Japan: Family Federation, How an Assassin’s Dream Came True
- info775148
- před 6 dny
- Minut čtení: 5
Twisting and misinterpreting the law, the Tokyo District Court realized the purpose of Shinzo Abe’s assassin to destroy the Unification Church.
March 31, 2025
On March 25, 2025, the Tokyo District Court issued a decision to dissolve the former Unification Church (now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification), granting the government’s request for a dissolution order. The assassin, Tetsuya Yamagami, offered as motivation for killing the former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that he was “close to the Family Federation,” which he held a grudge against. His stated aim was to damage and if possible destroy the Family Federation. The decision to dissolve the Family Federation will make the assassin’s dream come true.
First, as expected, the verdict of the Tokyo District Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court dated March 3, 2025 when determining whether the grounds for dissolution “in violation of laws and regulations” include civil torts, and answered the question positively.
The Tokyo District Court ruled on whether the Family Federation committed an act “which is clearly found to substantially harm public welfare.” However, it is deplorable that the Court did not mention any of the following three points that the Family Federation had strongly argued for:
Many who cooperated with the government (the plaintiff in the dissolution suit) are victims of deprogramming.
The government allegedly “fabricated” some affidavits of cooperative apostates.
The vague terms of “violation of laws and regulations” and “public welfare” violate international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, this ruling contains the following three points that threaten religious freedom.
First, amicable settlements were included among “torts.”
The Tokyo District Court significantly broadened the concept of “tort” in determining whether the Family Federation’s refund of donations to apostates is contrary to public welfare. In addition to 32 civil suits ( where the first donations were made 32 years ago on average) in which the Family Federation was held liable, in-court and out-of-court amicable settlements were also considered in determining the existence, content, and scale of torts.
In such settlements, money is refunded just as neutral “settlement money,” and such refund is not recognized as compensation for tortious acts. Despite this, the Family Federation’s refunds of donations through amicable settlements were collectively regarded as “torts.”
Accordingly, such refunds through amicable settlements was held to have caused “massive damage” and to be the grounds for the “current problematic situation that cannot be overlooked.”
This is a horrible warning to other religions. The lesson is: “If you are sued, never settle or compromise. Never fail to win the case! Otherwise, the court will find your amicable settlements to be ‘torts’ in the future.”
Second, wrong assumption were made on the effects of the Compliance Declaration.
The most important issue in the question whether the Family Federation should be dissolved is the effectiveness of the 2009 Family Federation Compliance Declaration. After the Declaration, the Family Federation has significantly improved its organization.
In fact, only four civils suits were filed against the church in relation to donations made after the 2009 Compliance Declaration. Large-amount donations have always been controversial, but not a single donation made in the last twelve years has been found illegal in court. Of the 32 civil cases based on which the dissolution order suit was filed, only one case was filed after the 2009 Compliance Declaration, with a compensation granted of 4,760,500 yen (USD 31,500).
It is easy to understand that the Family Federation’s actions after the 2009 Compliance Declaration could not have warranted a dissolution. A distortion of the truth was presented by the anti-cult group National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (NNLASS), which has been eager for decades to dissolve the church.
In 1994 and 1998, the Diet discussed the appropriateness of the dissolution of the Family Federation in response to NNLASS’s request, but the government decided that it was not appropriate to apply for a dissolution order.
After the Compliance Declaration, in 2012, NNLASS sued for damages the government, which had refused to file a dissolution order suit against the Family Federation. The Tokyo District Court rejected NNLASS’s request. Taking into account the improvements made after the 2009 Compliance Declaration, there was no risk of the Family Federation being dissolved before the Abe assassination.
However, the Tokyo District Court did not acknowledge the Family Federation’s assertion that it had made significant improvement after the 2009 Compliance Declaration.
The court held that, on the premise that the problem of donation issues is “very deep-rooted,” the Family Federation has failed to take “fundamental (essential and effective) measures.”
Aside from whether the ruling above is right or wrong, the logic of the court is unacceptable. The Tokyo District Court insisted that:
It is “reasonable” to assume that problematic situation” remains because no fundamental measures have been taken; and
The problematic situation still remains “to an extent that cannot be overlooked.”
First of all, the speculation in Item 1 above that “due to the lack of fundamental measures, it is reasonable to assume that there are still problems” appears unsubstantiated. The court did not prove with persuasive evidence that a problematic situation remains today.
Second, the court dramatically jumped in logic with regard to the extent to which the problematic situation remains in Item 2 above. The court concluded that the problematic situation still remains to an extent that cannot be overlooked, on the ground that a potential damage “is expected to be claimed to a considerable extent,” on top of the explicit 179 post-2009 claims made against the church (out of which only one case ended in a judgment).
Based on the loose hypothesis that not only claims actually made but also potential damages that have not yet become apparent may exist to a considerable extent, it was held that “it is reasonable to construe that the problematic situation of the Family Federation remains even now to an extent that cannot be overlooked.”
This “double” rough speculation that the problematic situation of the Family Federation “would” survive because a significant amount of hidden damage “would” surface appears as shrewd, bureaucratic rhetoric. It is not logical at all.
It was the court’s job to carefully reconstruct the facts. Especially in the case of the dissolution order of a religious corporation, it should have done so most carefully “in view of the importance of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution,” as mentioned by the same Tokyo District Court. However, the District Court did not conduct a cautious fact-finding process, and instead relied on an aggressive “hypothetical finding.”
Third, the court did not consider religious freedom issues.
In its conclusion, the Tokyo District Court held that the dissolution of the Family Federation is “unavoidable” because the possibility of damage remains to the extent that it could not be overlooked, and it is difficult to expect a church that had not taken fundamental measures to improve the situation.
In addition, the District Court also neglected the religious freedom of believers, by mentioning the “de facto impact of the loss of juridical personality compared to the reflexive benefit of having juridical personality.”
This notion of “reflexive benefit” is difficult to understand, but in short, it means that the fact that believers enjoy religious freedom as part of the religious corporation is merely a reflexive benefit of its legal personality. Therefore, it is unavoidable that believers’ religious freedom is violated by dissolution.
Using the bureaucratic term “reflexive benefit” the court reduces a dramatic loss of religious freedom of believers to a collateral damage of the dissolution. The court, as fortress of human rights, should have made more considerate comments.
With these devious bureaucratic wording, the purpose of the assassin Yamagami is being achieved—unless the decision will be reformed on appeal.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Comments