Like many exjws, as a pimo jw I see the verdict made by the SC of Norway and feel defeated. 3-2. That’s crushing. Legally, watchtower has won the fight…
For now.
This is the key takeaway as I review what the SC has decided, especially the notation concerning evidence.
“The threshold is high” I think it stands to reason that this simply means further investigation into what the threshold is must be made. Does the threshold itself need to be adjusted, does the State need to reconsider what is valid as far as negative social control?
“Not enough evidence” this to me tells me that exjws, pimos we HAVE to have a stronger voice in these cases. Often watchtower is winning because they know how to lie and manipulate and they get witnesses on their side thanks to the brainwashing. It is difficult for a court to be convinced that there is negative harm being done without data, is there a way to gather more sufficient data? This would be the goal of activists. Every single person that is leaving could have an impact if we find a way to continue gathering data.
“Exclusion of children” I think the focus of this shows that children often are not going to leave the faith until they are of legal age, above 18. This is two fold because a) a child doesn’t have the ability to leave because they are with their parents and are being provided for as long as they comply. This means pimo jws know that they have little choice but to wait for exiting. B) how many documentations of jws that left under the age of 18 are there that prove the social control the religious group has on children? Kids are naturally going to trust their parents imho, and most kids aren’t going to rock the boat until they are of age. This detail I think is very difficult for activists to prove, because of the psychological impact the religion has on children under 18 where often the notion of leaving seems very impossible to children.
Those are my thoughts and takeaways, deflating as they are. I really don’t want any of us to feel that this fight is over though. A defeat like this means finding a different avenue for battle. And a 3-2 vote highlights that clearly some headway is being made into the political and legal sphere where some judges and other figures are seeing the impact of shunning.