
Several
of the reasons for this judgment provide details about the points on which the
German Jehovah's Witnesses are unsuccessful in their request .
· At the request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1 : the
speaker said “ The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is
characterized by aggressive hostility towards society and the state. "
The German judge considers that “ it is
not legally contestable that the mere fact that the complainant (the
German organization of Jehovah's Witnesses ) has constantly refrained
from participating in public political life is considered an aggressive
alienation from society and the state ”. The
judge continues: " in addition, the many indisputable
behaviors prescribed to members must be taken into account, such as the
recommendation to (not) maintain contact with former members, the refusal of
various celebrations and blood transfusions "
The assertion that " The organization of Jehovah's
Witnesses is characterized by aggressive hostility towards society and the
state " is therefore not considered defamatory.
· At the request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.4 : the speaker
said : “ The followers of this sect commit crimes with religious
motives. "
On this point the judge considers that “ it is permissible
to qualify Jehovah's Witnesses as such since they have undoubtedly encouraged,
for example, to refuse medically indicated blood
transfusions for their children, which can be considered as a crime
of in a legally irreproachable manner . "
Thus the Hamburg court recognizes that it is not abusive to qualify as
criminal the refusal to transfuse a child. This is obvious that should be emphasized !
· At the request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.6 : A Russian
speaker described “ the harassment of which Russian Jehovah's Witnesses
claimed to be victims by the government as a vulgar propaganda stunt. "
The judge dismissed the German Jehovah's Witnesses, applicants,
considering that they were not concerned by what was happening in Russia.
·
At the request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.7 : One speaker asserted that the assemblies of
Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by male members of the movement qualified as
supervisors installed at the regional level.
On this point the judge dismisses the German Jehovah's Witnesses
since " it is easy to see that these controllers (men) have
powers granted by the organization to exercise their monitoring function ".
· At the request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.8 : It was argued
that “ a TJ woman can be reprimanded for dressing in an outfit
deemed indecent by the committee of elders and therefore being tried by the
judgment committee. "
The judge considers that this “ statement of fact ” is
not contested by Jehovah's Witnesses and that the choice of allegedly
inappropriate clothing can effectively lead to recourse to an internal legal
commission . "
·
At the request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.11 : One speaker asserted that “ the
wife is an accessory which must be acceptable to her husband and to the
assembly. She owes him submission even to sexual relations, because she
has no power over her own body ”.
The judge considers that this is
the expression of an opinion , and that it is
founded insofar as " in the writings of the
organization of Jehovah's Witnesses the woman is regarded as" a
weaker vessel ”than the man who must“ take into account the physical
and mental nature of the woman and her mood swings ” .
The judge also notes that “ Jehovah's Witnesses also require
that a woman recognize her husband as the head, that is to say the person
called by God to settle the contentious issues. " It is
indisputable that the plaintiff (Jehovah's Witnesses) asserts
in her writings that a woman has no power over her
body ."
The statement that " the wife is an accessory which
must be acceptable to her husband and to the assembly " is
not considered defamatory .
·
At the request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.18 : " The elders never explain what
happened to the neighboring Assemblies, which allows the pedophile to
continue ". The judge considers that this is the expression
of an opinion , specifying that " the simple
fact ( ... ) that the surrounding assemblies are not
informed can lead to the conclusion that pedophiles have thus any facility to
commit de new offenses ”.
·
Application of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.22 : the speaker had said that " 1 335 139
members had left the movement or became inactive " . The
judge considers that this is a well-founded statement of fact since " everyone
can retain that in addition to defections there are members who simply become
inactive " .
· Request from Jehovah's Witnesses 1.23 : the speaker
said that " any Jehovah's Witness who leaves the movement
for reasons of conscience does so with pain, knowing that he is
qualified as a heretic ... "
The judge considers, in order to reject the request of Jehovah's
Witnesses, that it is the expression of an opinion, moreover weighted and that
" the term of heretic is not subject to a fixed definition ".
· Request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.24 : the speaker had
said : “ in reality exclusion by movement occurs for many
different reasons (…) due to the hypothesis of a blood transfusion. "
The judge considers that this is the expression of an opinion and that
the Jehovah's Witnesses by specifying in their arguments " that
a member is supposed to have left the religious community after having agreed
to be transfused. he does not “ regret ” it, de facto amounts to
exclusion. "Precisely the same judge that " the
judgment of 24 March 2005 - 12/01 and 5B BV ERWG decision of 1 st February
2006 - 7B 80/05, cited by Jehovah's Witnesses state that if parents decide to
give their consent to a transfusion is considered a withdrawal from the
community ”.
· Request of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.25 : the speaker had
said : " let us be clear : Jehovah's Witnesses ... are
part of a movement ... which does not respect human rights ... "
The judge considers that this is an expression of opinion and that
" even taking into account the decisions cited in the recognition
procedure (recognition of German Jehovah's Witnesses as a legal person
under public law) ", the elements allowing to retain the
violation of human rights are present.
On this point of the non-respect of human rights by Jehovah's Witnesses,
the motivation of the judge deserves to be reported in full : “ according
to the undisputed argument of the defendant (FECRIS), it emerges from the
writings of the applicant organization (German Jehovah's Witnesses) that
the "non-witnesses" belong to the world of evil, that they are the
work of Satan and condemned to destruction. Thus people who do not belong
to the faith of the complainant are classified as fundamentally
" bad " and degraded. As we have already
explained, continues the judge, it must also be assumed that,
according to the complainant's conception, women must be subordinate to their
husbands and are not allowed to occupy certain positions within the
congregation… It is It is also indisputable that marriages with a non-Witness
are discouraged and that homosexuality and transsexuality are strictly
prohibited. The fundamental rejection of blood transfusions can even be
seen as a disregard for basic human rights, as it can infringe a human being's right
to life. In addition , continues the judge, it is also
indisputable that the right to vote is not respected insofar as Jehovah's
Witnesses are required to remain politically neutral and not to participate in
national elections.
After careful consideration ,
underlines the judge, to consider that the Witnesses of Jehovah do not
respect the human rights is an opinion which the court accepts and the
Witnesses of Jehovah are rejected of their request ” .
·
Request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.26 : the speaker had said : " therefore,
any person who decides in his heart and conscience to maintain… family
relations with an excluded former member risks himself being punished " .
The judge considers that this is the expression of an admissible
opinion : “ Jehovah's Witnesses undoubtedly teach that all
contact with former members, including parents, must be avoided. In
addition, behaviors contrary to the teachings can be sanctioned by the elders
... if there is an inappropriate contact of a member with a parent who no
longer belongs to the community. (Internal) legal
action can be taken against the member if he maintains " a
constant spiritual fellowship with the excluded person " or if he
openly criticizes the withdrawal from the community.
And the judge continued : " It is permissible to
state that each member runs the risk ... of seeing his behavior sanctioned,
especially since the member in question can probably not completely exclude
such a risk unless he has no contact with a person who has left the territory,
any contact that could be considered “ abusive ” .
·
Request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.27 : the speaker had said : " whether
you are expelled or whether you have left of your own free will, you are
an" apostate ".
The judge considered that this was the expression of an admissible
opinion and held that in order to understand the declaration, it
was necessary to retain the ordinary use of the term apostate and that it was
indisputable that, in certain circumstances, a a former member who left the
organization is considered by Jehovah's Witnesses to be a
“ renegade ”.
·
Request of Jehovah's
Witnesses 1.30 and 1.31 : the speaker had
said : " this organization is subversive, because it
considers the State as an enemy, inspired by the devil, which must be fought
until a final conflict ... they (the Jehovah's Witnesses) try to undermine the
loyalty of the citizens, resulting in the dissolution of the state
itself ” .
The judge considers that this is the expression of an admissible opinion
for the two citations. The court underlines that " the reader
does not suppose that the fight against the State must be carried out by a
positive action, since in this regard, an abolition of the State, also possible
by a passive behavior, is included in the subject. … The tribunal
specifies that it is indisputable that the complainant organization
encourages its members, for example, to remain politically neutral and not to
participate in national elections. "
***
The Hamburg court therefore sheds light which confirms the position of
FECRIS, as well as that of each of the associations that help victims of sects
that it federates, in the action carried out to support victims of the
organization of Jehovah's witnesses. This judicial decision parallels other
actions currently carried out by victims against Jehovah's Witnesses in several
countries.
