Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 62
In this case, a female Unification Church member was confined for deprogramming in 1997
and 1998. She once promised apostasy, but later returned to the church. She then
participated in a mass wedding and migrated to the United States to live with her American
husband. After a time, she filed this lawsuit.
The points of this case are (1) whether the confinement for deprogramming was a legal
action under the right of parental custody (the plaintiff was 31 years of age at that time)
(2) whether the pastor was in a conspiracy to conduct deprogramming with the parents and
humiliated the plaintiff‘s dignity in that intervention and (3) whether the religious dogma
and the activities of the Unification Church are harmful to adults who want to continue to
participate in them. These points are in some degree different from the cases mentioned
above, because the attorney in this case did not adopt the argument of self-help, which had
been suggested by a legal scholar who supports ―victims‖ damaged by the Unification
Church.
The judge did not admit the claim of the plaintiff who criticized her parents' action as
violation of her personal religious right. According to the decision, the deprogramming
process between the parents and their daughter with the help of the pastor could be
considered not as confinement and persuasion, but rather as a family talk. The ruling
considered it sufficient that the parents were deeply concerned about their daughter's life
and future as a Unification Church member because they knew the Unification Church was a
controversial religion. Other considerations in the ruling included the fact that, given the
parents' bitter experience in failing in their efforts to communicate with their daughter and
their ages, they could not be expected to go to the United States to attempt
deprogramming again. Additionally, the daughter was not in a serious situation that violated
her religious beliefs hence, her claim to secure her religious personal right against her
parents was groundless. Also, it could not be proven that the pastor had a conspiracy with
the parents and had conducted any violation against the daughter.
This ruling was a victory for the accused, and the first one for the accused and for
deprogramming. The court did not deal directly with the issues of personal rights and
religious freedom that the plaintiff wanted to discuss rather, it considered the situation in
which the accused conducted this deprogramming and regarded it as a family problem. Of
course, we cannot conclude that the court admitted deprogramming as a legal action. If we
limit the focus to the deprogramming component, the judge did not admit any violation in
its use on a case-by-case basis.
On December 26th, 2002 the Tokyo High Court sustained the verdict of the Tokyo District
Court, ruling (Compensation Claim number1987 2002) to dismiss the claim. The appealing
to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff was also dismissed in 2003.
Response to the Unification Church Criticism of Deprogramming in Japan
Antal (2003), a member of the Unification Church and a husband of the plaintiff of the
Tokyo District Court Case mentioned previously, harshly criticized Japan in the Journal of
Unification Studies, saying ―State officials have indeed been supporting forcible
‗deprogramming,‘‖ and hence ―Japan is violating international human rights norms.‖ Antal
illustrated the state‘s ―hands-off‖ attitude toward ―religious deprogramming‖: (1) the police
refused to save Unification Church members who had run away from ‗confinement‘
apartments (2) the prosecutor‘s office rejected thirteen appeals by Unification Church
members, and have just investigated and suspended two since 1988 (3) the civil liberties
bureau under the Ministry of Justice did not intend to intervene in appealed issues regarded
as ―family affairs,‖ and (4) the civil law courts dismissed three damage suits filed by
Unification Church members. The only exception was the Hiroshima High Court Case
mentioned however, Antal resented the small amount of compensation money,
approximately $1,000 for illegal confinement of the plaintiff for fifteen months, compared to

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 63
the Jehovah‘s Witness case, $3,000 for seventeen days. He cited the Jason Scott case in the
United States, which ordered a professional ―deprogrammer‖ and his alleged conspirator,
Cult Awareness Network, to pay $4,875,000 in punitive damages for just ten days.
Antal questioned why only Unification Church members, ―integrationist multi-racial‖ project
participants in mass ―Marriage Blessing,‖ were segregated in Japan. He found the answer in
―a general state hostility towards a number of new religions, among them the Unification
Church,‖ and denounced Japan's attempting ―to characterize religious groups as subversive
pseudo-religions (hence) that Japan must come under scrutiny by the international
community.‖ Actually, as he stated, the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
for 2003 referred to it as a case of ―Restriction of Religious Freedom.‖
(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23831.htm)
His question is very suggestive. We must scrutinize why the state officials, judges, and
general public in Japan were critical of the Unification Church. Antal is wrong when he
assumes that the Japanese have an ungrounded prejudice against the Unification Church.
He intentionally did not mention even once how the Unification Church conducted
controversial activities in Japan for 40 years. According to the rulings in the Unification
Church cases, this religion has been recruiting members and raising funds in illegal ways. As
for the fraudulent sales of spiritual goods by their members, the Unification Church has
inflicted approximately $700 million in damage among ordinary Japanese citizens. Therefore
parents and deprogrammers opposed the church for involving their children in illegal
activities. These fraudulent activities are quite unique in exploiting Japanese religiosity and
family structure, so we would be misled if we compared Japanese cases with those limited
to religious activities in Europe, the United States, and Korea.
In addition, contrary to Antal‘s understanding of state agencies, Japanese police and judges
had not been cooperative with anti-Unification Church movements to intervene in religious
matters until the end of the 1990s when ex-members and attorneys produced sufficient
evidence to win verdicts against the Unification Church. The Unification Church has been
viewed with suspicion because of their illegal activities in the past.
Historically, Japanese religiosity has been a mixture of several historic religions and
indigenous ancestor worship. The Japanese are tolerant of new religions, whether they ,
originated in Japan, in the East, or the West. Nevertheless, the Japanese cannot ignore the
problems attributed to the Unification Church.
Thus, it is reasonable to claim that some Japanese parents had no other choice than to
conduct ―controversial‖ deprogrammings to rescue their children, even if they knew that
their children were over 20 years of age and legally regarded as having the capability of
decision-making and free-will.
Conclusion
In the 1990s, religious problems, such as deceitful recruitment and fund-raising by the
Unification Church and criminal activities by Aum and other ―cults,‖ provoked a cult
controversy and a cautious attitude towards religion among ordinary Japanese citizen. An
Anti-cult movement, composed of ex-members of such groups, and families concerned with
enlisting the help of professionals such as pastors, attorneys, and psychiatrists, severely
criticized particular controversial religions for violating human rights. Courts judged certain
activities of the so-called ―cults‖ as illegal, separating their social actions from their
arguments of sacred rights of religious freedom. In addition, the Sapporo District Court
ruling added that in their missionary activities, religions should explain their teachings as
religious dogma that is different from scientific truth and historical evidence so as to protect
individuals‘ decision-making capabilities in choosing their religions. Some religious persons
and scholars probably regard this ruling as exceeding religious authority, which sets