Appealing Verdict Based on Mind Control Myth

12 years of confinement, one Supreme Court victory, and now a new legal fight – Toru Goto is appealing 2025 court ruling built on bias and unscientific ideas

Tokyo, 27th September 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.

Disregarding the Supreme Court’s Recognition of “Confinement”

Defamation Trial Against Mr. Eito Suzuki (Part 1)

Victim Toru Goto Appeals

High Court Adopted Testimony “Lacking Credibility”

by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo

See also Politics Fueled Japan’s Attack on Federation

See also Dissolution: Members’ Voices Ignored by Courts

See also Japan: Establishing A New Compensation Committee

Toru Goto (後藤徹), a member of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church) and representative of National Association of Victims of Abduction, Confinement, and Forced De-conversion, sued journalist Eito Suzuki (鈴木エイト) for defamation. Goto argued that Suzuki’s remarks about the 12 years and 5 months Goto was confined by his own family in an attempt to make him renounce his faith – including calling Goto a “hikikomori” (social recluse) – constituted defamation. Goto sought 11 million yen (US $ 74,000) in damages.

In the first trial at the Tokyo District Court, the court acknowledged Suzuki’s unlawful conduct and ruled in favor of Goto. However, the appeal court overturned the ruling, resulting in Goto’s loss. Dissatisfied with the decision, Goto appealed to the Supreme Court on 11^th September. We asked him about the possible implications of the court’s judgment.

– What are the problems with the appeal court’s ruling, which overturned your victory?

I was abducted by my family under the instigation of professional deprogrammers such as Takashi Miyamura (宮村峻). From September 1995 to February 2008 – a total of 12 years and 5 months – I was confined in apartments and other locations in Tokyo and pressured to renounce my faith. After my release, I filed a civil lawsuit against the deprogrammers and won a complete victory, which was finalized by the Supreme Court in 2015 (the “Goto Case”).

Eito Suzuki’s remark calling me a “hikikomori” denies the reality of abduction and confinement and justifies coercion to make individuals renounce their faith. In order to prevent such abductions and confinements from becoming widespread, I decided to file a civil lawsuit.

The first-instance ruling adopted the findings of facts from the Goto Case, judged that Suzuki’s claim lacked any reasonable basis in truth, and recognized his unlawful conduct, ruling in my favor. Since Mr. Suzuki’s side was unable to present new evidence denying the abduction and confinement, it could be said that the judgment was only natural (understandable).

However, the appeal court argued that Suzuki was not a party in the Goto Case, so it was not bound by its findings of fact. It made its own factual determinations, relying on testimony from the losing defendants in the Goto Case – testimony that had already been dismissed. On that basis, it judged that Suzuki’s statement about “hikikomori” had truthfulness or at least reasonable grounds, and thus denied the existence of unlawful conduct.

But the reason the Goto Case did not adopt those testimonies was precisely because they lacked credibility. To ignore the findings of facts finalized by the Supreme Court, and instead adopt discredited testimony from the losing side, strikes me as highly unreasonable.

– Wouldn’t that imply the appeal court is effectively calling the Goto Case a “misjudgment”?

I believe that is the implication. However, in its judgment, the appeal court also acknowledged the findings of the Goto Case, noting that my confinement by members of my own family could not be understood as “lawful”.

Indeed, as a general principle of trials, there exists the “principle of free evaluation of evidence,” which allows judges to freely determine the facts and assess the evidence.

However, when a court makes an unreasonable judgment that contradicts the common sense generally accepted in society or established scientific principles, it constitutes a “violation of the rules of experience” and becomes a valid reason for requesting the Supreme Court to accept an appeal.

Because the illegality arising from confinement and the ‘hikikomori’ state – where a person’s freedom is guaranteed – cannot both exist at the same time, the factual findings of the two court rulings are completely contradictory. [See editor’s note 1 below] To accept previously dismissed testimony without new supporting evidence amounts to “arbitrary cherry-picking”. If judges render mutually contradictory rulings in separate cases, the credibility of the judicial system itself is at stake.

After spending so much time and effort gathering evidence, exposing the contradictions and falsehoods in the opponent’s testimony, and taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court to win a complete victory, I can’t help but feel a sense of emptiness – wondering, “What was it all for?”

Departure from Neutrality – Prejudice in the Background

– It looks like the ruling sided with your family, the “perpetrators”.

In the appeal ruling of the Goto Case, the court held:

“Even if one’s religious beliefs differ from those of one’s parents or siblings, it is illegal to go beyond voluntary persuasion, to use physical force, and to restrict free will and behavior in order to coerce de-conversion from the Unification Church. Such acts cannot be tolerated in society, and it is appropriate to recognize them as confinement.”

In other words, even parents and siblings commit unlawful acts if they confine someone for coercive religious de-conversion.

However, this latest appeal ruling deliberately resurrected the defendants’ false testimony that had been rejected in the Goto Case. This suggests that the judges empathized more with the families trying to make believers leave the Unification Church than with the Family Federation believers whose human rights were violated through confinement. Otherwise, they would not have made factual determinations overturning a Supreme Court-confirmed ruling.

The background seems to be the judges’ perception of Family Federation believers as “mind-controlled victims” [See editor’s note 2 below]. Indeed, the ruling uncritically used the term “mind control” as equivalent to “psychological coercion”. Yet, as explained in the book 『間違いだらけの「マインド・コントロール」論』(2025) – which may be translated into English as “The Many Mistakes in ‘Mind Control’ Theory” or “Everything Wrong with ‘Mind Control’ Theory” – by Shunsuke Uotani (魚谷俊輔), the discourse of “mind control” is a politically charged and scientifically indefinable concept. It should not be used as a basis for judicial decisions.

I still want to believe in the neutrality and fairness of the courts. However, there is no doubt that this wholly unexpected appeal ruling is biased in line with public opinion and the current movement toward issuing a dissolution order against the Family Federation.

See also Politics Fueled Japan’s Attack on Federation

See also Dissolution: Members’ Voices Ignored by Courts

See also Japan: Establishing A New Compensation Committee

Featured image above: Toru Goto (後藤徹), representative of National Association of Victims of Abduction, Confinement, and Forced De-conversion, being interviewed 16th September 2025, Toshima Ward, Tokyo Photo: Takahide Ishii(石井孝秀)

[Editor’s note 1: Toru Goto is arguing that “confinement” (involuntary, illegal) and “hikikomori” (voluntary, free withdrawal) are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if one judgment describes the situation as confinement and another as “hikikomori,” their factual conclusions cannot logically coexist – hence the claim of contradiction.]

[Editor’s note 2: In Japan, the “mind-control” myth has been a powerful tool used to stigmatize and suppress new religious movements (NRMs), particularly since the 1980s. The concept suggests that NRMs manipulate or “brainwash” their followers, depriving them of free will and rational thought. This narrative gained traction after the 1995 Aum Shinrikyō sarin gas attack, when public fear of dangerous cults intensified. Although Aum was an extreme and violent exception, the incident cast suspicion on all NRMs, allowing critics, media, and the government to label diverse groups as manipulative or psychologically coercive.

The “mind-control” myth serves multiple social and political functions. It simplifies complex questions of belief, making it easier to portray converts as victims rather than as individuals exercising spiritual agency. This framing justifies legal and social intervention, including the coercive “deprogramming” of believers – sometimes involving confinement or psychological pressure to force renunciation of faith. Lawyers, ex-member groups, and certain media outlets have used the idea of mind control to construct NRMs as threats to family stability and national order, reinforcing social conformity and Japan’s preference for established, non-controversial religions such as Buddhism and Shinto.

In recent years, the myth resurfaced following the 2022 assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose attacker cited resentment toward the Unification Church. Public outrage reignited scrutiny of NRMs, and politicians and journalists revived “mind-control” rhetoric to explain the Church’s fundraising and recruitment practices. Critics argue that this framing discourages genuine religious tolerance and critical examination of Japan’s restrictive religious climate. Overall, the “mind-control” myth functions less as a scientific or psychological concept and more as a moral panic – a cultural weapon used to delegitimize minority faiths and to reaffirm mainstream social norms about religion, obedience, and the boundaries of acceptable belief.]

Related to appealing verdict based on myth: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to appealing verdict based on myth: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to appealing verdict based on myth: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to appealing verdict based on myth: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to appealing verdict based on myth: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to appealing verdict based on myth: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to appealing verdict based on myth: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to appealing verdict based on myth: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

And even more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Tendentious Reporting by New York Times

Still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to appealing verdict based on myth: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression