Absolute freedom of speech is difficult
Here are our thoughts on freedom of speech.
Of course, there are many different opinions, but please think of this as just one among them.
Freedom of speech exists in theory.
However, absolute freedom of speech is not permitted in reality. Freedom of speech has a price.
That price is the risk of being sued for defamation, insult, or intimidation.
Also, it can lose the trust of many people. Even though freedom of speech exists, no one can unilaterally threaten or hurt others, regardless of whether there is any evidence or not.
However, we feel the situation has changed somewhat with the enactment of a certain legislation.
It’s the “Hate Speech Elimination Act” you’re all familiar with, formally titled “Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons with Countries of Origin other than Japan“.
As you can probably understand from this formal name, the law does not apply equally to all. In other words, only Japanese people are subject to punishment, while hate speech against Japanese people by foreigners is permitted as part of freedom of speech.
Who in the Japanese Diet proposed this “law that only punishes Japanese people” ?
If such laws are to be enacted, their scope of application should be applied equally to all people residing in Japan.
Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons with Countries of Origin other than Japan : Preamble
SOURCE: Japan Law Translation(2022/10/22)
In recent years in Japan, unfair discriminatory speech and behavior has been used to incite the exclusion of persons with countries of origin other than Japan, or their descendants, who are legally residing in Japan, from local communities, on the grounds that they are from countries or regions outside of Japan. This has caused great suffering to persons of the origin or their descendants and serious rifts in the local communities.
Obviously, the unfair discriminatory speech and behavior should never have been tolerated, and it is not appropriate for Japan to overlook this situation in light of its position in the international community.
It is therefore declared that the unfair discriminatory speech and behavior is unacceptable, and this Act is established to promote efforts to eliminate the unfair discriminatory speech and behavior by informing the citizens and obtaining their understanding and cooperation through further human rights education and awareness- raising, etc.
https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4081
Issues of discrimination against Zainichi Koreans(People who have resided here since the Greater East Asia War era) have long been discussed. And in recent years, we’ve also heard about discrimination against refugees from Ukraine.
Both you and we surely have many friends overseas. Discrimination by some Japanese people is a deeply saddening issue.
Their contributions also support Japanese society. In other words, we must recognize that this problem is a shameful behavior that excludes specific people from the fabric of society.
For these reasons, it is also necessary to carefully consider and understand the background of how this law was enacted.
Even so, the reason we believe this law has problems relates to our relationship with South Korea.
The essence of this problem stems from the negligence of the government and Diet members.
The government and Diet members enacting this kind of law despite neglecting the root cause feels like claiming to mediate a fight while restraining only their own side’s hands and feet, allowing the opponent to strike unilaterally.
1. Are there clear criteria for defining hate speech ?
Here, “criteria” refers to the standards used to determine which hate speech warrants punishment.
Some may disagree, but we believe that as long as laws are used to judge people, it is necessary to clearly show citizens “what kind of statements constitute hate speech”.
People who disagree might think, “Since standards can vary depending on the situation, defining clear criteria is impossible”.
However, accepting that approach means allowing that the same statement could make some people punishable and others not. Also, if we’re talking about the situation, it might be possible to prosecute under other laws, such as “Chapter 32 of the Penal Code: Crimes of Intimidation”.
Is it acceptable to judge citizens based on such ambiguous criteria ?
Recently, we see news reports stating “this was determined to be hate speech.” But as long as no clear criteria for determining hate speech are established, it should be explicitly explained who made the determination and based on what criteria.
If they cannot disclose this, then it must be called clear suppression of speech.
In the extreme, it means the person making this judgment can convict anyone they dislike.
2. Are the government and Diet members addressing the root causes ?
As mentioned above, there is indeed regrettable discrimination in Japan.
However, we believe one cause of this is anti-Korean sentiment. This stems from repulsion caused by Korea’s ongoing illegal occupation and anti-Japan policies and actions.
A certain number of people on TV and social media suggest that “Japan must endure forever and keep apologizing forever.”
However, the essence of this suggestion sounds like saying “Korean must never forgive Japan for its past mistakes.” (It’s the same mindset as a certain country.)
And while they constantly claim “for the future of our children …”, they are imposing a heavy psychological burden on their children and grandchildren’s generations. And this means that anti-Korean sentiment will never disappear.
In order to eliminate discrimination, the government and cabinet must take decisive action.
If they are simply praising themselves for enacting a wonderful law without addressing the root cause, it means the entire state is imposing suppression of speech against Japanese people.
And that suppression inevitably contributes to discrimination and hate speech.
The word “freedom” is extremely difficult. Freedom without any restrictions only becomes a lawless state.
Freedom of speech should be understood strictly as freedom under the law.
※ We consider this issue and voting rights for foreigners to be separate matters.
※ Also, when ”National Intelligence Act” or “National Defense Mobilization Law” applies to overseas residents, we deal with it as a national risk.
Reference: MINISTRY OF DEFENSE(2022/10/22)
https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/radar/index.html
Thanks.
2022/10/23