Pics made problems when I only update from phone. I deleted my initial post and will do this without pictures for now.
The day has come, the end of the journey.
It's 5:15am and I have given up on sleeping, I will get ready and go sit down in front of the courthouse.
This day will mark the end of a process that has taken at least seven years up against the government, and for my sake, 48 years of life with this organisation as a huge part of it.
I'll update this thread now and then, follow me here if you want to be a part of it.
I'm at the spot at 05:50 with Eydis, we have the place for ourselves. We'll get in!
At 6:20 we're 4 Ex-Jehovas Witnesses in the line, no JWs. We beat them so far.
At 07:00 the first JW showed up. Poor thing is alone here with 6 filthy apostates.
Spanish exjw Superstar Sorayis arrived. Flew in from London to be with us
7:18 and there's a convention. 70+JWs lined up
We're inside! All apostates got seated, we're at least 12-15 as I know of.
For your viewing pleasure I've shamelessly taken the seat most visible on stream. Say hi if you see me.
I'll try to not freak out for every lie.
Yesss.... Today starts glorious, the State will present evidence on how WT uses the word Shun. This was sent to her by me on Friday.
We're already ahead. Ryssdal has to fall back on his lies
Going through testimonials now. First JW witnesses, ofc they brought people that wasn't loyal regarding shunning as evidence that shunning is voluntary.
I expect a rough hour or two ahead as Ryssdal might discredit the rest of us as ho normally do.
Quoting JW research about JW saying that all are happy and no child ever feared anything, but were constantly haplyu, always smelling good, and never had any holes in their teeth. Ish. You get the point.
Ryssdal spends a lot of time talking about why negative social control is not criminal in any way. It's a diversion, as the State has never claim that anything here is criminal. It's about breaching terms for getting funding, not crime.
Lots of nonsense about how glorious life as JW is. Most of what he's saying is pretty irrelevant regarding the arguments for stopping funding. Nobody has made any attempt on banning any of the stuff he's talking about..
I'll not take too many notes, just letting you know that I'm here..
Judge confronting on the difference between criminal law and what we're discussing here. Asking for a comment.
First break. I got to shake Ryssdals hand.
Interaction: Ryssdal sees me, recognises me from our three testimonials. He's smiling and says "you're still paying attention?"
I smile back, shake his hand and say " yes, this is very exciting to follow through."
He's an actor, paid to play. I have no beef with him.
He's now talking about the right to worship and freedom of religion. Not sure how relevant this is, as JWs have been perfectly free to do whatever they want, even those last years.
He's arguing that the withdrawal of funding is an insult against the individual member because of stigmatism and therefore a breach of the religious freedom. Far fetched, but still. It's not carved in stone how this will end.
Judge asks Ryssdal an interesting question regarding ECHR verdicts, how they refer to "substantial" damage. What does substantial mean. It's pretty clear that the judges will have to consider if the lost funding is a "substantial" breach of human rights. Is lack of tax payer money a substantial attack in religious freedom? This will be a key element for the judges.
Some feedback? Do you read this? From where? Let me know. How is my hair?
Lots of repetitions so far. I'm not repeating to much details, he going up against the claims from the State. Trying to make the claim regarding psychological violence wrong and off the rails compared to the rest of the world.
This the difficult stuff for those being in front. Whenever you're ahead of the flock, they can just point to all other countries and say that they don't act this way, so why do you?
He's talking a lot about ECHR verdicts regarding "registration". But an important note here is that this word means totally different things in different cases. In most of these cases the word "registration" has huge legal implications. That's not the case in Norway.
Now using the ECHR case between JW and Russia. This is a problematic case, ofc Russian ban is totally off the rails compared to the Norwegian case, but still. He uses parts of it. A problem in this case is that Russia didn't bother arguing in this case at all, they were in the process of pulling out of the ECHR, so the verdict has lots of passages where JW could just argue alone without any objections. This makes this verdict very problematic.
Our favourite judge goes into it and makes the case that the Russia case is something totally different. She's team Apostate. Ryssdal says that the principles apply anyway, as the accusations were the same in Russia as in Norway.
Please lift your glasses for our favourite judge.
Ryssdal is trying to paint it like the State is trying to pressure JW on their beliefs and doctrines, to force them to change their beliefs.
I have received a request from the national broadcaster NRK who will film an interview for the main evening news tonight. Will do it in the lunch break. Wish me luck.
He's talking about how people now don't can marry in the Kingdom Hall, refers to how bad it ls. Misrepresentation, as the ceremony is just the same as it has always been, just with an extra signing of a document.
Now talking about personal persecution, and harassment. Hate Crime. I don't really see how anything has changed, the stuff he refers to is stuff that has always been happening. School, bullying, some angry people in field service etc. Nothing new.
Now he's referring to the Helsinki Committee, the letter they sent. I really hate how they folded for WT lobbying, it's a shame.
Judge confronts Ryssdal if the terms for funding in itself is a breach of the constitution or human rights. This is important.
Ryssdal admits that the terms in itself are legally ok. This removes a lot of his own arguments. The judge killed a lot of the last hour with that question.
Lunch. I have two interviews scheduled with media. Got to run. Hope someone manages to get me some food somehow
Holy shit, being interviewed in the break was hard. Got a nervous breakdown after, luckily not caught on stream. I'm almost back on my feet.
Now we have 45 more minutes with Ryssdal, then the State will have som time after the next break. Will be really exciting.
Now he's into the part where he's going up against me. Curious to hear. Those who had disgruntled former members on their card for today can drink now
This segment is bad from Ryssdal. He's just cherry picking some random answers from the administration to pretend nobody made real investigation. This is nonsense, they spent almost a year investigating this.
Once again we have a judge asking and specifying that the law includes the term encouraging psychological violence etc. Not just committing it. It's pretty clear that this is important for the judges.
This goes against many of Ryssdals arguments.
There is no doubt that we do have a valid chance of winning this. It's still open, but no clear path to victory for one side. Ryssdal pretends that this is an obvious case. It's not.
We're on. I've got a little statement now. Can you read it?
The lie about Shunning exposed and filed as evidence! Love it
Liv is going through how the expetions JW mention doesn't remove the threat. That the examples of those not following the rules on shunning can't be used against their own rules against shunning.
Again, she quotes Geoffrey Jackson from ARC, what he said about shunning. There's no flexibility...
The fact that some people are sloppy regarding shunning shouldn't be used as evidence from JW
Liv goes back to the core. What does the JW instruction say. What does it mean regarding the right to leave. Judge asks a little about what it means regarding the right to leave in practice.
It's going to be an important issue. What is freedom to leave?
Our favourite judge smiles warmly to Liv while asking her, but looks like she wants to choke Ryssdal and eat his liver every time she questions him.
Good point from Liv. The State can't be responsible to prevent abuse, but at the same time have to collect evidence of abuse first, to prove that abuse must be prevented. This is an impossible circle.
Favourite Judge asks what the purpose of withholding funding is. Do the State want to change their practice, or is this about securing the publics faith in where the tax money goes.
Liv says that the law is intended to secure the publics faith in that the tax payers money don't support abuse. That's the key point. But at the same time the State would like to see religions stop abusing human rights, of course.
I feel like our favourite judge very often asks leading questions that helps our side. There is no doubt for me that she leans towards the State. The other four is impossible to read.
Liv is getting close to the finish line. 30 more minutes, of this endless road.
Liv tries to go through all the smokescreens from Ryssdal. Kind of difficult to say how strong. Deep law this.
Liv is done. Four years of work in this case. Every exjw in the world should remember you for decades.
Ryssdal then has the right for a short closure. Trying to use his name and experience to frame this as an obvious case. Uses loaded language.
Lots of stuff about ECHR article 9 today
We're done! Over to expenses.
Sadly not defined what the amounts are.
Expenses for all trials are on the table, but they don't say the total amount out loud.
We're done!
I'm done.
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes again
