Former EU-Envoy Jan Figeľ slams Japan’s faith ban at UN Human Rights Council side event in Geneva discussing the country’s religious cleansing and elimination of an entire faith
A video message by Jan Figel, former EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion, and current president of Forum for Religious Freedom Europe (FOREF), delivered at a civil society side event 26th September organized by the NGO the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) in conjunction with the 60th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC60) in Geneva, and more specifically connected to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process or the human rights review of Japan from 8thSeptember to 8th October 2025. The side event had as theme “Religious Cleansing in Japan: Eradication of an Entire Faith Community”.
Prepared by Knut Holdhus
Distinguished participants, greetings to all of you in Geneva.
In March 2025, the Tokyo District Court, under the Civil Code, ordered the dissolution of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, formerly known as Unification Church.
ICCPRSince this unprecedented decision, I am deeply concerned. The order lacks a constitutional legal basis and clearly violates Japan’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Such a measure endangers not only one minority faith, but also others, because injustice against one community always threatens others.
The ruling will have its implications for religious freedom in Japan. The decision is based on questionable evidence and accusations. It lacks substantive foundation and appears to have been driven more by political motives than by law.
What in particular troubles me about this ruling? The court’s decision is arbitrary, unconstitutional and unlawful. It violates basic principles of due process.
For example, the hearings have been conducted behind closed doors. Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act allows dissolution only when an organization commits illegal acts that seriously harm public welfare.
Yet the Tokyo District Court expanded this to include 32 civil cases spanning 40 years involving former members.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) even changed its interpretation of the law in order to request dissolution – something unprecedented.
Furthermore, missionary activity and donations were judged to violate social norms and social fairness.
But these concepts are far too vague, opening the door to arbitrary use of state and judicial power. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already recommended that Japan refrain from restricting religious freedom on the basis of public welfare. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not allow such restrictions.
On the contrary, states are obliged to protect minority religions against hostility from dominant groups. Instead, Japan tolerated forced deprogramming by Protestant pastors.
Many plaintiffs in this case were themselves subjected to coercion and confinement. Even worse, the Tokyo District Court adopted the unscientific mind control theory, assuming victimhood without evidence.
This is proof of bias and arbitrariness. Legitimate courts must not be swayed by political pressure or media campaigns.
The future of Japanese democracy depends on transparency, accountability, respect for human dignity, and the protection of fair justice for all.
Politically, I must say that the movement against the Family Federation has roots in the Japanese Communist Party‘s activities decades ago. Marxist atheism lies at the root of this long-standing hostility. Such ideology often inspires radical attempts to exclude faith in God and suppress religion because religion liberates people from the worship of secular values and authoritarian state power.
I know this from my experience. I lived half of my life under Communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia. My young uncle Jan was killed by the secret police. The regime sought to crush both historic and and new religions through many forms of coercion. But it ultimately failed and then peacefully collapsed in 1989.
In Slovakia, the main force behind the peaceful resistance and the fight for freedom was the Christian community, especially the Catholic Church in dissent.
If the District Court decision is confirmed, it will damage Japan’s image and credibility as a democracy and may endanger other minority religions, including smaller and newer groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Japan should learn from the harm caused worldwide by state-imposed ideologies and religious oppression, which have often led to deep internal divisions.
The state exists to serve all citizens, not just the majority or a favored group.
Ladies and gentlemen, religious freedom is a litmus test for all human rights. Why?
Freedom of religion is inseparable from freedom of thought and conscience. It belongs to everyone – believers, non-believers and atheists alike.
This inner freedom is guaranteed by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
If this inner freedom is not respected, the outer freedoms, freedom of speech, press, assembly, association will also be endangered. It begins inside each person and is expressed outwardly through acts of faith, family and community.
Internal freedom is absolute and must be fully respected by state and institutions.
External expression can be regulated only if restrictions are legal, necessary and proportionate.
I opposed the dissolution of the Family Federation from the beginning. I wrote personally to Japan’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, but so far received no reply.
However, opposition abroad is growing. Japan has long been respected as a moderate democracy, but its reputation is now at risk. I hear concerns, shock and even protests from governments and civil society worldwide.
How a country treats minorities, not its majority, is the true measure of its democratic credibility.
Through the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief at the Human Rights Council, Nazila Ghanea, the UN should be able to lead dialogue with Japan.
The UN Special Rapporteur [See editor’s note below] on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Nazila Ghanea, requested to visit Japan to investigate possible violations of minority rights. Unfortunately, the Japanese government has not allowed her a visit. Japan should engage in dialogue with her and with the United Nations.
The Family Federation appealed against the District Court verdict and the case is now before the Tokyo High Court. There is still hope for a fair and positive judicial resolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, even democratic countries are not fully immune against ideologies or abuse of power. Therefore, people, society must remain vigilant on protection of human dignity for all and human rights for all.
Thank you for your attention and support.
Featured image above: Jan Figel delivering his video address in Geneva 26th September 2025. Screenshot from video by UPF.
[Editor’s note: A Special Rapporteur (or Independent Expert) is an independent human rights expert appointed by the United Nations (UN) to provide reports or advice on human rights issues from either a thematic or country-specific perspective. These experts are selected by the UN Human Rights Council and operate independently of any government, playing a crucial role in monitoring the actions of sovereign nations and democratically elected governments.
Special Rapporteurs do not receive financial compensation from the United Nations for their work. However, they receive support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and are often funded by charities and corporations. Annually, they convene in Geneva to discuss common issues, coordinate their efforts, and engage with various stakeholders, including states and civil society organizations.
These experts frequently conduct fact-finding missions to investigate human rights violation allegations in different countries. In addition to these missions, they regularly review complaints from alleged victims of human rights abuses. If a complaint is verified, they send an urgent letter or appeal to the concerned government. Even without a specific complaint, Special Rapporteurs can intervene on behalf of individuals or groups at their discretion.]