Agecanonix est dans sa période "je vous ai eu" ... "J'ai démasqué l'ennemie" , "j'ai eu la peau des méchants apostats".
Grand bien lui fasse ... on se rassure comme on peux
Il nous parle depuis le début de sa traduction ... sans fournir le texte traduit
Je me propose donc de copier la version anglaise ...
Transcript
District Court of Hamburg
File reference: 324 O 434/18
Pronounced on November 27, 2020
Brüggemann, Court clerk
Registrar of the Court
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
Judgement
In the matter of
Jehovas Zeugen in Deutschland, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts 1,
represented by its board of directors, Grunauerstr. 104, 12557 Berlin
- Plaintiff -
Authorised proxy:
versus
Fédération Européenne des Centres de Recherche et d’Information sur le
Sectarisme2 (FECRIS), represented by Chairperson Danièle Muller-Tulli, 26 A, rue
Espérandieu, 13001 Marseille, France
- Defendant -
Authorised proxy:
the District Court of Hamburg – 24th Civil Chamber – through Judge Käfer, Presiding
Judge at the District Court, Judge Mittler at the District Court, and Judge Kemper at
the District Court, based on the hearing of September 18, 2020 has thus adjudged:
[Page 2]
1
Translator’s note: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, corporation under public law.
2
Translator’s note: European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Cults and Sects (FECRIS).
1
I. Under penalty of a Court-imposed administrative fine for each case of
infringement – or, in the event this cannot be collected, administrative
detention or administrative detention for up to six months – the Defendant
shall refrain from distributing and/or causing to be distributed the following
regarding the Plaintiff and its members, as has been done on www.fecris.org:
1.1 [...]
1.2 “Characteristic features of this organization are [...] illegal possession of
property [...]”
1.3 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous examples
of how the adepts of this cult took possession of citizens’ apartments [...]”
1.4 [...]
1.5 “The deaths of the underage children S P (6 years old) from
the city of Kogalym and I O (11 years old) from Moscow were
covered by the media and the cult of Jehovah’s Witnesses was sharply
criticized. These are only two names out of many adults and children brought
to their death by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
1.6 [...]
1.7 [...]
1.8 [...]
1.9 “Finally, I add that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a part of their followers
will go to heaven after their death. Women have the right to do so ... but
subject to the condition that they stop being women, because their belief
states, and I cite, ‘These all must receive a change of nature at their
resurrection, being together made partakers of “divine nature,” in which state
none will be women, for there is no female sex among spirit creatures [...]’ ”
insofar as the impression is created that, according to the teachings of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a difference between men and women who
receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women “must receive a
change of nature”, but not men. [Page 3]
2
1.10 “This same text, which – I would like to remind you – is the official creed
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, continues to speak about women who go door-
to-door as ‘female slaves’.”
1.11 [...]
1.12 "For the subjection [of the woman] does not end with the husband and with
the elders of the congregation. At times it is also the same with regard to
the male children."
1.13 “Of course, women cannot rebel within the home without being
immediately judged by the congregation’s elders.”
1.14 “She is also forbidden to divorce, which would immediately lead to her
becoming disfellowshipped, [...]”
1.15 “In 2015 a Royal Commission examined more than 4,000 cases of victims
of acts of pedophilia in Australia. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the country is estimated at 68,000. 4,000 victims out of 68,000 Jehovah’s
Witnesses. This simple statistic is scary.”
insofar as this asserts that the Royal Commission in Australia identified
more than 4,000 cases of victims of pedophilia among Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
insofar as the claim made here is that the Royal Commission in Australia
identified more than 4,000 cases of victims of criminal offences of
pedophilia among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1.16 “How is an act of pedophilia judged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses? The child
is brought forward to explain in detail what happened. It must remember
each act, and the elders ask precise questions to judge the facts. Imagine
the impact on a little 6-year-old girl!”
insofar as it is being claimed that minor victims of pedophilia must give a
statement on the course of events to the elders.
1.17 "No woman is allowed to be present, because she does not have the
right to judge .... And in the course of this questioning, when there are no
more witnesses to the crime, the child is confronted with the rapist. And
they have to confront each other with their statements.” [Page 4]
3
insofar as it is being claimed that, in connection with judicial-committee
proceedings for rape/child abuse, the child is confronted by the accused
person and the mother is not permitted to attend the judicial proceedings.
1.18 “And the elders will never explain what happened to other members of the
congregation or to neighboring congregations. This allows pedophiles to
continue their acts with other Jehovah’s Witnesses children.”
1.19 “In October 2013, there was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There
was the poignant case of a 17-year-old girl whose parents refused
vaccination for religious reasons and she died.”
insofar as the impression is being given and created that the parents and
their child were Jehovah’s Witnesses, that as such they would refuse to
have their daughter vaccinated and that Jehovah’s Witnesses would refuse
to have their children vaccinated due to the religious teachings of their
religious association.
1.20 “[...] 1994 was abandoned in silence’ [...] The Watch Tower is already
suggesting that 2034 will be the year of Armageddon.”
1.21 “Dates published by JW in relation to the ‘end of the world’ [...] 1780, 1798,
1799, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1872, [...], 1875, 1880, 1881, 1895, 1906,
1910, [...], 1915, [...], 1920, 1921, [...], 1926, 1928, 1932, 1933, 1940s,
1951, [...], 1996, 2000, [...], 2034”
1.22 [...]
1.23 [...]
1.24 [...]
1.25 [...]
1.26 [...]
1.27 [...]
[Page 5]
4
1.28 “There is no difference between a teenage couple caught kissing or being
an elder JW member who becomes critical on JW-doctrines ... both acts
lead directly to a JW judicial committee.”
1.29 “If they were alone in the house that night, prima facie evidence is enough:
guilty.”
1.30 [...]
1.31 [...]
1.32 “Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses must participate in the preaching work.”3
II. The remainder of the action is dismissed.
III. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff EUR 2,217.45 in prelitigation costs.
IV. The Plaintiff must bear 46% and the Defendant 54% of the costs of the lawsuit.
V. The judgment is provisionally enforceable with regard to the operative part
under point I. of the judgment, but only against provision of security to the
amount of EUR 94,500; otherwise, in each case, against security to the amount
of 110% of the respective amounts to be enforced;
and rules: The value of the matter in dispute is set at EUR 176,000.
Facts of the case
The parties are in dispute about the permissibility of several texts in the Defendant’s
articles, on account of which the Plaintiff is claiming injunctive relief and payment of
the warning notice.
The Plaintiff is a religious association with the status of a corporation under public law.
The Defendant is a European umbrella organization for various anti-sect groups. On
its website – www.fecris.org – the Defendant has published reports from its annual
conferences as well as articles in the German language, among others. [Page 6]
3
Translator’s note: This statement does not appear in the English-language version of the article.
5
On its website, the Defendant has published the following reports that are disputed:
On May 19, 2017, report on the European conference in Brussels, “Cult undue
influence and the process of radicalization, a question for debate” (hereinafter:
“2017 Brussels Report”; Annex K1; applications 1.1–1.6)
On June 21, 2016, report on the European conference in Sofia, “Women in
cults, gurus and victims” (hereinafter: “2016 Sofia Report”; Annex K17;
applications 1.7–1.18)
On March 24, 2014, report on the European conference in Brussels, “Cults and
the False Debate on Human Rights” (hereinafter: “2014 Brussels Report”;
Annex K27; applications 1.19)
On October 13, 2012, report on the conference in Salses-le-Château,
“Apocalyptic cults: failed utopias and consequences for followers” (hereinafter:
“2012 Salses-le-Château Report”; Annex K30; applications 1.20–1.21)
On May 7, 2011, report on the conference in Warsaw, “Systematic abuse in
cults: testimonies and evidence” (hereinafter: “2011 Warsaw Report”;
Annex K33; applications 1.22–1.26)
Report on the conference in St. Petersburg, “Destructive Cults and Human
Rights” on May 15 and 16, 2009 (hereinafter: “2009 St. Petersburg Report”;
Annex K34; applications 1.26–1.29)
Report on the conference “State responsibility to protect citizens against
destructive cults” in Pisa on April 12, 2008 (hereinafter: “2008 Pisa Report”;
Annex K36; applications 1.30–1.31)
Article entitled “Cults and European Values” (Annex K37; application 1.32)
On account of the statements in dispute, the Plaintiff sent a warning notice via its
authorized legal representatives on May 18, 2018 and asked the Defendant to submit
a declaration of discontinuance that carried a penalty (Annex K39). The Defendant did
not react to the warning notice. [Page 7]
6
The Plaintiff considers this Court to have international and domestic jurisdiction. The
Plaintiff is only operative in Germany and has its registered office there.
The Plaintiff is affected by each of the statements in dispute and the Plaintiff’s rights
are infringed by them. Due to persecution in Russia, hundreds of Jehovah’s Witnesses
have meanwhile fled Russia and sought asylum in Germany. Decisions by German
courts regarding the granting of such asylum could be adversely affected by the
supposition that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia are criminals.
Regarding the Individual Statements:
1.1 “Characteristic features of this organization are an aggressive alienation
from society and the state [...]”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue and that it contradicts the
religious teachings as well as the religious practices of the Plaintiff. In fact,
the Plaintiff conveys respect for the state, as can be seen from the
“Frequently Asked Questions” published online by the Plaintiff, where,
among other things, it speaks of “[r]espect for governments” (Why Do
Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality? | FAQ (jw.org)). The
Federal Constitutional Court has also recognized that the Plaintiff
recognizes “the constitutional State as [it does] other ‘superior authorities’,
as a transitional system tolerated by God” (Judgment of 19 December 2000,
2 BvR 1500/97 1500/97, marginal No. 98).
1.2 “Characteristic features of this organization are [...] illegal possession of
property [...]”
The statement is untrue. The subsequent statement in Annex K1, page 49,
which states “[t]he limited time of the report does not allow me to give
numerous examples of how the adepts of this cult took possession of
guarantor’s 4 apartments”, is also untrue and aims to portray Jehovah’s
Witnesses as a dangerous religious association that commits serious
criminal acts. To the extent that the Defendant refers to transfers of real
estate between corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Defendant has
conceded that these are lawful. Moreover, the Plaintiff disputes that the
newspaper reports submitted by the Defendant concerning rulings by
Russian courts with regard to illegal uses are true. [Page 8]
4
Translator’s note: Source text “Bürge” = guarantor, later in 1.3 same sentence but “Bürger” = citizen
7
1.3 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous
examples of how the adepts of this cult took possession of citizens’ 5
apartments [...]”
In addition to its submission under 1.2, the Plaintiff maintains that the
Defendant stated nothing about apartments being seized. The present
submission is insufficient. Apartments had indeed been donated by
members of Jehovah’s Witnesses; however, in the case of a donated
apartment, the reader does not have the understanding of an unlawful or
forceful appropriation.
1.4 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous
examples of how the adherents of this cult [...] committed religiously
motivated crimes.”
The Plaintiff states it is untrue that the Plaintiff’s adherents commit
religiously motivated crimes (see 1.1).
1.5 ““The deaths of the underage children S P (6 years old)
from the city of Kogalym and I O (11 years old) from Moscow
were covered by the media and the cult of Jehovah’s Witnesses was
sharply criticized. These are only two names out of many adults and
children brought to their death by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untruthful that the
deaths of both children had been caused by refusal of blood transfusion.
Actually, in both cases, Russian courts had clarified that the accusation that
the children’s deaths were caused by refusal of blood transfusion could not
be confirmed.
1.6 “Therefore, all tales of alleged ‘harassment’ against Jehovah’s Witnesses
[in Russia] are nothing more than a primitive propaganda stroke. This
information is not true.”
It is the Plaintiff’s view that, in making this statement, the Defendant is
accusing the Plaintiff of lying when on its website the Plaintiff reports of
encroachments by Russian state authorities against individual Jehovah’s
Witnesses. The Defendant’s statement exhibits a particularly insulting and
disparaging character. [Page 9]
5
Translator’s note: See footnote 6
8
Among other things, the Plaintiff published a news release titled “Campaign
of Terror Begins for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia” (Annex K8) on May 2,
2018. In fact, some 25 Witnesses have been imprisoned since September
1, 2018 due to their religious practice, the Plaintiff continues. During her
visit on May 2, 2017, German Federal Chancellor Merkel also urged
Russian President Putin to commit to protecting human rights in his country
and she thereby explicitly named Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia
(Annex K14).
1.7 “The instructions that they apply to all the other members of the
congregation are written and controlled by other male members of the
movement, “Overseers” appointed for regions.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, there are indeed “travelling
overseers”. However, the Plaintiff6 does not state that these persons are
assigned a controlling function and have corresponding powers. There
exists no position or function as a ‘controller’ over members in different
regions. The assertion that there exists a controlling function in the
organizational structure has the potential to influence Plaintiff’s public
ministry in a negative way, since a ‘controlling function’ would deter
potentially interested persons. It is in fact clear from the Statutes of the
Plaintiff, that every activity is voluntary (Annex K18).
1.8 “A woman can be reprimanded from the stands, in public, for dressing in
what is judged an indecent way by the committee of elders of her
congregation. In this case, she must meet with 3 elders, who will judge her
within a ‘judicial committee’.”
to the extent that it is hereby asserted that choice of clothing could
constitute grounds for judicial-committee proceedings.
The Plaintiff states that members are free to choose their clothing
independently. To say otherwise would contradict the Plaintiff’s teachings.
Moreover, the contested statement has the potential to portray the religious
association as an organization that regulates the smallest details of the lives
of female members, which also violates the Plaintiff’s claim to social validity.
[Page 10]
6
The German original reads “Beklagte” = Defendant. Since it is not logical that the Defendant would say this,
Translator assumes this is an error and logically replaces this with Plaintiff.
9
1.9 “Finally, I would add that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a portion of
followers must go to heaven after their death. Women can ... But with the
condition that they stop being women, as their belief states, and I cite,
‘These all must receive a change of nature at their resurrection, being made
partakers together of “divine nature,” in which state none will be women, for
there is no female sex among spirit creatures [...]’ ”
to the extent that the impression is created that, according to the teachings
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a difference between men and women
who receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women “must
receive a change of nature”, but not men.
In the Plaintiff’s view, the statement deliberately creates the false
impression that there is, according to the Plaintiff’s teachings, a difference
between men and women who receive what is known as “the heavenly
calling” from God, meaning life as a spirit creature in heaven. The statement
suggests to the reader that among those called to heavenly life there is no
one of the female sex, but rather, of the male sex. However, the Plaintiff’s
teachings do not make this distinction. Thus the Plaintiff’s Bible lexicon
states that “[f]or those called by God to the heavenly calling ... to be joint
heirs with Jesus Christ, there is no distinction between men and women in
a spiritual sense. The apostle writes: ‘You are all, in fact, sons of God
through your faith in Christ ... there is neither male nor female; for you are
all one person in union with Christ Jesus.’ ” (Annex K20).
Thus, according to the Plaintiff, it is clear that not only women who receive
the heavenly calling change their nature, but so do men.
1.10 “This same text, which I would like to remind you is the official creed of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, continues to speak about women who go door-to-
door as ‘women slaves’.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since the
Plaintiff – undisputedly – has no “official creed” and, moreover, the Plaintiff
does not refer to women as slaves. [Page 11]
10
1.11 “[T]he woman is an accessory that must be nice to her husband and the
congregation. [...] She must be submissive even during sexual relations,
given that she ‘has no power over her own body’.”
to the extent that it is asserted that the Plaintiff designates women as
accessories for men or that such a standpoint is advocated in its teachings,
and that the impression is created that women, according to the teachings
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, are denied the right to sexual self-determination in
marriage with the result that they must acquiesce to the desires of their
husbands – even against their will.
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, it is a gross insult and discrimination
against women to refer to them as accessories for men and it contradicts
the Plaintiff’s doctrine. According to this doctrine, women are viewed as
autonomous personalities and creations of God who, just like men, possess
the capacity to glorify Him by their own independent choice. Furthermore,
the statement suggests that, according to the Plaintiff's teachings, women
are not granted the right to sexual self-determination and must endure
sexual acts against their will. This is untrue, since the Plaintiff teaches that
sexual relations may never be forced or demanded, even in marriage.
The Plaintiff also states that a man too is required to fulfil “the duty of marital
relations” toward his wife. However, he must take into consideration that
the female is a “weaker vessel” and show her honor by considering her
physical and psychological makeup as well as her changes in mood. When
a conflict cannot be resolved, the woman should recognize her husband as
the “head”, meaning the one appointed by God to decide in such a case.
1.12 “[H]er submission does not stop with her husband and the elders of the
congregation. Sometimes, she is also vis-à-vis her male children.”
to the extent that it is asserted that, according to the teachings of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, women must submit to their male children.
In the opinion of the Plaintiff this statement is untrue, since, according to
the Plaintiff’s teachings, children must “submit” to both parents, regardless
of whether they are male or female. [Page 12]
11
1.13 “Of course, women cannot rebel within the home without being immediately
judged by the congregation’s elders.”
It is untrue that if a woman were to “rebel” in some way within her family
that the elders of the congregation would hold a court session, in other
words, conduct judicial-committee proceedings. The Plaintiff maintains no
official position as to when a woman’s conduct within the family classifies
as ‘rebellion’. The Plaintiff always stresses that it is a woman’s personal
decision to separate from her husband or to divorce him. Even this “most
grave form of rebellion” – according to the Plaintiff’s submission – does not,
in itself, result in judicial-committee proceedings, let alone some other kind
of rebellious behavior on the part of the wife.
1.14 “She is also forbidden to divorce without being immediately
excommunicated, [...]”
The Plaintiff asserts that the statement is untrue. Divorce can never be
grounds for disfellowshipping from the religious association.
In addition to adultery, the Plaintiff recognizes other grounds for a possible
divorce as means of legal separation, such as willful non-support – this is
undisputed. Extreme physical abuse also justifies a divorce. The decision
for or against a divorce is a personal matter for the Plaintiff’s individual
members, which the religious association accepts without attaching
sanctions.
1.15 “In 2015 a Royal Commission examined more than 4,000 cases of victims
of acts of pedophilia in Australia. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the country is estimated at 68,000. 4,000 victims out of 68,000 Jehovah’s
Witnesses. It is a scary statistic.”
to the extent that it is asserted that the Royal Commission in Australia
identified more than 4,000 cases of victims of criminal offences of
pedophilia among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
According to the Plaintiff, this statement is untrue and a grave charge, since
it emerges from the “Final Report” that the figure of 4,000 cases [Page 13]
12
actually refers to the total number of reported, alleged sexual assaults in
religious contexts across all of the religious associations investigated.
The Plaintiff is also affected, since the statement goes on to say that
Australia is no exception because today cases are being reported “all over
the world”.
1.16 “How is an act of pedophilia judged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses? The child
is brought forward to explain in detail what happened. They must remember
each act, and the elders ask precise questions to judge the facts. Imagine
the impact on a little 6-year-old girl!”
to the extent that it is asserted that underage victims of pedophilia must
relate the sequence of events to the elders.
The statement is untrue, since the Plaintiff’s pastors are instructed under
ecclesiastical law to avoid questioning an affected child and obtain the
necessary information from the parents or, if they are suspected
perpetrators, from other adults that the child trusts.
1.17 “No women can be in attendance as they do not have the authority to
judge ... And after the interrogation, if there are not several witnesses to
the act, the child must meet along with the rapist. And they must confront
their differing explanations.”
to the extent that in conjunction with judicial-committee proceedings for
rape/child abuse, it is being asserted that there is a confrontation of the
child in question with the accused person and the mother is not permitted
to attend the judicial proceedings.
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since
affected children are not summoned as witnesses to such judicial-
committee proceedings and questioned. If, in an extremely seldom
exceptional case, it should become absolutely necessary that the judicial
committee personally hear a child, under no circumstances would this take
place in the presence of the accused. During such a hearing, both parents
of the affected child would – undisputedly – be invited, provided they are
not themselves suspected perpetrators. [Page 14]
13
A victim is not even required to confront the perpetrator if he or she is of
legal age.
The Plaintiff also states that the Defendant did not cite the current
ecclesiastic guidelines. From these, it is clear that a child will only testify
before the elders if he or she absolutely wants to and if this is granted. The
mother or another trusted person must – undisputedly – be present.
1.18 “And the elders never explain what happened to other members of the
congregation or to neighboring congregations. This allows pedophiles to
continue their acts with other Jehovah’s Witnesses [sic] children.”
In the Plaintiff’s view, it is an untrue statement, since, in an established case
of child sexual abuse, the Plaintiff’s pastors are instructed to warn all
parents of minor children in the respective congregation of the danger
associated with the person involved, by means of personal conversations
conducted by two elders. This also applies to parents who join the
congregation at some later time. Also, when a suspected or established
perpetrator of child abuse moves, this protective measure is safeguarded
as the new congregation is given appropriate notice.
1.19 “In October 2013, there was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There
was the poignant case of a 17-year-old [sic] girl whose parents refused
vaccination for religious reasons and she died.”
to the extent that the impression is created and claimed that the parents
and their child were Jehovah’s Witnesses, that as such they would refuse
to have their daughter vaccinated and that Jehovah’s Witnesses would
refuse to have their children vaccinated due to the religious teachings of
their religious association.
The statement is untrue, according to the Plaintiff. The overall context
reads: “Take the example of the existing controversy to provide appropriate
care for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how difficult it is to help
children in need in the name of religious freedom! In October 2013, there
was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There was the poignant case
of a 17-year-old girl whose parents refused vaccination for religious reasons
and she died.” [Page 15]
14
In the paragraph, no other religious association is named aside from the
Plaintiff, so the statement deliberately implies that the 17-year-old girl and
her parents are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact is that the case
relates to a 17-year-old Calvinist girl from the town of Tholen (Zeeland
province) (Annex K28).
According to the plaintiff's teachings, it is up to each member to choose
whether or not to be vaccinated..
The Plaintiff is also affected, since the statement appears within the context
of a “European conference” in which speakers from different countries,
including Germany, had reported on a range of topics.
1.20 “ ‘1994 was abandoned in silence’ [...] The Watch Tower is already
suggesting that 2034 will be the year of Armageddon.”
It is untrue that the Plaintiff attaches some kind of significance to the
aforementioned years in relation to ‘the end of the world’ or ‘Armageddon’.
The Plaintiff has never mentioned these dates and they are entirely fictitious.
In fact, in view of the ‘end of world’ hysteria before the year 2000 at the turn
of the millennium, the Plaintiff even issued a news release to explain that
the year 2000 had no significance in relation to any of the religious
association’s future expectations.
1.21 “Dates published by JW in relation to the ‘end of the world’ [...] 1780, 1798,
1799, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1872, [...], 1875, 1880, 1881, 1895, 1906,
1910, [...], 1915, [...], 1920, 1921, [...], 1926, 1928, 1932, 1933, 1940s,
1951, [...], 1996, 2000, [...], 2034”
(See 1.20.)
1.22 “Sifting through Jehovah’s Witnesses Annual Reports in the period 2000–
2010, we discover that 1,335,139 members left the Movement or became
inactive [...]”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since the
annual reports from 2000 to 2010 only indicate the number of Jehovah’s
Witnesses who participate each year in the religious association’s
preaching activity and how many persons were baptized. From these
reports [Page 16]
15
it is impossible to deduce or calculate in anyway how many persons left the
association, became inactive or died during this time period.
In the contested passage, former members of the Plaintiff who deliberately
left the religious association are equated with those who become inactive.
However, there are many cases in which members of the Plaintiff are
unable to participate in the public ministry for a period of time due to health,
family or other personal reasons, although they continue to enjoy a full
share in congregation life within the religious association. This provides no
basis on which to conclude that these members have distanced themselves
from the religious association.
1.23 “Each and every Witness who leaves the Movement for reasons of
conscience does so painfully, knowing they will be labeled a heretic [...]”
It is untrue that members who leave or are disfellowshipped would be
viewed by the Plaintiff and its members as ‘heretics’ or, according to the
Plaintiff’s ecclesiastical law, as ‘apostates’ or would even be labelled as
such. Only when someone actively opposes the Plaintiff’s religious
teachings might he or she under certain circumstances be considered an
apostate. The Plaintiff’s elders are instructed to continue to seek regular
contact with disfellowshipped or disassociated members of the religious
association to the extent that such persons wish to have such contact.
1.24 “In reality, expulsion by the Movement occurs for many disparate
reasons: [...] for accepting a blood transfusion, [...]”
In the Plaintiff’s view, the statement is untrue since the Plaintiff’s
ecclesiastical law knows no disfellowshipping procedure simply because
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses receives blood. The Plaintiff acknowledges
that, in an extreme health situation with its many demands, a member may
make decisions that do not align with his or her actual religious beliefs. It is
not the acceptance of blood that matters, but whether the person is
prepared in future to accept as binding the biblical command to abstain from
blood, or to turn away from it. If the latter is the case, this equates to leaving
the religious association; no disfellowshipping takes place. [Page 17]
16
This was also confirmed by the Berlin Higher Administrative Court in its
judgment of March 24, 2005, page 13 (5 B 12.01).
1.25 “Let’s be clear: Jehovah’s Witnesses are [...] a Movement [...] disrespectful
of fundamental human rights [...]”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue. The Plaintiff’s acquisition
of public corporation status was linked to a prognostic examination of the
law-abidance of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the issue of whether they respect
the fundamental rights of third parties. Following a thorough investigation,
inter alia, in the so-called ‘initial granting procedure’ with regard to the
acquisition of the rights of a public corporation, it was certified that there
could be no doubt either about the Plaintiff’s lawfulness or about the
Plaintiff’s respect of fundamental rights of third parties. Reference is made
to the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of December 19, 2000
(2 BvR 1500/97) and of the Federal Administrative Court of February 1,
2006 (7 B 80.05).
1.26 “Therefore, whoever, in his own conscience, would decide to maintain
social and family relationships with an expelled former member may put
himself at risk of being sanctioned.”
The Plaintiff asserts that the statement is untrue, and it conflicts with the
Plaintiff’s religious teachings. In this regard, the Plaintiff’s website states:
“What if a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still
Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but
blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections
and dealings continue.” (Annex K35)
During the ‘first recognition procedure’, the Berlin Higher Administrative
Court concluded in its decision of March 24, 2005 (5 B 12.01, page 17) that
this accusation was not true. Rather, each member of the religious
association decides personally as to whether he or she wishes to continue
having contact with family members who are no longer members of the
religious association.
There are no ‘sanctions’ when someone decides to maintain contact with
disfellowshipped family members. [Page 18]
17
1.27 “It doesn’t matter if you’re disfellowshipped or leaving JW’s voluntarily ...
You are an apostate [...]”
(See 1.23.)
1.28 “There is no difference between a teenager [sic] couple caught by [sic]
kissing or being an elder JW’s member that becomes critical on JW-
doctrines ... both where [sic] taken to JW’s judicial committee.”
The Plaintiff states that neither of the two circumstances contained in the
contested statement would justify judicial-committee proceedings under the
Plaintiff’s ecclesiastical law.
1.29 “If they were alone that night [...] prima facie evidence is enough: guilty.”
The challenged statement is preceded by the lines: “Maybe she [a young
woman] has spent a night with a platonic friend at hiss [sic] flat, now she is
under suspicion. She is insinuated to have had sex with him.” It therefore
asserts that the situation described in the statement would constitute a
basis for the Plaintiff’s judicial-committee proceedings without any further
investigation.
However, this is untrue, according to the Plaintiff, because this alleged
automatism does not exist.
1.30 “This organization is subversive because it considers the State as an
enemy, inspired by the devil, and to fight it until final conflict [...]”
The statement is untrue, according to the Plaintiff (see 1.1).
1.31 “They endeavor to weaken the loyalty of citizens of the State, with the result
of dissolving the State itself, [...]”
(See 1.1.)
1.32 “Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses must participate in the preaching work.”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue. In the Plaintiff’s view, the
Defendant also recognized this as being untrue, since, in response to a
warning notice, the Defendant changed it [the statement] to read as follows:
“Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses are urged to participate in the preaching
work.” [Page 19]
District Court of Hamburg
File reference: 324 O 434/18
Pronounced on November 27, 2020
Brüggemann, Court clerk
Registrar of the Court
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
Judgement
In the matter of
Jehovas Zeugen in Deutschland, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts 1,
represented by its board of directors, Grunauerstr. 104, 12557 Berlin
- Plaintiff -
Authorised proxy:
versus
Fédération Européenne des Centres de Recherche et d’Information sur le
Sectarisme2 (FECRIS), represented by Chairperson Danièle Muller-Tulli, 26 A, rue
Espérandieu, 13001 Marseille, France
- Defendant -
Authorised proxy:
the District Court of Hamburg – 24th Civil Chamber – through Judge Käfer, Presiding
Judge at the District Court, Judge Mittler at the District Court, and Judge Kemper at
the District Court, based on the hearing of September 18, 2020 has thus adjudged:
[Page 2]
1
Translator’s note: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, corporation under public law.
2
Translator’s note: European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Cults and Sects (FECRIS).
1
I. Under penalty of a Court-imposed administrative fine for each case of
infringement – or, in the event this cannot be collected, administrative
detention or administrative detention for up to six months – the Defendant
shall refrain from distributing and/or causing to be distributed the following
regarding the Plaintiff and its members, as has been done on www.fecris.org:
1.1 [...]
1.2 “Characteristic features of this organization are [...] illegal possession of
property [...]”
1.3 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous examples
of how the adepts of this cult took possession of citizens’ apartments [...]”
1.4 [...]
1.5 “The deaths of the underage children S P (6 years old) from
the city of Kogalym and I O (11 years old) from Moscow were
covered by the media and the cult of Jehovah’s Witnesses was sharply
criticized. These are only two names out of many adults and children brought
to their death by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
1.6 [...]
1.7 [...]
1.8 [...]
1.9 “Finally, I add that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a part of their followers
will go to heaven after their death. Women have the right to do so ... but
subject to the condition that they stop being women, because their belief
states, and I cite, ‘These all must receive a change of nature at their
resurrection, being together made partakers of “divine nature,” in which state
none will be women, for there is no female sex among spirit creatures [...]’ ”
insofar as the impression is created that, according to the teachings of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a difference between men and women who
receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women “must receive a
change of nature”, but not men. [Page 3]
2
1.10 “This same text, which – I would like to remind you – is the official creed
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, continues to speak about women who go door-
to-door as ‘female slaves’.”
1.11 [...]
1.12 "For the subjection [of the woman] does not end with the husband and with
the elders of the congregation. At times it is also the same with regard to
the male children."
1.13 “Of course, women cannot rebel within the home without being
immediately judged by the congregation’s elders.”
1.14 “She is also forbidden to divorce, which would immediately lead to her
becoming disfellowshipped, [...]”
1.15 “In 2015 a Royal Commission examined more than 4,000 cases of victims
of acts of pedophilia in Australia. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the country is estimated at 68,000. 4,000 victims out of 68,000 Jehovah’s
Witnesses. This simple statistic is scary.”
insofar as this asserts that the Royal Commission in Australia identified
more than 4,000 cases of victims of pedophilia among Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
insofar as the claim made here is that the Royal Commission in Australia
identified more than 4,000 cases of victims of criminal offences of
pedophilia among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1.16 “How is an act of pedophilia judged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses? The child
is brought forward to explain in detail what happened. It must remember
each act, and the elders ask precise questions to judge the facts. Imagine
the impact on a little 6-year-old girl!”
insofar as it is being claimed that minor victims of pedophilia must give a
statement on the course of events to the elders.
1.17 "No woman is allowed to be present, because she does not have the
right to judge .... And in the course of this questioning, when there are no
more witnesses to the crime, the child is confronted with the rapist. And
they have to confront each other with their statements.” [Page 4]
3
insofar as it is being claimed that, in connection with judicial-committee
proceedings for rape/child abuse, the child is confronted by the accused
person and the mother is not permitted to attend the judicial proceedings.
1.18 “And the elders will never explain what happened to other members of the
congregation or to neighboring congregations. This allows pedophiles to
continue their acts with other Jehovah’s Witnesses children.”
1.19 “In October 2013, there was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There
was the poignant case of a 17-year-old girl whose parents refused
vaccination for religious reasons and she died.”
insofar as the impression is being given and created that the parents and
their child were Jehovah’s Witnesses, that as such they would refuse to
have their daughter vaccinated and that Jehovah’s Witnesses would refuse
to have their children vaccinated due to the religious teachings of their
religious association.
1.20 “[...] 1994 was abandoned in silence’ [...] The Watch Tower is already
suggesting that 2034 will be the year of Armageddon.”
1.21 “Dates published by JW in relation to the ‘end of the world’ [...] 1780, 1798,
1799, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1872, [...], 1875, 1880, 1881, 1895, 1906,
1910, [...], 1915, [...], 1920, 1921, [...], 1926, 1928, 1932, 1933, 1940s,
1951, [...], 1996, 2000, [...], 2034”
1.22 [...]
1.23 [...]
1.24 [...]
1.25 [...]
1.26 [...]
1.27 [...]
[Page 5]
4
1.28 “There is no difference between a teenage couple caught kissing or being
an elder JW member who becomes critical on JW-doctrines ... both acts
lead directly to a JW judicial committee.”
1.29 “If they were alone in the house that night, prima facie evidence is enough:
guilty.”
1.30 [...]
1.31 [...]
1.32 “Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses must participate in the preaching work.”3
II. The remainder of the action is dismissed.
III. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff EUR 2,217.45 in prelitigation costs.
IV. The Plaintiff must bear 46% and the Defendant 54% of the costs of the lawsuit.
V. The judgment is provisionally enforceable with regard to the operative part
under point I. of the judgment, but only against provision of security to the
amount of EUR 94,500; otherwise, in each case, against security to the amount
of 110% of the respective amounts to be enforced;
and rules: The value of the matter in dispute is set at EUR 176,000.
Facts of the case
The parties are in dispute about the permissibility of several texts in the Defendant’s
articles, on account of which the Plaintiff is claiming injunctive relief and payment of
the warning notice.
The Plaintiff is a religious association with the status of a corporation under public law.
The Defendant is a European umbrella organization for various anti-sect groups. On
its website – www.fecris.org – the Defendant has published reports from its annual
conferences as well as articles in the German language, among others. [Page 6]
3
Translator’s note: This statement does not appear in the English-language version of the article.
5
On its website, the Defendant has published the following reports that are disputed:
On May 19, 2017, report on the European conference in Brussels, “Cult undue
influence and the process of radicalization, a question for debate” (hereinafter:
“2017 Brussels Report”; Annex K1; applications 1.1–1.6)
On June 21, 2016, report on the European conference in Sofia, “Women in
cults, gurus and victims” (hereinafter: “2016 Sofia Report”; Annex K17;
applications 1.7–1.18)
On March 24, 2014, report on the European conference in Brussels, “Cults and
the False Debate on Human Rights” (hereinafter: “2014 Brussels Report”;
Annex K27; applications 1.19)
On October 13, 2012, report on the conference in Salses-le-Château,
“Apocalyptic cults: failed utopias and consequences for followers” (hereinafter:
“2012 Salses-le-Château Report”; Annex K30; applications 1.20–1.21)
On May 7, 2011, report on the conference in Warsaw, “Systematic abuse in
cults: testimonies and evidence” (hereinafter: “2011 Warsaw Report”;
Annex K33; applications 1.22–1.26)
Report on the conference in St. Petersburg, “Destructive Cults and Human
Rights” on May 15 and 16, 2009 (hereinafter: “2009 St. Petersburg Report”;
Annex K34; applications 1.26–1.29)
Report on the conference “State responsibility to protect citizens against
destructive cults” in Pisa on April 12, 2008 (hereinafter: “2008 Pisa Report”;
Annex K36; applications 1.30–1.31)
Article entitled “Cults and European Values” (Annex K37; application 1.32)
On account of the statements in dispute, the Plaintiff sent a warning notice via its
authorized legal representatives on May 18, 2018 and asked the Defendant to submit
a declaration of discontinuance that carried a penalty (Annex K39). The Defendant did
not react to the warning notice. [Page 7]
6
The Plaintiff considers this Court to have international and domestic jurisdiction. The
Plaintiff is only operative in Germany and has its registered office there.
The Plaintiff is affected by each of the statements in dispute and the Plaintiff’s rights
are infringed by them. Due to persecution in Russia, hundreds of Jehovah’s Witnesses
have meanwhile fled Russia and sought asylum in Germany. Decisions by German
courts regarding the granting of such asylum could be adversely affected by the
supposition that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia are criminals.
Regarding the Individual Statements:
1.1 “Characteristic features of this organization are an aggressive alienation
from society and the state [...]”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue and that it contradicts the
religious teachings as well as the religious practices of the Plaintiff. In fact,
the Plaintiff conveys respect for the state, as can be seen from the
“Frequently Asked Questions” published online by the Plaintiff, where,
among other things, it speaks of “[r]espect for governments” (Why Do
Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality? | FAQ (jw.org)). The
Federal Constitutional Court has also recognized that the Plaintiff
recognizes “the constitutional State as [it does] other ‘superior authorities’,
as a transitional system tolerated by God” (Judgment of 19 December 2000,
2 BvR 1500/97 1500/97, marginal No. 98).
1.2 “Characteristic features of this organization are [...] illegal possession of
property [...]”
The statement is untrue. The subsequent statement in Annex K1, page 49,
which states “[t]he limited time of the report does not allow me to give
numerous examples of how the adepts of this cult took possession of
guarantor’s 4 apartments”, is also untrue and aims to portray Jehovah’s
Witnesses as a dangerous religious association that commits serious
criminal acts. To the extent that the Defendant refers to transfers of real
estate between corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Defendant has
conceded that these are lawful. Moreover, the Plaintiff disputes that the
newspaper reports submitted by the Defendant concerning rulings by
Russian courts with regard to illegal uses are true. [Page 8]
4
Translator’s note: Source text “Bürge” = guarantor, later in 1.3 same sentence but “Bürger” = citizen
7
1.3 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous
examples of how the adepts of this cult took possession of citizens’ 5
apartments [...]”
In addition to its submission under 1.2, the Plaintiff maintains that the
Defendant stated nothing about apartments being seized. The present
submission is insufficient. Apartments had indeed been donated by
members of Jehovah’s Witnesses; however, in the case of a donated
apartment, the reader does not have the understanding of an unlawful or
forceful appropriation.
1.4 “The limited time of the report does not allow me to give numerous
examples of how the adherents of this cult [...] committed religiously
motivated crimes.”
The Plaintiff states it is untrue that the Plaintiff’s adherents commit
religiously motivated crimes (see 1.1).
1.5 ““The deaths of the underage children S P (6 years old)
from the city of Kogalym and I O (11 years old) from Moscow
were covered by the media and the cult of Jehovah’s Witnesses was
sharply criticized. These are only two names out of many adults and
children brought to their death by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untruthful that the
deaths of both children had been caused by refusal of blood transfusion.
Actually, in both cases, Russian courts had clarified that the accusation that
the children’s deaths were caused by refusal of blood transfusion could not
be confirmed.
1.6 “Therefore, all tales of alleged ‘harassment’ against Jehovah’s Witnesses
[in Russia] are nothing more than a primitive propaganda stroke. This
information is not true.”
It is the Plaintiff’s view that, in making this statement, the Defendant is
accusing the Plaintiff of lying when on its website the Plaintiff reports of
encroachments by Russian state authorities against individual Jehovah’s
Witnesses. The Defendant’s statement exhibits a particularly insulting and
disparaging character. [Page 9]
5
Translator’s note: See footnote 6
8
Among other things, the Plaintiff published a news release titled “Campaign
of Terror Begins for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia” (Annex K8) on May 2,
2018. In fact, some 25 Witnesses have been imprisoned since September
1, 2018 due to their religious practice, the Plaintiff continues. During her
visit on May 2, 2017, German Federal Chancellor Merkel also urged
Russian President Putin to commit to protecting human rights in his country
and she thereby explicitly named Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia
(Annex K14).
1.7 “The instructions that they apply to all the other members of the
congregation are written and controlled by other male members of the
movement, “Overseers” appointed for regions.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, there are indeed “travelling
overseers”. However, the Plaintiff6 does not state that these persons are
assigned a controlling function and have corresponding powers. There
exists no position or function as a ‘controller’ over members in different
regions. The assertion that there exists a controlling function in the
organizational structure has the potential to influence Plaintiff’s public
ministry in a negative way, since a ‘controlling function’ would deter
potentially interested persons. It is in fact clear from the Statutes of the
Plaintiff, that every activity is voluntary (Annex K18).
1.8 “A woman can be reprimanded from the stands, in public, for dressing in
what is judged an indecent way by the committee of elders of her
congregation. In this case, she must meet with 3 elders, who will judge her
within a ‘judicial committee’.”
to the extent that it is hereby asserted that choice of clothing could
constitute grounds for judicial-committee proceedings.
The Plaintiff states that members are free to choose their clothing
independently. To say otherwise would contradict the Plaintiff’s teachings.
Moreover, the contested statement has the potential to portray the religious
association as an organization that regulates the smallest details of the lives
of female members, which also violates the Plaintiff’s claim to social validity.
[Page 10]
6
The German original reads “Beklagte” = Defendant. Since it is not logical that the Defendant would say this,
Translator assumes this is an error and logically replaces this with Plaintiff.
9
1.9 “Finally, I would add that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a portion of
followers must go to heaven after their death. Women can ... But with the
condition that they stop being women, as their belief states, and I cite,
‘These all must receive a change of nature at their resurrection, being made
partakers together of “divine nature,” in which state none will be women, for
there is no female sex among spirit creatures [...]’ ”
to the extent that the impression is created that, according to the teachings
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a difference between men and women
who receive the heavenly calling from God, in that only women “must
receive a change of nature”, but not men.
In the Plaintiff’s view, the statement deliberately creates the false
impression that there is, according to the Plaintiff’s teachings, a difference
between men and women who receive what is known as “the heavenly
calling” from God, meaning life as a spirit creature in heaven. The statement
suggests to the reader that among those called to heavenly life there is no
one of the female sex, but rather, of the male sex. However, the Plaintiff’s
teachings do not make this distinction. Thus the Plaintiff’s Bible lexicon
states that “[f]or those called by God to the heavenly calling ... to be joint
heirs with Jesus Christ, there is no distinction between men and women in
a spiritual sense. The apostle writes: ‘You are all, in fact, sons of God
through your faith in Christ ... there is neither male nor female; for you are
all one person in union with Christ Jesus.’ ” (Annex K20).
Thus, according to the Plaintiff, it is clear that not only women who receive
the heavenly calling change their nature, but so do men.
1.10 “This same text, which I would like to remind you is the official creed of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, continues to speak about women who go door-to-
door as ‘women slaves’.”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since the
Plaintiff – undisputedly – has no “official creed” and, moreover, the Plaintiff
does not refer to women as slaves. [Page 11]
10
1.11 “[T]he woman is an accessory that must be nice to her husband and the
congregation. [...] She must be submissive even during sexual relations,
given that she ‘has no power over her own body’.”
to the extent that it is asserted that the Plaintiff designates women as
accessories for men or that such a standpoint is advocated in its teachings,
and that the impression is created that women, according to the teachings
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, are denied the right to sexual self-determination in
marriage with the result that they must acquiesce to the desires of their
husbands – even against their will.
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, it is a gross insult and discrimination
against women to refer to them as accessories for men and it contradicts
the Plaintiff’s doctrine. According to this doctrine, women are viewed as
autonomous personalities and creations of God who, just like men, possess
the capacity to glorify Him by their own independent choice. Furthermore,
the statement suggests that, according to the Plaintiff's teachings, women
are not granted the right to sexual self-determination and must endure
sexual acts against their will. This is untrue, since the Plaintiff teaches that
sexual relations may never be forced or demanded, even in marriage.
The Plaintiff also states that a man too is required to fulfil “the duty of marital
relations” toward his wife. However, he must take into consideration that
the female is a “weaker vessel” and show her honor by considering her
physical and psychological makeup as well as her changes in mood. When
a conflict cannot be resolved, the woman should recognize her husband as
the “head”, meaning the one appointed by God to decide in such a case.
1.12 “[H]er submission does not stop with her husband and the elders of the
congregation. Sometimes, she is also vis-à-vis her male children.”
to the extent that it is asserted that, according to the teachings of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, women must submit to their male children.
In the opinion of the Plaintiff this statement is untrue, since, according to
the Plaintiff’s teachings, children must “submit” to both parents, regardless
of whether they are male or female. [Page 12]
11
1.13 “Of course, women cannot rebel within the home without being immediately
judged by the congregation’s elders.”
It is untrue that if a woman were to “rebel” in some way within her family
that the elders of the congregation would hold a court session, in other
words, conduct judicial-committee proceedings. The Plaintiff maintains no
official position as to when a woman’s conduct within the family classifies
as ‘rebellion’. The Plaintiff always stresses that it is a woman’s personal
decision to separate from her husband or to divorce him. Even this “most
grave form of rebellion” – according to the Plaintiff’s submission – does not,
in itself, result in judicial-committee proceedings, let alone some other kind
of rebellious behavior on the part of the wife.
1.14 “She is also forbidden to divorce without being immediately
excommunicated, [...]”
The Plaintiff asserts that the statement is untrue. Divorce can never be
grounds for disfellowshipping from the religious association.
In addition to adultery, the Plaintiff recognizes other grounds for a possible
divorce as means of legal separation, such as willful non-support – this is
undisputed. Extreme physical abuse also justifies a divorce. The decision
for or against a divorce is a personal matter for the Plaintiff’s individual
members, which the religious association accepts without attaching
sanctions.
1.15 “In 2015 a Royal Commission examined more than 4,000 cases of victims
of acts of pedophilia in Australia. The number of Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the country is estimated at 68,000. 4,000 victims out of 68,000 Jehovah’s
Witnesses. It is a scary statistic.”
to the extent that it is asserted that the Royal Commission in Australia
identified more than 4,000 cases of victims of criminal offences of
pedophilia among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
According to the Plaintiff, this statement is untrue and a grave charge, since
it emerges from the “Final Report” that the figure of 4,000 cases [Page 13]
12
actually refers to the total number of reported, alleged sexual assaults in
religious contexts across all of the religious associations investigated.
The Plaintiff is also affected, since the statement goes on to say that
Australia is no exception because today cases are being reported “all over
the world”.
1.16 “How is an act of pedophilia judged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses? The child
is brought forward to explain in detail what happened. They must remember
each act, and the elders ask precise questions to judge the facts. Imagine
the impact on a little 6-year-old girl!”
to the extent that it is asserted that underage victims of pedophilia must
relate the sequence of events to the elders.
The statement is untrue, since the Plaintiff’s pastors are instructed under
ecclesiastical law to avoid questioning an affected child and obtain the
necessary information from the parents or, if they are suspected
perpetrators, from other adults that the child trusts.
1.17 “No women can be in attendance as they do not have the authority to
judge ... And after the interrogation, if there are not several witnesses to
the act, the child must meet along with the rapist. And they must confront
their differing explanations.”
to the extent that in conjunction with judicial-committee proceedings for
rape/child abuse, it is being asserted that there is a confrontation of the
child in question with the accused person and the mother is not permitted
to attend the judicial proceedings.
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since
affected children are not summoned as witnesses to such judicial-
committee proceedings and questioned. If, in an extremely seldom
exceptional case, it should become absolutely necessary that the judicial
committee personally hear a child, under no circumstances would this take
place in the presence of the accused. During such a hearing, both parents
of the affected child would – undisputedly – be invited, provided they are
not themselves suspected perpetrators. [Page 14]
13
A victim is not even required to confront the perpetrator if he or she is of
legal age.
The Plaintiff also states that the Defendant did not cite the current
ecclesiastic guidelines. From these, it is clear that a child will only testify
before the elders if he or she absolutely wants to and if this is granted. The
mother or another trusted person must – undisputedly – be present.
1.18 “And the elders never explain what happened to other members of the
congregation or to neighboring congregations. This allows pedophiles to
continue their acts with other Jehovah’s Witnesses [sic] children.”
In the Plaintiff’s view, it is an untrue statement, since, in an established case
of child sexual abuse, the Plaintiff’s pastors are instructed to warn all
parents of minor children in the respective congregation of the danger
associated with the person involved, by means of personal conversations
conducted by two elders. This also applies to parents who join the
congregation at some later time. Also, when a suspected or established
perpetrator of child abuse moves, this protective measure is safeguarded
as the new congregation is given appropriate notice.
1.19 “In October 2013, there was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There
was the poignant case of a 17-year-old [sic] girl whose parents refused
vaccination for religious reasons and she died.”
to the extent that the impression is created and claimed that the parents
and their child were Jehovah’s Witnesses, that as such they would refuse
to have their daughter vaccinated and that Jehovah’s Witnesses would
refuse to have their children vaccinated due to the religious teachings of
their religious association.
The statement is untrue, according to the Plaintiff. The overall context
reads: “Take the example of the existing controversy to provide appropriate
care for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how difficult it is to help
children in need in the name of religious freedom! In October 2013, there
was a measles epidemic in the Netherlands. There was the poignant case
of a 17-year-old girl whose parents refused vaccination for religious reasons
and she died.” [Page 15]
14
In the paragraph, no other religious association is named aside from the
Plaintiff, so the statement deliberately implies that the 17-year-old girl and
her parents are members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact is that the case
relates to a 17-year-old Calvinist girl from the town of Tholen (Zeeland
province) (Annex K28).
According to the plaintiff's teachings, it is up to each member to choose
whether or not to be vaccinated..
The Plaintiff is also affected, since the statement appears within the context
of a “European conference” in which speakers from different countries,
including Germany, had reported on a range of topics.
1.20 “ ‘1994 was abandoned in silence’ [...] The Watch Tower is already
suggesting that 2034 will be the year of Armageddon.”
It is untrue that the Plaintiff attaches some kind of significance to the
aforementioned years in relation to ‘the end of the world’ or ‘Armageddon’.
The Plaintiff has never mentioned these dates and they are entirely fictitious.
In fact, in view of the ‘end of world’ hysteria before the year 2000 at the turn
of the millennium, the Plaintiff even issued a news release to explain that
the year 2000 had no significance in relation to any of the religious
association’s future expectations.
1.21 “Dates published by JW in relation to the ‘end of the world’ [...] 1780, 1798,
1799, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1872, [...], 1875, 1880, 1881, 1895, 1906,
1910, [...], 1915, [...], 1920, 1921, [...], 1926, 1928, 1932, 1933, 1940s,
1951, [...], 1996, 2000, [...], 2034”
(See 1.20.)
1.22 “Sifting through Jehovah’s Witnesses Annual Reports in the period 2000–
2010, we discover that 1,335,139 members left the Movement or became
inactive [...]”
According to the Plaintiff’s submission, the statement is untrue, since the
annual reports from 2000 to 2010 only indicate the number of Jehovah’s
Witnesses who participate each year in the religious association’s
preaching activity and how many persons were baptized. From these
reports [Page 16]
15
it is impossible to deduce or calculate in anyway how many persons left the
association, became inactive or died during this time period.
In the contested passage, former members of the Plaintiff who deliberately
left the religious association are equated with those who become inactive.
However, there are many cases in which members of the Plaintiff are
unable to participate in the public ministry for a period of time due to health,
family or other personal reasons, although they continue to enjoy a full
share in congregation life within the religious association. This provides no
basis on which to conclude that these members have distanced themselves
from the religious association.
1.23 “Each and every Witness who leaves the Movement for reasons of
conscience does so painfully, knowing they will be labeled a heretic [...]”
It is untrue that members who leave or are disfellowshipped would be
viewed by the Plaintiff and its members as ‘heretics’ or, according to the
Plaintiff’s ecclesiastical law, as ‘apostates’ or would even be labelled as
such. Only when someone actively opposes the Plaintiff’s religious
teachings might he or she under certain circumstances be considered an
apostate. The Plaintiff’s elders are instructed to continue to seek regular
contact with disfellowshipped or disassociated members of the religious
association to the extent that such persons wish to have such contact.
1.24 “In reality, expulsion by the Movement occurs for many disparate
reasons: [...] for accepting a blood transfusion, [...]”
In the Plaintiff’s view, the statement is untrue since the Plaintiff’s
ecclesiastical law knows no disfellowshipping procedure simply because
one of Jehovah’s Witnesses receives blood. The Plaintiff acknowledges
that, in an extreme health situation with its many demands, a member may
make decisions that do not align with his or her actual religious beliefs. It is
not the acceptance of blood that matters, but whether the person is
prepared in future to accept as binding the biblical command to abstain from
blood, or to turn away from it. If the latter is the case, this equates to leaving
the religious association; no disfellowshipping takes place. [Page 17]
16
This was also confirmed by the Berlin Higher Administrative Court in its
judgment of March 24, 2005, page 13 (5 B 12.01).
1.25 “Let’s be clear: Jehovah’s Witnesses are [...] a Movement [...] disrespectful
of fundamental human rights [...]”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue. The Plaintiff’s acquisition
of public corporation status was linked to a prognostic examination of the
law-abidance of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the issue of whether they respect
the fundamental rights of third parties. Following a thorough investigation,
inter alia, in the so-called ‘initial granting procedure’ with regard to the
acquisition of the rights of a public corporation, it was certified that there
could be no doubt either about the Plaintiff’s lawfulness or about the
Plaintiff’s respect of fundamental rights of third parties. Reference is made
to the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of December 19, 2000
(2 BvR 1500/97) and of the Federal Administrative Court of February 1,
2006 (7 B 80.05).
1.26 “Therefore, whoever, in his own conscience, would decide to maintain
social and family relationships with an expelled former member may put
himself at risk of being sanctioned.”
The Plaintiff asserts that the statement is untrue, and it conflicts with the
Plaintiff’s religious teachings. In this regard, the Plaintiff’s website states:
“What if a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still
Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but
blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections
and dealings continue.” (Annex K35)
During the ‘first recognition procedure’, the Berlin Higher Administrative
Court concluded in its decision of March 24, 2005 (5 B 12.01, page 17) that
this accusation was not true. Rather, each member of the religious
association decides personally as to whether he or she wishes to continue
having contact with family members who are no longer members of the
religious association.
There are no ‘sanctions’ when someone decides to maintain contact with
disfellowshipped family members. [Page 18]
17
1.27 “It doesn’t matter if you’re disfellowshipped or leaving JW’s voluntarily ...
You are an apostate [...]”
(See 1.23.)
1.28 “There is no difference between a teenager [sic] couple caught by [sic]
kissing or being an elder JW’s member that becomes critical on JW-
doctrines ... both where [sic] taken to JW’s judicial committee.”
The Plaintiff states that neither of the two circumstances contained in the
contested statement would justify judicial-committee proceedings under the
Plaintiff’s ecclesiastical law.
1.29 “If they were alone that night [...] prima facie evidence is enough: guilty.”
The challenged statement is preceded by the lines: “Maybe she [a young
woman] has spent a night with a platonic friend at hiss [sic] flat, now she is
under suspicion. She is insinuated to have had sex with him.” It therefore
asserts that the situation described in the statement would constitute a
basis for the Plaintiff’s judicial-committee proceedings without any further
investigation.
However, this is untrue, according to the Plaintiff, because this alleged
automatism does not exist.
1.30 “This organization is subversive because it considers the State as an
enemy, inspired by the devil, and to fight it until final conflict [...]”
The statement is untrue, according to the Plaintiff (see 1.1).
1.31 “They endeavor to weaken the loyalty of citizens of the State, with the result
of dissolving the State itself, [...]”
(See 1.1.)
1.32 “Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses must participate in the preaching work.”
The Plaintiff considers the statement to be untrue. In the Plaintiff’s view, the
Defendant also recognized this as being untrue, since, in response to a
warning notice, the Defendant changed it [the statement] to read as follows:
“Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses are urged to participate in the preaching
work.” [Page 19]
