Jehovah’s Witnesses in Spain: One Won, One Lost on Appeal
- info775148
- 10. 4.
- Minut čtení: 6
Judicial chaos continues as different sections of Madrid’s Provincial Court render different decisions on similar facts.
April 10, 2025
In 2023 and 2024, “Bitter Winter” reported about the strange situation created at the Court of Torrejón de Ardoz in Spain, where four similar cases led to opposite decisions by the same court. All four cases were initiated by the Spanish branch of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
An anti-cult group exists in Spain called Spanish Association of the Victims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (AEVTJ). The name already tells it all. The AEVTJ’s activity consists in labelling the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “cult” harmful to its “victims,” with the customary accusations used by anti-cult associations throughout the world. In this case, the Spanish Jehovah’s Witnesses were of the view that their right to honor was violated and decided to react.
On October 2, 2023, the First Section of the Court of First Instance of Torrejón de Ardoz ruled that the newspaper “El Mundo” had been fed false information by the AEVTJ and had published them. It ordered the newspaper to publish the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ reply and to pay the litigation costs.
On October 25, 2023, the same First Section of the Court of First Instance of Torrejón de Ardoz found the Secretary of the AEVTJ, Enrique Carmona, guilty of having violated the right to honor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses through the core statements of one of his videos.
On the other hand, a case where several Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Spanish branch had sued AEVTJ directly, for whatever reason, went to the Sixth Section of the Court of First Instance of Torrejón de Ardoz. There, Judge Raquel Chacón Campollo, without hiding too much her hostility to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, ruled on December 5, 2023, that AEVTJ’s statements were within the limits of freedom of expression, even if some of them were possibly not true.
Finally, on December 22, 2023, the same Sixth Session of the Court of First Instance of Torrejón de Ardoz and the same Judge Raquel Chacón Campollo ruled against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and in favor of a member of the AEVTJ, Gabriel Pedrero, who had also been sued for posting on the Internet statements offending the right to honor of the religious group.
Although the statements the Jehovah’s Witnesses objected to in the four cases were not identical, they were similar and ultimately came from the same AEVTJ sources. The difference between the four verdicts rendered by the same court created an idiosyncratic situation. Unfortunately, the appeals did not solve the situation, as they went to different sections of the Audiencia Provincial Civil of Madrid, the Eleventh (President: Judge Cesáreo Duro Ventura) and the Eighteenth (President: Judge Jésus C. Rueda López), which rendered once again contradictory decisions.
With a decision notified on February 21, 2025, the Eleventh Section of the Audiencia Provincial Civil of Madrid examined the appeal by Enrique Carmona against the decision of October 25, 2023. Overturning the first degree decision, it ruled in favor of Carmona and against the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
A key theme of the case was the use of the Spanish word “secta,” which should be translated in English as “cult” (not as “sect,” which does not have the same meaning). The Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted the word is offensive, while Carmona relied on dictionary definitions that are more neutral. The Eleventh Section’s decision is the first I know of where judges asked artificial intelligence for the meaning of “cult” (secta). The answer they got from AI was that, “The term ‘cult’ [secta] is sometimes used to refer to a religious, philosophical or ideological group that separates or distinguishes itself from a mainstream or traditional group, often with beliefs or practices that are considered unusual or extreme by society in general. In many cases, the sect has a charismatic leader and its members follow specific beliefs or rituals that can be very different or stricter than those of established religions. Sometimes the term ‘cult’ has a negative connotation associated with dangerous or manipulative practices, especially when there is psychological control over the members or social isolation. However, its use depends on the context and the social perception of that group.”
Based on this definition, the decision concluded that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “secta” (cult) because historically they separated themselves from “the Adventists” and within the context of the Spanish society they are perceived as separated from mainline Catholicism because “Catholics believe that God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny this. They do not believe that Jesus is God, nor that the Holy Spirit is a person, but simply a force.”
Theological and historical nuances aside, it all depends from what question the AI was asked. The right question should have been not how dictionaries, theologians, or 19th century sociologists defined “cult” (secta) but how this word is perceived by Spaniards in the 21st century. Any sociologist and perhaps even the average journalist would have told the court that “cult” (secta) is generally perceived as a derogatory and offensive word, not as a theological or historical qualification. This was also the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the 2022 decision Tonchev and Others v. Bulgaria, which noted that the language is continuously evolving, and while decisions of the past century had regarded the French “secte” as not offensive, by 2022 using “sekti” (секти) in Bulgarian was “perceived as pejorative and hostile.” “Perceived” is the operative word here, ignored by the Spanish decision.
The decision also includes a laundry list of accusations against the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the so-called “ostracism,” alleged mental damage to members, alleged inadequate protection of children against abuse, and even instructing members to lie to the authorities (based on a frequent misinterpretation by anti-cultists of an old article in “The Watchtower”). The Eleventh Section also included mistakes of its own, claiming that the Spanish Jehovah’s Witnesses were found guilty of social security violations, while the contrary is true. After an inspection, it was concluded that they had not violated any social security regulation.
One wonders whether the Eleventh Section also consulted the artificial intelligence to learn what opponents accuse the Jehovah’s Witnesses of or simply relied on Spanish anti-cultists.
On the other hand, with a decision notified on March 26, 2025, the Eighteen Section of the Audiencia Provincial Civil of Madrid, ruling on one of the appeals filed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, overturned the decision by Judge Raquel Chacón Campollo of December 22, 2023 and found in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The court agreed that even harsh and controversial expressions are protected by freedom of expression, but stated that this principle is not without limits. When expressions of hostility remain “generic,” through offensive and emphatic, they are still within the limits of freedom of expression. This is not the case, however, when criticism is expressive through “offensive and injurious sentences” that are not “generic” and “insults.”
The appeal court thus condoned “the expressions and statements of the defendant regarding his own consideration as a victim; that, generically, the plaintiff confession does not respect human rights or the qualification of a religious company.” The court did not conclude that these statements are true. However, as long as they remain “generic,” they do not include “insulting or degrading expressions.”
On the other hand, the appeal court said, “the expressions referring to the plaintiff as a dangerous, extremist, and destructive cult (secta) that should be outlawed, endanger the lives of children through hidden sexual abuse protecting pedophiles or have blood on their hands from various suicides caused, are excessive and objectively injurious and degrading” and outside the limits of freedom of expression and “permissible criticism.” Consequently, “it is appropriate to declare the unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s right to honor, contrary to what was established in the judgment of first instance whose reasoning is not shared by this Chamber.”
The defendant was “condemned to remove from Instagram and Facebook accounts, videos disseminated on YouTube, and the petition made on the Change.org platform the expressions considered offensive to the plaintiff’s right to honor and to publish the heading and the ruling of the judgment with the same public dissemination with which the expressions considered unlawful interference with the right to honor were made. The defendant is condemned to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of ten thousand euros.”
Contradictions in Spanish courts continue. Perhaps the Court of Cassation may put things in order.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Commentaires