Japan: Dissolution of the Unification Church. The Duval Report. 5. Freedom of Religion or Belief

The Tokyo District Court claimed its decision did not violate international and constitutional principles of religious liberty. It was wrong.

By Patricia Duval

April 25, 2025

Article 5 of 5. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4.

Japan’s Family Federation attorney Norishige Kondo and President Tomihiro Tanaka listen to journalists’ questions at a press conference after the dissolution order. Screenshot.

The Church had no chance of getting out of its scheduled execution. After the forced de-conversion of its members by the thousands, increasingly demanding requirements have been imposed regarding donations, making them nearly impossible to fulfill, like the non-infringement of free will which is so vague a criterion that the courts are left to decide in a discriminatory manner that it always applies when the Unification Church is concerned. 

As a matter of fact, this concept of “free will” has been included in the new law on unjust solicitation of donations enacted on 16 December 2022. No matter what the Church did to comply with the law, the court found a malicious intent in the donation raising from twenty to forty years back, which would allegedly make the recurrence of torts inevitable. 

The Church members have been left with their backs to the wall for execution. It is the very propagation of the doctrine, proselytism, which is in reality targeted, in violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The court found: “The followers of the interested party were engaged in acts of soliciting donations, etc. as part of the process of preaching the doctrines of the interested party, with the aim of acquiring those followers and having them make donations, etc. for the interested party. The content of such solicitation of donations by the followers of the interested party was closely related to the doctrine of the interested party, and the solicitation of donations itself was considered to be the practice of that doctrine.” 

By this statement, the court found that the Church members were faith-motivated and were exercising their right to proselytize the religion and solicit donations to maintain their religious institutions. This is precisely what the right to freedom of manifesting one’s beliefs and practicing one’s religion is all about. The fact that the decision is not only a corporate matter is addressed in the decision itself, when the court suggests that future donation solicitation will unavoidably constitute torts and any new “structures” would be liable to similar decisions of dissolution. 

Despite the evidence, the court devotes its final findings to the argument that the dissolution will not hinder the right of followers to practice the religion individually. But freedom of religion entails the right to practice with others and establish religious institutions. 

Unification Church/Family Federation members marching for religious liberty in Fukuoka, August 4, 2024.

In particular, the right to manifest one’s religion in community with others must be read in light of the right to association under international human rights standards (European Court of Human Rights, “Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria,” October 26,  2000, and subsequent constant case law): “Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 of the Convention must be interpreted in the light of Article 11, which safeguards associative life against unjustified State interference. Seen in this perspective, the believers’ right to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention. Indeed, the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable for pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords.”

The European Court explained further: “It directly concerns not only the organization of the community as such but also the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion by all its active members. Were the organizational life of the community not protected by Article 9 of the Convention, all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable.” 

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors the compliance of member States with the Covenant, has similar case law (see United Nations Human Rights Committee, “Malakhovsky and Pikul v. Belarus,” 1207/03, July 26, 2005).

This contradicts directly the finding of the Japanese Supreme Court in its March 3 decision: “Moreover, a dissolution order merely results in the loss of corporate status for the religious corporation and does not prohibit or restrict the religious activities of its followers in any way (see the aforementioned Supreme Court decision of January 30, 1996).”

The Supreme Court of Japan ruled in blatant contravention of international human rights standards, which provide that the right of a denomination to exist as a legal entity “directly concerns not only the organisation of the community as such but also the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion by all its active members.” 

The only limitations permitted to the right to manifest one’s religion pursuant to Article 18.3 of the Covenant are those prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, etc., and also proportionate to the aim pursued under international human rights case law. 

The decision of dissolution in the present case is not prescribed by law, as previously mentioned, does not protect one of the interests listed in the Treaty, and does not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality as shown by the analysis of the findings it relies upon. Therefore, the District Court decision—and the Supreme Court decision that paved its way—violate the right to freedom of religion or belief of all the followers of the Unification Church in Japan. 

The Supreme Court of Japan. Credits.

Japan has a long history of not respecting its international human rights commitments. This decision is a typical illustration. It is part of the stated purpose of the Japanese government to eradicate by all means the Unification Church from its religious landscape. 

The National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales is right now calling for new “victims” to sue for damages, using the new laws to plunder the Church assets. In parallel, the State has launched in January last year a re-education plan for the children of Unification Church members in public schools to set them against their parents’ beliefs and ensure that they would not become themselves followers of the faith.

It is an undertaking of religious cleansing of Japan that we are facing, the dissolution order being just the tip of the iceberg

Source: bitterwinter.org