 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| |
13. Feb 2003 Tokyo District
Court Rules Against Priesthood For the Illegal Distribution
of Defamatory Materials |
|
|
|
Court
Orders Nichiren Shoshu to Pay 1 Million Yen in Damages
and the Disposal of Leaflets Completely Thwarting Politically-Motivated
Scheme
On Feb. 26, the Tokyo District Court a reached a verdict
in a lawsuit brought by the Soka Gakkai against Nichiren
Shoshu (Chief Executive, Nikken Abe) and two Nichiren
Shoshu believers, Kazuo Okusa and Shuichi Sanuki. In that
lawsuit, the Soka Gakai had sought restitution for damages
incurred from an incident in which a group, directed by
Nichiren Shoshu high priest Nikken Abe, distributed massive
numbers of a libelous leaflet in the Tokyo metropolitan
area. Judge Toshiaki Iimura recognized as valid the Soka
Gakkai?s claims, ordering the priesthood, Okusa, and Sanuki
collectively to pay 1 million yen in damages (issuing
a provisional order of payment), and Sanuki to discontinue
distribution of the leaflets and dispose of those remaining.
One of the defendants, Okusa, is head of the group Myokanko,
a body of Nichiren Shoshu lay members associated with
the Rikyo-bo lodging temple on the grounds of the head
temple Taiseki-ji, while Sanuki is a member of the same
group. According to the verdict, Sanuki produced leaflets
that were defamatory to the Soka Gakkai, using without
permission photographs printed in the Gakkai?s periodical
Seikyo Graphic, altering them in a malicious manner, and
then distributing them through a group named ?The Society
To Protect Religion and Ideology? around May 2001.
In June of the same year, the Soka Gakkai filed a lawsuit
with the Tokyo District Court seeking restitution for
damages and a court order banning distribution of these
leaflets on grounds that they violated copyright.
In response to the priesthood?s insistence that the use
of these photographs constituted ?fair use? and thus did
not require permission, the verdict pointed out that the
purpose of these leaflets was malicious misrepresentation,
strictly denouncing the defense?s position on the grounds
that ?it is incomprehensible that such usage is within
what is commonly accepted as reasonable bounds, and it
is also incomprehensible that using photographs in this
manner is in accordance with fair practices.? It was clear
acknowledgement that Sanuki?s producing these leaflets
constituted an act of ?violation of copyright? and ?violation
of the personal rights of an author.?
In referring to Okusa?s legal liability, the ruling then
focused on the fact that the time period in which the
leaflets were produced and distributed immediately preceded
the Tokyo Assembly elections held that June and the House
of Councilors elections held that July. In response to
Okusa?s denial that he any knowledge of the [political]
purpose of the timing of the leaflets, or of the details
of their contents, the judge ruled that ?the defendant
Okusa was fully aware of the timing of the events? and
?it is natural to conclude that he was aware of the details
of the printed content of the leaflets.? Thus the court
struck down Okusa?s brazen claim of ignorance. Regarding
Okusa?s providing the Myokanko headquarters as a place
to keep the leaflets, the verdict concludes that this
fact ?establishes that this was a collaborative illegal
effort in which [Okusa] aided and abetted the defendant
Sanuki in committing a violation in violating the personal
rights of the author.?
Moreover, regarding the liability of the priesthood, the
verdict scrupulously examined the close alliance between
Nichiren Shoshu chief executive Nikken and the Myokanko.
For instance, much importance was attached to the fact
that Nikken had praised a Nichiren Shoshu-related publication
produced by Myokanko containing virtually the same false
propaganda as the leaflets in question, that he had aggressively
promoted among his priests mass subscriptions to this
publication, and even contributed his own articles to
it. The court recognized that ?the production and distribution
of these leaflets appear to be intimately related to the
activities of the defendant Nichiren Shoshu, and it would
be appropriate to conclude that these actions were executed
by the defendant, Nichiren Shoshu,? and ?concerning Okusa?s
conduct, which is intimately connected to the activities
of the defendant Nichiren Shoshu, it is apparent that
he obeys the direction and supervision of the defendant
Nichiren Shoshu,? thus ruling that the Nichiren Shoshu
priesthood is also liable as Okusa?s ?.?
Myokanko is notorious for having conspired with Nikken
in the past to malign the Soka Gakkai in various ways,
and has maintained very close ties with Masatomo Yamazaki,
a key player in numerous fraudulent schemes. Yamazaki
currently has more than 10 lawsuits pending against him,
and Sanuki has been observed following him around, almost
behaving as if he was Yamazaki?s personal assistant.
The Myokanko has repeatedly engaged in questionable tactics
as an operative for the priesthood each time there has
been an election, ending in repeated blunders. During
the 2001 House of Councilors elections, they were able
to gain campaign support from former representative Katsuhiko
Shirakawa?s newly formed political party for two Myokanko
members who were running for office. Nikken himself strenuously
supported the candidates, who, only attracting little
more than 10,000 votes, ended in defeat.
In addition, a many priests and Myokanko members in various
regions of Japan have been sued for damages over an incident
in which false propaganda leaflets were persistently distributed
immediately preceding the 2000 general elections.
On Feb. 12, the Tokyo Superior Court held Nikken responsible
for libel, ruling against him and Nichiren Shoshu in their
appeal of a lower court ruling and ordering them to pay
4 million yen in restitution. That trial had been over
their distribution of false information stemming from
litigation over the ?Seattle Incident.?
The present verdict serves to highlight Nikken?s predisposition
for deceit.
Comments by attorney Yoshiyuki
Toyohama
Upon concluding that the photographs taken by Seikyo Shinbun
newspaper were protected by copyright, this verdict clearly
concludes that Sanuki, who misused the photographs in
question to produce defamatory leaflets, is indeed liable
for violating that copyright, and that Okusa, the head
of Myokanko, was involved. This conclusion is based on
the fact that large numbers of Myokanko members distributed
these leaflets and that Myokanko is therefore liable for
this illegal activity. Moreover, the court recognized
that Nichiren Shoshu is also liable in that it was in
a position to direct and supervise Okusa. Based on these
facts, this verdict is just and deserved.
At the trial, Okusa denied any involvement and pleaded
complete ignorance of the fact that a large number of
leaflets were sent to the Myokanko headquarters, and furthermore
claimed not to know what the contents of the leaflets
were. However, the court saw through this and ruled that
Okusa was indeed aware of the contents of the leaflets,
a fact which ?established that this was a collaborative
illegal act in which he [Okusa] aided and abetted the
defendant Sanuki in committing a violation of copyright
as well as violating the personal rights of the author.?
Upon recognizing from the contents of Nikken?s statements
that attacks against the Soka Gakkai are being conducted
as an activity of Nichiren Shoshu, the verdict held Nichiren
Shoshu liable for damages as Okusa?s employer, as Nichiren
Shoshu was in the position of directing and supervising
Okusa, and also held that Okusa?s conduct was ?undertaken
to carry out a work project of Nichiren Shoshu.?
In the past, Sanuki and others have produced and distributed
leaflets defamatory to the Soka Gakkai during times of
national elections, but I think this verdict is especially
appropriate in that the judgment passed was strict in
establishing that the acts had been planned by the Myokanko
and that responsibility extended all the way to Nichiren
Shoshu.
|
|
(From Seikyo Shimbun,
Feb. 27, 2003)
|
|
|
|
|
