Darkness of child abduction business|Nozomi Makino

Darkness of child abduction business|Nozomi Makino

In Japan today, parental child abductions occur on a daily basis, and false DV claims are fabricated to justify them. A father, whose child was abducted, accuses so-called "human rights groups" of defamation. His case shows their fraudulent business in quite some detail. Their dirty tricks are finally revealed!


Personal attack with fabrication of DV

Let’s return to the case of Sotsuda. Immediately after the Matsudo ruling, which upset the court's conventional practice, relentless and shrewd attacks by the 39 defendants against Sotsuda began. The following are a number of the acts of defamation committed by the defendants filed by Sotsuda.

-Defendants Chisato Kitanaka and Seiko Hijikata, co-representatives of the NPO, “All Japan Women's Shelter Network,” held a DV counselor's workshop hosted by a Cabinet Office. In the workshop, defendant Keiko Kondo, a director (former representative) of the NPO, lectured, and they distributed flyers to participants to imply that Sotsuda committed DV and asked the participants to sign a petition requesting the Tokyo High Court to overturn the Matsudo ruling. This incident was taken up by the House of Representatives Budget Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee. The Cabinet Office Minister for Gender Equality stated that the act by the workshop was "undesirable." Despite the fact that the act by the workshop was denounced by the Diet, defendant Kitanaka was selected as a member of the Study Group on Support for Private Shelters for DV and Other Victims hosted by the Cabinet Office.

-Defendant Keiko Kondo said in an interview with the Sankei Newspaper about the Matsudo ruling that “it is a perpetrator's logic that a DV claim is false. There are no false DV cases that I was involved in. I believe the husband (note: Sotsuda) had committed DV." "It was not that the wife whisked away her child, but in reality, it was an emergency evacuation so that she could protect herself and her child from a DV husband." As a result of this interview, an article was published nationwide giving the impression that Sotsuda was indeed committing DV. The defendant Kondo once expressed her logic in an interview with the Asahi Newspaper that “The fact that a woman escapes to a DV shelter is unassailable evidence that her husband did DV against her.”

-A total of 31 defendants, including Takayo Kamata, Noriko Kiyota, Hideki Saito, Yuichi Sakashita, and Masao Honda, who form the legal team for the wife, held a press conference at the Judicial Press Club after the Tokyo High Court ruling. At the press conference, they distributed "a paper written by the legal team" to the media. The document stated that “because of Sotsuda`s behaviors such as screaming at his wife, throwing tableware, shoving scissors at his wife, etc., his wife fled with her child.'' It was written to legitimize the child abduction of his wife. Because of this press conference, TV news broadcasted saying, "Wife claims her husband committed DV.”

Most of the defendants are called "human rights lawyers." Especially, defendant Kamata, the chief lawyer of the wife's legal team, is a famous "human rights" lawyer and heavyweight in the judicial community, who has served as a president of the Chiba branch of the JFBA and a board member of JFBA. Defendant Saito shows the true colors of the so called “human rights lawyers” in his book. He writes “a message for the child’s non-resident parent.” In the message, he says “even though you cannot see your children, you can be a “cool” father if you work much harder to send more child support to pull your children out of poverty. If you will send money, your children will rely on you when they grow up. Try to make a relationship with your children which last for a lifetime!!”

The underlying demeanor of the “human rights” sect

Hiroki Komazaki

-Defendant Hiroki Komazaki is a member of “IKUMEN (which means “fathers who play an active role in child rearing”) Project Promotion Committee” (hosted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare), “Child and Childcare Conference” (hosted by a Cabinet Office) and “Male Leaders Who Accelerate the Success of Shining Women” (hosted by a Cabinet Office) and Citizens' Council of JFBA as well as the representative director of an NPO. Defendant Komazaki tweeted on Twitter (which has tens of thousands of followers) on the day when the ruling of the Tokyo High Court was announced. “The judge cannot give custody of a child to the “morahara father” (a father who engages in harassment). It can easily be understood by a little investigation of the trial.” Komazaki disseminated false information which gave the impression that the husband’s alleged harassment was indeed admitted to in the trial even though it had never been admitted to at all.

-Defendant Yuki Senda, professor of Musashi University specializing in feminism, gave a lecture at the Hall of “Japanese Trade Union Confederation,” giving the impression that Sotsuda’s wife had abducted the child because of his violence. Defendants Senda and Komazaki have spread various rumors through the internet giving the impression that parents, who are victims of child abduction, have problems with their personalities. For example, by placing a photo of a man with a knife next to a statement that slanders a father, a victim of child abduction, they created an image in the readers’ minds as if the victims of the child abduction themselves were the perpetrators in the same magnitude as murderers. Their technique is extremely sophisticated.

-Defendant Souta Kimura, who was serving as a member of the panel of the Asahi Newspaper (at that time), introduced an article from a law journal written by defendant Kamata in the Asahi Newspaper as one of "Three articles of the month chosen by the members of the panel." In the introduction he stated that “the article can teach many things, such as the ideal form of visitations after divorce and the negative effects of the "Friendly Parent Rule".” In addition, defendant Chiiko Akaishi, who was a representative of an NPO and was also a panel member of the Asahi Newspaper (at that time), re-quoted defendant Kimura's article on Twitter introducing the article as “important." In other words, she spread fake news that there was violence by Sotsuda.

Regarding defendant Kamata's article, a lawyer in a neutral position wrote in his blog, "The fact that Lawyer Kamata attacks the personality of the plaintiff (Sotsuda) and not his reasoning (the benefit of the friendly parent rule) means by itself that Sotsuda’s argument was irrefutable.” He also said that “Kamata’s article only contains one-sided abusive language, nothing more.” As he stated, her article itself is nothing but a defamation against him. Nevertheless, defendants Kimura and Akaishi freely praise this article. It is natural to think that there is a strong connection among them behind scene.

An example of this connection is the fact that defendant Akaishi together with defendant Komazaki, on behalf of the National Association of Single Mother Support Organizations, submitted a "Request relating to the collection of child support" to the Minister of Justice on January 27, 2018. This request lists the statement such as the "support for the seizure of child support,” "Not linking the seizure of child support with the joint custody system after divorce" etc. This document shows no guilty conscience at all about taking money away from parents who have been deprived of their children and unable to see them. Further, the agent of defendant Akaishi belongs to the law firm of Fujiko Sakakibara, who is the author of a book titled, “How to forcibly seize child support.” The firm specializes in divorces and a former judge, who used to be the deputy chief of the Tokyo Family Court, now works for the firm.

Defendant Komazaki expresses his own view in an article titled, “Joint Custody after Divorce that Infringes the Right of Children” in a journal called The Third Civilization (note: an organ paper of Soka Gakkai), and ends his article with the phrase, “I will try my best together with the Komeito Party.” Komazaki’s article contradicts the recommendation to the Japanese government by the UN Committee on the Right of the Child issued last February, which states “to take all necessary measures to revise the legislation regulating parent-child relations after divorce in order to allow for shared custody of children when it is in the child’s best interests, including to foreign parents, and ensure that the right of the child to maintain personal relations and direct contact with his or her non-resident parent can be exercised on a regular basis.”

Also, defendant Kimura has spread false information about the introduction of the joint custody system in which both parents jointly exercise custody after divorce. For example, in his book he cited a ruling issued by the German Constitutional Court in 1982 and claimed that "the provision of the single custody system after divorce in Japan is reasonable." However, this ruling is a groundbreaking ruling that admitted that the single custody system after divorce stipulated in their civil code was unconstitutional and led to the revision to the joint custody system after divorce. The trick of introducing the ruling to the readers and making a false impression as if it were a ruling in favor of the single custody system is very similar to the trick of defamation against Sotsuda.

-The defendants include former judges Tomiko Asada and Tatsushige Wakabayashi. Defendant Wakabayashi was the judge hearing Sotsuda’s case and wrote a ruling in which he granted child custody to Sotsuda’s wife. After he retired from the bench, he was recruited by the law firm that represented Sotsuda's wife. He has basically parachuted into a law firm from a government office. (Note: Parachuting is the long -held practice of sending retired high-ranking bureaucrats into top management positions of semi-government corporations or private companies. According to many media, defendant Wakabayashi said, “What the Minister of Justice says means nothing to me.” when he was told that the Minister of Justice said, “It is an impermissible thing to grant child custody for the parent who removes the child in accordance with the "principle of continuity."

関連する投稿


森喜朗氏“集団リンチ事件”と朝日新聞|門田隆将

森喜朗氏“集団リンチ事件”と朝日新聞|門田隆将

朝日をはじめとするマスコミの常軌を逸した森喜朗氏への“集団リンチ”。 朝日の手の内を知り尽くした筆者が、その裏に隠された真の目的を暴く!


森元総理への異常なメディア・リンチ|花田紀凱

森元総理への異常なメディア・リンチ|花田紀凱

「男性は会議が長い」には寛容であり、「女性は会議が長い」にはなぜ不寛容なのか。そもそも森元総理の発言のどこが「女性差別」なのか。大新聞、テレビ、週刊誌、ネット、外国メディアまで揃いも揃って叩きまくる、異常なメディア・リンチに花田編集長が物申す!


北京五輪の開催地変更を求めよ|櫻井よしこ

北京五輪の開催地変更を求めよ|櫻井よしこ

今こそ問うべきだ。世界を大中華主義で染めたいのか。人権弾圧を続けて民主主義を息絶えさせたいのか。国際法を中華の法の支配に替え、世界秩序を大転換したいのか、と。


『「目に見えぬ侵略」「見えない手」副読本』㉔脅かされているのは「人権」そのもの

『「目に見えぬ侵略」「見えない手」副読本』㉔脅かされているのは「人権」そのもの

『目に見えぬ侵略』『見えない手』の入門書と言える『副読本』を発売! 二冊の大著から奥山真司氏監修のもとエッセンスを抜き出し、見開き40項目だけでシンプルに解説しています。その中から三項目を特別公開。今回は二つ目「人権」問題について。


中国の人権侵害を制裁する枠組みを作れ|西岡力

中国の人権侵害を制裁する枠組みを作れ|西岡力

国連に代表される国際社会の人権への取り組みは、中国に対して圧力をかけられない構造的欠陥を抱えている。国連の外で中国の人権侵害を厳しく監視、調査する常設機関を設けることが必要だ。その具体策を探る。


最新の投稿


安保3文書履行に早くも暗雲|太田文雄

安保3文書履行に早くも暗雲|太田文雄

2+2の共同発表は昨年末に政府が決定した安保3文書を踏まえている。沖縄県による下地島空港の「軍事利用」拒否は、民間空港・港湾の利用拡大をうたった3文書の履行に背を向けることを意味する。


「ピークパワーの罠」に向かう中国|湯浅博

「ピークパワーの罠」に向かう中国|湯浅博

問題は、国力のピークを迎えた新興大国が一転、迫り来る衰退を恐れると、他国に攻撃的になるという「ピークパワーの罠」が現実味を帯びてくることである。


〝太陽光の直接受益者〟三浦瑠麗を政策立案に関与させた官邸の大罪|山口敬之【WEB連載第23回】

〝太陽光の直接受益者〟三浦瑠麗を政策立案に関与させた官邸の大罪|山口敬之【WEB連載第23回】

1月20日、三浦瑠麗氏は「今般、私の夫である三浦清志の会社が東京地方検察庁による捜索を受けたという一部報道は事実です。私としてはまったく夫の会社経営には関与しておらず、一切知り得ないことではございますが、捜査に全面的に協力する所存です」とコメントを発表。本当に「まったく」「関与」していないのか? (サムネイルは「三浦瑠麗チャンネル」より)


【読書亡羊】「情報戦」の最前線、中露は何を仕掛けてくるのか 小泉悠・桒原響子・小宮山功一朗 『偽情報戦争――あなたの頭の中で起こる戦い』(ウェッジ)

【読書亡羊】「情報戦」の最前線、中露は何を仕掛けてくるのか 小泉悠・桒原響子・小宮山功一朗 『偽情報戦争――あなたの頭の中で起こる戦い』(ウェッジ)

その昔、読書にかまけて羊を逃がしたものがいるという。転じて「読書亡羊」は「重要なことを忘れて、他のことに夢中になること」を指す四字熟語になった。だが時に仕事を放り出してでも、読むべき本がある。元月刊『Hanada』編集部員のライター・梶原がお送りする週末書評!


佐渡金山の世界遺産登録 韓国のプロパガンダを覆す重要な戦い|和田政宗

佐渡金山の世界遺産登録 韓国のプロパガンダを覆す重要な戦い|和田政宗

1月19日、日本政府が佐渡金山の推薦書を再提出したことについて、韓国外務省は20日、「遺憾を表明する」と発表。韓国は、佐渡金山は「強制労働の被害現場」であると主張しているが、事実に基づかない韓国などのプロパガンダがユネスコに受け入れられることは絶対にあってはならない!