Japan: Lawyers, Deprogramming, and the Unification Church Dissolution Case. 1. Kidnapping Believers
- info775148
- 10. 6.
- Minut čtení: 6
Many civil cases cited in the dissolution decision were initiated by deprogrammed devotees compelled to sue the Church to prevent being confined again.
June 10, 2025
Article 1 of 7.
In February 1987, in Japan, a group of attorneys of radical left-wing political obedience created a network of lawyers with the stated purpose of fighting for the elimination from Japan of the Unification Church (now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, but hereafter designated for ease of understanding as “the Unification Church” or “the Church”).
The association, named the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (hereafter “NNLSS,” or “the Network,” or “the Lawyers’ Network”), was established to combat the Unification Church at a time when the latter was opposing atheistic Communism, as a threat to spirituality in Asia in the post-World War II era.
Those lawyers, who belonged to the Communist and Socialist Parties, alleged that the funds received by the Church through “spiritual sales”—a term coined to accuse the Church faith to be a lure and religious donations a mere profit-making activity—were then used to combat Communism; and more specifically to support the anti-spying law that the Diet was trying to enact to protect Japan from Soviet spies who thrived on its soil at the time.
The Network started to combat the Church actively and, to this end, has been supporting the violent “deprogramming,” coerced de-conversion from alleged “brainwashing,” of the Church members since its inception, so that the members successfully “deprogrammed” could attack the Church in court for damages.
This has been their openly stated strategy, in alliance with a whole church of Protestant pastors.
For over forty years, around 4,300 members of the Unification Church in Japan have been subjected to forced de-conversion through abduction and confinement by families under the guidance of “professional deprogrammers,” nearly all pastors, and imposed indoctrination by them against the Church beliefs, namely harsh criticism for their non-conformity to the Bible, without the authorities lifting a finger.
The Lawyers’ Network has been using and encouraging these faith-breaking practices for decades by referring parents opposed to their adult children’s faith to deprogrammers and then demanding from the members who finally accepted to recant their faith that they file civil suits against the Church. They had to sue to prove their apostasy and be released from confinement and enforced persuasion.
This systematic filing of civil suits resulted in several tort rulings, in which civil courts found that the donations had been made by infringing the deprogrammed members’ “free will,” as allegedly those members realized, after deprogramming, that they had been manipulated.
Based on the tort rulings they had accumulated, those lawyers pressured the government to file for dissolution of the Church, a claim that the Tokyo District Court granted on March 25 this year.
Facing accusations by the Church concerning their involvement in deprogramming, the lawyers of the Network have justified it by denying being aware of the confinement and abduction of the believers. They have recurrently pretended that they referred parents to pastors for “persuasion” of their kin to leave the Church, without knowing that it would imply physical restraint and coercion.
However, this denial is blatantly contradicted by facts, as will be demonstrated below:
First, by a case of dazzling clarity of Habeas Corpus petition filed by a confined believer and combated by two hundred anti-Unification Church lawyers, including Network’s lawyers, and led by the most prominent NNLSS attorney,
second, another case of Habeas Corpus where one of their lead lawyers visited a believer who was being confined and deprogrammed, and encouraged the parents to continue, telling them it was “not illegal,”
third, by the pact sealed by the Lawyers’ Network with pastors engaged in the “rescue” of believers to achieve the destruction of the Unification Church, and the publication of a “Deprogramming Guide” for parents,
fourth, by the testimonies in court of the leading figures of NNLSS and some deprogramming pastors, and
fifth, by NNLSS’ direct intervention to alert parents of Church believers, who had not complained of anything, and incite them to use the “rescue” intervention of the deprogrammers.
In the first Habeas Corpus case, no less than two hundred lawyers hostile to the Unification Church fought in court against the release of a Church believer who was being confined by his family and submitted to enforced persuasion to leave the Church. They argued that the parents were handling an “emergency crisis.”
The believer, Masashi Yoshimura, 28 years old, was kidnapped in Kyoto on August 27, 1987, by his family members who used handcuffs and rented a small aircraft to take him to another city, in Hokkaido.
Yoshimura was then confined in an apartment where the hired deprogrammer had prepared a room for the de-conversion attempt. Iron bars were installed at the entrance and on the room’s windows.
On 17 September 1987, a Unification Church member filed a habeas corpus petition at the Sapporo District Court to secure Masashi Yoshimura’s release.
On 13 October 1987, a preparatory investigation was held at the District Court. The detainers, Yoshimura’s father and the deprogrammer, were represented by two attorneys, one of whom was Masaki Goro, one of the leading figures of the lawyers’ Network, who is still prominent today in his eighties.
On 26 October 1987, lawyer Goro and his colleague from the Network submitted a written response to the Habeas Corpus plea, arguing that the confinement of Masashi Yoshimura did not constitute “unlawful restraint” as defined in Article 1 of the Habeas Corpus Act.
They claimed: “The father’s ‘detaining’ of Masashi is based on the parents’ legitimate authority over the child, justified by ‘reasonableness’ (jōri) under a legal doctrine analogous to necessity (state of emergency).”
“Jōri” can be described as a social norm that reflects what is considered reasonable or just in society. So, these lawyers admitted that Masashi was detained but legitimized it under the parents’ “legitimate authority” over a 28-year-old adult and a “social norm” of reasonableness, the purpose being to remedy an emergency situation, i.e., the conversion of Masashi to the Unification Church.
The written plea by these two lawyers mentioned that 198 additional lawyers were representing the detainers, obviously to put pressure on the court.
The first hearing on the Habeas Corpus petition was held at the Sapporo District Court on October 28, 1987. Masashi Yoshimura informed the presiding judge that he was being detained and submitted a request for provisional release, which the court did not grant. On November 10, 1987, Masashi Yoshimura succeeded in escaping, and on November 12, the Habeas Corpus petition was withdrawn.
This case is typical of the justice and police inaction against deprogramming due to their prejudice, created by those lawyers’ accusations, against the Church.
The Habeas Corpus petition was filed on September 17, 1987. According to the Habeas Corpus Act (Article 12, Paragraph 4), a hearing date should have been set within one week of filing the petition. However, the Sapporo District Court failed to hold a hearing within that period and only opened a preliminary investigative session on October 13. No investigation was conducted at that session. The first actual hearing was not held until October 28. At that time, a request for provisional release was made, but the court did not grant it.

There was no doubt that Yoshimura’s confinement was carried out without any legal authority or procedure. Despite this, the court refused to order his provisional release.
Instead, the court started examining matters beyond the necessary scope of the hearing and engaging in unnecessary procedures to give the detainers more time to “persuade” Yoshimura. During that time, he was being pressured daily to renounce his faith while held captive in the facility. The court-appointed attorney went as far as advising Yoshimura to withdraw his Habeas Corpus petition.
In Habeas Corpus proceedings under Japanese law, it is sufficient to examine whether there has been a “restraint of physical liberty” and whether this restraint is based on legally valid procedures. There is no need to investigate extraneous matters. However, the Sapporo District Court engaged in dilatory proceedings, influenced by the large legal team representing the detaining party.
The detainers’ attorneys, led by the prominent figure of NNLSS, intentionally hired a team of two hundred lawyers to put pressure on the court and ensure Masashi’s continued confinement and deprogramming, to support the perpetrators. Those legal professionals who were supposed to uphold human rights were opposing the release of one unfortunate believer from illegal confinement.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Comments