Reflection on the war of aggression

On October 7th, oral arguments were held at the Yamaguchi District Court in a lawsuit claiming damages for the Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine. Attorney Tagawa, representing the plaintiff, submitted a document stating that he plans to submit a written opinion from Professor Ina Masaki, a former professor at International Christian University (September 13th). In response, the defendant's attorney submitted a written reply stating that "Professor Ina is not an expert on the issue of separation of church and state, so his testimony is not necessary." (October 1st) In response, the plaintiff's attorney replied that the written opinion had not yet been submitted, so they would request his testimony once it was released (October 4th).

What we are asking Professor Ina to prove is that "the Yamaguchi Prefecture Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine violates the separation of religion and state. It cannot be considered a social ritual even when viewed from the standard of purpose and effect. Even if it is a social ritual, it violates the separation of religion and state, given the intent and purpose of the principle of separation of religion and state." In this court case, the plaintiff's attorney stated that Professor Ina's written opinion would be submitted at the end of October. The defendant's attorney did not raise any objections. The court also agreed.

Governor Muraoka went to Gokoku Shrine in a government vehicle on official business and offered tamagushi. This is clearly a religious activity. It is illegal for the public to become involved with a particular religion beyond the limits that are appropriate. Repeated visits to the shrine make it the norm. Asking "Huh?" is important. We would like to hear Dr. Ina's testimony. We would like the judge to listen as well. The trial is reaching a climax. The next hearing will be on December 18th at 11:30. Let's do our best together.

(Haruhiko Toriie, Organizer of the Association for Minority Human Rights)

The seventh oral argument was held at the Yamaguchi District Court on August 23, 2024. The defendant, the prefecture, presented the sixth preparatory document. In the sixth preparatory document, the plaintiff's preparatory document states that "The Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (a foundation) is an organization whose purpose is activities such as 'visiting Yasukuni Shrine' and 'honoring the spirits of the war dead', is an organization based on a specific religious ideology, and is an affiliated organization of Yasukuni Shrine and Gokoku Shrine." The Supreme Court does not provide a unified or centralized definition of religion under the Constitution, and judges the presence and degree of religious nature of events, etc., for each individual case, such as a groundbreaking ceremony. The plaintiff considers the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (a foundation) to be a "group based on a specific religious ideology" based on the purpose of its activities in the articles of incorporation. However, according to the Supreme Court's method of judgment, religious nature is judged within the context of the state and its agencies, and no specific involvement or individual facts have been asserted, which is inappropriate. ② In addition, the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (foundation) is not directly related to Yasukuni Shrine or Gokoku Shrine, so it is not an "associated organization." ... and other arguments related to the case.

The plaintiff stated the outlook for the submission of expert witness opinions and related preparatory documents. The constitutional law scholar originally scheduled to appear was unable to do so due to various circumstances, and it was decided to ask former International Christian University constitutional law professor Masaki Ina to take the role. However, due to his work commitments, he stated that the opinion is expected to be submitted at the end of October. In response, Nakayama Osami, the attorney representing the prefecture, requested that the trial be expedited, citing the time it would take to submit the expert opinion. Tagawa will provide an overview of Ina's research findings in the near future, and the prefecture's attorney will provide an "opinion on issuing an expert opinion." The next hearing is set for Monday, October 7th at 11:00 AM.

A briefing was held at the Bar Association building. Attorney Tagawa explained, "The plaintiff's preparatory brief does not criticize the framework of the Supreme Court precedent. Whether based on the Supreme Court precedent or on the purpose and effect standard, the argument is that the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine is unconstitutional. Nakayama says, 'We have no choice but to overturn the Supreme Court precedent,' but that is not the case."

Plaintiff Obata said, "Ms. Ina is a Christian like me, and she fears that she will be seen as opposing the governor's visit to the Gokoku Shrine because she is a Christian. We are not fighting because we have different religions. Everyone's freedom of religion must be guaranteed (Article 20 of the Constitution). Freedom of religion is being violated, but many people are oblivious. This trial marks a new step toward establishing freedom of belief. It will also affect visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the prime minister, cabinet members, and members of the Self-Defense Forces."

A comment was made from the audience, "Defense Minister Kihara Minoru visited Yasukuni Shrine on August 15th. Kihara does not see a problem with the SDF members' visit to Yasukuni Shrine in January, and says that 'the 1974 administrative vice-minister's notice should also be reviewed.' We must stop the movement to promote war." The administrative vice-minister's notice warning against the separation of religion and state in the SDF was issued in response to the lawsuit filed by Nakatani Yasuko (1973) against the enshrinement of SDF personnel at Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine.

There was also a call for a study session to be held the following day on "Reading the First Instance Trial Records of the Lawsuit Against the Enshrinement of Self-Defense Force Members."

The testimony of the surviving family members whose relatives are enshrined at Yamaguchi Prefectural Gokoku Shrine will also be important evidence, so we are continuing to search for them. We ask for your attention and support for this lawsuit.

(Plaintiff/caretaker: Rikiya Miwa)

Report on the unconstitutionality of Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine (8)

Shigeki Asada

In the morning of July 8, 2024, the sixth oral argument of the above-mentioned trial was held at the Yamaguchi District Court.

Prior to that, on June 21st, the defendant, Yamaguchi Prefecture, submitted the fifth preparatory document and Exhibits 19 to 21, and on June 25th, the plaintiff submitted the second preparatory document.

In the Defendant's fifth preparatory brief, "Regarding the procedure for disbursing fuel costs for the official car used by the Governor" - an explanation in response to a request for clarification of the details of the procedure and the amount at the previous oral argument - it is noteworthy that 13,104 yen was paid as fuel costs to the Yamaguchi Prefecture Oil Cooperative (Exhibit B-21). 1) The use of an official car does not constitute an act of financial accounting. 2) Since the request for a resident audit was rejected, it cannot be said to be a prelude to a resident office lawsuit. They tried to get away with it with such absurd arguments, but since that failed, it seems that they are now trying to say that the financial accounting procedures were properly carried out.

The plaintiff's second preparatory brief argued that "Governor Muraoka's visit to the shrine in question violates the Constitution" at this point in time.

In summary, the court made the constitutional significance of the principle of separation of religion and state very clear, and based on that, argued that "these things must be taken into consideration even when judging according to the purpose and effect standard." It used the same Supreme Court Grand Bench decision of July 13, 1997, which stated, "The act should be judged objectively in accordance with accepted social standards, without being limited to the external aspects of the act, including the place where the act is performed, the religious opinion of ordinary people regarding the act, the intention of the perpetrator in carrying out the act, the purpose, and the presence or absence and degree of religious significance" (Supreme Court Grand Bench decision of July 13, 1997), to arrive at a completely different argument and conclusion.

In other words, Yamaguchi Governor Muraoka Tsugumasa's official visit to Gokoku Shrine is in every sense a "religious activity," and regardless of his subjective intentions, it stands out from the objective facts and the public's sensibilities. He is criticized for visiting a specific Shinto ideological and religious site, offering tamagushi prayers, calling the dead "heroes," and continuing to enforce the idea of glorifying the "holy war" of the Empire of Japan (religious activity). He further claims that this has the effect of supporting, encouraging, and promoting Yasukuni Shrine and Gokoku Shrine.

By the way, at the post-trial briefing (Yamaguchi Prefectural Bar Association Hall), the plaintiffs' attorney reported that after explaining the questions on the second preparatory brief, he was asked by the presiding judge about 1) the status of securing academic witnesses, 2) the testimony of the bereaved family, and 3) further arguments (preparatory briefs), but he only said that he would reveal them at the next trial, and gave vague answers. These three points should be discussed at the plaintiffs' attorneys' conference, cleared up as soon as possible, and the third preparatory brief should corner the prefecture and its attorney. Finally, I would like to report that the defendant's attorney was adamant that the sixth preparatory brief had already been prepared.

(Asada Shigeki/caretaker/plaintiff)

Report on the 5th oral argument in the first instance

The fifth oral argument was held on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, from 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court, the same as the previous hearing.

The defendant, the governor, had already presented his rebuttal in the last hearing, so this time, for the first time, I presented my rebuttal in a preparatory document to the defendant's rebuttal. However, due to time constraints and other circumstances, I was only able to rebut the first part of the case, that is, the defendant's assertion that the requirements for a resident lawsuit were not met.

In essence, the defendant's argument is that it does not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit because it does not constitute a financial accounting act. However, since they presented a case in which a resident lawsuit was tried even for the use of a public vehicle, perhaps it was difficult for the court to reject the case. The fact that the court wanted to reject the case shows that it was fully prepared to reject the case at the third oral argument in the resident lawsuit to prohibit the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which began at 2:00 p.m. on the same day, even though the opening arguments were almost the same, the court was clearly prepared to reject the case. I think the difference is simply whether there is a precedent or not. In other words, it seems that the judge is a bureaucratic person who has no intention of setting a precedent. Unfortunately, this is the current state of the Japanese judiciary.

The next hearing will be held on Monday, July 8th at 11:30. We (the plaintiffs) will be presenting our rebuttal to the defendant’s rebuttal on the merits of the case.

Please attend as an observer.

The 4th oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court No. 31 on Wednesday, February 14, 2024, from 15:00.

As planned, Preparatory Documents 3 and 4 containing the defendant's (governor's) supplementary rebuttal were presented, and the next date was set. Approximately 3 minutes.

The outline of the preliminary document presented is to supplement the two-part argument that a resident lawsuit is impossible and that visiting Gokoku Shrine is nothing more than a social ritual.

Earlier on the same day, in the second resident lawsuit to ban the reclamation of land for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant, which began at 2 p.m., the same defense team argued that a resident lawsuit was not possible, as in the case above. In response, the presiding judge told the plaintiff that the hurdles to achieving the merits of the case were high. This may be a warning that there is a high possibility of rejection, and it may mean that a strong rebuttal is required. I believe that this statement applies to this lawsuit as well.

Next time, my attorney and I will pour our heart and soul into our (plaintiff's) preparatory document.

The deadline for submitting documents is April 15th, and the next 5th oral argument is May 8th.

We appreciate your continued support.

3rd Oral Argument Report

The third oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court on December 18th from 11:00 am. We submitted a petition for amendment of the complaint, and the defendant governor submitted Preparatory Documents No. 1 and 2, as well as Exhibits Nos. 1 to 3.

Preparatory Document 1 is only a new approval or disapproval of the amendments to our complaint, and Preparatory Document 2 is the substantive rebuttal. It will be published on the next page. Although it was quite a large amount, there were still some gaps, so a supplementary document was submitted in January, and we presented it at the next deadline, and our rebuttals were made one after another, with the defendant's rebuttals all in place. .

The next, 4th, date is February 14, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. [Yamaguchi District Court]. Immediately after the session ends, a report meeting will be held at the Yamaguchi Prefectural Bar Association Hall.

The governor's argument is broadly based on three steps: first, he requests dismissal on the grounds that there are no requirements for a citizen lawsuit, then he argues that the bill is constitutional and legal on the merits, and he further urges the court to avoid making a constitutional judgment. However, the objections to the merits of the proposal demonstrate that the applicant is probably considering the rejection as a ``just in case.''

By the way, during this time, the governor announced in parliament his intention to separate the memorial service for the war dead from Gokoku Shrine. Moreover, given that the question that led to that statement was asked by the lawmaker who has been most strongly pushing for the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine, it is expected that the move will actually be made in the near future. It's fine if it's at the stage that we're requesting...

If that happens, this will be the last trial against the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine, and I believe we must be more careful in our approach.

We appreciate your continued support.

2nd Oral Argument Report

The second oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court on October 11th from 2:00 p.m.

However, on this day, we confirmed that we had submitted a "petition for change of complaint" and new evidence dated September 28th in response to the request for clarification in the written answer submitted earlier by the governor, and We have only adjusted our schedule. In addition, the court pointed out that there was a need to partially revise the "petition for change of complaint" that we had submitted.

The future plan is that we will first resubmit the "petition for change of complaint" within two weeks, the defendant, the governor, will submit a preliminary document in November, and the next deadline will be December 18th, 2019. It started from 11:00.

Compared to the defendant and plaintiff seats, the audience seats were still noticeably empty. Please feel free to join us at the next session.

After the trial, several media outlets were present at the debriefing meeting held at the Yamaguchi Bar Association, but the case was not covered (I think).

1st Oral Argument Report

The first oral argument was held at Yamaguchi District Court at 11:00 a.m. on August 7th .

Previously, the governor submitted a written rebuttal, which, as expected, requested that the case be dismissed because it did not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit . In other words, it does not constitute a financial accounting act . Certainly not directly...

In court, there appeared to be six people on the governor's side: three prefectural government employees and three lawyers. Of the eight plaintiffs, we now have a total of five plaintiffs, four of them and one lawyer.

After reviewing the submitted documents, Itaru Akama, the oldest of the plaintiffs, gave his opinion.

The number of reporters and observers was fair, but this was probably due to the fact that just before the court opened, a resident lawsuit to ban land reclamation for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant (second round) was filed with the same court . At the same time, Chugoku Electric Power Co., Ltd., in collusion with Kansai Electric Power Company, had just announced the construction of a spent nuclear fuel intermediate storage facility in Kaminoseki Town .

The reality of this assumption was made clear at the subsequent report meeting held at the Yamaguchi Bar Association . In chronological order, the first 30 minutes of the reporting meeting were devoted to the residents' lawsuit to prohibit land reclamation for the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant, and the second half was devoted to the actual trial, but the reporters' questions were only about the former, and not about the actual trial. It was the case that there was no such thing at all.

Of course, the nuclear power issue is important, but we need to look more closely at the root cause . It is a matter of inner freedom. Not only the employees of electric power companies, but those who are aware of the ``evil'' nature of nuclear power , yet choose to participate in it, are inconvenienced by the forces of this world, such as majority principles and peer pressure . It is also the principle behind the conduct of war.

The journey of minorities seeking human rights for minorities has only just begun.