u/JehovahGodHimself

When a country is forced to subsidize a destructive cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is no longer a real country. It is a failed state.

When a country subsidizes a cult that destroys families, pushes people to suicide, and funds a doctrine that can lead a child who needs a blood transfusion to die, it is no longer a real country.

That is called a failed state.

And to all the JWs who will read this message:

You are in a cult.

You act smart, but everyone here knows that you are just poor victims of a pathetic cult.

You are among the most pitiful people on earth.

Spending your lives preaching the most absurd nonsense to people who, quite rightly, despise what you represent, makes you some of the most tragic people on this planet.

News

Norway: Jehovah’s Witnesses win Supreme Court case over state subsidies and registration

Supreme Court judgment of 29 April 2026, HR-2026-1009-A, case no. 25-089326SIV-HRET, civil case, appeal against the judgment of the Borgarting Court of Appeal of 14 March 2025.

The State, represented by the Ministry of Children and Families,

by Government Attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen,

against Jehovah’s Witnesses,

by attorney Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal,

with The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses as intervening party.

The case concerned the validity of five decisions refusing state subsidies, one decision deregistering Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious community, and the refusal of a new registration.

The State argued that the religious community’s practice of shunning violated children’s rights and members’ right to freely leave the religion, under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court reviewed the organization and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including their practice of disfellowshipping and social ostracism of former members, as well as the legal framework under the Religious Communities Act and religious freedom under the ECHR.

The Court emphasized that the threshold for refusing state subsidies and registration is high, and that Section 6 must be interpreted in light of, among other things, the autonomy of religious communities under Article 9 of the ECHR, read together with Article 11.

Regarding children’s rights, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the State had not provided sufficient evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses, in practice, expose minor members to psychological violence or negative social control of such seriousness that children’s legally protected rights are violated.

The Court gave weight to the internal guidelines for handling minors, the fact that family bonds are not broken, and the fact that no actual extent of child exclusions had been documented.

---

The majority of three judges found that the practice of shunning does not constitute improper pressure on members in violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.

Among other things, the majority emphasized that the practice is rooted in the religious community’s teachings, is known to members when they join, and does not involve direct pressure, coercion, or threats.

The practice of shunning does not apply to family members living in the same household. Family bonds are not broken for family members living outside the household.

The majority therefore concluded that the conditions for refusing state subsidies and registration under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act were not met.

The decisions refusing subsidies and deregistration could therefore not be upheld.

Two judges dissented on the question of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses expose their members to improper pressure against leaving, thereby violating members’ right to freely withdraw.

The minority placed particular emphasis on the fact that shunning can lead to loss of contact with family members, especially for minors.

It was also emphasized that shunning is the result of a rule-based requirement and is intended to be a noticeable consequence for the person who leaves.

The minority therefore considered that the conditions for refusing state subsidies and registration under Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act were met.

The minority also found that the decision to refuse registration constituted an interference with religious freedom under Article 9(1) of the ECHR, but that the interference was justified.

The minority considered that the decisions did not violate the protection against discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR, nor the protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.

The judgment clarifies the threshold for refusing state subsidies and registration of religious communities, and how the rules must be assessed in relation to religious freedom under the ECHR.

Legal field: Religious Communities Act, religious freedom, ECHR, Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Key paragraphs: 59–60, 62–63, 67–71, 85, 90, 102–104, 108, 113–117, 120, 123, 128, 130, 134–135, 137–138, 142–143, 169–173, 198–199, 211–212, 220–221.

Judges: Falkanger, Arntzen, Hellerslia, Poulsen, Steen.

---

Brutal summary

Jehovah’s Witnesses / Watchtower won the case, but by a narrow 3–2 majority.

The majority said: not enough evidence / the legal threshold is very high.

The minority said: shunning can indeed create improper pressure, especially through the loss of family contact.

So legally, this is a victory for Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But morally, the fact that two Supreme Court judges recognized the coercive nature of shunning is still very significant.