Refine Search

Should Calling at Homes Without an Invitation Be Forbidden?

By “Awake!” correspondent in Denmark

HOW do you feel about people who call at your home uninvited? Do you feel that this is a freedom you would rather see preserved although it may cause you some inconvenience at times?

Or do you feel that you would like to see laws passed forbidding anyone from calling without a prior invitation? True, the passing of such laws would get rid of unwanted callers. But enforcing all the consequences of such a ban makes it plain that it would not be desirable.

For instance, a neighbor may call, uninvited, to borrow sugar or coffee; but then, you might be the one who wants to borrow these items. A driver who has had a flat tire or an accident may want to use your phone; or you could be the one who needs the help. Perhaps someone in the neighborhood wants assistance because of an illness, or because an expectant mother’s baby is arriving sooner than anticipated; or it may be your illness, your baby coming earlier than expected and you have to make the uninvited call.

What, too, of unexpected guests, such as relatives or old friends you had not invited, but who were traveling through and dropped in for a few moments? Have you never done that? Then there are salesmen who offer goods that you may want, saving you a trip to the store. Others offer services in this way, or take up collections, perhaps of used clothing, newspapers or money for charities. You might even get an uninvited caller telling you your house is on fire!

So you can see that when one person calls on another, although uninvited, there are advantages as well as disadvantages. And while you may think primarily of the disadvantages when others call at your door, put yourself in their position and remember that you may have a similar need sometime. That does put the matter in a different light, does it not?

An Ancient Method

Calling without an invitation is an age-old custom. It has been permitted by nearly every civilized community throughout history. For thousands of years people have been calling to ask for help, to sell something, or to deliver a message​—political, religious or otherwise.

Jesus Christ used this method too, more than 1,900 years ago. He called on people without a prior invitation, encouraging them to listen to the grandest message suffering humans had ever heard. It is also the method he taught his followers to use. He instructed them to make a systematic coverage of towns and villages by going from house to house, visiting all the inhabitants of an area, and that without previous invitations.​—Matt. 10:11-14.

In that way, from door to door, the knowledge of Christianity was spread throughout most of the Mediterranean area in the course of about one generation. Those who hospitably received those messengers of freedom and life were richly rewarded for their hospitality.

So when Jehovah’s Christian witnesses call at your home, they are using the method that Jesus directed his followers to use.

Denmark’s ‘Door-to-Door Movement’

Contacting persons in their homes has come to the fore in another way recently. In Denmark, early 1971 saw the beginning of a campaign known as the ‘door-to-door movement.’

The newspaper Politiken devoted considerable space to this movement, using headlines such as “HOW WE WILL RING OUR NEIGHBOR’S DOORBELL,” and “50,000 UNITED IN DOOR-TO-DOOR ACTIONS.” This campaign is designed to meet a definite need that many people have, particularly in large cities, a need generally not cared for by the community. What is that?

It has to do with the many lonely persons in large cities. In congested city areas many people tend to become isolated because of old age, illness, timidity or for other reasons. They become strangers even to their close neighbors. This happens far more often in cities than in country areas or small towns. Thus, such persons do not really get much out of life. They have little opportunity to communicate and enjoy the company of other people.

Politiken told of an incident to illustrate how out of touch persons can become. It wrote about an “80-year-old man who could not get himself to ring his neighbor’s doorbell though he had locked himself out of his house and the temperature outside was about ten degrees. He wandered around for an hour and a half before a policeman came to his assistance and called a locksmith.” Is that not sad?

What the door-to-door activists are urging is for people to call on their neighbors to a greater degree and to communicate with them. As one member of the movement stated: “I know that those who live alone on each floor would be especially happy for communication.” Surely that is true of many lonely persons, especially the elderly and ill.

“Closed doors make people sick,” claimed another article in Politiken during 1971. County physician Vagn Christensen stated: “They result in chronically tired children who are so uninterested in their surroundings that their development is retarded. . . . With adults, closed doors can be the cause of great sickliness. The minute you take away function, meaning and contact from people, they become invalids.”

Thus, in the course of a few months some 50,000 persons in Denmark became members of the door-to-door movement to assist lonely persons. Some claimed that the membership was nearer to 75,000. A ban against uninvited calling at homes would work directly against the purpose of this door-to-door campaign. It would work against healthier communities.

Some Want Ban

In the Brønshønj-Husum News of October 23, 1969, instructions were given about how police regulations for Copenhagen could be used by residents to hinder callers. It noted that one could post a sign on the door saying: “Uninvited calls FORBIDDEN!”

However, some would go much farther and have the government issue a specific law forbidding home calls. They claim that such calls violate their peace and privacy. But in this regard, paragraph 263 of Denmark’s penal code states: “One is punished by fine or imprisonment if one violates another’s peace 1) by opening a letter or otherwise obtaining a closed message to another or hindering its delivery, 2) by gaining access to another’s personal effects without reasonable grounds, 3) by publicizing another’s private, domestic life, 4) by publicizing other parts of another’s private life,” and similar thoughts.

The purpose of that law is, among other things, to protect people from being spied on or having things pertaining to their private lives publicized. It really has nothing to do with uninvited home calls.

Still another aspect of that penal code, paragraph 264, states this in regard to one’s domestic peace: “One who violates domestic peace by forcing his way into another’s house, room or ship or other place not publicly accessible, will be punished by fine or imprisonment. The same punishment will apply to one who refuses to leave another’s premises on request.”

But this does not make it a violation for someone to call at another’s home and ring his doorbell without prior invitation. It is only when one refuses to leave, that one violates the law.

Committee’s Opinion

What brings this matter to the fore now is the recommendation of a committee appointed by the Danish Ministry of Justice in 1968. In their opinion published in 1970, the committee members suggested that it be forbidden by law for persons to make what they called “uninvited personal calls at private homes.”

The opinion was directed primarily at forbidding calls of a commercial nature, to protect buyers from dishonest salesmen. But if the law is formulated in such a way that it makes impossible, for example, the idea of the door-to-door movement to aid the lonely, then the law will be far broader than its stated purpose.

In addition, the proposed law expresses a tendency that should be a cause of concern to intelligent persons. It is really saying that the government should decide who should or should not be allowed to call at your home. But is it true that so many people are incapable of making this decision? Are they not able, as adults, simply to tell unwanted callers, “No”? And does not such a law cast suspicion on everyone who calls at a home uninvited?

The Norwegian consumer council favors “door-to-door sales” because houses are so scattered in most parts of that country. Would not the same thing apply in certain areas of Denmark too? And what about magazine or book sales? Many people find it much easier to subscribe for a magazine, or purchase books, such as a set of encyclopedias, at home rather than being inconvenienced by having to go to a store or to write letters to publishers.

Vital Freedoms Endangered

If the making of personal calls at people’s doors without prior invitation should be forbidden by law, it could be applied against many things that would endanger freedom. For example, it would be applied against the preaching method used by Jesus Christ and the first-century Christians.

Thus, such a law could be applied against Jehovah’s witnesses today. But not only them. It could be applied to all religious and charitable works using that method. It would strike at those clergymen of the National Lutheran Church of Denmark who make home visits. Yes, such a law would hit hard at religious freedom. It would imitate some of the worst features of Communism, Nazism and Fascism.

The contemplated law would also strike hard at the freedom of expression. For instance, the Danish constitution states: “Everyone is entitled to publicize his thoughts by the printed or written page and by word of mouth, though held responsible legally. Censorship and other preventative restrictions may not be initiated in any way.”

But merely having the right to be heard is hollow if the means of doing so is taken away And one means is by calling uninvited on the homes of people. Thus, freedom of expression involves the right of all people who cannot be heard over the radio, television or by, means of newspapers and who have to make themselves heard in another way, from door to door. Freedom of expression should not be denied to those who do not have the large amounts of money needed to use those other methods of communication.

With the right to express oneself freely comes the right to distribute printed matter. If a person wants to reach a great number of people he cannot limit the distribution to book shops alone. Besides, a book-shop owner may be prejudiced and keep certain publications out of sight. And not all people go into book shops.

Also, since the publishing of such printed matter costs money, the right to freedom of expression has to include the right of the publisher to have his expenses covered. If this is not allowed, then freedom of the press would be limited to the wealthy. That is why in Sweden the thought has been expressed that a ban against personal calls “would presumably be in conflict with the ordinance of freedom of the press, which is constitutional in character.”

Against all this some people argue that if a person wants to know about certain things he can take the initiative and approach the publishers. But this argument is not reasonable. How can people be aware of certain matters if these are not brought to their attention? How would they know where to go to be enlightened on the matter if it has not yet been brought to their attention?

In addition, such a proposed law would restrict political freedom. Anyone who has had to do with political matters, such as getting signers to a petition, knows that a personal approach is necessary. It is there that an explanation can be given, and a certain amount of persuasion used.

What Can the Individual Do?

Freedom has its price. That may include some inconvenience. It may also include the risk of being defrauded by a dishonest salesman. Laws forbidding such fraud are necessary, but they cannot forbid all business transactions just because they are concluded at the door.

Would you forbid all business transactions in stores and markets just because some store owners are dishonest? Why ban one form of selling and not the other? It is obvious that a law against one and not the other is highly discriminatory and strikes at the very foundation of freedom.

True, freedom to visit without previous invitation means that some visits can occur at inconvenient times and disturb what one was doing. But is that price not worth it to preserve basic freedoms? Is it such a tremendously difficult thing to open the door and say to the one who called: “It is not convenient,” or, “I am not interested in speaking with you”? Is that too high a price to pay for the valuable freedom of deciding for ourselves whom we will or will not receive at our doors?

Think about this the next time someone approaches your door without an invitation. Ask yourself if it is not better to put up with a little inconvenience in good humor rather than living in a dictatorial country. You should rejoice if you live in a country that gives you the right to decide whose visit you will accept, as well as giving you the right to make such a visit yourself.