Newsletter No. 977
Editorial-Opinion
April 15, 2008

 

CRUSHING DISSENT -- LESSONS FROM JAPAN

If you live in Japan like I do, chances are that almost every day your mailbox is stuffed with junk mail that you’d rather not be given. Advertisements for nail salons, for pizza parlors, for dodgy loans -- all kinds of garbage winds up in my mailbox.

Better not start distributing leaflets opposing government policies though. In 2004 some anti-Iraq War activists had the bright idea that they might enter the apartment complex of SDF families and hand out leaflets opposing the war. That might have been a little too intrusive. Still, what the government did was to arrest these activists on the spot and hold them in jail for no less than two-and-a-half months.

The Japanese Supreme Court now says that this is just fine and dandy -- I mean, the one thing we know about Japanese civil society is that it is way too engaged in democratic politics and activism, right? This’ll show ‘em!

We’re still a long, long way from the prewar Peace Preservation Laws here, but when the day comes, how much time in prison do you think that I will deserve for writing the Shingetsu Newsletter? More than two-and-a-half months, I reckon.

I can’t improve much on the Asahi Shinbun’s take:

Ruling on SDF Leaflet
Asahi Shinbun
April 15, 2008

In January 2004, when Self-Defense Forces troops were being deployed to Iraq amid chaos triggered by the war, three people, all members of a citizens group, distributed leaflets to units in a housing compound in Tachikawa, western Tokyo, that belonged to the former Defense Agency.

The leaflets said: "To SDF personnel and families: We are against the SDF deployment to Iraq! Let's think together and express opposition (to the deployment)!" Two of the three citizens distributed different leaflets in February as well.

In response to a report from someone in the compound, police arrested the three on suspicion of trespassing. Then, police handling of the case became extraordinary. Even after indictment, the three activists were not released on bail. Instead, they were held in detention for 75 days. This police investigation smacked of a targeted crackdown by the authorities against any movement that opposed the SDF deployment to Iraq.

During their trial, the three defendants contended that bringing a criminal charge of intrusion against someone who has done nothing but distribute leaflets violates the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument Friday in its ruling.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee unlimited freedom of expression, the top court said. The SDF housing complex is not a place that offers free access to the public. So, the ruling said, entering the premises against the wishes of the manager of the facility disturbs the peace of the residents' private lives. The top court's decision upheld the fines of 100,000 yen to 200,000 yen slapped on the three defendants in a lower court ruling.

Around the time when they distributed the leaflets, public opinion was sharply divided over the SDF mission in Iraq, with much debate over the issue put forward. It is likely true that many of the SDF personnel and their families at the housing complex were disturbed or annoyed when they found the leaflets opposing the SDF deployment to Iraq in their newspaper boxes at their apartments. And it is hardly surprising that strangers entering the compound without obtaining permission would make residents uneasy. The activists should have distributed the leaflets in less intrusive ways, such as putting them in the mailboxes on the ground floor of the buildings or handing them out on the public streets in front of the buildings.

However, none of that merited the harsh treatment they received -- immediate arrests, more than two months of detention without bail and criminal charges. We are greatly disappointed at the Supreme Court ruling, which effectively endorsed and took no issue with an investigation and prosecution that far overstepped the bounds of common sense. We fear the top court decision may serve as a powerful disincentive to anyone considering distributing leaflets for causes of any kind. This ruling narrows the means available for people to communicate alternative opinions. It will undermine the vitality of the nation's democracy.

The ruling came on top of a recent series of events that raised disturbing concerns about freedom of speech and expression in this country. Amid the growing controversy over director Li Ying's documentary "Yasukuni," which describes people and events linked to the Shinto shrine in Tokyo dedicated to the nation's war dead, including war criminals, several theaters have decided not to screen the film in fear of a rightist backlash. A hotel in Tokyo canceled a reservation by the Japan Teachers Union for a meeting of its members in violation of a contract, citing the likelihood that rightist groups would stage noisy protests nearby with loudspeaker vans.

A society can't be called democratic if its people cannot speak and express opinions freely. A democratic society requires its members to be tolerant of all opinions, whether people disagree with them or not. We must be willing to listen to all people. Such tolerance and open-mindedness are of vital importance for the health of our society.

COMMENTARY

1) From Adam Lebowitz of Tsukuba University on April 17, 2008:

Consider this a foreigner's meditation on the state of civil liberties in Japan.

In your comment on the Tachikawa decision, you said that if the leaflet distributors received two-and-a-half months for their actions, as editor of the Shingetsu Newsletter you would receive a much harsher punishment. Hard to say at this point, but if history is any judge, deportation might be the more convenient state option, assuming of course there is no declared war on the US at the time.

If there were such a war, yes, the barbed wire prison camp awaits (I have met foreign missionaries who spent their time in such places during WWII). However, even though it is always prudent to look at situations in their most extreme, we have to act in the present.

Consider: What, in today's Japan, is the role of the foreign activist? Has there ever really been one? Are our actions discounted -- by both sides, even -- by virtue of our lack of nationality? This is something that has been weighing on mind quite strongly recently, in particular with the Yasukuni documentary furor, but also concerning Tachikawa and the National Teacher's Union's refused access to a hotel for fear of threats by right-wing groups. This same fear has also prevented, with the quiet assent from like-minded politicians, the showing of the movie.

I myself have marched in demonstrations protesting the SDF Iraq deployment, and our tiny, regional group in the provinces met with no ill-will from local hooligans, but this was six years ago. Things have changed, and it appears that our equivalent of the National Front is acting both with more confidence and more effectiveness. As I prepare an essay for a Japanese-language literary journal critical of the 'Beautiful Country' ideology, should I fear for a brick to be thrown through my window, or worse, my rented house torched? I really don't think so, if only because of the journal's small circulation.

However, in the near future, if, as it appears, the aikoku/nationalist agenda becomes more entrenched in the public school curriculum, what effect will this have on my children's education? This, I must admit, is far more worrisome than any perceived reaction to my writings. Not that I am fearful of them being excluded because of their 'mixed' ethnicity; rather, if 'patriotism and morality' continues as a textbook course for which they receive grades, will they be impacted when I raise concerns about this at school board meetings? Will the authorities feel inclined to 'keep an eye' on us as a result? Again, this is speculation, but history has its examples, and I would like to hear from members of this list if they have ever been the recipient of unwanted attention because of their actions.

I close here with words from the China-born director of 'Yasukuni' Li Ying from an interview in the Japan Times:

Many Japanese don't know about Yasukuni, they feel it has nothing to do with them. But that's wrong. It needs to be recognized, looked at and thought about, and the film provides that opportunity. So it's not anti-Japanese. It's my love letter to Japan, in that sense. I live in Japan. How could something that is anti-Japanese be good for me, personally? This love letter may be hard to watch, but that's the form my love takes.

To have love for the Country but concern for reaction from the State: This sums up the situation faced by Mr. Penn, myself, and probably many other foreign residents here. Again, I cannot predict what repercussions to our person our political activism will bring, but only that the personal and the political will be bound together more strongly than has been the case previously.