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".
Sorry, Dio, I don't buy it. Paul's injunction about not taking a brother to court is referring to fraud, to "very trivial matters", not to a criminal case. The Watchtower has made it quite clear in the matter of child sexual abuse that there are no restrictions in taking the matter to the police, and I don't see that raping a sleeping woman (if that is what took place) is any different insofar as prosecuting the man is concerned. I can believe she did not want to prosecute him if he is a friend and remains so, but both the judicial committee and the appeal committee asked her whether she felt she had been raped or sexually assaulted and she repeatedly answered in the negative so that may have something to do with it too.
Diogenesister : Watchtower broke some very specifically Norwegian laws ...
I am no lawyer and I especially do not know Norwegian law, but judging from what was said in the case notes this is a unique application of the law and is not what it was intended for. The provision in Section 10 of the
Religious Communities Act of 1969 has never before this case been brought before, or applied, by a court regarding the exclusion of a congregant. It is normally applied if an employer threatens to dismiss any employee who did not want to enter his religious community. As I say, I can only go by what I read in the case but it is clear this law has never before been applied in this way.