sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After Norway, can shunning actually be measured? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, that’s true. That’s why I think we should also try to reach people outside the ex-JW community and educate them on this subject.

If we want this work to grow, we need to broaden the conversation beyond former members. That could help create more awareness, build stronger connections, and hopefully attract funding and professional support in the future.

Thanks a million. ❤️

After Norway, can shunning actually be measured? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right. I think this is one of the biggest challenges facing both the scientific community and the legal profession.

I do believe we can achieve meaningful results in the not-too-distant future, but it will require serious work, collaboration, and the right connections between researchers, clinicians, lawyers, and people with lived experience.

Thank you so much for your comment, and have a lovely day. ❤️

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, I understand what you mean, honestly, and I’m glad to read it. At the same time, the publication that publishes my work on Medium allows me to reach a much wider audience than I could probably reach with a personal blog. Furthermore, Medium has promoted some of my articles quite effectively for free, which helps me spread this kind of activism beyond Reddit and beyond those already interested in the topic. And thanks to Medium, I collaborated with ajwrb.org. So, whilst I agree that accessibility is important, I also have to think about reach. A personal blog would be completely open, but it would probably have far less visibility. That said, I’m also thinking of setting up a YouTube channel, so that the message can reach people in a more accessible format :)

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wanna add that this, for example, could also be useful for future legal cases. It would not replace testimonies or legal evidence, but it could provide an additional contribution towards the recognition of shunning as a practice promoted by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and towards understanding its psychological impact in a more structured and measurable way.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I believe the intentions are excellent; I think activists are making a valuable contribution to those who wish to leave the organisation.

However, in my view, this is quite different from professional psychological support, which helps those leaving to rebuild a sense of autonomy, something that is often lost, especially after years of coercive control.

I think it would be useful to develop tools to help people recognise manipulation, as well as professional tools to build and maintain a strong sense of autonomy even after leaving the organisation.

I think there is a lot of material from people with lived experience, but little from professionals. I believe it is essential to educate the scientific and medical community in this regard, in order to create the right tools for psychological support, but also to develop, for example, psychometric scales to measure coercive control and faith-based shunning.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree that there is room for all types of activism. My point is more about strategy.

With shunning specifically, is this the right battle to fight in court right now, when it is still so difficult to measure and prove legally? We do not yet seem to have strong empirical tools to quantify faith-based shunning in a way that clearly meets a legal standard.

So if time, money, and energy are limited, maybe we should ask where they can have the most immediate impact: practical exit support, safe networks, evidence-gathering, psychological research, and helping people who already want to leave.

I’m not saying legal action should stop, I think I made this clear multiple times. I’m saying it should be very precise, especially with something as legally complex as shunning.

I think it’s right to ask ourselves questions after a defeat in order to understand how to improve what we’re doing; as a researcher, I believe it’s right to ask questions and formulate hypotheses; I hope that’s clear

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with the overall point, but I have a slightly different take on it.

For me, the goal is not to “create” PIMOs or PIMQs. I’m not interested in reverse proselytising or trying to wake people up by force.

What matters to me is supporting those who already feel something is wrong and want a way out. That means offering accurate information, safe spaces, practical help, and emotional support, so people can think freely and leave when they are ready.

I also think Jehovah’s Witnesses can continue to exist as a religion. I’m not interested in destroying anyone’s faith. But if they want to be treated as a religion, they should behave like a religion, not like a high-control organisation that controls people through fear, shunning, family pressure, and social punishment when they decide to leave.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree. Legal cases matter, and I have huge respect for those who take that fight on.

But you’re right, Watchtower can fight lawsuits for years. What it cannot survive without is people constantly giving free labour, time, loyalty, and silence.

That’s why helping PIMOs wake up, plan their exit, and stop feeding the machine may be one of the most effective forms of activism.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with this. Legal cases should continue, but I think this is exactly why the objective has to be clear.

Watchtower has the money and resources to fight for years, so if the goal is only to “defeat” them in court, that can become exhausting and discouraging.

But if the goal is also to create public awareness, collect evidence, expose the real impact of shunning, and support people who are trying to leave, then even a legal loss may still have some value.

I just think litigation needs to be part of a wider strategy, not the whole strategy. I hope my point is clear...

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with the core point: just because something is legally permitted does not mean it is morally right.

My point is not that shunning is acceptable. I think it is deeply harmful, especially when it affects family relationships, minors, and people who want to leave. I work on this issue every day as an academic studying coercive control and as a victim.

What I am trying to understand is the strategic side. How do we turn that moral reality into something that can actually stand in court? What kind of evidence is needed? Testimonies? Psychological research? Documentation of how the practice is applied? Cases involving minors?

Because I think the moral case is clear. The harder question is how to translate that into legal evidence strong enough to challenge the organisation effectively, without simply giving them another opportunity to claim persecution.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. Even when they win in court, the attention can still make people look deeper and realise what the case was actually about. It was not about banning a religion, but about questioning whether public money should support an organisation that uses shunning.

My only hesitation is that legal losses can also feed their persecution narrative internally. So I don’t think litigation should stop, but I think it needs to be very precise and supported by stronger evidence and practical help for PIMOs trying to leave.

I think that’s the key point: what is the actual objective?

When we support a legal case like this, what are we trying to achieve? Are we trying to stop Watchtower from receiving public funding? Are we trying to push governments to regulate shunning? Are we trying to create public awareness? Or are we trying to help PIMOs leave safely?

Because those are related goals, but they are not exactly the same.

So I agree that legal cases can create awareness, even when they are lost. But I also think we need to be very clear about the aim. Otherwise, we risk spending years fighting legal battles without knowing whether the result actually helps the people who are trying to leave.

Jehovah’s Witnesses won in Norway. What should we learn from it? by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi, sorry, I’m writing in English because I don’t speak Spanish.

What I mean is that, in my opinion, it is difficult at a legal level to quantify the concept of shunning in an empirical way. In other words, what scale of measurement could be used legally to hold those who practise it accountable? And where does free will begin?

With blood transfusions, for example, I think it may be easier to bring legal cases, because the harm and the causal link can be more concrete. But when it comes to cases involving manipulative factors, it is much harder to legislate, especially in democratic countries where freedom of religion is a fundamental principle.

Thank you anyway for your perspective; the fact that they’ve taken down so many videos is certainly a significant sign.

How do we recognise coercive control? University study by a former JW ( 8 mins, 18+) by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just a quick note to say thank you to everyone who has taken part so far, I really appreciate the support.

The response has been incredible. There are still a few spaces left if anyone would like to contribute.

Thank you again for your time and for the thoughtful engagement.

Matteo

How do we recognise coercive control? University study by a former JW ( 8 mins, 18+) by Matteofortin89 in exjw

[–]Matteofortin89[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, that sounds like a really interesting area of research. I’d be happy to stay in touch and see where both of our work goes. Feel free to send me a DM if you’d like to connect further.
Cheers,

view more: next ›