The “public welfare” principle implies that if a religion displeases the majority, it can be eradicated. It is what is happening to the Unification Church.
March 17, 2025
In the first article of this series, I argued that the reference to “public welfare” in Japanese law as a ground to limit religious liberty and even dissolve religious corporations is inconsistent with Japan’s international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Invoking “public welfare” also implies that if a religion displeases the majority of citizens, then it can be eradicated.
This is precisely the case with the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly known as the Unification Church (hereafter designated for ease of understanding as the “Unification Church” or the “Church” or the “UC”).
Following the shooting of Prime Minister Abe in July 2022 by a man whose apparent motivation was his resentment due to Abe’s sympathy for the Church, scapegoating and hate speech flourished in the media. The criminal investigation was, strangely enough, never brought to a conclusion but the Church was deemed responsible although a virulent opponent of the UC had committed the murder.
Riding the wave of constant media campaigns since then, which have presented the Church as a criminal organization, the Government filed for dissolution of the UC.
In December 2023, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), which oversees religious matters, requested dissolution of the Unification Church, claiming that it had caused serious harm to public welfare because it “disrupted the peaceful life of many people” by not obeying “social norms.”
It relied on 32 adverse civil court decisions in cases filed by apostates after their “deprogramming”—a nationwide practice of families endorsed by the Government of abduction and confinement of Church members until they recant their faith. In each of these cases, the civil courts found torts based on the allegation that the Church violated “social norms.”
“Social norms” is a vague and arbitrary concept that has no place in matters of religious beliefs and practices and violates, alike “public welfare,” the duty of neutrality of Japan in religious matters and its commitment to Article 18 of the Covenant.
The Ministry’s dissolution request is presently pending at the Tokyo District Court, but the Japanese Supreme Court rendered a decision on March 3, 2025, in a case linked, but ancillary, to the dissolution request.
At Japan’s Supreme Court, acceptable grounds for final appeal in civil and administrative cases are violation of the Constitution and serious breach of procedural laws and regulations by lower courts.
In the present case, the Supreme Court had to address two appeals from the Church’s lawyer:
– one for breach of Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act (because the government’s claim of dissolution alleges that findings of tort constitute a violation of laws and regulations), and
– one for violation of the Constitution, in particular of freedom of religion or belief and Article 18 of the Covenant due to the use of public welfare and social norms as a basis for dissolution.
On the first appeal, the Court ruled that findings of tort can be considered as a violation of laws and regulations, which will not be discussed here.
To the second appeal, the Court responded by one simple sentence: “The grounds for the present appeal allege unconstitutionality; however, in substance, they merely assert a violation of statutory law and do not fall under the grounds for a special appeal.”
In answering in this way, the Court did not even bother to answer the argument of unconstitutionality or that of violation of international human rights law.
Apart from the bad omen that it gives about the pending District Court decision on dissolution, this constitutes further evidence of Japan’s willful ignorance of the treaties they are committed to and of its disregard for the international community.
The UN Human Rights Committee was created by the Covenant, which entered into force in 1975, in order to monitor its implementation by State parties. Japan ratified the Covenant and therefore accepted the Committee’s authority for this monitoring in 1979.
Since 1980, the government of Japan has justified to the Committee the public welfare restriction to human rights in its Constitution by merely stating that “the concept of the public welfare, however, is given a strict interpretation and is not abused for unreasonable restriction of human rights” (see Japan’s report prior to the Committee’s review, 14 November 1980, page 2, CCPR/C/10/, Add.1).
And the Human Rights Committee has ever since scolded Japan in its Concluding Observations, after each review of Japan’s implementation of the Covenant, and made the following pressing demand: “The Committee reiterates its concern that the concept of ‘public welfare’ is vague and open-ended and may permit restrictions exceeding those permissible under the Covenant (arts. 2, 18 and 19).” “The Committee recalls its previous concluding observations (see CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, para. 10) and urges the State party to refrain from imposing any restriction on the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or freedom of expression unless they fulfil the strict conditions set out in paragraph 3 of articles 18 and 19” (Concluding Observations of 20 August 2014, CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6, §22; see also the former and last reviews of Japan by the Committee: 8 December 2008, CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, §10, and 30 November 2022, CCPR/C/JPN/CO/7, §37).
It can be concluded that the Japanese authorities have known for forty-five years that they had to review their internal instruments in order to conform with the Covenant but have consistently refused to do so and refused to meet their commitments to the international community.
The Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council—the intergovernmental human rights body of the UN—are independent human rights experts with mandates to report and give advice on human rights, from a thematic or country-specific perspective.
In this capacity, they undertake country visits and act on individual cases of reported violations and concerns of a broader nature by sending communications to the UN member States.
Following a report from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief sent a joint communication to Japan on 30th April 2024, together with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association.
The four Special Rapporteurs expressed their concerns about the “Guidelines on child abuse related to religious faith,” adopted by Japan in December 2022, which entailed serious violations of Article 18 of the Covenant.
Simultaneously, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief sent an official request to Japan on 28 March 2024 to pay a visit there to gather more information on the existing environment for religious minorities in the country.
In order to avoid being at odds with the international community’s human rights policy, Japan did issue a “standing invitation” on 11th March 2011 (in fact, as of 11 March 2025, 128 Member States out of 193 have extended such a standing invitation).
A standing invitation is an open invitation extended by a Government to all the Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs. By extending a standing invitation, states announce that they will always accept requests to visit from all Special Rapporteurs.
However, Japan never replied to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’s request for a visit sent a year ago, and thus the visit cannot be organized, which de facto prevents the visit from happening.
Not surprisingly, another Special Rapporteur is in an even worse situation: the Special Rapporteur on minority issues.
Due to reports on Japan’s ill treatment of minorities, successive Special Rapporteurs on Minority Issues have, over the years, not been able to pay a single visit to Japan since the creation of their mandate in 2005.
In spite of regular reminders of visit requests that they have sent, such as in October 2016, February 2024 and January 2025, Japan has never bothered to reply to their requests.
In reality, the Japanese authorities sit back on their public welfare dictatorship and ignore all the UN Human Rights Committee’s recommendations to the contrary, ignore the requests for visits from the various Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs, but continue playing the good Samaritan at United Nations international meetings.
They even applied to be a member of the International Religion Freedom or Belief Alliance (“IRFBA”) founded in 2020 at the instigation of the U.S. Department of State under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for advancing freedom of religion or belief around the world.
Deceivingly, Japan works on maintaining its image of being a human rights democracy, not on actually becoming one.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Commenti