Why on earth does Cedars think it's another topic??!
This article by Avoidjw.org is very comprehensive posted on October 22nd it took me two seconds to find. It clarifies that no religion has the right to financial assistance and so Watchtower's appeal falls outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR
https://avoidjw.org/news/norway-jehovahs-witnesses-denied-state-subsidy/
" The State Administrator makes it clear that state funding falls outside the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Articles 9 and 11. Neither Article entitle religions to state subsidies. Quoting from the European Court of Human Rights, it says, “The freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs under this Article [9] does not confer on the applicant association or its members and entitlement to secure additional funding from the State budget".
The Norwegian government also made it clear their practice of shunning is both systematic and intentional and not just the individual choice of members, so is a violation of government rules on freedom of belief.
"Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed that no statistics are kept on the age of baptized young people in Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, they could not say with certainty that pre teens are not baptised!!
It must be noted that the State Administrator based its decision mainly on information relating to shunning from the Jehovahs witnesses own publications. The information indicates that shunning involves a form of strict, systematic and targeted social exclusion, which the State Administrator finds to be a form of negative social control and psychological violence."
The State Administrator believes it unreasonable to wait for several violations of the Religious Communities Act to have occurred before taking action when Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice and documents clearly point to such violations of the Act. In its assessment, emphasis is placed on how serious the violation is and whether it appears to be intentional. If the violation appears to be systematic, persistent or intentional, the grant must be refused in full. The violation was found to be systematic, persistent and intentional."
