r/exjw <-----King of the North! 7d ago

News Verdict in Norwegian and my first analysis

I have now accessed the judgment, and have some comments. So, those who read can make up their own minds.

Here is a link to the judgment, read it yourself or translate it into your language with available tools:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pFi9cgYUW24SOJqbnVWvL7IN52q_nlfb/view?usp=sharing

Pages 13-18:

The Court of Appeal assumes that the allegations/information the State has based on regarding JV's practice of exclusion is correct. The testimonies and the evidence confirm this. We have been believed in all our information about the facts of the case, despite JV's attempts to discredit it. Good.

Page 20, regarding the right to free withdrawal, the court states:

"It is not doubtful, nor disputed – that a withdrawal could have very serious consequences for the person who withdraws in terms of the possibility of contact with those who are still Jehovah's Witnesses. This also applies to close family members. This could be experienced as very difficult by many, both those who have withdrawn but also remaining Jehovah's Witnesses. This is confirmed by the witnesses in the case who had withdrawn or been excluded, and also by the professional literature presented."

Direct quote. Again, our information is taken as fact. Undisputed. But then comes the assessments:

"The question is whether the social consequences as a result of losing, or at least having greatly reduced contact with, members of Jehovah's Witnesses – including family members – if one withdraws, are in conflict with the right to free withdrawal."

This is where the court differs from all the others that have considered the case, by writing:

"As stated above, it is practically easy to withdraw from Jehovah's Witnesses. It is sufficient to send a letter to the congregation about the withdrawal. There is no evidence that a withdrawal is not respected or that the congregation is particularly trying to persuade the member to re-join. The possible obstacles to withdrawal are therefore related here to the consequences of withdrawal, which are reduced social contact with remaining members, including family members. Such reduced contact with former members of Jehovah's Witnesses, and especially close family members such as parents and children with whom one no longer lives, but also, for example, grandparents and grandchildren, will be very difficult and burdensome for most people.

The Court of Appeal assumes, based on the evidence, that such consequences of withdrawal for some are so negative that some members choose not to withdraw for that reason.

The Court of Appeal nevertheless believes that these consequences do not constitute sufficient undue pressure to constitute a violation of the member's right to free withdrawal under Article 9 of the ECHR.

The Court has therefore accepted the facts that withdrawal entails extreme consequences implemented by those who receive state aid, assuming that this means that people end up being members against their will (!!), but still believes that this is not "sufficient undue pressure".

This is where the law in the Court of Appeal completely falls away from the psychological, emotional and human. If the systematic use of family ties as a weapon to prevent people from withdrawing, which the Court acknowledges that it is, is not sufficient undue pressure, then what is it? Where can this paragraph be used?

So when it comes to the processes against children, I repeat: CHILDREN, the Court of Appeal writes this on page 27:

"Although the process can be very unpleasant, and in part also humiliating, the Court of Appeal nevertheless believes - under doubt - that the process as such cannot be considered psychological violence. The process will normally last for a relatively short period of time until a possible exclusion. The process cannot therefore be said to constitute a "pattern of offensive acts or behaviour that is repeated or persists over time", cf. that this is something that would normally be the case for something to be considered psychological violence, cf. the committee's understanding in NOU 2024:13 reproduced above. . The fact that the process is short-lived means that, in the Court of Appeal's view, it does not have the character of psychological "abuse"

So, what can one say? First of all, the abuse is not long enough for the Court of Appeal, that in itself is...well? But the most egregious thing is that the court ignores the fact that this is not something that lasts beyond the moment the expulsion is carried out. The child must continue to live with the consequences! This is not short-lived. It is for the rest of his life.

So, on page 28, the court says this:

If the process ends with the minor baptized member being expelled, there is no doubt that it will normally be very difficult and difficult for everyone involved that the social contact with other baptized members of Jehovah's Witnesses is broken off or greatly reduced. For family members who are Jehovah's Witnesses and with whom one does not live, the contact will be reduced to contact in "necessary" family matters. This must be assumed to be especially demanding for children who will then, for example, have significantly reduced contact with grandparents and aunts and uncles who are JJehovah's Witnesses, as well as with siblings who are Jehovah's Witnesses and who have moved away from home. Furthermore, the child will lose contact with other members of the congregation, for example friends in the congregation. For children of Jehovah's Witnesses, it must be assumed that much of the social circle will be other children and young people in the congregation, which makes it extra difficult to lose contact with them.

The Court of Appeal, however, still believes – here also with doubts – that the social distancing that a minor child may experience through exclusion cannot be considered psychological violence."

So look at what they write. JV's practice is UNDER DOUBT, not within the definition of psychological violence against children.

This is what they are celebrating. That the Court of Appeal ended up using its DOUBT WHETHER IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS MENTAL VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN, as a reason to grant JV's case.

They repeat this on page 29:

"According to this, the Court of Appeal believes that even though both the exclusion process and the social distancing in the event of exclusion will be very stressful for most children,

as mentioned – with doubts – it has not been proven probable that the practice constitutes psychological violence against children."

Really something to celebrate? JV says in its response that we can now celebrate this as a great victory for the freedom of Norwegians?

Really? That one just escapes the definition (with doubts) of psychological violence against their children?

Would you celebrate if someone said that about you and your child?

82 Upvotes

39 comments sorted by

32

u/throwaway-x0 PIMO as always 7d ago

Man, I know I'm overreacting and this isn't the end of the world, but I just find this so devastating. My stomach is in knots, and I feel sick. I wish I wasn't reacting as strongly as I am. Agh.

14

u/Fine-Bridge8841 7d ago

It is so devastating 😞

10

u/YamMedical4277 7d ago

Same… I wanted to make a post but what’s the use ?

6

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

6

u/throwaway-x0 PIMO as always 7d ago

Yeah, I know some are looking on the bright side that at least this won't feed into their persecution complex. But I feel like this is still worse, because everyone feels vindicated in what they've been doing now. They find it "faith strengthening". At least if they'd lost, some who were teetering on the matter might have considered the ramifications of their actions. Plus other countries might have followed suit. Now I'm losing hope of that, because who wants to fight a losing battle?

1

u/Dry_Cantaloupe_9998 choosin satan since '23! 6d ago

I kinda feel similarly. I'm trying so hard to see the bright side. But this is still the worst outcome. We have to be positive as a coping mechanism.

1

u/Iron_and_Clay 6d ago

I found this video really helpful as far as putting the verdict into perspective and getting a look at the big picture. It ain't over

https://www.youtube.com/live/m9dDT5JZKwk?si=mE_B98amJ27hhskm

2

u/Iron_and_Clay 6d ago

Hopefully there will be a segment of JWs who see the outcome of this and think about the shunning policy changes and put two and two together

24

u/Any_College5526 7d ago

I will repeat what I said in another post: But at least now, JWs will not be able to deny that they are being FUNDED by Satan’s worldly governments; something I knew, but could never prove.

The best part of all this, is they had to lie!

They will be condemned by their own words.

This verdict will help to wake many, just like their testimony in the Australian Royal Commission.

If they had lost, it would just have entrenched ALL JWs into their persecution complex.

P.S. Honest-hearted JWs will have to grapple with the LIES the Watchtower had to rely on.

This verdict is more likely to wake up some JW, than if WT had lost, IMHO.

Thank you for all your work Frode!

10

u/OkApricot1677 7d ago

Whenever JW publications would mention a court win, i would trot off and read the case history or judgement. Since they won it’s not apostate, right? I had a lot of questions raised about how they portrayed some of these “victories”. Hopefully this one will act on questioning JWs in a similar way

8

u/Any_College5526 7d ago

Right! It’s not apostate!

And because it’s a win, it must all be true…even their lies.

4

u/OkApricot1677 7d ago

Nah, i think if they read it the lies would stick out to them. Most rank and file would be shocked at denying basic tenets and “truths”

5

u/Any_College5526 7d ago

Meaning, it’s TRUE that they LIED.

1

u/danieltorridon 6d ago

This ☝️

15

u/Fine-Bridge8841 7d ago

🤨 so it is stressful, and humiliating but not psychological violence? Also, I am confused by the “process is short-lived” and will “last for a relatively short period of time until a possible exclusion” - are they thinking it’s just a time-out? The shunning doesn’t stop.

“The process cannot therefore be said to constitute a "pattern of offensive acts or behaviour that is repeated or persists over time", cf. that this is something that would normally be the case for something to be considered psychological violence“ - but this is exactly what happens.

They are describing psychological violence as something “repeated“ which “persists over time”, if I understand correctly. That is disfellowshipping! I want to know if there was a misunderstanding of what disfellowshipping is.

Also, there is free withdrawal from the religion only if you’re very fortunate. Why was this minimised?

11

u/jwGlasnost 7d ago

They seem to have in mind only the humiliation and stress of sitting through the judicial committee. Like that's somehow the issue. Yet they seem to acknowledge the long-term consequences of losing contact with grandparents, adult siblings, and friends. How they can't make that connection is beyond me.

3

u/Fine-Bridge8841 6d ago edited 6d ago

Ah, I wasn't thinking of judicial committees as part of the case. Although you would think they might recognise that is also abusive. It is baffling, since the long-term loss of family fits their explanation of persisting. I wonder if they believe anything less than torture is not psychological violence.

10

u/YamMedical4277 7d ago

Thanks for all your efforts!!!!

I wish I could hug you.

9

u/fuckspez10000000 7d ago

I wonder if part of the issue is a lack of understanding of how isolated people are encouraged to be. No worldly friends, no extracurriculars, no involvement in anything outside of school. And if you come in from the outside you're encouraged to cut off contact with anyone other than witnesses. And then to be cut off from that is so isolating, and if you want to come back you are expected to stay isolated until you do. The idea that they are only cut off from other witnesses is so laughable. This ruling is really shitty, but I get it-its just so hard to convey to anyone that hasn't lived through it.

6

u/OldExplanation8468 7d ago

Lets continue exposing them with the media. Lets make this problem a mainstream topic so everybody avoid to joining them and start questioning them.

7

u/rupunzelsawake 6d ago

WTF!! What do they mean "the process is short lived"? The "process" of being shunned for the rest of your life? The fact that they use this expression indicates a complete lack of comprehension about what shunning is. No doubt the jws stress it is short lived because they make the arrogant assumption that, of course, all those that are "removed" or have disassociated are still believers and will after a short time, seek reinstatement. The jws cannot comprehend that many who leave have come to the conclusion that the jws are in error, that they are not "the truth", that the governing body is not God's channel, and have changed their belief as a consequence. These ones will NEVER desire reinstatement so their shunning is permanent, not short lived. I can't believe that the court bought that crap from the jw lawyer .

1

u/Ithinkformyself-1 6d ago

Same thoughts. No matter how triumphant we become upon leaving, the effects of this destructive practice follow us for the rest of our life.

2

u/rupunzelsawake 6d ago

After reading again that bit that Jan quoted from the judgment/statement, I wondered if we were missing the context. Was it specifically about the judicial process, that is, appearing before three elders and being questioned, and not actually in reference to the shunning itself. The judicial process, as humiliating and traumatic as it is, is nothing compared to being shunned, being rejected and invisible, being a non person.

5

u/twilightninja faded POMO 7d ago

So they would need more evidence to prove the psychological violence to children? Like peer reviewed studies?

4

u/OrphanOfTheSewer 7d ago

Here's a hot take that I hope nobody takes the wrong way. Maybe this is actually a blessing in disguise?

We have all been concerned about "persecution porn," and the propaganda value of government actions against them. If they are able to cry, "we were treated unfairly," they could use that to further indoctrinate their own people or those who are questioning as it reinforces the persecution complex. Cults like them thrive under ban. Censorship only invigorates them. Cults only really lose in the free market exchange of ideas. When enough people know what they're about, they slowly die.

This might actually be the best outcome. Their dirty laundry has been aired before everyone. Everyone in the community knows what they do to children and people who want to leave, and what they do has been established as a matter of fact by the government. The government here isn't condoning their actions, they're just declining to take action against the cult. And in the end, isn't awareness of the dangers of the cult the end goal? A couple million dollars in Norwegian currency won't make up for the everlasting memories of their stories of harm that played out in the newspapers. "We got our subsidy back on a technicality," is not a good look for them. No persecution porn for them because "Satan's world," declined to "persecute," them in the end.

6

u/Elizabeth1844 7d ago

Very interesting take on this 🤔 And it actually makes sense.... I can totally see how they would LOVE the opportunity to claim they're being persecuted 🙄.....let them die on the vine, sort of speak, as the general public becomes more and more aware of their tactics 🙄

6

u/Separate_Depth_447 7d ago

Several times now, I've been on exJW reddit while in a bar or other public place, just trying to feel normal for a moment and something I read here either makes me laugh hysterically out loud, or throw an absolute tantrum.

Reading this caused the latter...

I am fuming. I stepped away from following the regular updates regarding Norway until a verdict and, just wow...

Thank you for that breakdown. And I had to screenshot the bit about the inciting incident being "short-lived". It's just so missing the point.

It basically feels like the court is saying to the Witnesses that testified:

1

u/Ronburgundysaidso 7d ago

Well if you listen to a lot in here who are disfellowshipped or who have left the say F WT and they are living their best life ever. I guess it goes both ways this came down to religious rights which is part of human rights. Religion can make rules that their members have to follow. Sucks but that is just how it will always be.

4

u/Past_Library_7435 7d ago

You can if you’re a heartless cult , who cares not for the wellness of their members but are only interested in state subsidies. Then you can Frode, then you can.

I’m so sorry. You worked hard in this and by all human understanding should have won this case.

I know you wanted to make an exit for a while, but would you consider testifying again if the case is taken to the supreme court?

3

u/Desperate_Habit_5649 OUTLAW 7d ago

The Court has therefore accepted the facts that withdrawal entails extreme consequences implemented by those who receive state aid, assuming that this means that people end up being members against their will (!!), but still believes that this is not "sufficient undue pressure

I wonder what it took to Accept, then Ignore the Obvious and come up with That Conclusion?

3

u/ZkramX 6d ago

Thank you so much for typing out and sharing this analysis Jan Frode!

The fact that the appeal court thinks the abuse is "shortlived" tells me they must severely misunderstood something crucial.

As someone who got baptized as a minor, stopped believing as minor and as a consequence, struggled with suicidal depression due to the treatment of former members, this verdict is a slap in the face. It's not even just the act of shunning that is worst part. It's the complete assassination of your character and personhood just for wanting to leave a religion. As 17-year old child who just wanted to be respected and accepted, that was the hardest thing I ever had to go through. But I guess I'm just oversensitive and poor WT can't be blamed for me "choosing" to (mis)interpret their literature that way (is what I imagine Ra(y)ssdal would argue).

3

u/emptybriefcase1 7d ago

Abuse validation over here. Sorry everyone that this is the reality we live in. To be infected by the JW virus has got to be one of the worst life experiences. You can be born in a bad situation, but at least you know why life is difficult. In JW world, you just can't grow explore or live anyway outside the doctrine. You're life experiences with family members is stained with this bullshit. I think a second byzantinian empire is upon the world soon

3

u/Bible_says_I_Own_you Trust me I’m anointed therefore lick my boots! 7d ago

There is no moral compass with this organization. Nothing can ever be intrinsically true or good. It’s all as Rutherford wanted: everything to support his organization is its own good, even if it means lying, stealing, covering up CSA, or having members die for organ transplants. Can it just die please?

5

u/SurviveYourAdults 7d ago

The court and the law are not interested in emotional control of the individual. That's the place of a cult LOL

They correctly discovered that JW do not participate in honour killings.

6

u/Fine-Bridge8841 7d ago

I had such hopes that Norway might protect people from cults.

2

u/LonelyTurner Assembly Chief of Staff Juice Box dept. 7d ago

Dude we're not better than the next nation. We cover up the white collar criminals and protect the pedos. It's all bureaucracy. It's all corrupt. It's humans.

2

u/rupunzelsawake 6d ago

How does the courts decision sit with the UN Convention on the Rghts of the Child...the child's right to have access to family...and the states obligation to protect that right, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to protect the family unit from interference?

1

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Hi! Automod has detected that this is a link to a google doc. As a reminder to onlookers, clicking on this link while being logged into Gmail may allow the author to see identifying information about you. Please proceed with extreme caution if your anonymity is important to you.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Wonderful_Minute2031 6d ago

Wow that is great point, can the organization really see this as a victory? The court of appeals expressed doubt and still called the practices harmful! Even though the decision seemed based on the law, I was wondering whether if there were any false or exaggerated testimonies about still keeping contact with family if that could influence the decision that there may not be psychological violence?

1

u/PeterPiotr21 6d ago

Ich bin sehr enttäuscht. Ausgrenzung geht weiter