#0328新宿平和フェス 「民衆の歌」を歌っています。

#japan

The State Is Seizing Believers' Donations. Does That Not Violate Property Rights? Constitutional law expert Seishiro Sugihara argues that Japan's dissolution proceedings against the Family Federation violate the Constitution on multiple grounds. ① Violation of Property Rights titution) - Damage reports are unilateral claims by self-identified victims — not legally established as unlawful acts - Compensating victims from a religious corporation's assets without legal adjudication violates constitutionally guaranteed property rights Believers did not donate their savings to have them seized by the state. ② Disregard for the Statute of Limitations (Article 724 of the Civil Code) - The "damages" cited by MEXT reach back as far as 43 years - Under civil law, the right to claim damages for unlawful acts expires 20 years after the act - Using time-barred claims as grounds for dissolution is a denial of a foundational principle of the rule of law A rule-of-law state does not dig up 43-year-old claims it cannot legally pursue. ③ The "¥20.4 Billion / 1,560 Victims" Figures Are Statistical Manipulation - The majority consists of court-mediated settlements (419 people, approx. ¥5.7 billion) and out-of-court settlements (971 people, approx. ¥12.5 billion) - None of these cases involved court-recognized findings of unlawful conduct - Since the 2009 compliance declaration, only one case has been legally adjudicated as an unlawful act - Zero adjudicated cases since 2015 — no continuity of violations Settlements are not convictions. The courts know the difference. ④ The Special Measures Law Is Itself Unconstitutional - A sunset law effective for three years from enforcement — in practice, a law targeting only the Family Federation - Under the rule of law: - Special legislation that confers benefits on a specific target → permissible - Special legislation that imposes disadvantages on a specific target → not permissible - Legislation that singles out one religious corporation is incompatible with the principles of a law-governed state A law written to punish one group is not law. It is targeting. ⑤ The Guidelines Violate Freedom of Religion (Article 20 of the Constitution) - The guidelines treat large donors as "potential victims," allowing liquidators to arbitrarily designate individuals as victims - Retroactively labeling faith-based donations as "harm" strikes at the very essence of freedom of religion - Demanding that not a single victim be left behind — exclusively in the case of the Family Federation — also violates equality under the law (Article 14 of the Constitution) The state has no authority to decide what a faithful donation is worth. Conclusion > Dissolution proceedings that ignore statutes of limitations, rely on legally unverified claims, and are carried out under special legislation targeting a single religious corporation cannot be justified under any principle of the Constitution — whether property rights, freedom of religion, equality under the law, or the rule of law itself. Seishiro Sugihara, Former Musashino Women's University professor Source: familyfedihq.org/expert-is-diss…