Japan Abducts Children

昭和23年（オ）第130号の判例により、日本の司法では片親による実子誘拐が正当化されるようになった。 家庭裁判所はその翌年の昭和24年に創立された。要は、「実子誘拐は違法じゃないよ」の判例を大前提として今の家庭裁判所が成り立っている。勿論、昭和23年には単独親権制度だった。 家庭裁判所を実子誘拐裁判所・親子断絶裁判所と呼んでも過言ではない。 家裁は一旦解散されないと、真の共同親権制度は誕生しないのでは？ まあ、今出来る事としては家庭裁判所の法域外で手続きすること。例えば、「子の引き渡し審判」・「監護者指定審判」や「親子交流調停」の代わりに、民事訴訟で人身保護令状を請求すること。 これ試したことある方、居ませんか？

実子誘拐を正当化する最高裁には、統一教会の信者は何人いるのでしょう？ もしかして、国民の罪を償われせることが目的？

One possible reason why Japanese courts now legitimize child abduction and parental alienation.

Parental Child Abduction is not considered normal behavior in Judeo-Christian societies, unlike in Japan. In fact, Japan is the only country where parental child abduction is permitted within the so-called developed world. Despite adopting the French civil code and the Prussian criminal code, both of which were rooted in Christian values, Japan never converted to Christianity. Why does this matter for Parental Child Abduction and Parental Alienation? Consider the story of the Judgement of Solomon. King Solomon was renown for his good judgement, and his subjects often came to him to resolve disputes. One day, two women came to him, each claiming to be the mother of the same baby. One of the mothers had lost her baby, and had taken the other's baby in the night to compensate for her loss. The rightful mother wanted her baby back. King Solomon proposed to cut the baby in half so that both could have their share of the baby. The woman who had abducted the baby agreed with this, but the other woman pleaded with King Solomon not to go through with it. She agreed to let the other woman have the baby rather than to see the baby cut in half. This is how King Solomon determined who was truly deserving of the baby who had been brought before him. King Solomon's judgement was based entirely on a test, to determine who loved the child more than they loved themselves. In modern Japan, parental child abduction is considered normal by the family courts and the supreme court. They do not consider that abducting and alienating children from a separated father or mother is not only psychologically damaging for the children, but demonstrates that the abducting parent loves themselves more than they love their children. Lacking the Judeo-Christian moral framework, Japanese family courts treat children as if they were property of one or the other parent, rather than children who require love and care. In the rest of the developed world those who commit parental child abduction are thrown behind bars. In Japan these perpetrators are allowed to continue their child abuse. When people say that Japan allows parental child abduction because "it's cultural", what they really mean is that Japan adopted the shell of a legal system without the moral frameworks required to make it work. #parentalchildabduction #parentalalienation #実子誘拐 #親子断絶

The Japanese government misuses the term “moral harassment”, infringing human rights and children’s rights at industrial scale. This results in over one hundred thousand new parental child abductions and parental alienation cases every year. Here’s how. “Moral harassment” (harcèlement moral) was first taken up in a national bill in the 1990s by a French Communist Party member as a term of art in resolving labor disputes. It later spread to Belgium and other Francophone countries, and eventually came to be applied to family issues as well. Wherever it was applied, it was codified as a criminal or tort offense. The criminal offense does not stand unless prosecuted by the public prosecutor, and of course no penalties arise in the absence of evidence. In tort cases, the party making the claim bears the burden of proof in civil proceedings, whether involving labor or family matters. Because of the “burden of proof” and the “presumption of innocence,” which are foundational to civil and criminal codes, one cannot casually say that “so-and-so committed moral harassment.” Doing so would constitute defamation. This is the common understanding regarding “moral harassment” in French civil and criminal law. Japan is the only country outside the Francophone world where the term “moral harassment” is widely used. The book Moral Harassment by Marie-France Hirigoyen was first translated into Japanese in 1999, and thereafter the term began to appear in materials and seminars run by Japanese local governments, and in civil proceedings. These materials were not focused on labor issues as originally intended by Marie-France Hirigoyen, but rather on family law and domestic violence contexts. However, unlike France or Belgium, Japan lacks any definition of the term “moral harassment” in civil or criminal law. As a result, the party claiming to have suffered moral harassment from another bears no burden of proof, and the claim is accepted at face value by the judiciary, the police, and similar bodies without evidence—because no such term is defined in tort law. Moreover, even if the police or other government agencies label someone a perpetrator of moral harassment, the presumption of innocence does not apply, because no such crime exists. Moral harassment is neither a tort offense nor a criminal offense in Japan. Yet the borrowed term “moral harassment” is used regularly within Japan’s legal and administrative proceedings: in divorce mediation and tort cases, in domestic violence complaints to the police, and in child custody and visitation proceedings. It is also widely used in the media and in informal gossip. In all cases, there are no consequences for those who either make or uphold false allegations, because they neither bear the burden of proof nor any duty to respect the target’s presumption of innocence. “Moral harassment” does not actually exist in Japan beyond a purely academic context, but ordinary citizens, police officers, and court personnel have been brainwashed into thinking it does, leading to its weaponization against citizens. Fake word. Real consequences. In Japan there are tens of thousands of cases every year of demonstrably false domestic violence allegations being upheld by the police and courts, with children alienated from a parent as a result. The vast majority of these are in preparation for divorce proceedings and are used to legitimize parental child abduction. And that’s how a term of art originally coined by a French psychologist for the analysis of labor issues is now being misused by the Japanese government to violate human rights and children’s rights. Take a look at the covers of the French and Japanese editions of the book on “moral harassment.” Notice the difference? #parentalchildabduction #parentalalienation #childabuse #実子誘拐 #親子断絶

「モラルハラスメント」って言葉は、国民の人権を侵害するために作り上げられたフェイクな言葉だって、ご存知でしょうか？ モラルハラスメント（harcèlement moral）とは、フランスの共産党委員によって、労働環境でのトラブルを指す言葉として1990年代に初めて国の法律案として取り上げられたものです。その後、ベルギーやその他のフランス語圏に広がり、家庭問題にも適用されるようになりました。いずれも犯罪として位置づけられており、検察に起訴されない限り成立せず、刑罰も発生しません。民法でも定義されているため、労働問題や家庭問題の民事手続きの際には、申し立てる側に立証義務があります。 要は、「立証義務」や「無罪推定の原則」があるので、「誰々にモラハラされた」と軽々しく言えるものではありません。名誉毀損になるからです。以上が、世界での「モラルハラスメント」の共通認識と常識です。 一方、フランス語圏を除き、「モラルハラスメント」という言葉が広く使われている国は日本のみです。1999年に初めて日本語に訳され、その後、家庭問題を中心に、内閣府・法務省・総務省等の資料や民事手続きの際にこの言葉が現れるようになりました。 しかしながら、フランスやベルギーと大きく異なり、日本では民法や刑法での定義が欠如しています。そのため、他者にモラハラされたと訴える側には立証義務がなく、証拠が全くなくても司法や警察等に受け入れられます。また、モラハラ加害者だと警察やその他の政府機関から言われても、無罪推定の原則が働きません。罪というものがないからです。 要は、国民、警察職員、裁判所職員が洗脳され、実在しない法的概念が国民の人権に影響を及ぼすようになったのです。 元々、フランスの心理学者が労働問題の分析のために発明した「モラルハラスメント」という専門用語が、日本政府により悪用されています。「モラルハラスメント」を解説する本のフランス語版と日本語版の表紙を見ると、何か違いませんか？