Interesting read if you use google translate ... https://www.confessio.de/artikel/13...aa6zYTAq97vNl_ODe_-bBOQcJpmv-rmR182P7kC8OyKkQ
Groundbreaking verdict on Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland
The District Court of Zurich has made a landmark decision regarding criticism of certain practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland had reported and sued an employee of the department "infoSekta" for "malicious defamation". She was accused of making false and infringing statements in an interview with the "Tagesanzeiger" and in a press release from the department infoSekta. Although the judgment is based on Swiss law, it is also important beyond Switzerland, because the court has dealt with the individual allegations in a rare thoroughness.
More specifically, the statements were accused of giving the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses "have a practice contrary to human rights, violate human rights and the Constitution, deny their members the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, let their members die on the basis of their well-known position on the prohibition of blood transfusions after traffic accidents or births, in the case of the exclusion of children and young people from the community, denying them the family love and care. , and let the children of their community live in constant fear." It also said that the system of Jehovah's Witnesses "promotes the sexual abuse of children and that the entire community intentionally cover up criminal acts that have taken place" and that the classification is "a totalitarian organization that has a manipulative effect on its members and violates the physical, psychological and social integrity of its members." (Judgment, p. 6, Section 1.2)
The accused confessed in court to the contents of the interviews and the press release, to which she fully adheres, and presented numerous pieces of evidence to prove that the above criticisms are true and that therefore no false statements were disseminated.
The concept of honour is defined by the court as limited to the human-moral realm and refers to it "to the reputation and feeling of the person concerned to be an honorable person, that is to say to behave in the way that, according to general views, a decent person of character tends to behave." (p. 11, 5.1) "A person who is decent in character is generally expected, among other things, to fulfil his duties towards the state and his fellow human beings, not to commit crimes, to uphold human rights, not to refuse family love and care, to stop the sexual abuse of children, etc." (p. 12, 5.2)
After this long run-up, the essence of the case is now being carried out: the judicial examination to what extent the other 6 infringing statements correspond to the facts or had serious reasons to believe the statements to be true. Here the result was disastrous for Jehovah's Witnesses, so much is already anticipated.
"We draw attention to the practice of ostracism that violates human rights." / "Outlawing is a kind of above-ordered bullying. It violates human rights and the Constitution." / "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – a right that Jehovah's Witnesses claim for themselves but do not grant to their members."
In that judgment, the court held that Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny that they use the practice of ostracism, but simply claim that this practice is not contrary to human rights. There is no doubt about the existence of this practice, which is internally known as 'Community withdrawal'. It is also documented in writing in various publications. The court said: "The practice is very difficult for those affected and can have serious consequences (especially for victims of sexual abuse, who have to choose whether to stay in the organisation and always meet the perpetrator or lose their entire social environment)... It can be said that the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, by applying the practice of ostracism, decides who can no longer have contact with family and friends, who should be isolated. The organization has great control over its members. Such behaviour can be understood as "bullying". ... The practice of ostracism therefore turns out to be a kind of "bullying" that is, at least in the beginning, infringing human rights, that bullying is a violation of a person's personal integrity. This type of bullying is also used when members of Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe or develop or have a different faith. In such a case, the relevant people are excluded and ostracized, which is to encourage them to return to the community. ... Implicitly, therefore, they are denied freedom of belief and conscience within the community ...". (p. 24, 9.9a)
Here, too, the religious community does not deny that the ostracism is being lived, but merely claims that children still receive loving care. The court, on the other hand, found the indications in the scriptures that one should "support" the ejected child, but not very lovingly, if it is immediately said, but then "teach and discipline with God's word" as well as "conduct a Bible study". "Our love for Jehovah must be stronger than the love of family members who become unfaithful to him." (Watchtower, 15.7.2011)
The child is thus "reduced to physical and spiritual needs, with no consideration for emotional needs. This is evidenced by a large number of reports of relatives and dropouts (...). Such an ejection leads to great conflict and can leave psychological damage, especially in children and adolescents. It is a kind of emotional blackmail to get the renegade to return to the religious community or to prevent them from leaving." (p. 25, 9.9b) The central message of the near end of the world in Armageddon, with the bloody final battle and the annihilation of all infidels, could also cause fear, especially among children.
On the basis of extensive evidence, the court examined the statements on the criticisms and found that the criticism was justified: the practice of uniting Jehovah's Witnesses violates the fundamental rights of members and their families. The verdict is also praise for solidly researched educational work in the field of spiritual consumer protection. It remains interesting what consequences this will have for the handling of Germany.
Groundbreaking verdict on Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland
The District Court of Zurich has made a landmark decision regarding criticism of certain practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland had reported and sued an employee of the department "infoSekta" for "malicious defamation". She was accused of making false and infringing statements in an interview with the "Tagesanzeiger" and in a press release from the department infoSekta. Although the judgment is based on Swiss law, it is also important beyond Switzerland, because the court has dealt with the individual allegations in a rare thoroughness.
More specifically, the statements were accused of giving the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses "have a practice contrary to human rights, violate human rights and the Constitution, deny their members the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, let their members die on the basis of their well-known position on the prohibition of blood transfusions after traffic accidents or births, in the case of the exclusion of children and young people from the community, denying them the family love and care. , and let the children of their community live in constant fear." It also said that the system of Jehovah's Witnesses "promotes the sexual abuse of children and that the entire community intentionally cover up criminal acts that have taken place" and that the classification is "a totalitarian organization that has a manipulative effect on its members and violates the physical, psychological and social integrity of its members." (Judgment, p. 6, Section 1.2)
The accused confessed in court to the contents of the interviews and the press release, to which she fully adheres, and presented numerous pieces of evidence to prove that the above criticisms are true and that therefore no false statements were disseminated.
Facts and honour
The detailed 34-page reasoning first explains the difference between value judgments and factual statements. Only statements of fact or so-called mixed value judgments which have a recognizable link to facts can result in infringing statements. These are not punishable if they correspond to the facts ("proof of truth") or at least at the time of the statement could be assumed to be true with reasonable research effort ("proof of good faith"), provided that the statements were not made solely for the purpose of harming others.The concept of honour is defined by the court as limited to the human-moral realm and refers to it "to the reputation and feeling of the person concerned to be an honorable person, that is to say to behave in the way that, according to general views, a decent person of character tends to behave." (p. 11, 5.1) "A person who is decent in character is generally expected, among other things, to fulfil his duties towards the state and his fellow human beings, not to commit crimes, to uphold human rights, not to refuse family love and care, to stop the sexual abuse of children, etc." (p. 12, 5.2)
Factual statements or disrespectful?
The court has now taken the trouble to examine for each individual incriminated statement whether it is in fact infringing. In 4 out of 10 indicted statements, this was denied by the court. The statement, for example, that members die after road accidents or at birth and that the community rejects blood transfusions are simple findings of accurate facts without a value judgment. Nor is it in itself infringing to say that there is hardly a Jehovah's Family without excluded family members, because a person is no more honorable if he has a family from which no one has been excluded. The same applies to the statement that many Jehovah's Witnesses "have limited knowledge of the world because worldly friends are forbidden and they have not been able to have many social experiences." These are mere fact descriptions.Malicious intent or public interest?
On the other hand, in six other statements, the General Court concluded that they were in fact damaging the honour of the Community. The accused was well aware of this effect. Such statements, even if true, may be punishable if, without reasonable grounds, they are given primarily with the intention of accusing someone of evil. But the court cannot see that here. In its explanatory statement, the Court arrives at a descriptive assessment of the work of the specialist unit infoSekta: "The tasks of the specialist unit infoSekta, which offers advice to interested parties within the framework of its statutes and provides information in the sense of consumer protection on the world view market, sufficiently prove that the statements were made in the protection of public interests. ... In addition, the InfoSekta department not only clarifies about Jehovah's Witnesses, but also about various organizations and faith communities. It is a factual and argumentative critique of beliefs or practices, as well as their effects on followers and their surroundings (which have also taken place in the exercise of fundamental rights ...) ... She bases her statements on scientific publications, original documents of Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower and Awakening!) as well as specialist literature on the subject. It therefore draws its information not only from conversations with drop-outs who have left the community in a dispute and who are in danger of drawing an all too negative picture. ... The accused is not concerned with talking badly about Jehovah's Witnesses, but with enlightenment about various organizations and faith communities." (p. 21, Article 9.5)After this long run-up, the essence of the case is now being carried out: the judicial examination to what extent the other 6 infringing statements correspond to the facts or had serious reasons to believe the statements to be true. Here the result was disastrous for Jehovah's Witnesses, so much is already anticipated.
Practice of ostracism ("Community withdrawal")
The concept of ostracism refers to the termination of contact with excluded persons. It is possible to exclude those who, from the point of view of the religious community, commit a sin from The Jehovah's Witnesses, such as accepting a blood transfusion, having sex before marriage, political activity or not believing all that the organization teaches. The following statements by infoSekta were in court:"We draw attention to the practice of ostracism that violates human rights." / "Outlawing is a kind of above-ordered bullying. It violates human rights and the Constitution." / "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion – a right that Jehovah's Witnesses claim for themselves but do not grant to their members."
In that judgment, the court held that Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny that they use the practice of ostracism, but simply claim that this practice is not contrary to human rights. There is no doubt about the existence of this practice, which is internally known as 'Community withdrawal'. It is also documented in writing in various publications. The court said: "The practice is very difficult for those affected and can have serious consequences (especially for victims of sexual abuse, who have to choose whether to stay in the organisation and always meet the perpetrator or lose their entire social environment)... It can be said that the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, by applying the practice of ostracism, decides who can no longer have contact with family and friends, who should be isolated. The organization has great control over its members. Such behaviour can be understood as "bullying". ... The practice of ostracism therefore turns out to be a kind of "bullying" that is, at least in the beginning, infringing human rights, that bullying is a violation of a person's personal integrity. This type of bullying is also used when members of Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe or develop or have a different faith. In such a case, the relevant people are excluded and ostracized, which is to encourage them to return to the community. ... Implicitly, therefore, they are denied freedom of belief and conscience within the community ...". (p. 24, 9.9a)
Dealing with children
The following honorable statement was made about dealing with children: "To say something love, ask what the day was like, or take the child in his arms – that is no longer in it. Children experience a permanent fear."Here, too, the religious community does not deny that the ostracism is being lived, but merely claims that children still receive loving care. The court, on the other hand, found the indications in the scriptures that one should "support" the ejected child, but not very lovingly, if it is immediately said, but then "teach and discipline with God's word" as well as "conduct a Bible study". "Our love for Jehovah must be stronger than the love of family members who become unfaithful to him." (Watchtower, 15.7.2011)
The child is thus "reduced to physical and spiritual needs, with no consideration for emotional needs. This is evidenced by a large number of reports of relatives and dropouts (...). Such an ejection leads to great conflict and can leave psychological damage, especially in children and adolescents. It is a kind of emotional blackmail to get the renegade to return to the religious community or to prevent them from leaving." (p. 25, 9.9b) The central message of the near end of the world in Armageddon, with the bloody final battle and the annihilation of all infidels, could also cause fear, especially among children.
Sexual abuse
In response to criticism of the treatment of sexual abuse, the court confirmed that the two-witness rule exists: "So if no one can testify to the abuse except the victim himself and the alleged perpetrator denies the act, nothing is done." It is simply a matter of dispute in what context it is used. Referring to judicial investigations in Australia (Royal Commission, Final Report), the descriptions of those affected could be believed here (proof of good faith provided).Mental violence against children
The court states: "The analysis of watchtower materials for children makes it clear that they are aimed at frightening children: those who do not obey, those who do not follow, those who do not believe, those who do not believe, who do not suffice, must expect to be expelled from the community and then annihilated in Armageddon. The above-mentioned ostracism can be regarded as a form of psychological violence. This is made clear by the reports of dropouts as well as the materials of the Watchtower Society itself." (p. 29, 9.9e) In line with the Court's findings to date, the assessment that Jehovah's Witnesses as a "highly problematic group" violated the "physical psychological and social integrity of their members" and denied the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion was considered to be essentially true to their members. It is primarily the consequences of 'Community withdrawal' as an internal means of exerting pressure that lead to this assessment.Slow mills
The verdict has a longer history. The indicted statements were made in July 2015. There were initially legal disputes over the eligibility of the appeal, so the charges were brought in November 2018. The judgment described here was handed down on 9 July 2019 and did not become final until 2020, after the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Switzerland missed the deadline for an initially announced revision.Conclusion
If all these statements, which the court considers to be infringing, relate to a true core of the facts, then the honor of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is indeed considerably damaged by this.On the basis of extensive evidence, the court examined the statements on the criticisms and found that the criticism was justified: the practice of uniting Jehovah's Witnesses violates the fundamental rights of members and their families. The verdict is also praise for solidly researched educational work in the field of spiritual consumer protection. It remains interesting what consequences this will have for the handling of Germany.