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
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
