Quote
bribri
Six months later, after we had moved our family back to Canada, settling in Montreal (great city by the way), I got a surprise phone call from Tadashi Ohira, director of the Montreal Head Quarters for SGI Canada. He wanted to meet with me and to find out if I was going to try and steal members away from the gakkai. How he knew I was even in Montreal, let alone my phone number, was a big surprise and he never told me where he got the info from. A few weeks later, my wife was speaking with another temple supporter in France, who knew Marc de la Chanel and she said that he had called to complain that I had left France without returning his book and he desperately wanted to get it back. She unwittingly gave him our contact info. Marc never made any attempt to contact us at all, but Tad Ohira did, after the info was passed on to him through SGI.
In the interests of finding out what SGI Canada was up to, I agreed to finally see Tad Ohira. When we met, he brought with him the General Director of SGI Canada Micky Masuda. I wondered why all the attention for a single person like myself. The meeting was predictable and we parted with nothing accomplished and I thought that would be the last I would see them. But it wasn't. A few months later, my wife and I were preparing to drive to Ottawa and to participate for the first time in a small district meeting with a group of very young temple supporters, none of them with any knowledge of the Gakkai. An hour before leaving, I got a call from Tad, he wanted to chat and asked if I was busy that day. I though what a strange coincidence. I told him nothing and advised that he might want to call back in a few months - whatever.
Upon arriving at our destination in Ottawa, I was met at the door by our host and she was exited to let me know that my "friend" had arrived a few minutes ago and was waiting inside. Who the hell could that be!?!? She led us in and there, in the living room, in the midst of a dozen or so people, sat Tad in his business suit, a brief case at his side. I was staggered!!! The Audacity of the man. No one there had any idea as to who he was and of course he didn't say. The host was astonished when I explained he was a gakkai official. She took a while to comprehend the situation, but eventually asked him to leave or she would call the police. Tad, being encouraged to get lost, started waiving about a piece of paper and shouting at me, "You wrote letter to Morehouse University!", You say bad things about Ikeda!", "I go Dawson College (where I work) tell what you did!".
Hello, Brian and welcome to the board. Thank you for this very interesting and informative message.
In the interests of finding out what SGI Canada was up to, I agreed to finally see Tad Ohira. When we met, he brought with him the General Director of SGI Canada Micky Masuda. I wondered why all the attention for a single person like myself.So, Tadashi Ohira, director of the Montreal Head Quarters for SGI Canada reported you to his boss the General Director of SGI Canada Micky Masuda. The next logical step would be for Micky Masuda to report you to his boss SGI President Daisaku Ikeda. This is how SGI works.
"I go Dawson College (where I work) tell what you did!".How typical of SGI! He didn't threaten to physically harm you. He threatened to go to your work place and talk about you. Which might have resulted in loss of employment.
The primary weapon of SGI is defamation. Here is the definition of defamation by Lectric Law Library:
An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.[
www.lectlaw.com]
Why did SGI choose defamation as its primary weapon? Very simple. Defamation cases are almost impossible to prove. But the damage could be considerable. Defamation can result in loss of employment. And if the person has a family to support and mortgage to pay...
Let's assume that Tadashi Ohira went to your college and said some bad things about you. What are your options? Very limited.
Aaron Larson,
Law Offices of Aaron Larson, thinks that commencing a defamation action is not always a good idea:
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.[
www.expertlaw.com]