Investigative journalist exposes how the Kishida administration has made several attempts at implementing new legal interpretations for specific individuals or groups
Tokyo, 30th July 2024 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article
Former Unification Church: The Government’s Reckless Sudden Change in Legal Interpretation for Specific Individuals or Organizations and Asahi’s Complicity
by Tsukasa Masuki (増 記代司)
Prepared by Knut Holdhus
The Government Loses in Document Disclosure Case
Is it acceptable for the government to suddenly change a legal interpretation that has been in place for 40 years? Can such arbitrary actions be allowed? A month ago, there was a ruling in the Osaka District Court. There was a lawsuit seeking to overturn the government’s decision not to disclose related documents regarding the 2020 Cabinet decision to extend the retirement age of Hiromu Kurokawa (黒川弘務), the Chief Prosecutor of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office. The Osaka District Court ruled on 27th June 2024 to overturn the non-disclosure decision.
The retirement age for prosecutors is set at 63 by the Public Prosecutors Office Act, but just before Kurokawa’s retirement, the government revised its legal interpretation and applied the extension provisions of the National Public Service Act to a prosecutor for the first time. In the document disclosure lawsuit regarding this Cabinet decision, the government lost.
The Asahi Shimbun reported this on the front page of its 28th June issue and even published an editorial titled “To Prevent Repeated Recklessness” on 30th June.
The lawsuit was filed by Hiroyuki Kamiwaki (上脇博之), a professor at Kobe Gakuin University, who has fought numerous information disclosure lawsuits against the government and brought to light the issue of slush funds within the Liberal Democratic Party factions. He hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking decision that recognized the government’s arbitrary and unacceptable act of changing legal interpretation for a specific individual.
So, what about the government’s “reckless” act of suddenly changing legal interpretation for a specific religious organization? This concerns the requirements for the dissolution request involving the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church). Until 18th October 2022, the government had stated that the requirements did not include the Civil Code. There was also a Cabinet decision to that effect.
The 1995 Tokyo High Court decision, which ordered the dissolution of Aum Shinrikyo (オウム真理教) following the subway sarin attack, referred to “the Penal Code, etc.,” and this had been the legal interpretation of the requirements. The “etc.” in the Penal Code, etc., is commonly understood to refer to other laws accompanied by criminal penalties (such as the Weapons Manufacturing Act), and the only two cases where dissolution orders were finalized were Aum and Myokakuji Temple (明覚寺), both of which were prosecuted as criminal cases.
However, on 19th October, during a Diet session, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida had changed the legal interpretation overnight, stating that the “etc.” includes the Civil Code. There was no Cabinet decision, and even the meeting where this was discussed is unclear. Despite this, Asahi sealed any doubts and, in its series “Deep Stream: Two Years Since Abe’s Shooting” (published on 9th July), created a so-called “secret meeting” to help justify the change (see my article from 16th July).
Asahi’s Confession in their article
Ironically, the Asahi article “confessed” how arbitrary the change in interpretation was. The following sentence illustrates this: “The government was in a situation where it had no choice but to change its policy. Criticism of the religious organization was growing, and ‘the social atmosphere was completely different from when large donations were previously criticized’ (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology official). The Consumer Affairs Agency’s expert panel also urged an investigation to request a dissolution order for the organization.”
Asahi itself acknowledges that the change in interpretation was the result of pressure from the “social atmosphere” and the “Consumer Affairs Agency’s expert panel.” This is highlighted in this newspaper’s series “Freedom of Religion Under Threat: Part 1 – The Kishida Administration’s Reckless Actions,” which revealed two points: “Swallowing Reports Whole from National Network of Lawyers and the Media” (published on 1st July) and “Abuse of authority by Kono (河野), Minister of Consumer Affairs” (published on 3rd July).
As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, following Prime Minister Kishida’s change in interpretation, found itself frantically gathering “evidence” for dissolution requirements despite having no such evidence. The Asahi article also “testifies” to this: “To get the court to recognize the request, we must gather ‘thick evidence,’ ‘we have started collecting new materials,’ ‘including cases that have not become civil lawsuits… ‘hearings from over 100 people.’ According to government officials, interviews were conducted based on such guidelines.” Clearly, the dissolution request came first.
Officials Suffer from Anxiety Disorders
The Asahi article also describes the feelings of government officials:
“It was a major decision that may be written into textbooks 30 years from now as ‘the point where religious persecution began.’ I had sleepless nights, sweating.”
They are so fearful of being complicit in religious persecution that they have developed anxiety disorders. How sinful Prime Minister Kishida is.
Asahi, if you are outraged by the sudden change in legal interpretation regarding the retirement age of prosecutors, saying “don’t repeat reckless actions,” why do you approve of the sudden change in legal interpretation regarding the dissolution requirements for religious corporations? It’s a double standard to say one is bad and the other is good. That is hypocrisy.
Click here to read more on Religious Persecution