JW vs Norway Feb 2025 -it is finished- with a dramatic ending!
Finished: The court case between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state
was completed on Friday, February 14, 2025. Now, only the verdict
remains.
Dramatic ending in court Jehovah’s Witnesses suggested a protest
The religious community’s lawyer disputes that detailed,
uncomfortable conversations with minors are currently taking place
within the faith community.
Hans Christian Bergsjo¸
Journalist
Published: 14.02.25 - 15:10
Last updated: 14.02.25 - 15:22
The last day of the trial opened dramatically. Jehovah’s Witnesses’
lawyer, Anders Stray Ryssdal, attacked the state’s lawyers from the
start. He argued that the state had introduced arguments in its closing
statement that the faith community had not had the opportunity to refute
during the trial.
Court of Appeal Judge Jorgen Monn granted the state’s lawyers a break to assess the situation.
When they returned, they stood by their position: The argument,
which involved questioning with detailed and uncomfortable intimate
questions, had been part of the overall picture presented by the state
in the case.
We dispute that such conversations take place, said Ryssdal.
This changes the facts of the case, and we deserved the opportunity
to present evidence and discuss it further. This comes too late, he
added.
Ryssdal then suggested filing a protest, but in the end, Kare
Saeterhaug, an elder in Jehovah’s Witnesses, was allowed to explain the
matter and answer questions. He stated that the faith community’s
guidance does not require asking more detailed questions than necessary.
In January 2022, the County Governor of Oslo and Viken decided that
Jehovah’s s Witnesses would no longer receive state funding. In December
2022, they also denied the faith community official registration as a
religious community. The Ministry of Children and Families supported
these decisions.
The reason for the rulings is the claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses’
practice of exclusion (expelling members) violates children’s rights,
particularly their right to protection from psychological violence.
Jehovah’s Witnesses lost the case in the district court in January
2024. The ruling was appealed and is now being heard in the Borgarting
Court of Appeal. The verdict from the Court of Appeal is expected in
about a month.
The purpose of the judicial committees is to guide people back to a
healthy relationship with God, argued Sæterhaug, and this should be
done in a kind manner. It became clear that there is no oversight of
this practice.
Could it be that some have experienced very detailed and
uncomfortable judicial committees? asked Judge Jorgen Monn, referring to
several witness testimonies.
That has never been in line with the guidance given to elders, replied Saeterhaug, who said he was not aware of such cases.
After the dispute, government attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen
continued her closing arguments. She reiterated that the case is about
balancing different rights but maintained that the state has shown that
minors can be excluded from Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Violating moral laws can lead to exclusion. We have examples involving children as young as 11, she said.
She also clarified that the state does not intend to interfere with
whether religious communities teach that same-sex relationships are
wrong or that blood transfusions are prohibited. The government attorney
spent time demonstrating how the European Convention on Human Rights
grants children the right to protection of their psychological
integrity.
She also argued that the state’s denial of funding and registration is not an infringement on freedom of assembly.
Gabrielsen concluded by addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses claim of procedural errors.
In the state’s view, the decisions have been adequately
investigated. There is sufficient evidence of the faith community’s
practices.
The state’s proposal is to reject the appeal from Jehovah’s
Witnesses, thereby upholding the Ministry of Children and Families’
decision.
After the state’s arguments, Jehovah’s Witnesses lawyer, Anders Stray Ryssdal, gave a lengthy rebuttal.
Once again, he strongly criticized government attorney Liv Inger
Gjone Gabrielsen. He argued that she had not demonstrated how childrens’
rights are violated within Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor that children are
excluded from the faith community.
He also reiterated that the right to freely leave Jehovah’s
Witnesses is upheld, as written resignation is accepted as a valid
method of withdrawal.
The state cannot impose additional conditions, such as making it a pleasant experience to leave, he said.
Ryssdal also challenged the states many references to comparable rulings in Europe.
You have to connect the reasoning to the outcome. Every ruling the
state has cited supports our position. This is a selective reading of
the premises, he said.
This was countered by government attorney Gabrielsen in her rebuttal.
You cannot derive so much from conclusions alone. If I had more time, I would have gone into this in greater detail.
Gabrielsenâ’s colleague, Kristin Hallsjo¸ Aarvik, reiterated that
the state believes Jehovah’s Witnesses have not lost any status by being
denied funding and registration.
Jehovah’s Witnesses remain a religious community and retain that status. The decisions do not restrict their religious practice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/1ipfcik/jw_vs_norway_feb_2025_it_is_finished_with_a/
