UN passes resolution on indigenous peoples (hello Ainu, Ryukyuans)

mytest

Hi Blog. Sorry for not talking about the PM Abe resignation (truth is, I don’t know what to say. Yet. Nor does anyone, really). Instead, topics germane to the focus of Debito.org:

Just received this from the United Nations. This may become a historical event, especially given the indigenous peoples in Japan (Ainu, Ryukyuans) and their lack of official recognition (in 1997, the Ainu received tentative recognition for their aboriginal status from the GOJ, not that it meant they got any money or special favors for it). FYI. Debito

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

UNITED NATIONS ADOPTS DECLARATION ON RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
New York, Sep 13 2007 3:00PM

Courtesy of UNNews@un.org

The General Assembly today adopted a landmark declaration outlining the rights of the world’s estimated 370 million indigenous people and outlawing discrimination against them – a move that followed more than two decades of debate.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been approved after 143 Member States voted in favour, 11 abstained and four – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States – voted against the text.

A non-binding text, the Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.

The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development.

General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour have all welcomed today’s adoption.

Sheikha Haya said “the importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated. By adopting the Declaration, we are also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”

But she warned that “even with this progress, indigenous peoples still face marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They are often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threaten their way of life and very survival; and, suffer from a lack of access to health care and education.”

In a statement released by his spokesperson, Mr. Ban described the Declaration’s adoption as “a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.”

He called on governments and civil society to ensure that the Declaration’s vision becomes a reality by working to integrate indigenous rights into their policies and programmes.

Ms. Arbour noted that the Declaration has been “a long time coming. But the hard work and perseverance of indigenous peoples and their friends and supporters in the international community has finally borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples’ rights.”

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues estimates there are more than 370 million indigenous people in some 70 countries worldwide.

Members of the Forum said earlier this year that the Declaration creates no new rights and does not place indigenous peoples in a special category.
2007-09-13 ENDS

TPR editorial on SNAFU at MOFA: Uyoku disrupt human rights meeting

mytest

Hi Blog. An editorial I wrote quickly for Trans Pacific Radio was put up two days ago. Have a read. Excerpt follows. Debito in Sapporo

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

TRANS PACIFIC RADIO SHASETSU

Arudou Debito: Rumble at the Ministry of [Foreign Affairs]

Filed under: Shasetsu – Op/Ed

Posted by Debito Arudou at 3:44 pm on Monday, September 10, 2007

Courtesy http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/09/10/debito-rumble-at-moj/

(Editor’s note: Debito wrote this piece, and even recorded it, quite some time ago. Unfortunately, for reasons we can’t quite fathom, the audio file has. . . well. . . apparently disappeared. This is the text of his Shasetsu, a bit late. We apologize for the tardiness of the publication, for the missing audio, and for dropping the ball on this one in general. Nevertheless, it’s a well-done piece, well worth reading and discussing and we hope you enjoy it.

The second part of Arudou Debito’s appearance on TPR Spotlight (part one is here) will be up before you can say “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”)

===========================

RUMBLE AT THE MINISTRY OF [FOREIGN AFFAIRS]

A hearing on human rights is disrupted by right-wingers

In 1995, Japan signed the United Nations Convention against all forms of Racial Discrimination. By doing so, it promised “without delay” to take all measures, including legislation, to eliminate racial discrimination within its borders. However, more than a decade later, Japan still has not passed any laws against discrimination by race. And as the spread of “Japanese Only” signs and rules nationwide attests, laws are sorely needed.

So is the urge to come clean. Under this treaty, the Japanese government must submit a report every two years on what it is doing to eliminate racial discrimination. It is mighty late, filing its first report, due in 1998, in 2001. And it has filed no reports since then.

In preparation for the next report, and to avoid charges that the bureaucrats were not listening to the public, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has held open hearings, attended over the years by NGOs and “concerned citizens”. The latest meeting took place yesterday afternoon, August 31, and I attended. It was, in a word, a disaster…

===========================

Rest at http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/09/10/debito-rumble-at-moj/

ENDS

「川崎W女児いじめ裁判」傍聴参加のお願い

mytest

Next hearing for the Kawasaki Schoolgirl Ijime Lawsuit–where a Japanese grade schooler was bullied for having Chinese roots and was afterwards diagnosed with PTSD, will be September 20, 4:30 PM, at Yokohama District Court, Kawasaki Branch. Details in Japanese from their support group below. Arudou Debito

「川崎W女児いじめ裁判」傍聴参加のお願い
2007年9月11日

拝啓
猛暑の時季は通り越したものの、まだまだ厳しい残暑が続いておりますが、「裁判を支える会」の皆様におかれましてはますますご健勝にてご活躍のことと思います。 「川崎W女児いじめ裁判」の支援につきましては、日頃大変お世話になっております。
さて、来る9月20日(木) に開廷されます第13回公判では、最終弁論として原告、被告双方のすべての主張を記載した陳述書類が裁判官に提出され、裁判所の裁定を待つことになります。
原告側では日夜全精力を傾注し、最終弁論の書類作成に取り組んでおります。「裁判を支える会」でも、有志で結成した「精読会」メンバーにより、これまでの被告答弁書・準備書面に対する反対尋問案を作成し、原告に提供するなどの活動を行ってまいりましたが、このたび「いじめ裁判」のホームページを開設すべく準備を進めております。開設時にはあらためて皆様に閲覧のご案内をさせていただきます。
9月20日の公判では裁判官への書類の提出が主となりますが、ひとりでも多くの支援者が公判傍聴に参加していただくことにより、原告を励まし、あくまでも「いじめはなかった」と主張する被告に精神的な圧力を与えるものと思います。日頃ご支援を頂いております皆様の9月20日公判の傍聴を是非お願い致します。
敬具

― 第13回公判のご案内 ―

(1) 日時: 2007年9月20日(木)
(2) 開廷: 午後4時30分
(3) 閉廷: 午後5時(予定)
(4) 場所: 横浜地裁川崎支部第一法廷

* 傍聴終了後、原告を励ます支援者懇親会(参加は任意)を予定しております。
川崎W女児いじめ裁判を支える会
ENDS

GOJ Cabinet’s odd survey on human rights 2007

mytest

Hi Blog. Been a bit late getting to this, but thanks to Ken Y-N at the Seron Blog for getting the word out. Debito.org will select and amplify some points:

BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2007, the GOJ released its latest findings on a human-rights survey it conducts every four years. Entitled the “Jinken Yougo ni Kansuru Yoron Chousa” (Public Survey Regarding the Defense of Human Rights), it is put out by a Cabinet office called the Naikakufu Daijin Kanbou Seifu Koukoku Shitsu. Survey available online in its entirety in Japanese at http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h19/h19-jinken/.

Ken Y-N has already translated the whole thing into English with some interpretations at:
http://whatjapanthinks.com/2007/08/27/human-rights-in-japan-part-1-of-3/

As far as Debito.org goes, the survey had some good news:

As opposed to the survey’s results in 1999 and 2003 (which showed a steady decline in the number of people who thought that NJ deserved the same human rights as Japanese), the number rose this time by 5.3 points to 59.3% in favor.

Of course this begs the question of why the question is being asked at all (as if human rights for fellow humans with extranationality are a matter of popularity polls, something even the UN criticized Japan for nearly a decade ago (CCPR/C/79/Add.102 Item C(7)). But never mind. Back to the good news:

Full report on previous Cabinet Surveys on Debito.org at https://www.debito.org/jinkenreport0403.html, particularly:
=============================
“Overall, 54% said that foreigners should have the same protection of human rights as Japanese (nihon kokuseki wo motanai hito demo, nihonjin to onaji you ni jinken ha mamorubeki da). This is a steady decline from 68.3% 10 years ago, and 65.5% 5 years ago.

Reasons why can only be speculated upon, but contemporary newspaper articles quoted the Justice Ministry as saying that maybe the sudden rise in crime by foreigners may have affected the outcome of the poll.”
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20030412p2a00m0dm016000c.html [dead link, sorry]
=============================

This time around, Kyodo interpreted some results thusly:
=============================
“A record 42% of people in Japan feel that human rights abuses have increased in the country, the Cabinet Office said in a survey report Saturday. In response to the 5.8 percentage point increase from the previous survey in 2003, the Justice Ministry’s Human Rights Bureau said, “It was likely affected by the spread of the Internet.”
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/416167
=============================

So this time it’s the spread of a network for anonymizing libel and ijime, as opposed to NJ being let in and being portrayed erroneously as criminals by our government, which is thought to have affected the numbers. But never mind again. As a victim of Internet libel myself (who won his unrequited case against BBS 2-Channel in 2006, see https://www.debito.org/2channelsojou.html), I can see the need for voices to be raised against these cowardly anonymous bullies who spoil the Internet for the rest of us.

But here are some further comments about the survey:

////////////////////////////////////////////

The goal of the survey, as expressed by the GOJ itself, (http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h19/h19-jinken/1.html), is “to survey the awareness of citizens (kokumin) regarding human rights protections, in order to apply them towards shaping future policy” (jinken yougo ni kansuru kokumin no ishiki o chousa shi, kongou no shisaku no sankou to suru).

Well, aren’t we thus already biasing the sample? If we only surveying “kokumin”, we aren’t surveying NJ, even though they too are taxpaying residents, and should have a say in public policies–especially those which will affect them profoundly as anti-discrimination measures.

Maybe that’s why so few people thought they had experienced “racial discrimination” in the survey. See Q3 SQ: 13.9% facing “discriminatory treatment (race, creed, gender etc.)”, behind “rumors and people speaking ill of me”, “invasion of privacy”, “defamation”, “public nuisances (noise, foul odors)”; nearly half of the 16% who responded that they had faced a violation of their human rights noted “rumors”.

Bet if the GOJ interviewed more people without citizenship or Asian features, who sometimes face apartment refusals or JAPANESE ONLY signs in storefronts, they might get quite different figures.

(I also bet most of the 14% noting “discriminatory treatment” were women facing discrimination by gender, too; not in any way to lessen the severity of that type of discrimination, but it’s hardly something you can lump all together as one category like that and get meaningful results. Good thing multiple answers were permitted.)

////////////////////////////////////////////

The survey itself asks some really odd questions too, come to think of it.

For example, we have “human rights” categorized in odd ways in Q3 SQ. In addition to the five examples of “human rights violations” mentioned above, we have “violence, duress, extortion”, “unjust police treatment”, “unfair treatment at work”, “falling out with the local community”, “sexual harassment”, “stalking”, “false accusations of crimes”, “unjust treatment at public welfare facilities”, “denial of domestic utilities at home” (such as water, gas), “other”, and “nantonaku” (nothing I can put my finger on, but it’s there).

Uh, even with these questions leading the witness, a number of these are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories (gender discrimination and sexual harassment, or rumors and defamation, for example), some are too vague (nantonaku, of course), and some are not exactly pin-downable as examples of “human rights” in themselves (falling out with the neighbors? stoppage of domestic utilities? public-welfare rudeness?)

If we’re going to break things down this much, then where is “bullying” (ijime)? Well, that’s the domain of kids, I guess, and this survey was only surveying people aged twenty and up. But I’m not sure where the shadow falls above.

Bigger issue is that many of these items are what I would call the “crybaby” variety. Items like “people speaking ill of me” and “rumors” are scientifically difficult to quantify (even could be argued as inevitable in human interaction, seen as “perceived slights by the paranoid”), and invite people (myself included) to tell them to develop a thicker skin.

And “public nuisances”? You might have people complaining that a stinky public toilet or a juicy fart in an elevator is a violation of human rights!

No wonder many people have trouble taking human-rights activists seriously, when the definitions is so ill-defined even in the official questions! In any case, many of these items would not fall under protection in the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination anyway, as the CERD does not cover interactions between individuals.

============================

Some more comments:

Q5 asks “Within Japan, which of the following human rights issues are you concerned about?” (multiple answers OK). Discrimination against “foreigners” comes in 14th at 12.5%, behind “the disabled”, “the elderly”, “children”, “Internet abuse victims”, “DPRK kidnap victims”, “women”, “crime victims”, “HIV sufferers”, “Leprosy victims”, “homeless”, “Burakumin”, “ex-convicts”, and “human trafficking”–almost all worthy causes in themselves, of course. But since multiple answers are also possible, let’s see if we can raise the awareness of discrimination towards NJ better in time for the next survey.

The next questions ask for comment about “human rights problems” specifically directed at specific sectors of society: Women (choices of “human rights violations” include porno and scantily-clad women in advertising), children (including being too forceful with their opinions over their children’s school, work, etc), the elderly (including lack of respect for their opinions/actions), the disabled (including being stared at), the Burakumin, HIV patients, crime victims, the homeless, affectional preferences, and the Ainu. Nice of the GOJ to offer (even arguably overdo) several categories with examples of possible discrimination, thank you.

However, when it comes to discrimination against foreigners (Q12 and 13), we don’t get any list of leading questions. Only some doubt as to whether NJ are actually being discriminated against (Q12) and questions on whether NJ have any right to equal rights at all. No question like this is raised towards the other groups. Again, when even a GOJ survey allows for the possibility of human rights being optional based upon nationality, we have a problem. Especially when nowhere in the survey is the possibility raised that people who look foreign might actually be Japanese; discrimination by race is a subset within a larger umbrella, and discrimination by nationality is undeserving of its own special question like the other groups?

Finally, there is the question on how human rights should be promoted in Japan. It’s a decent wish list with most responses receiving a decent slice of multiple options. Again, the entire report is all very well written up by Ken Y-N, so have a look at:

http://whatjapanthinks.com/2007/08/27/human-rights-in-japan-part-1-of-3/

Still surprises me just how clueless even our government professionals are about the portrayal and promotion of human rights in Japan. This survey is most enlightening when viewed from that angle.

Arudou Debito in Sapporo

Human Rights Violations at a J Gym Chain: “Young, Healthy Japanese Only” By Jim Dunlop

mytest

Human Rights Violations at a Well-Known Japanese Gym Chain
“Young, Healthy Japanese people only, please!”

By Jim Dunlop
August 30, 2007
drinkacupofcoffee AT gmail.com

Writing this report made my think of a line from an old song, “Signs” by 5 Man Electrical Band:

And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply,
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why.
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you’ll do,
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you…

Holiday Sports Club is a chain of gyms/exercise centers all across Japan. http://www.holiday-sc.jp/

There are about 33 locations spanning Honshu and one in Hokkaido… This also happens to be the club where my wife and I are currently members). Since we joined this gym, a number of issues have arisen that I think need to be made public and brought to the attention of anyone who may be considering supporting this business. Be aware, that if you are either a foreigner, or have any sort of physical disability, you may be discriminated against, or even prevented from joining. Here’s the scoop:

Race and Age Discrimination at Holiday Sports Club:

1. Racial discrimination. First and foremost, foreigners are routinely barred from joining the gym on the grounds that they “cannot read/write their name and address in Japanese.” This is always given as a requirement to prospective members. I suppose that the “standard” argument given here is that everyone must know some Japanese in case of an emergency, or perhaps in order to understand the rules and regulations and the club. That, however is a bit of a farce, and a HUGE contradiction, considering the club actually has an English rulebook that they give to new members to read through. But yet, the double standard arises when it comes to Japanese literacy. When the club first opened, my wife and I were the first foreign members and we were able to do this so we were given almost no problems in joining, however a friend of mine was told “no, he couldn’t join” because his Japanese was insufficient. When he brought in his Japanese wife, they were all apologetic and then, of course he could join without a hitch. Most recently, in past couple weeks three young women from Iowa who are here on a teacher exchange program were barred membership because their Japanese knowledge was deemed insufficient. Also worth noting (but nothing that can be done) is that a common secondary reason for disallowing people (foreigners and Japanese alike) is having a tattoo, even though many members have them (but cover them up with bandages when in the gym).

2. Discrimination against the elderly / people with limited mobility.

This was brought to my attention today by good friends of mine. They are a mixed couple (husband is Japanese and wife is American). They are both seniors and the American wife has lived in Japan for over 30 years. Her husband was born here and is a lifelong resident of the city. He still remembers the war and American bombing raids over the city during WWII when he was a child in elementary school. (But yet, he married an American when he got older. Interesting stuff! That just goes to show you how love can overcome even war, hatred and racism). As my friends are older, Takao (the Japanese husband) has troubles walking so he walks with a cane. He has been prohibited from entering Holiday Sports Club with his cane. The official reason given: the cane could be used as a weapon! Another elderly woman who needs a cane to walk (following an operation) has similarly been disallowed, and therefore been unable to join the gym for this reason. Furthermore, because Takao is forced to leave his cane in the car when he attends the gym, (thus leaning on his wife for support) both Takao and his wife have requested that several parking spaces near the entrance be marked as “handicapped” with those with limited mobility. This request has been effectively turned down.

The facility, incidentally also is NOT wheelchair accessible or open to those with impaired mobility. It should go without saying that it’s not only young, healthy people who go to gyms. Many people, regardless of age and physical ability attend for health reasons. First and foremost, gyms should be open and welcoming to such individuals, many of whom use gyms as part of physiotherapy or rehabilitation programs. This form of discrimination is both shocking and contemptible.

I question, whether it is even legal for them to prohibit someone from using a cane for SECURITY reasons! I asked my friends several times if there could have been some misunderstanding with what the gym staff told them… But they assured me, “Oh no. They were very clear as to the reason why canes are not allowed in.” Remember, we are talking about a Japanese man here, not a foreigner. There was no language barrier involved.

It really upsets me that our local gym (which is so close to my house) have chosen to be so difficult and unwelcoming to certain groups of people. The staff are often very friendly! In fact, my wife and I have gone out with some of them on a few occasions. But they are forced to enforce this company’s strange “rules” that really put many people off, now including myself.

Please give this report some consideration when you are shopping around for a gym to work out in. Please also let your friends know, whether they be Japanese or not, that Holiday Sports Club seems to only be interested in people who fall into a narrow view of what is acceptable. You must be young, Japanese, free from any body modifications, (which includes you ladies too, by the way. All jewelry, including earrings MUST be removed (without exception) prior to entering the pool area), and anyone who does not “fit in” will be denied entry or declined membership.

As the saying goes, “caveat emptor” — buyer beware.

Jim Dunlop
August 30, 2007
ENDS

PS: If someone wants to call my local gym and check the information out for themselves, please contact me directly (drinkacupofcoffee AT gmail.com) and I can pass along the details (like a local phone number). If they wish to contact the company (in general) then all they need to do is go to the website link I provided above in the article. JD

Transcript of disrupted MOFA Aug 31 07 hearing blogged

mytest

Hello Blogosphere. Arudou Debito here.

TRANSCRIPT OF MOFA MEETING PROCEEDINGS BLOGGED
AND FURTHER EVIDENCE THE GOJ HAS NO INTEREST IN LIMITING HATE SPEECH
BY ALLOWING A CONVICTED AGENT PROVOCATEUR INTO THE MEETING

Regarding a post I put out recently
https://www.debito.org/?p=544
on the August 31 Ministry of Foreign Affairs meeting, regarding Japan’s next report to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (https://www.debito.org/cerd.html), I have some new information.

I have received a transcript of the meeting, which was disrupted by Right-Wingers, and blogged it in Japanese at
https://www.debito.org/?p=545

I received a call moments ago from someone else who attended the meeting, about one of the participants:

A Mr Nishimura Shuuhei, who sat in the back of the room that day, was taken to court for his behavior of disrupting public meetings on the Comfort Women issue. According to my source, he was sentenced for “illegal obstruction of official duties” (iryou gyoumu bougai–a charge I don’t completely understand myself) on October 4, 2001, at the Yokohama District Court, to 1 year and 6 months of prison, suspended for five years.

Despite his criminal record of disrupting public meetings and acting as agent provocateur, the MOFA allowed Nishimura to attend this meeting, and help disrupt it.

This issue was taken before the Bureau of Human Rights this morning, but my source indicates that they do not intend to do much about it (agreed, see my experience with the BOHR at https://www.debito.org/policeapology.html –they even have a history of advising the Otaru City Government in the Otaru Onsens Case that “there will be no penalty” if they neglect to pass any laws against racial discrimination: https://www.debito.org/jinkenyougobu112999.jpg)

The GOJ shows little willpower indeed to deal with issues of hate speech, or even show resolve to keep their meetings calm and debate reasoned.

================================

On a different note, please read the Japan Times Community Page tomorrow (Wednesday in the provinces). Another article coming out, this time as co-author. Arudou Debito in Sapporo

ENDS

外務省:人種差別撤廃条約政府報告に関する意見交換会07年8月31日:議会記録(抜粋)

mytest

Sorry, I had to remove the MOFA Aug 31 Meeting transcript for the time being at the author’s request. I’m afraid there won’t be an authorized version later either, because the writer meant for it to be a reference document for my use only. If you want to know more, contact me at debito@debito.org. Arudou Debito in Sapporo

REPORT: Right-wingers disrupt Aug 31, 2007 MOFA meeting on CERD

mytest

REPORT
RUMBLE AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
A hearing on human rights in Japan is disrupted by right-wingers
An eyewitness report from the front lines

By Arudou Debito, Sapporo, Japan (debito@debito.org, www.debito.org)
September 1, 2007, freely forwardable

SUMMARY: On August 31, 2007, a public meeting (iken koukan kai, reference site at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/event/jinshu.html
[link is now dead, download webarchive file of site at https://www.debito.org/MOFAaug31meetinginfosite.webarchive]) on the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in Tokyo, was disrupted and sabotaged by right-wing troublemakers. Shouting epithets and arguments designed to wind up the human-rights NGOs, the unidentified right-wingers managed to bring the meeting to a standstill, while the six ministries attending the meeting showed a complete inability to keep the meeting under control. Proceedings ended a half hour early without hearing the opinions of all the attendees, and my opinion is mixed on whether or not the impasse could have been avoided by not taking the bait. In any case, it is a sign to this author that the ultraconservative elements within Japan are not only taking notice of the gain in traction for human rights in Japan, they are doing their best to throw sand in the deliberation process. We will have to develop a thicker skin towards these elements in future, as this is probably only the beginning.

This post is structured thusly:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
1) THE WARMUP
2) THE MEETING
3) THE DISRUPTION
4) THE AFTERMATH
5) CONCLUSIONS

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

1) THE WARMUP

The CERD is the UN Convention against all forms of Racial Discrimination–which Japan signed in 1995 and still defies by not passing any laws against racial discrimination. The GOJ has to fill out a report every two years on what they are doing vis-a-vis racial discrimination, and is dreadfully late (filing its first report due 1998 in 2001, and none sense then). This hearing was for the government to get feedback from the NGOs regarding the GOJ’s stance taken so far (such as it is) before filing the next report (whenever that may be). That meeting took place at 3PM at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo.

Fifteen human-rights NGOs and legal groups (such as the JCLU, http://www.jclu.org), plus four individuals (your correspondent included), attended a pre-MOFA coordinating meeting, chaired by the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR http://www.imadr.org), to stress the following (excerpt):

1) The NGO-GOJ interface left a lot to be desired organizationally. The previous meetings (February and July 2006) with the MOFA (first labeled a “hearing” (hiaringu), later adjusted to an “exchange of views” (iken koukan kai) at our request) essentially heard our views, but offered no feedback from the relevant ministries that attended the meeting. Essentially junior bureaucrats would sit, listen, and act like the Sphinx as whether our opinions or questions mattered. We had never heard any feedback from them regarding questions and issues we raised in previous meetings (in fact, the information we would be offering feedback on that day had only arrived from the MOFA yesterday). We would lobby for that to be remedied.

2) The MOFA’s convening this meeting in August (with the announcement merely posted on the MOFA website at the beginning of the month, without notification of previous attendees) was a surefire way to decrease attendance due to the summer and short notice: We had 30 NGOs attending last time, this time half that (see my report on the July 28, 2006 meeting and proceedings at https://www.debito.org/?p=543). It seemed more a way for the bureaucrats to say, “Hey, we listened to the public, now we can do as we see fit”. We would lobby for more meetings where we had something to respond to–a rolling series of written and oral Q&A over months, if necessary. After all, what Japan puts out before the world could be potentially embarrassing if half-baked. We would offer as much feedback as possible so their reports would better reflect the world beyond Kasumigaseki.

3) We also anticipated there would be some resistance from attendees, since this was an open public meeting, meaning people who did not wish either us or this proceeding well might attend just to use time and disrupt things. We would lobby for people to keep to their time allotments and not offer sentiments that were entirely antithetical to the issue at hand–alleviating and eliminating discrimination.

However, we never anticipated just how antithetical things would get.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

2) THE MEETING

started on time at 3PM on the tenth floor of the MOFA building. The MOFA chaired the meeting because racial discrimination falls under their directive (discrimination against women, for example, falls under other another ministry–Health, Labor and Welfare–if it is a matter of Domestic Violence or labor. This makes it difficult to combine all forms of potential discrimination under a single movement in Japan, and why we believe it necessary to create a special government apparatus to deal with it (a move, as you shall see below, is seen as contentious).

Attending were one member of the National Personnel Agency (Jinjin), four from Education, three from Foreign Affairs, five from Justice, one from HL&W, and two from the National Police Agency. No nametags or attendance sheets were made public to us (although the bureaucrats knew who we all were), and all bureaucrats were, same as last July, junior members in their twenties and thirties who could speak authoritatively on nothing. Chairing the meeting was a forty-something Mr Kimura, the head of the MOFA’s Human Rights Section (Gaimushou Sougou Gaikou Seisakukyoku Jinken Jindou Ka, Jinshu Sabetsu Teppai Jouyaku Iken Koukankai Tantou), who clearly looked nervous about how things were going to proceed. Forty people were in attendance (down from 60 last time), and a great number were refraining from making eye contact with each other.

Trouble started immediately. The first person to raise his hand was an older man in his sixties who talked about discrimination of a different kind–how the Zainichis were being granted special privileges just because they had been born here and lived in Japan for several generations. They should abolish their “Special Permanent Residency” (tokubetsu eijuuken) status. Make them all regular Permanent Residents like any other, since they originally came here to to take advantage of Japan’s economics only. Snickers from some, loud applause from others, and Kimura cautioned the meeting to refrain from applause.

Our turn next. Our next few points were about the format of this meeting, as mentioned above. We also asked for the chair to please put a lid on discriminatory statements.

When it was my turn (I was sixth), I raised the point that the most recent survey conducted by the Diet Cabinet vis-a-vis awareness of domestic discrimination (details released in August, excellent translation and report at http://whatjapanthinks.com/2007/08/27/human-rights-in-japan-part-1-of-3/) only surveyed citizens (kokumin), not residents (juumin). So no wonder there were fewer responses regarding racial discrimination. Similar with the National Census (kokusei chousa), which does not survey by ethnicity (minzokusei). I for one have no way to indicate that I am a Japanese citizen with American roots. Same with the probably hundreds of thousands of Japanese children of international marriages in Japan. We just don’t know. Without adequate data on just how international Japan actually is, the GOJ will of course be at a loss on to make appropriate policy regarding discrimination and protection of human rights.

In one of the few answers we got from the bureaucrats today, Kimura noted that although the governing Ministry of Internal Affairs (Soumushou) was absent, but in absentia: the Census not measuring for ethnicity is a matter of privacy–we wouldn’t want to make people uncomfortable with overintrusive questions. This is the standard but bogus excuse–plenty of questions already made people uncomfortable last Census (2005, see https://www.debito.org/meijigakuin071705.html), and there is also the option not to answer at all; the GOJ just doesn’t want any information which would definitively confound the notion that Japan is a monoethnic society).

But for the rest of the day, we would get jeers from the bully boys in the back whenever we spoke, and have to tolerate epithets whenever they spoke:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

3) THE DISRUPTION

It turns out about 10 of the 40 people there either knew each other, or later banded together after the meeting for congratulatory back-slaps for a meeting well disrupted. Some of the points their camp raised were:

1) Discrimination, if it really does occur, is between individuals, and thus does not fall under the CERD. Likewise DV (an issue raised by a Filipina attendee from our group, who also talked about unequal care given culture in international marriage; she was heckled for not speaking Japanese) is something between a married couple, and rights for children should not be extended. We told Chairman Kimura to bring the focus back onto the CERD, but he did not clear the hall of people who would even deny the primacy of the UN in a hearing about the UN.

2) Koreans work against Japan and have odd ideologies–just imagine what trouble they would make if you gave them a post in the proposed human-rights Ombudsman proposed under the Jinken Yougo Houan? They compared any attempt to control or punishment of discrimination to Stalinism and thought police. (More of this genre of arguments available in Japanese and English at https://www.debito.org/abunaijinkenyougohouan.html). We asked Kimura to stop this discriminatory language towards Koreans, but even with some warnings he allowed the speech to continue.

3) The United Nations is not a body we should be listening to–we Japanese with our own unique culture and family structure–why should we be letting treaties and other countries with their unfitting standards be foisted upon our country, with its racial purity? Discrimination, if you can call it that, is justified when these foreigners shouldn’t be in our country anyway.

When one of the attendees then referred to a daughter of the Comfort Women (who successfully sued someone who attacked her at a speech for damages and a restraining order–I’m not all that familiar with the case) as a “bastard child” (shiseiji), we demanded the chairing representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs do something about this clear tangent, moreover violation of individual dignity and expressed epithet. It was his ministry’s mandate. He remained silent. Our side (particularly from the Zainichis in the room) then said that unless there was a retraction and an apology, this meeting should not continue. Their side said they would offer no such thing, and continued in this vein.

It almost came to blows. Even then, no security was called, and the people who would not be silent were not cleared from the room. Kimura then declared the meeting unable to continue and called it to a close at 4:30 PM.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

4) THE AFTERMATH

I was about to leave when one of the older men (almost all the people in this camp were older men, probably retired with time and money on their hands; we call them “grassroots right-wingers” (kusa no ne uyoku) actually came up to me with a smile and a friendly tone of voice. He began reading off some points he had written down and wanted me to hear (he clearly needed no feedback–so I listened):

White people in Japan have it good here because of Japan’s inferiority complex towards them. So discrimination cannot happen towards them. It only happens towards the lesser peoples of the world, and they’re only here taking advantage of the Japan we Japanese built up. They shouldn’t be here asking for anything. In any case, I as a superior Caucasian should have nothing to complain about. Those “Japanese Only” signs I referred to earlier during my spiel were merely efforts made by Japanese who have a complex towards foreigners and their foreign languages This was merely a shorthand for smoother business for them. Etc. etc.

I asked if he considered me a Japanese. He said yes, my Japanese was excellent, and I have citizenship. Good, thank you. So I mentioned the Otaru Onsens Case, and explained that despite my language level and citizenship, I had been refused entry just because I am White. He had never heard of it. I recommended my book. He repeated that he had never heard of it.

That’s the shortcoming of these types of people: Anything that has never entered their existence or view simply doesn’t exist. I let it go since there was no way to reach him. He shook my hand and gave me his card. Watanabe Tadashi, Vice President of the “Japan Family Value Society” (the J translation on the obverse is markedly different: He’s a member of the Hino City Assembly near Tokyo, Kikaku Soumu Iinchou, from the LDP. Opposes local ordinances guaranteeing the rights of the child, supports textbooks with the “proper” historical bent, and is vice-chair of the “kazoku no kizuna o mamoru kai), website http://www.watanabetadashi.net). Nice enough guy, but he should get out more.

I was the last one in the room, except for Chair Kimura and one of his staffers. I mentioned that proper procedure would have been to clear the room of those who wouldn’t obey the rules for a calm, peaceful gathering. He indicated that he thought it unthinkable to call security, soukaiya disruptions or not. I let it go again. No wonder people can’t deal effectively with bullies in this society.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

5) CONCLUSIONS

Our postmortem was an exercise in making the best of things. The person who demanded the apology said she was sorry for disrupting the meeting, but we would have none of it. There was no need to continue, the room held, because even the ministries were not doing their job of stopping epithets and hate speech–even when attendees deny the very need to follow UN treaty and the very need to hold this meeting. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to express hatred and disrupt calm and reasoned debate. If the conveners of the meeting cannot keep order, it’s no longer a viable meeting.

I am of two minds about what happened. The opinions above notwithstanding, I have the feeling we were played like a fiddle. Those people knew what would wind us up, and kept on poking us until we poked back. Yes, a proper chairman would have cleared the meeting of those people. But barring that, if I was everyone in our camp, I would have ignored the heckling, made my points calmly, stomached the epithets (only calling for time limits on speeches to be obeyed), and shown via the force of argument that our side was the stronger.

Then again, it’s entirely possible that this is what the MOFA wanted. These meetings are a nuisance for them. Now they can say there’s no need to have them again since they will only degenerate into shouting matches and potential fistfights. In the bad old days, in order for there to have been a hearing of this sort (and this was before the GOJ even bothered to listen to NGOs), there would have to be a Dietmember present. No Dietmember, no meeting. Now after liberalization, this event can now be used as an excuse for the bureaucrats to argue for a return to those ways. Whether that will happen is unclear, but in any case, the bully boys managed to sluice things off.

What’s next? Dunno. But it’s clear that we are getting closer to winning the debate–enough so that the Rightists feel threatened and need to appear and shout us down. If we don’t develop a thicker skin, and the coordinators of the meeting don’t take a more aggressive stand at keeping meetings calm and reasonable, there’s only going to be more of this in future.

Arudou Debito
Tokyo, Japan
September 1, 2007
MOFA JULY 31, 2007 CERD MEETING REPORT ENDS

Archives: Report Aug 1, 2006 on Diene, MOFA mtg, and Kouno Taro

mytest

Hi Blog. Somehow this never got archived last year, but it’s an important report. And since I’ve got a follow-up article to blog here after this, let me add this to the blog out of turn and refer to it in my current report. Arudou Debito in Tokyo.

===========================

From: Arudou Debito
Subject: [debito.org] Taro Kono and MOFA Tokyo mtgs update, Aug 1, 2006

Hello All. Arudou Debito here emailing you from near Todai in Tokyo. Two more mailings to send you before summer break. The first is an update on some things that happened during my current Tokyo trip. As follows:

////////////////////////////////////////////
1) DIETMEMBER KOUNO TARO PRESS CONFERENCE JULY 31
2) FOREIGN MINISTRY FORUM ON UN CERD AND DIENE REPORT JULY 28

////////////////////////////////////////////
Preliminary report dated August 1, 2006. Freely forwardable.

DIETMEMBER KOUNO TARO PRESS CONFERENCE
AT THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS’ CLUB, YURAKUCHO, TOKYO

Monday, July 31, 2006, 12PM-1:30PM

Attending as a guest of a FCCJ member, I listened to Lower House Dietmember, Senior Vice Justice Minister, and Prime Ministerial hopeful KOUNO Tarou give his thoughts at a luncheon on the future of Japan.

Kouno, 43, comes from a family of politicians. His father, current Dietmember Kouno Youhei, is a former cabinetmember and long-respected political powerhouse himself. A graduate of Georgetown University in the US and former employee of Fuji Xerox, Tarou is bilingual in English and gave his speech in that language. Now in his fourth term, Tarou was the first to announce his candidacy for the Prime Minister’s job back in May because, he said in the press conference, he was disturbed by the next-likely Prime Minister, Abe Shinzou, stating that the latter had stated the current pension system was financially sound despite the clear demographics of a shrinking Japanese population. His website can be found at http://www.taro.org.

His ideas have made some media waves (particularly his proposed 3% cap on the foreign population), and I have critiqued his proposed immigration policy plan in one of my Japan Times columns (July 11, 2006, see https://www.debito.org/japantimes071106.html).

He opened with his platform on energy, education, taxation, and pension policies, which I will skip for the purposes of this newsletter. When he opened the floor for questions, his answers were fortunately very indicative.

When asked about where he had gotten the “3% foreign population cap” (when if the population is projected to drop to 100 million by 2050, this means that the foreign population can only increase by another million–from the current population of 2 million–by then). He said that the 3% “is a cap but is not a cap”, stressing the need for the population to increase gradually. “When it reaches 3%, then we can talk about it again. The foreign population will increase, just not to the levels of 5% or 7% like we see in Europe in one step. It’s too early for Japan.”

He was especially critical of the “lying” he sees behind Japan’s immigration policy. “The front door is closed, yet the back door is open–for Nikkei workers and foreign trainees.” He called the early-1990’s policy to import Nikkei workers, ostensibly because they are “Japanese” by blood but in reality because they were simply cheap labor, “the biggest mistake”.

He favors a work environment where women and senior citizens can work to a more elderly age, but since even that will not make up the shortfall, there must be a national policy regarding immigration. The local governments should not have to suffer financially for hosting an unassimilated community of minorities which have grown big enough to become a self-sufficient language subculture. Rather, the national government should take it upon itself to take steps to assimilate these people in ways he outlined in my Japan Times article linked above.

However, if the national government is to try harder to assimilate immigrants, then the potential immigrant has to do the same. He stressed that there must be quantifiable language ability before arrival and improvement afterwards. “Give them three to five years to learn the language”, with tutelage and evaluation in ways not elaborated upon. As the situation for foreign residents stands right now, he called it “very sad”, as Nikkeis came over and found things different than they expected.

When asked whether or not he would favor the establishment of a racial discrimination law (no, it wasn’t me asking–I’m not a working journalist and thus not allowed to raise any questions), Kouno Tarou said that he was not: “Even if there is a law, the attitudes of society will not change.” He cited an example which is not even covered by international treaty (as it is an interaction between individuals): “If a foreigner asks for a date and is refused, is that racial discrimination?” He concluded with the importance of culture and nature before codifying change.

There were other points raised and questions asked, but for our readership these are the bullet points. I went up to him after the luncheon ended, gave him a copy of my book JAPANESE ONLY in Japanese (https://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html), and said this might help him understand why we need a racial discrimination law.

////////////////////////////////////////////

2) FOREIGN MINISTRY FORUM ON UN CERD AND DIENE REPORT JULY 28

Last Friday, I attended an 2-hour “iken koukan kai” (the second in what will hopefully be a series) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo. Around eighty people and dozens of human-rights groups (we don’t know precisely who-the MOFA wouldn’t release the guest list) attended, to discuss how the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, https://www.debito.org/cerd.html) should be implemented.

More specifically, our meeting would discuss Japan’s follow-up to the UN Reports of 2001 (see https://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html), now many years overdue, and to the Diene Reports of 2005 and 2006 where racism in Japan was reported as “deep and profound” and “practiced undisturbed” (see https://www.debito.org/rapporteur.html). Several ministries, namely the Ministry of Justice, the National Police Agency, the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, the Transportation Ministry [due to public works interfering with Ainu lands], and the Education Ministry, were in attendance. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted.

We had a pre-meeting at 1PM with our network of 30 NGOs and 5 concerned individuals (including volunteers, lawyers, businesspeople, students, and group representatives). Convocating and organizing was the group International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR, see http://www.imadr.org ), fronted by the very capable and young Mr Morihara (a person I see as a probable historical figure), who was largely behind UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene’s visits to Japan these past two years. Although the contents of this meeting are not something I can release to the public at this time, be it known that there was some trepidation expressed at the possibility of opponents attending to deliberately throw sand in the negotiations…

At 3PM the meeting started. The bureaucrats attending were almost all juniors in their twenties and thirties, except the chair of the meeting who was of kachou class (as usual, so nobody could speak on behalf of their ministries). After some preliminary remarks on the good works each ministry is doing in the name of human rights, we went person by person, row by row, with attendees making their stump speeches of being done wrong and how the government is in fact not helping out. We were told to limit our comments to one minute, though nobody did (it was impossible anyway), then the bureaucrats would respond after each row was finished. Six rows and three and a half hours later, we were done. Highlights:

I made a speech on how each ministry has ignored or overlooked human rights: Justice Ministry not even mentioning the possibility of an anti-racial discrimination law, Police targeting foreigners through campaigns and even DNA racial profiling (https://www.debito.org/NPAracialprofiling.html), Education Ministry talking about educating people about foreigners and foreign cultures instead of telling people how foreigners are residents too, and how the judiciary is not protecting us (Steve McGowan, losing plaintiff in the Osaka Eyeglass Exclusion Case, https://www.debito.org/mcgowanhanketsu.html, was in attendance, and sat next to me as I made the speech).

Others talked about problems with housing, health insurance, juuminhyou residency certificates, and the fact that the Diene Reports are were generally going ignored or justified out of existence. (Foreign Minister Aso Tarou spoke of the Diene report, in Gaikou Bouei Iinkai Meeting of May 18, 2006, to say essentially “that Diene’s visit was done as an individual, therefore the report is not binding as a UN report” (kankoku wa kojin no shikaku ni yoru no de, kokuren no kouteki kenkkai de wa naku houteki kousoku ryoku wa nai), and how Japan’s government would simply argue against it (nihon seifu to shite hanron bunsho o teishutsu suru). In the same month, leaders within the Foreign Ministry dismissed historical claims made by the Ainu, Zainichi Koreans, etc. as no longer modern (gendai teki keitai) enough to matter anymore to the discussion.

The right wing did indeed attend, with three old fogies (who mumbled their last names and refused to disclose their affiliations) waffling on about how it was all very well to talk about minority rights, but what of the majority of Japanese being “exploited” (sakushu) and Japan’s mythology (jinwa) no longer being taught in schools? After all, they said, what good is learning about foreigners if Japanese don’t learn about themselves properly? That was quickly shot down by one of our party who said, “Mythology and the CERD are unrelated, so can we move on?” We did.

At the end we did our standard practice of going up to shake hands with the bureaucrats, thank them for coming, and exit for a postmortem at a follow-up meeting. That meeting’s particulars are not something I can make public again, except to say that we established a specific network to deal with this situation. Not entitled “Coexistence with Foreigners” or some other such othering guff. It was a group (official title TBD) to fight against *racial discrimination*–because race, not nationality, is the issue here, and enough people now recognize it as such. This, above all, is the big victory of this trip.

////////////////////////////////////////////

Enough for now. More good news to follow in a few days. Thanks for reading.

Arudou Debito
Nezu, Tokyo
debito@debito.org
www.debito.org
August 1, 2006
EMAIL ENDS

Japan Times Aug 14 on Valentine Case, plus new JT column Aug 28

mytest

Hi Blog. About to jump on my bicycle again for a few days and catch the tail-end of the Hokkaido summer, but here’s a link to a Japan Times article on the Valentine Case, which came out shortly before my last cycle trip.

Japan Times column: “ABUSE, RACISM, LOST EVIDENCE DENY JUSTICE IN VALENTINE CASE: Nigerian’s ordeal shows that different standards apply for foreigners in court” (August 14, 2007).

Column 37 for the Japan Times Community Page
Courtesy http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20070814zg.html
More information and documentation on this case at https://www.debito.org/valentinelawsuit.html

Excerpt:
===============================
In 1999, a Brazilian resident of Japan named Milton Higaki was involved in an accident that killed a schoolgirl. Rather than face justice in Japan, he fled to Brazil fearing “discrimination as a foreigner in Japanese courts.”

Although the domestic media quickly saw this as a case of crooked-foreigner-as-flight-risk, human rights attorney Yasuko Morioka took a more nuanced view, criticizing Japan’s “lack of legal hearings that consider the rights of foreign(ers).”

While fleeing from justice is not to be condoned, cases like Higaki’s are more understandable considering the increasing awareness of the scarier aspects of Japan’s judicial system.

Not only is the United Nations aware of the potential for torture in Japan’s prisons (more below), but courts here also tend to use different judicial standards when coming to decisions in cases involving non-Japanese.

Consider the Valentine case…
===============================

Webbed with links to original sources on Debito.org at https://www.debito.org/japantimes081407.html Original blog report on this case at https://www.debito.org/?p=497

Meanwhile, next Tuesday, August 28 (Wednesday in the provinces) will see my next column coming out in the Japan Times Community Page, on how NJ are being blamed for just about anything these days, and how that adversely affects any possible assimilation.

Enjoy. Arudou Debito in Sapporo

レポート:イドゥボ逮捕と物的証拠なき半年拘留事件

mytest

 皆様こんにちは。Debito.orgの有道 出人です。たいへんご無沙汰しております。

 猛暑日のなか、この事件を申し上げることは恐縮ですが、報告を送信します。これは物的証拠がなくても拘留して迅速な裁判にしてもらう権利を問う事件です。

イドゥボ・オサユワメン,準強姦被告事件
iduborphotocrop1.jpg
 2007年1月22日、本日からちょうど7ヶ月前、横浜市で飲食店を経営しているナイジリア国籍のイドゥボ氏は加賀町警察に逮捕されました。容疑は、2006年11月1日に当飲食店にて酩酊している日本人女性が彼にレイプされたという訴えでした。イドゥボの弁護士津留崎基行(つるさきもとゆき)によると、「平成19年1月22日に準強姦罪で逮捕され,平成19年2月9日に準強姦罪で起訴されました。上記逮捕とそれに引き続く拘留により平成19年5月11日まで加賀町警察署に留置されていましたが,同日,横浜拘置支所に移監になり,現在も同所において留置されています。当職は,平成19年5月21日付けで保釈の請求をいたしましたが,却下されました。」物的証拠がないというものの、イドゥボ氏は未だに拘留されている。筋によると、一つの理由は外国人容疑者の場合、「海外に逃亡する可能性がある」と刑事裁判官が思われているかもしれません。

 アムネスティ・インタナショナルからの紹介で、私はイドゥボ氏の妻(ポランド国籍)から連絡をいただき、彼女は彼の健康状態について大変心配しております。半年以上拘留された結果、彼の頭皮に蕁麻疹が発生し脱毛となり、耳からも血が出ています。にもかかわらず、適切な看病や病院へのアクセスが拒否されているようです。

 (実は、これはバレンタイン裁判と同様です。03年、ナイジリア出身のバレンタイン氏は警察に足が折られたと主張したものの、警察署は10日間の留置で適切な医療行為を拒否して、保釈した本人は現在に至り有害者となりました。損害賠償を要請したバレンタイン氏は東京地裁に今年3月に却下され、現在控訴中。高裁判決全文、警察署の陳述と私が書いたジャパンタイムズの記事はhttps://www.debito.org/valentinelawsuit.html。ちなみに、国連の反拷問委員会が本年5月に発行した日本に対する留置中の「拷問に等しい待遇」についての批判はhttps://www.debito.org/?p=415)

 イドゥボ氏の弁護士からのメモを全文転送させていただきます。問い合わせ、ご取材などをどうぞ津留崎弁護士に直接ご連絡下さい。次回の裁判期日は9月3日(月)14:30〜午後5時です。宜しくお願い致します。有道 出人

////////////////////////////////

〒231-0011
神奈川県横浜市中区太田町1-20三和ビル4A
つるさき法律事務所   弁護士 津留_ 基行
TEL:045-663-6874 / FAX:045-663-6895
email: tsurusaki AT tsuruhou DOT com

被告人イドゥボ・オサユワメン,準強姦被告事件の不合理な点

1 裁判で争われている公訴事実
 平成18年11月1日午前6時30分ころから同日午前9時30分ころまでの間に,飲食店店長であった被告人が,酩酊して抵抗不能な状態になっている客の女性を姦淫したというもの(準強姦)。

2 証拠の概況
 かかる強姦の事実があったことを示す物的な証拠は全くないと言っても過言ではなく,被害者の女性の供述がほぼ唯一の証拠となっている。

 もちろん,被告人は強姦の事実は否定しており,姦淫の事実すらないと述べている。

 ところが,被害者の女性の供述は以下の通り極めて不合理な点が多い。

3 被害者女性による供述の不合理な点
 被害者女性は複数の供述調書を残し,かつ公判廷でも証人として証言したが,供述する度に供述内容が変遷しており一貫していない。

 例えば,被害者女性は店の中でテキーラの一気飲みを3回したと供述しているが,最初の1杯を飲んだときに酔いが回って店の中で寝てしまったと供述したこともあれば,3回目に飲むまでは酔っていなかったと供述していることもある。また,レイプされている最中,自分の顔の上に被告人の顔があったと供述したこともあれば,被告人の顔は見えなかったと供述していることもある。

 また,被害者女性の供述は,客観的証拠とも合致していない点がある。

 例えば,被害者女性は被害に遭った後,パンティーに血がにじんでいたと供述しているが,証拠として提出されているパンティーの写真には血は付着していない。また,被害者女性は被告人に店舗の床の上で引きずられたと供述しているが,証拠として提出されている着衣の写真は全く汚れていない。

 その他,被害者の供述は,その供述内容自体が不自然である点が多い。

 例えば,被害者は,強姦の際に抵抗できないほど酔っていたと供述しながら,その直後に床上を這って店舗の入り口付近まで進んだと述べ,また,這って動くくらいかできないはずであるのに,その場所で足も届かないような高い椅子に自ら腰掛けたと述べ,そのようにする力があるにもかかわらず施錠もされていない店舗の外に逃げようともしていない。

 また,強姦の被害に遭った後,強姦した犯人であるはずの被告人の運転する車で友人宅まで送ってもらったと被害者は供述しているが,この点も通常は信じがたいところである。

 また,強姦の様子についても,その所要時間は1,2分程度で,犯人は射精もせずに自発的に姦淫行為を中断したと被害者が供述している点についても,通常は信じがたいところである。

 強姦被害に遭った当日の行動についても,被害者は当日の朝に抵抗できないほど酔った状態で強姦の被害に遭ったと供述しているにもかかわらず,同日の昼には友人の彼氏と2人でレストランに行って食事をとったと供述しており,強姦被害者の行動としては不自然といわざるを得ない。

 以上指摘した他にも,被害者の供述の中には,多数の不合理な点が含まれている。

4 弁護人の考え
 本件に関する証拠を吟味し,被告人との面会を重ねてきた弁護人は,被告人が本件について完全に無罪であることを確信している。

 そこで,是非とも無罪判決を勝ち取りたいと切望している。

5 要請事項
 時折,ニュースにおいて,真実は無実であるにもかかわらず有罪判決を受け,それが後に無罪であることが判明したという事件が報じられることがあるが,このようなケースは氷山の一角である。

 日本の刑事裁判の実態としては,起訴されれば99.9%有罪判決が出されるのが現状であり,どんなに弁護人が無罪を確信し,弁護活動をしたとしてもなかなか無罪判決が出されることはない。

 刑事裁判官の側に立てば,別の見方もありうるが,上のような現状認識が刑事弁護に携わっている多くの弁護士の共通認識であろうと思われる。

 とはいえ,このような現状を打破し,刑事裁判の結果を左右させるために,直接的に担当裁判所に対して政治的な圧力をかけるような行為は,裁判の公正を害する行為であるから慎まなければならない。

 有効なことは,公正な裁判が実現されるのかどうかを多くの人々が見守っているという事実を裁判所に何らかの形で知ってもらうことである。そのような監視の目があることを裁判所が認識すれば,公正な裁判を実現するために裁判所としては拙速を避けて慎重な審理を心がける可能性がある。

 例えば,裁判の傍聴は広く認められた権利であることから,多くの人達が裁判を傍聴することになれば,それによって裁判所も監視の目があることを意識するものと考えられる。

 もしも,次回の裁判期日(平成19年9月3日(月)14:30〜午後5時)に多くの傍聴希望者がいるとすれば,できる限り多くの傍聴人が裁判を傍聴できるように,広い法廷に変更してもらったり,傍聴人用の補助椅子を用意してもらうなどの要求を当職から裁判所に伝えたいと考えている。

平成19年7月6日
以上

Ijuuren publishes “Living Together with Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Japan, NGO Policy Proposals”

mytest

Hello Blog. Solidarity with Migrants Japan (SMJ, Ijuuren) has just published a book you might be interested in ordering. Debito in Sapporo

————————————————————–
Living Together with Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Japan
NGO Policy Proposals
————————————————————–

Table of Contents
Preface
Terms

Part I: At the Crossroads of Migrants Policies
Chapter 1: Toward the Future of Harmonious Multiethnic and
Multicultural Coexistence
Chapter 2: Enactment of Legislation for Human Rights and Harmonious
Coexistence

Part II: Over Individual Issues
Chapter 3: Right to Work and Rights of Working People
Chapter 4: Rights of Migrant Women
Chapter 5: Human Rights for Families and Children
Chapter 6: Education of Children
Chapter 7: Healthcare and Social Security Services
Chapter 8: Local Autonomy and Foreign Residents
Chapter 9: Opening the Gates to Refugees
Chapter 10: Detention and Deportation
Chapter 11: The Right to Trial
Chapter 12: Eliminating Racism and Discrimination against Foreigners

Publisher: Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (Ijuuren, SMJ)
Date of publication: July 31, 2007, 1st English edition
Price: JPY 1500 (excluding mailing cost)
ISBN 4-87798-346-8 C0036

This book is translated from the Japanese version published in 2006.

More information on both books at http://www.jca.apc.org/migrant-net/Japanese/Japanese.html
ENDS

移住連06年版『外国籍住民との共生にむけて−−NGOからの政策提言』は英訳版出版

mytest

頂いたメールを転送します。有道 出人

======================
From: fmwj@jca.apc.org
Subject: [s-watch] 政策提言の英訳版を出版しました!
Date: August 9, 2007 6:41:41 PM JST
To: fmwj@jca.apc.org

 移住連の高谷です。
 06年に出版した『外国籍住民との共生にむけて−−NGOからの政策提言』の英訳版を出版しました!
http://www.jca.apc.org/migrant-net/Japanese/Japanese.html

ご注文・お問い合わせは、移住連事務局までご連絡ください。
またお知り合いの方にもご案内いただけると幸いです。
なお日本語版も好評発売中です。こちらも併せてご利用ください。

————————————————————–
Living Together with Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Japan
NGO Policy Proposals
————————————————————–

Table of Contents
Preface
Terms

Part I: At the Crossroads of Migrants Policies
Chapter 1: Toward the Future of Harmonious Multiethnic and
Multicultural Coexistence
Chapter 2: Enactment of Legislation for Human Rights and Harmonious
Coexistence

Part II: Over Individual Issues
Chapter 3: Right to Work and Rights of Working People
Chapter 4: Rights of Migrant Women
Chapter 5: Human Rights for Families and Children
Chapter 6: Education of Children
Chapter 7: Healthcare and Social Security Services
Chapter 8: Local Autonomy and Foreign Residents
Chapter 9: Opening the Gates to Refugees
Chapter 10: Detention and Deportation
Chapter 11: The Right to Trial
Chapter 12: Eliminating Racism and Discrimination against Foreigners

***********************************************
移住労働者と連帯する全国ネットワーク
東京都文京区小石川2-17-41富坂キリスト教センター
2号館203号室
TEL:03-5802-6033 FAX:03-5802-6034
e-mail fmwj @jca.apc.org
URL