Jehovah Witnesses lost in Court. Disfellowshipped Sister Reinstated by Court Order?

by pistolpete 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    Do we have any verification of this? The video is a pain to watch and lacks any specific details.

    I will believe it when I see it reported by a reliable source, with specifics.

  • Corney
    Corney

    This article appears to be the only substantial commentary on the case; much recommended: https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-a-strange-norwegian-decision/

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @corney: do note that the bitterwinter.org writer is a JW if not a cult apologist, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.

    But basically the JW organization got convicted based on a Norwegian law that nobody can force you to join or leave a religion. It’s the latter part that is important, the law does not force someone to associate with you, it just states they can’t force you out of your religion involuntarily.

    Given the JW hold that you can’t be a JW without being part of and in good standing within their organization, they have violated that law. This has nothing to do with religious freedom, it does not require you to believe that they are still a JW, they just can’t force you not to be one.

    The facts whether she was or was not raped (which bitterwinter writer claims she wasn’t because she didn’t claim it to be so in front of the JW committee, even though the description - sex with a passed out drunk person - is clearly rape) were not really relevant, the judges thought it was appalling but that wasn’t the reason.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Anony Mous : do note that the bitterwinter.org writer is a JW if not a cult apologist, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.

    The bitterwinter.org writer is a Catholic.

  • Corney
    Corney

    Anony Mous, your comment makes no sense and has nothing to do with reality.

    https://youtu.be/Ec7rCsNFn30

    Also, I've found the decision in question, and it strikes me as a blatant travesty of justice.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @Corney: Not sure what you're going on about, the decision is pretty clear, the WT is able to set the rules within their congregation, however the rules aren't legal (which many EU courts have found) or weren't legally followed to comply with Norwegian law.

    Note that the EU does not have such concepts like freedom of speech or freedom of religion in the way the US does, the government has significant involvement and restrictions on speech and religious affairs. Sure that may be a travesty, but that is an entirely different discussion.

    Not only that, but apparently the court also found the elders lied to the courts about what happened in the judicial committee meetings, with the elders having significantly different stories about how they reached their decision, presumably to divert the attention from the organizational rules set forth in the elder manual (theocratic warfare). One elder for example said a judicial committee does not go into details in these cases, which is an outright lie, while the other described the judicial committee going into extreme detail about the types of intercourse and how much of her body was naked.

    Every elder seemed to indicate that they believe she was indeed raped, but that this constitutes 'porneia' because she put herself in the situation, yet they didn't council her on the fact this was in fact rape and she had the option of going to the police. The judges didn't even interpret this, they just held that it was illegal to hold someone accountable for their own rape.

  • zachias
    zachias

    Im beyond words.

  • punkofnice
    punkofnice
    Imagine the "faithful" jws who are now HAVING TO TALK TO THIS PERSON by Court order or face the consequences----legally.

    I bet they still won't talk by 'their own choice'.

    I wonder how they'll spin the court result? You can't trust 'em.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Anony Mous, most of what you say above about this case is false.

    Anony Mous : ... apparently the court also found the elders lied to the courts about what happened in the judicial committee meetings

    The Majority Opinion, Section 4

    The presentation of evidence in the District Court and the Court of Appeal has revealed divergent explanations from the members of the Judicial Committee and the Appeals Committee about what they believe A has acknowledged and what they believe she has committed. Certain differences are foreseeable from the time [two years] that has passed.

    That is far different to suggesting that they lied which, if it were true, would result in a charge of perjury.

    Anony Mous : One elder for example said a judicial committee does not go into details in these cases, which is an outright lie

    The Minority Opinion, Section 3

    D (district court judge): So did she say anything more about how the situation with having oral sex occurred?

    N1: No, we actually try when we are a judicial committee, not to go on and almost elaborate in every detail. So when you face a person who says [there was oral sex], we do not dig into it anymore. I think it's quite obvious that when you get such an account of it, and use that expression, then we did not dig more than that.

    Anony Mous : ... while the other described the judicial committee going into extreme detail about the types of intercourse and how much of her body was naked.

    The Majority Opinion, Section 4

    Judicial committee member N4 explained to the district court that the specific sin in this case was intercourse. When asked further why he assumed that there had been intercourse, he replied that A did not say that she had had intercourse, but that she had explained that she was completely or partially undressed and that things had happened that she herself described as immorality or «porneia».

    The fact that N4 explains that "things had happened" that she described as immorality supports what N1 said above that they didn't dig into the details. The fact is that the decision to disfellowship was detached from whether she was asleep at the time or not, as shown below.

    Anony Mous: Every elder seemed to indicate that they believe she was indeed raped

    None of the elders said they believed she was raped, and even the court refused to say that she had been raped.

    The Minority Opinion, Section 3

    Given that A did not want to involve the man in the case, neither the judicial nor the appeal committee had any opportunity to test whether A had in fact been subjected to sexual abuse. According to A's explanation, she had no recollection that anything sexual had taken place between the two. However, she was surprised that she fell asleep in the hotel room and first woke up naked approx. at 11.30 the next day. Neither then nor since has A reported the case to the police. She has also not found it opportune to involve the man as a witness in the case before the courts. In such a situation, in the minority's view, it would be contrary to basic legal security standards for the protection of the man to find it proven that she had been raped by him.

    Anony Mous: but that [being raped] constitutes 'porneia' because she put herself in the situation

    The Minority Opinion, Section 3

    Based on an overall assessment of the circumstances that led to A having dinner with the man, the consumption of alcohol both during dinner and later, her description of kissing, caressing, touching and the subsequent circumstances [staying the night in his room], held up against the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses about sexual immorality, the Judicial Committee and later the Appeals Committee found it necessary to exclude A.

    It was an overall assessment of the circumstances that led both committees to conclude that she had engaged in porneia. Considering that simply staying overnight with someone of the opposite sex can be grounds for a judicial committee, she added alcohol, kissing, caressing, touching, sleeping in the same bed ... and she didn't know what she had done wrong until she woke up naked. And then they had breakfast together, and a few days after the committee meeting she calls her ex-husband and tells him he is free to remarry.

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    Just to say, the victim is a believing Jehovah's witness and that explains why she would not involve the man in the case, nor prosecute him, since he is a "brother". Therefore no court has been able to ascertain as to whether she was raped (which is why the judges in this case would not officially make that claim).

    It also explains why she has yet to "go public" about her court victory. Watchtower broke some very specifically Norwegian laws and @goatlikepersonality has made a YouTube commentary on the case since he knows the lady in question.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit