New school-based procedures instruct educators to identify and monitor children from Unification Church families, raising concerns about privacy violations.
by Patricia Duval
Article 4 of 4. Read article 1, article 2, and article 3.
Guide for Psychological Counseling on Cult Issues
Encouraged by officials of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)—the ministry that oversees religious issues and requested the dissolution of the Unification Church—the Japanese Society of Clinical Psychologists produced a booklet especially designed for school counselors and clinical psychologists. The Guide is entirely based on anti-cult literature and references to the mind control theory.
They provide the following instructions: “3. Listen Carefully and Elicit Specific Details with Sensitivity. It is necessary to gain a detailed understanding of the child’s living conditions and family environment. In doing so, it is important to encourage the child, as much as possible, to describe specific situations. For example, asking what kind of place they are taken to on Sundays or what their parents say to them can help clarify whether religious factors are at play. Then, when children are identified, counseling should be organized with the school administration.”
This alone constitutes a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief, which encompasses the right not to be compelled to reveal one’s religious affiliation, as clearly stated by the Human Rights Committee: “In accordance with articles 18.2 and 17, no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief” (General Comment No. 22).
ICCPR Article 17 provides that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.” Article 18.2 states that “no one shall be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”
The instructions given to school counselors and workers to collect information about children’s religious affiliation and then impose “counseling” on them regarding this matter constitute a violation of both children’s right to privacy and their freedom of religion or belief.
In the absence of any apparent or reported issues, school staff is encouraged to urge children to provide information about their family’s religious practices and to voice criticisms of their parents: “At the same time, children may feel hesitant to speak about their parents. They may be reluctant to say anything negative or may avoid discussing the topic altogether. Therefore, when asking about situations in which the child has felt distress or hardship, it is important to proceed gently, addressing each situation one by one, without pressure, and allowing the child to speak at their own pace.”
Then, instructions are given that “When it is suspected that a student is experiencing difficulties related to a religious background, the matter should be reported and discussed with school administrators.”
To this end, children must be urged to consent to the disclosure of their religious affiliation to the entire administration: “A key consideration is to obtain the student’s consent before sharing information. If the student expresses reluctance, counselors should carefully explain that information sharing is intended to ensure the student’s safety and well-being and seek understanding through ongoing dialogue until concerns are alleviated. Once consent is obtained, it is important for the school as a whole to respond in a coordinated and systematic manner. Under the guidance of school administrators, relevant staff—including counselors, homeroom teachers, grade leaders, school nurses, and school social workers—should carefully organize and review factual information.”
The Guide then addresses “Inappropriate Responses That Counselors Commonly Fall Into.” The first inappropriate response, according to the Guide, is: “You should talk it over carefully with your parents or family.” The explanation is revealing: “Children are often fully aware that meaningful discussion with their family is difficult. This is not simply because their parents are stubborn or verbally abusive, but because the parents’ views are grounded in religious conviction, making them unlikely to change. Moreover, children repeatedly experience in daily life that opinions differing from their parents’ wishes are not accepted. For this reason, advising them simply to ‘discuss it with your family’ may fail to grasp the reality of their situation.”
The instruction given to the children is clear: do not communicate with your parents about what is being said at school regarding their religious affiliation. In testimony given at the United Nations in Geneva in June 2025, a second-generation mother, Yoshiko Nishi, reported that her son has not spoken to her since he watched certain reports on television and was briefed at school. He came to believe that his parents belonged to a criminal organization. This mother explained that children are told not to speak about the briefings they receive, making it impossible for parents to know what is happening, as their questions remain unanswered.
She stated: “One of the most painful moments of my life was with my fourteen-year-old son. One day, when he went to the dentist’s office, he saw television reports branding our church as ‘criminal.’ He came home shaken. He asked me, ‘Did we do something wrong?’ I said no and tried to explain. But after constant exposure to hatred at school and in the media, he told me, ‘If you don’t abandon this church, I will cut all contact with you. You say you love us, but how can you put your children in such danger?’ His fear was real. Fear of rejection. Fear of losing friends. Fear of being denied opportunities for education or work. My sweet son now lives with paranoia and shame, afraid of his own family. This campaign is not protecting society. It is destroying tens of thousands of lives and families by branding peaceful citizens as criminals.”
Once the children have been pitted against their parents, the school teams consider removal measures, including temporary placement.
The students are proposed some housing, far from their parents’ environment. The Plan provides that they will be offered “a temporary living space away from their parents or other believers, facilitating their path to rebuilding their lives.”
The faith of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification is rooted in family values, and its members often raise large families in an atmosphere of love and respect for those values. The Japanese government’s plan aims to break up these faith-based families and is leading to their collapse. The policy implemented in Japanese public schools results in the stigmatization of thousands of Unification Church’s second-generation believers and contravenes all international human rights standards in this regard.
Conclusion
This situation is extremely concerning for freedom of conscience and belief in Japan.
We respectfully urge the United Nations human rights bodies to remind the Japanese authorities of their obligations to protect freedom of religion or belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression for all people in the country.
Patricia Duval is an attorney and a member of the Paris Bar. She has a Master in Public Law from La Sorbonne University, and specializes in international human rights law. She has defended the rights of minorities of religion or belief in domestic and international fora, and before international institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the United Nations. She has also published numerous scholarly articles on freedom of religion or belief.
