“Repressive State Rewriting Rules”: Japan Accused

Repressive state violating international law as Tokyo court orders dissolution of large religious organization with 600,000 members

Tokyo, 18th April 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article. 

Religious Persecution by Judiciary: Dissolution Order Violates International Law

Commentary on Public Discourse

by Seisaku Morita (森田 清策)

Government-Led “Faith-Breaking” Under the Guise of Helping Second-Generation Members?

The Tokyo District Court has issued a verdict ordering the dissolution of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Family Federation, formerly the Unification Church). Few experts have opposed this, and public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor. However, from the standpoint of international law, how should we view a dissolution order issued against a religious organization that has not committed any criminal offense? Even though it is a district court decision, this marks the first time dissolution has been ordered based on civil, not criminal, grounds. That’s why now more than ever, understanding the international standards regarding freedom of religion is crucial.

The May issue of the monthly magazine Hanada includes an interview with French international lawyer Patricia Duval (titled “The Request for Dissolution is a Violation of International Law and Religious Persecution”), conducted by non-fiction writer Masumi Fukuda (福田ますみ). Although the interview occurred before the court’s decision, Duval – an authority on international law – firmly states that ordering dissolution based on “public welfare” constitutes a violation of international law.

One key point in the article is Duval’s assertion that “judging religious issues as unlawful based on social appropriateness or societal norms is unthinkable under European human rights standards.”

Religions – both traditional and new – often have beliefs and rituals that are incomprehensible by secular standards. Sometimes these are even seen as deviant. Of course, any behavior that constitutes a criminal act or harms others is unacceptable.

However, using civil law violations as grounds for dissolution, given the seriousness of restricting a fundamental human right like freedom of religion, contradicts international standards.

Article 81, Paragraph 1 of Japan’s Religious Corporations Act stipulates that a religious organization can be dissolved for acts that “violate laws and significantly harm public welfare.” The Tokyo District Court determined that the Family Federation had caused “unprecedented harm” based on past civil lawsuits.

Duval explains that the grounds for restricting freedom of religion or belief under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) do not include “public welfare” or “social appropriateness”. Thus, she argues that the dissolution order request against the Family Federation is inherently a violation of international law.

Although not mentioned in the article, Duval has stated in lectures that the UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly advised the Japanese government to stop using “public welfare” as a reason to restrict religious freedom. The Japanese government has ignored this.

This raises a question for the author: Why haven’t Japan’s international law experts and scholars of religion sounded the alarm on this fact in public discourse?

Why doesn’t international law include “public welfare” or “social norms” as reasons to limit religious freedom? Unlike criminal law, which has objective standards, these vague concepts can be used arbitrarily by state powers to target specific groups, leading to religious persecution. That’s the danger.

Since Japan is a signatory to the ICCPR, the government should be aware of this. In fact, three months after the 8^th July 2022 shooting of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三) by suspect Tetsuya Yamagami (山上徹也), the Cabinet formally concluded that there was no legal basis to request the dissolution of the Family Federation, with then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (岸田文雄) stating in the Diet that dissolution grounds were limited to criminal acts, not civil matters.

Yet Kishida suddenly reversed that stance overnight, saying civil matters could also qualify. At the time, many Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers were under intense media scrutiny for having received election support from the Family Federation’s affiliated groups. It seems likely that Kishida, in an effort to maintain his administration, changed the legal interpretation of religious law to deflect criticism by seeking the dissolution of the religious organization.

The fact that the court went along with this reveals how little the principle of religious freedom – a foundation of human dignity – has taken root in Japan compared to the international community.

The article also illustrates, through various examples, the significant gap between Japan’s understanding of religious freedom and international standards.

In lawsuits involving the Family Federation, courts have ruled that deceptive proselytizing and soliciting donations based on ancestral karma were illegal. However, Duval argues that not revealing a group’s religious identity at first and disclosing it later at a gathering is legally unproblematic. She also emphasizes that discussing ancestral karma and similar spiritual concepts is common in religious contexts and poses no legal issues.

She further points out that the so-called “mind control theory” used to claim that followers were coerced into donating, lacks scientific basis and is rejected by international standards.

As an example, Duval cites a European Court of Human Rights ruling against a Russian court that dissolved the Christian denomination Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Russian court claimed the group used mind control, but the European court deemed this an “unsubstantiated speculation”.

Fukuda draws a parallel, saying the Russian authorities’ claims resemble arguments made by Japan’s National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (Zenkoku Benren) in the Family Federation trials – and even by Japanese courts. She laments,

“Japan was supposed to be a democratic country where religious freedom is guaranteed. Now it has sunk to the level of Russia.”

Zenkoku Benren is an organization of leftist lawyers opposed to the Family Federation and its strong anti-communist stance.

Now, the Family Federation has filed an immediate appeal, and the case has moved to the Tokyo High Court. If dissolution proceeds, what will happen to the human rights of the believers? (The organization has already claimed human rights violations.)

Duval points to a government initiative adopted in January last year at a Cabinet meeting focused on victim support regarding the former Unification Church. It involves “special counseling” for second-generation believers.

These counselors include former or disaffected members of the Family Federation. In essence, the government is conducting “exit counseling” in schools under the guise of rescuing second-generation members – isolating children from their parents and discouraging them from continuing their parents’ faith. Fukuda calls this “state-sponsored faith-breaking”, a form of government-led brainwashing.

Duval says this deprogramming not only violates the freedom of religion under ICCPR Article 18(1) but also violates Article 18(4), which guarantees the rights of parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs.

Fukuda concludes angrily,

“Japan is no longer a democratic nation. It is increasingly resembling Russia or China.”

So, what should the Family Federation do? The legal battle is likely to reach the Supreme Court. Duval advises:

“During that time, they must continue persistently appealing to the United Nations and international community about this unjust religious persecution. That’s the only option.”

Fukuda also warns,

“If the dissolution order is actually carried out, Japan will be seen internationally as a country where religious freedom no longer exists. Will the judiciary be prepared for that?”

The lack of serious attention from Japanese intellectuals and citizens to this issue may itself reflect how far Japan has diverged from international standards on religious freedom.

Featured image above: Japan portrayed as repressive state. Illustration: Grok xAI, 18th April 2025

Related to repressive state: Japan Following the Way of China

Also related to repressive state: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

Also related to repressive state: “Poorly Compiled Evidence Including Falsehoods”

And also related to repressive state: Huge Scandal: “Ministry Is Falsifying Affidavits”

Also related to repressive state: Japan’s New Laws to Curb New Religious Movements

Also related to repressive state: New Law Designed to Bankrupt Family Federation

Also related to repressive state: Religious Faith Framed as Mental Health Concern

Also related to repressive state: Terms from Consumer Law Used to Rob Faith

And also related to repressive state: New Law Manufacturing “Victims”, Dividing Families

And also related to repressive state: Maverick Minister Lets “3 Foxes in the Henhouse”

More, related to repressive state: Journalist Reveals Ugly Leftwing Conspiracy

And more, related to repressive state: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

And more, related to repressive state: Media Helping Terrorist Reach His Goal

Related to repressive state: Kishida Administration Giving in to Terrorism

Related to repressive state: Bizarre Atlantic Report Condoning Terror

Related to repressive state: Japan Times: Warning of Terror

Related to repressive state: Did constant hate-mongering cause terror?

Also related to repressive state: Dissolution Case: Wild Claims, Illegal Actions

Also related to repressive state: 2nd-Generation Members Protesting Persecution

Also related to repressive state: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And also related to repressive state: Bias: No Right to Respond for Religious Minority

More, related to repressive state: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to repressive state: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to repressive state: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

Even more, related to repressive state: Two European Scholars Warning Japan

And yet more, related to repressive state: Japan Censured at Religious Freedom Event

And even more, related to repressive state: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And still more, related to repressive state: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

More, related to repressive state: Government’s Foul Play Pointed Out