公民館再編下における学習・集会の自由と社会教育法第23条

—宗教をめぐって—

抄録

This paper constitutes an attempt to develop an interpretation at the general and abstract level of the text of Article 23 of Japan’s Social Education Act, which regulates “management policy for community learning centers (kominkan),” or stated in more concrete terms, so-called “usage restrictions” on community learning centers. The discussion gives particular attention to specific cases (e.g., examples in practice), in reference to the Article’s Paragraph 2, which states that such facilities “shall not support specific religions or otherwise assist any specific denominations, sects, or cults.”

The following points are revealed through this discussion.

Community learning centers are not permitted to “support specific religions or otherwise assist any specific denominations, sects, or cults.” Accordingly, it is understood that simply allowing such groups the use of community learning centers does not amount to “support” or “assistance,” and thus does not constitute a problem.

·There are no arguments against recognizing the right of the public administration to allocate permission to use community learning centers (kominkan), and it is necessary to enact laws and regulations governing permissible and impermissible use.

·When processing applications for permission to use community learning centers (kominkan), value judgements on the part of the facilities’ operators are not permitted. Rather, such operations must be performed in accordance with uniform and neutral standards (subject to the limitations of the law).

·Regarding the refusal of permission for applications to use community learning centers (kominkan), the interests benefitted by granting permission, in terms of protecting fundamental human rights, such as freedom of assembly, must be compared with the interests disadvantaged by the foreseeable dangers of granting permission (balancing of interests).

·Regarding the determination of dangers, the mere probability of a dangerous situation arising is insufficient; rather, there needs to be a “clear and present danger.”

·Notably, constraints of spiritual freedoms like freedom of assembly must be carried out under strict criteria that go beyond constraints governing freedom of economic activity.

·The blanket application of usage restrictions includes the danger of constraining “freedom of assembly” (Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan).