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

by pistolpete 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  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.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  This is weird, to say the least.

  Personally, I think opponents of the WTS should focus on more concrete methods of fighting them, but that's just me.
• 

  Earnest

  Rolf Furuli, who was an elder in Norway for 57 years, considers this disfellowshipping to be a violation of Bible principles and has uploaded a study of the court case on his website. While I do not agree with all his conclusions, his study is quite helpful as it provides an English translation by a native Norwegian about what was said and what the courts decided. His study is in two parts and can be accessed here and here.
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  What difference will a court order make in terms of how this woman will be treated by the congregation?
• 

  Corney

  The Supreme Court of Norway has agreed to review the case.
• 

  Corney

  The Supreme Court of Norway will hear the case next Tuesday and Wednesday (5-6 April). Two of three lawyers before it have their own Wikipedia pages.
  
• 

  Corney

  https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/avgjorelser/2022/hoyesterett---sivil/HR-2022-883-A/

  In an unanimous judgment, a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled for the congregation and found that:

  first, disfellowshipping decisions are justiciable and reviewable by courts in principle, since they have significant consequences for the person's welfare;

  second, the art. 10 of the Religious Community Act of 1969, that "very specifically Norwegian law" the appellate court relied on, is inapplicable in this case;

  third, there is no reason to invalidate the decision in question because the basic guarantees for legal security (due process) were met, and it wasn't based on a manifestly incorrect fact;

  fourth, the plaintiff shall be exempted from paying legal costs of the congregation due to "the welfare significance of the case for [plaintiff] and the uneven balance of power between her as an individual member and Jehovah's Witnesses."

  Decisions to exclude Jehovah's Witnesses are not overturned
  Jehovah's Witnesses - Ski congregation (lawyer René Stub-Christiansen) (Legal assistant: lawyer Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal) against A (lawyer Per Danielsen)
  One woman was excluded from Jehovah's Witnesses because, in the congregation's view, she had exhibited “porneia,” a biblical term for sexual immorality.
  Freedom of religion or assembly, enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), gives religious communities a large degree of independence, including deciding who should be members. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision had not completely escaped judicial review. Thus, as Jehovah's Witnesses demanded, the case was not dismissed by the courts. It was emphasized that the decision had very great personal consequences for the woman. Jehovah's Witnesses follow a practice that involves a member of the congregation, including the immediate family, avoiding contact with the excluded person.
  Nevertheless, it follows from the freedom of religion that a decision made by a religious community on religious grounds cannot be set aside by the courts solely on the basis that it is highly unreasonable. The judicial review must be limited to whether the basic requirements for due process were met, and whether the decision was based on a materially incorrect fact. After a specific review, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision could not be set aside on any of these grounds. The decision clarifies the courts' right to review decisions in a religious community.
  Read the decision in its entirety
  Supreme Court judgment 3 May 2022, HR-2022-883-A, (case no. 21-142136SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
• 

  road to nowhere

  I hate to say it but they got it right. Including no legal cost liability.

  . From opinion:

  It was emphasized that the decision had very great personal consequences for the woman. Jehovah's Witnesses follow a practice that involves a member of the congregation, including the immediate family, avoiding contact with the excluded person.
  Nevertheless, it follows from the freedom of religion that a decision made by a religious community on religious grounds cannot be set aside by the courts solely on the basis that it is highly unreasonable
  
• 

  LongHairGal

  VANDERHOVEN7:

  Answer: it won’t make any difference, in my opinion. She will probably be shunned anyway. Is she going to run after shunning people waving the news yelling that they have to talk to her?? Can she force them?

  There was a poster a year or so ago that was suggesting that people make up some document saying they quit the JW religion on a certain date and do not consider themselves one anymore, etc... Unfortunately, nobody has any control over how JWs will act.. They believe once you are in it’s for life and there’s no honorable way out.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I think there will be JW's who won't shun her. I think there are JWs who disapprove of the WT's shunning policy (including ones who want to quit the religion) and who will use the court ruling as a protective cover for them to avoid shunning the woman. The court's ruling could be the end of the WT's shunning policy in Norway and of JWs believing they will be disfellowshipped (or labeled as disassociated) if they associate with people who officially left the religion, though it probably won't end marking.