A hostile network of leftwing lawyers calls for legal reforms where religious donors can be treated as “quasi-incompetent persons” in need of guardians appointed by the court
Tokyo, 12th October 2024 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.
“Quasi-Incompetent Person” Status for Religious Donors?
Statement by the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (NNLASS) Calls for Legal Reforms to the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Solicitations of Donations
by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo
Prepared by Knut Holdhus
The National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales (NNLASS) is calling for the introduction of a system similar to the former “quasi-incompetent person” system as part of a review of the “Act on the Prevention of Unfair Solicitations of Donations”, scheduled to be reconsidered approximately two years after its enactment.
This law was created in response to criticism of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church) following reports that Tetsuya Yamagami (山上徹也), the suspect in the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (安倍晋三), cited large donations made by his mother to the group as a motive for his crime. However, treating individuals who donate to religious organizations as “quasi-incompetent persons” raises concerns about the potential impact on all religions, not just the Family Federation, and on freedom of religion.
On 21st September, the National Lawyers Network Against Spiritual Sales (Zenkoku Benren) issued a statement titled “Calling for Legal Reforms to Provide Relief for Victims of the Former Unification Church”. In the section on the review of the “Act on the Prevention of Unfair Solicitations of Donations”, the statement pointed out that supplementary provisions of the law, enacted on 10th December 2022, stipulate that “a review shall be conducted approximately two years after implementation, and necessary measures shall be taken based on the results.”
The group is demanding that during this review, a system be established – akin to the former quasi-incompetent person system – whereby family members of “believers who are forced to make donations without limits” can, under the supervision of a family court, cancel such donations and manage the believer’s assets on their behalf.
The quasi-incompetent person system, along with the incompetent person system, was in place from pre-war times until the end of 1999, before being replaced by the current adult guardianship system. “Incompetent persons” refers to individuals in a state of “mental incapacity”, where an individual cannot make decisions for him- or herself and is prohibited from managing or disposing of their property.
“Quasi-incompetent persons”, on the other hand, applies to cases where, although not mentally incapacitated, an individual has impaired judgment due to mental disorders such as schizophrenia, alcohol or drug addiction. When declared quasi-incompetent by a family court, these individuals required a guardian (often a family member) to approve significant transactions. Actions taken without such approval could be invalidated. Additionally, penalties for criminal acts could be reduced.
Applying such a framework to religious donations risks equating the religious acts of believers with mental illness, which could foster discrimination.
The NNLASS also called for the following reforms in its statement:
- Revising the criteria and standards for administrative actions under the law.
- Revising the definition of prohibited acts.
- Extending the law’s applicability to religious groups outside of legally registered religious corporations.
These demands are based on data released by the Consumer Affairs Agency regarding the number of cases processed under the law. According to the NNLASS, since the law’s implementation, none of the reported cases of unfair donation solicitations resulted in recommendations or orders being issued, as none met the legal criteria for such actions. They argue that the lack of applicable cases is a problem. However, the absence of such cases may suggest that most reports submitted are irrelevant or unrelated to the law.
Regarding information submitted to the Consumer Affairs Agency concerning the law, Commissioner Yutaka Arai (新井ゆたか) of the Consumer Affairs Agency stated at a press conference on 2nd November last year (as noted on the agency’s website) that most reports were unrelated to donations. Instead, they involved interpersonal disputes, financial troubles, or opinions on government administration. Additionally, most of the information under investigation came from anonymous individuals or those who did not provide contact details. The commissioner emphasized, “Even on the information submission form, we ask people to always include their contact information.”
The law specifies the following as prohibited acts:
- Refusal to leave: Persistently requesting donations at a visited location without leaving.
- Obstruction of departure: Requesting donations from visitors and preventing them from leaving.
- Accompanying someone to locations that are difficult to leave, without disclosing donation solicitation intentions.
- Disrupting communication: Using intimidating language or behavior to obstruct consultation contact.
- Exploitation of romantic or emotional feelings: Informing individuals of relationship breakdowns to exert pressure.
- Use of spiritual insights: Employing claims of spiritual knowledge to solicit donations.
The law also establishes obligations to protect donors, requiring organizations to:
- Ensure that donors are not placed in situations where their free will is suppressed or they cannot make appropriate decisions.
- Prevent donors, their spouses, or relatives from being put in financial hardship.
- Disclose the identity of the soliciting organization and ensure there is no risk of donors misunderstanding how their contributions will be used.
Violations of these provisions may result in recommendations or orders for necessary measures. Additionally, fines for false reports and imprisonment for violations of orders are stipulated.
To facilitate the implementation of this law, the Consumer Affairs Agency set up a “Donation Solicitation Countermeasures Office” to accept reports. In the last fiscal year, 1,701 consultations were received. Of these, 124 were considered subject to investigation, with 85 processed and 39 still under investigation. However, there were no cases where warnings or orders were issued.
When inquiring with the headquarters of the Family Federation whether there have been any “warnings or orders” this fiscal year, the response was that there had been “none”.
Avoiding the term “mind control” – a need for vigilance over euphemistic phrasing
Prior to the incident [Editor’s note: assassination on 8th July 2022] involving former Prime Minister Abe, the number of consumer consultations related to the “former Unification Church” received by the Consumer Affairs Agency was remarkably low and showed a declining trend. Out of all consumer consultations, there were:
- In 2021, 27 cases out of 846,922;
- In 2020, 33 cases out of 942,536;
- In 2019, 57 cases out of 939,645;
- In 2018, 61 cases out of 996,807;
- In 2017, 57 cases out of 941,560;
- In 2016, 77 cases out of 890,734;
- In 2015, 88 cases out of 929,994.
While consultations increased in 2022, partly due to heightened awareness following the enactment of the law, no cases were found to violate the law.
International lawyer Tatsuki Nakayama (中山達樹) questioned the necessity of the legislation on his blog, stating, “It’s like ‘a mountain of labour brought forth not even a single mouse.’ If a law was created but never used, then it’s only natural to question whether it was truly needed.”
Indeed, the extraordinary Diet session in the autumn of 2022 was dominated by the issue of the former Unification Church, culminating in the enactment of this law at the session’s end. However, there was significant conflict between the governing and the opposition parties – such as the Japanese Communist Party and the Constitutional Democratic Party – over the inclusion of the term “mind control” in the law. The concept of mind control is considered pseudoscience and is not recognized by the American Psychological Association (APA). Other religious organizations besides the Family Federation (formerly the Unification Church) strongly opposed the inclusion of the term. As a result, the idea of “mind control” was avoided in the law.
Nevertheless, with the scheduled review of the law two years after its implementation, the call by the National Lawyers Network Against Spiritual Sales (Zenkoku Benren) for the introduction of a system similar to the former “quasi-incompetent person” system is essentially a euphemism [Editor’s note: a mild, indirect, or less harsh term or expression used to replace one that might be considered too blunt, unpleasant, or offensive.] for “mind control”. This warrants caution. Such demands could lead to new human rights violations against individuals who practice their religion.
Additionally, there are concerns about the potential proliferation of lawsuits. These include lawsuits by lawyers, like those affiliated with the NNLASS, targeting religious organizations to cancel or demand refunds of donations, or self-represented lawsuits by former members who donated while part of the religion but later left. This is a problem that will involve not only religious organizations, but also corporations and organizations of any kind that solicit donations.
Click here to read more on Religious Persecution
Featured image above: The Central Joint Government Building No. 4, which houses the Consumer Affairs Agency, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo. Photo: David Chang.