Growing Surveillance and Control

[Wage Slave]

Agreed.We do not know what the trauma was or if he has a reliable diagnosis. It may be that there was a significant trauma - Afghanistan and Iraq, among other places, are capable of delivering that. However, if it is affected rather than real PTSD then shame on him - That's as bad or even worse than what the police did.

Yes. People have different thresholds, and for some a severe grilling by the gestapo or just plain old bullying will do it, especially if they're already on the edge. Lots of it going around up here after 3/11 by the way, and I suspect there are plenty of simmering cases ready to boil over into full-on symptoms when a suitable trigger comes along. It can be difficult to pinpoint the root cause. I'll go back and check the article again, but I think the claim is that the incident "worsened" the guy's PTSD?

Be right back after a quick check ...

EDIT: Yup, the wording is: 「当時患っていたPTSD（心的外傷後ストレス障害）の症状が悪化したなど・・・」, which translates roughly as "exacerbated the PTSD symptoms he was suffering from at the time". So there ya go, the claim isn't that the incident gave him PTSD, but that it aggravated the symptoms of an existing condition.

And yes, without question 3/11 was sufficient trauma to cause it for a very large number of people.

[wagyl]

And yes, without question 3/11 was sufficient trauma to cause it for a very large number of people.

Whether being approached by authority figures is enough to be a trigger in that particular cause example is another matter.....

[Wage Slave]

And yes, without question 3/11 was sufficient trauma to cause it for a very large number of people.

Whether being approached by authority figures is enough to be a trigger in that particular cause example is another matter.....

Perhaps true. I lack understanding of the condition but it seems reasonable to suggest that if someone is vulnerable/close to the edge then any stressful situation could be more than they can cope with and may significantly set back their recovery.

[wagyl]

I wasn't going to get into a deep discussion of this, but it is analogous to trigger words with millennials. Is it the responsibility of the police force that a person has an adverse reaction to him? Does that mean that they have to walk on eggshells around you and me as well? And have to think twice before they approach someone to book them for not having a seatbelt fastened? Or before they go to someone's house to examine a case of condiment destruction? Are they triggering people by standing in the koban, rather than sitting at the desk? And how do they know that you or I are vulnerable, until the trigger has already been pulled?

If someone is on a knife-edge and the stress of being a member of society will set them off, is this a fault of society?

There is a line drawn somewhere here, and we do not have the information to even start to speculate about which side of the line this one falls. And it is not our job to do so, thank heavens.

[Wage Slave]

I wasn't going to get into a deep discussion of this, but it is analogous to trigger words with millennials. Is it the responsibility of the police force that a person has an adverse reaction to him? Does that mean that they have to walk on eggshells around you and me as well? And have to think twice before they approach someone to book them for not having a seatbelt fastened? Or before they go to someone's house to examine a case of condiment destruction? Are they triggering people by standing in the koban, rather than sitting at the desk? And how do they know that you or I are vulnerable, until the trigger has already been pulled?

If someone is on a knife-edge and the stress of being a member of society will set them off, is this a fault of society?

There is a line drawn somewhere here, and we do not have the information to even start to speculate about which side of the line this one falls. And it is not our job to do so, thank heavens.

True, there is a line to be drawn somewhere and the police have to do their job. That's for sure. In search of that line I would ask, inter alia,:

1. Was the intervention by police officers reasonably necessary and for the common good?
2. Was it unnecessarily long, detailed or intrusive?
3. Was it carried out in accordance with some sort of agreed code of practice?

If no code of practice exists and/or very importantly no independent complaints procedure exists, then why not? The police aren't under proper control if all they have to worry about is individuals bringing civil cases against them.

[wagyl]

I am glad we have moved on from "this country has experienced earthquakes so being asked questions by a person in authority might make some people so nervous their functioning is impaired."

Let alone "without question" and "for a very large number of people."

[Wage Slave]

I am glad we have moved on from "this country has experienced earthquakes so being asked questions by a person in authority might make some people so nervous their functioning is impaired."

Let alone "without question" and "for a very large number of people."

Erm, You are quoting phrases out of context which is naughty and unworthy. What I said was:

"And yes, without question 3/11 was sufficient trauma to cause it (PTSD) for a very large number of people."

Which was in response to

"Lots of it going around up here after 3/11 by the way, and I suspect there are plenty of simmering cases ready to boil over into full-on symptoms when a suitable trigger comes along."

Given the size of the trauma inflicted by 3/11 on a very large number of people I see nothing wrong at all with either statement.

[wagyl]

Wrist duly slapped.

A apologise for making you have to go to the effort to explain again.

And as I write this, I realise that it is impossible to express that without it sounding sarcastic.

[matsuki]

I was wondering why Kuro and you guys were trivializing his PTSD claims...the way I read it, he admitted he was already suffering from PTSD and it was much worsened by this experience. I don't find that far fetched at all.

Opening his car door against his will and the unwarranted search, shit talking and likely threats when they found what sounds like a perfectly legal sized swiss army knife....and finally the subsequent "questioning" at the station for an unreasonable amount of time that resulted in nothing but his fingerprints on an "apology letter" typed by the officers themselves. I somehow doubt I'm the only one on here that's been through something similar to this with the cops here...and it is pretty damn traumatizing when you've done nothing wrong and you're being treated like a criminal by the police who are laughing/yelling at you...because you've dared to refuse a voluntary request from them. You can never have to many cameras rolling when they pull you over.

[Wage Slave]

Wrist duly slapped.

A apologise for making you have to go to the effort to explain again.

And as I write this, I realise that it is impossible to express that without it sounding sarcastic.

Noted and accepted in the spirit offered. Thank you.

[Yokohammer]

I am glad we have moved on from "this country has experienced earthquakes so being asked questions by a person in authority might make some people so nervous their functioning is impaired."

Let alone "without question" and "for a very large number of people."

I don't think that was ever the thrust of the discussion. I mentioned 3/11 to point out that there are probably a lot of people around who are susceptible to some sort of breakdown when stress is applied, not to argue that the police should be required to attain degrees in psychology in order to deal with people in general.

However, the police apply stress as a matter of course. Sometimes legitimately, and sometimes just because they can. So the question "was the police officer applying stress to Innocent Person A for a legitimate reason?" is a valid one, dontcha think?

If a cop is busting someone's balls for the fun of it, or to relieve his own pent-up frustrations, I'd say that would deserve punitive action. And if that illegitimate action by the plod caused an innocent victim to suffer a relapse of some sort of underlying condition, I'd say that would magnify the offence.

This sort of ties in with my antipathy toward the fairly common practice of using people going about their business on the street to "train" police officers. I remember making a fairly lengthy post about this, and how the police show a total lack of consideration for the possibility that some of the people they stop and question for their "training purposes" might suffer greatly because of it. That, in my mind, is just blithe abuse of authority.

EDIT: I note as I post this that part of my concern has already been addressed and resolved in a most gentleman-like manner ... but I'll just post anyway because I couldn't be arsed to go back and edit. Nicely handled by Wage Slave and Wagyl.

[wagyl]

I was wondering why Kuro and you guys were trivializing his PTSD claims...the way I read it, he admitted he was already suffering from PTSD and it was much worsened by this experience. I don't find that far fetched at all.

Not trivialised, just that we don't have enough information.

In a past life I did actually work with PTSD-as-a-result-of-violence patients. You have never seen a bigger group of large men who all compete to sit against the wall so that there will be no threats approaching from behind them. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FUCKING DOOR!*

The question still remains, Matsuki: are the police responsible for the man's vulnerability? Do we make it so that the police are responsible, whether the man is at risk or not? And how do they know until it is too late?

I suppose another way of looking at this is, does that presence of PTSD make the police action worse than otherwise? Is it fair that you get less compensation, because you are robust, even though the police did the same?

* Thinking about this, in one way it would be pretty obvious that something was wrong, if the guy did have PTSD. But thinking about it from another angle, that guy would be behaving in a way that could be easily interpreted as suspicious, and lead to a worsening of the situation.

[matsuki]

I was wondering why Kuro and you guys were trivializing his PTSD claims...the way I read it, he admitted he was already suffering from PTSD and it was much worsened by this experience. I don't find that far fetched at all.

Not trivialised, just that we don't have enough information.

In a past life I did actually work with PTSD-as-a-result-of-violence patients. You have never seen a bigger group of large men who all compete to sit against the wall so that there will be no threats approaching from behind them. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FUCKING DOOR!*

Will be interesting to see if more details come out.

The question still remains, Matsuki: are the police responsible for the man's vulnerability? Do we make it so that the police are responsible, whether the man is at risk or not? And how do they know until it is too late?

I suppose another way of looking at this is, does that presence of PTSD make the police action worse than otherwise? Is it fair that you get less compensation, because you are robust, even though the police did the same?

* Thinking about this, in one way it would be pretty obvious that something was wrong, if the guy did have PTSD. But thinking about it from another angle, that guy would be behaving in a way that could be easily interpreted as suspicious, and lead to a worsening of the situation.

They're responsible for following the protocol...which wouldn't be opening the guys door and searching without permission or a warrant. When I got my visit from the tards in suits, they didn't even say they had a warrant or wanted to search the place...but were happy to take a picture of me with the warrant shoved in my face after they broke in. If they break protocol and shit hits the fan due to an unforeseen health issue or whatnot, then yes...I do think they are responsible. If they were abiding by protocol, hard to fault them but that's clearly not what happened here.

This sort of ties in with my antipathy toward the fairly common practice of using people going about their business on the street to "train" police officers. I remember making a fairly lengthy post about this, and how the police show a total lack of consideration for the possibility that some of the people they stop and question for their "training purposes" might suffer greatly because of it. That, in my mind, is just blithe abuse of authority.

THIS x 9999999999999

Risky and the training would be sooo much more beneficial if it were other experienced cops they "questioned."

[kurogane]

I was wondering why Kuro and you guys were trivializing his PTSD claims...

Because you are an even frillier panty wearing pussy than this worthless fuck (as far as we know).? And that was affectionate, BTW. Nobody "admits" to PTSD. Americans claim it, but we know you. You guys claim dyslexia when you're just fat, lazy and stupid. We know who Oprah is, man. Assuming an American in a lawsuit like this is hyperbolic is what Occam would do. Now, having had my fun, if Nancy is a veteran and has it, fair enough, and apologies, and as I said, he deserves to take the Mofos to court anyways, because that's his goddamn right. Claiming PTSD makes him sound like a Nancy.

But I am thoroughly enjoying this Star Trek episode level role reversal between me and YokoH. For all of the reasons everybody's mentioned. His (Nancy's, not YokoHammer's) charge seems trivial to me. I think he's a typical new school Americunt wussy pants pisspot. Even if he gets his money, which perhaps he should, without further information he ranks up there with the Kyushu Crowdsourcer that needed to flee Fukushima: just because there's shitloads of Americans doesn't mean the stupid ones aren't cunts. But that doesn't mean cops should be or can be cunts, and as YokoH pointed out, good if he can make them realise that. But it doesn't make him not a pamty pissing whiney American cunt. You guys need to grow some fucking balls again. As a neighbour, I find you a shameful and shamelessly whiney people. The US sucks assballs. At least you're not there. Say Arigatou 3 times right now.

Nice work Wagyl, btw. I once walked down the street and a 5 year old pointed out how white I am. Oh......the trauma. Shell shock is serious shit. Getting pulled over isn't.

[matsuki]

I'll wear any frilly panty for you Kuro

I intentionally used the word admit because he's not doing what you originally thought, claiming the PTSD is from the cops but is actually admitting his "kowai kowai" condition is the result of an aggravation of a preexisting condition. What caused it and those details we aren't privy to...so he gets the benefit of the doubt as to how legit it is.

[wagyl]

so he gets the benefit of the doubt as to how legit it is.

He gets exactly the same benefit of the doubt, as I give someone who claims that their ADHD is the reason that they have road rage. Which is, to be clear, minimal benefit if any. And I am a pretty big bleeding heart wishy washy liberal.

What drives me to be so harsh is that any PTSD differs on causes as to what will be the trigger. It is also not an aggravating factor which caused to police to do the wrongdoing alleged. Its relevance to this matter, if any at all, is in whether he should get a larger payout .... and I repeat my question as to whether it is appropriate that the police get to pay out less for their wrongdoing just because they were lucky and the person they picked up did not have any underlying PTSD, even though their actions were identical.

Basically, I don't think this is important enough to the wrongdoing alleged that his lawyer should announce it in a press release before this has been to court. Why start a trial by media before going to court anyway? This sounds like a cherry to put on top of the cupcake to seek public sympathy, when the public has no say in the result of the court case anyway.

The issue I am trying to address is: if the guy didn't have PTSD, does that make the police actions OK? If your answer is no, why is it important to report at this stage?

[matsuki]

Police actions were not ok.

As to why it's being announced, no clue...maybe the attorney is playing the same game the cops usually do? I'm not so sure public opinion will have zero effect on the outcome but I can see the publicity it gains possibly working against the attorney as well.

[Takechanpoo]

i used to get stopped by omawaris and get inspected my bike register every time i encounter them in my college days and finally ended up becoming police-phobia for a while. it seems like the reason why i got stopped by them so frequently was a worn-out old bicycle which i had been riding since i was a junior high school boy. in fact after replacing it by buying new one, they havent stopped me except for the while of their bicycle stop campaign. also as for car, their stereotypically trained brains tend to suspect the guys riding old model ban are involved with something evil, i heard.

[Yokohammer]

As for public opinion, I really don't think there will be much. This is one foreigner vs. Tokyo. I'm actually surprised that Take-chan found it in the first place (but thank you Take-chan ... good discussion).

As for PTSD, to be honest, I'm not as offended by its use in the case as some of you seem to be. The overall effect on the status of the condition is likely to be somewhere between nil and zero.

If it works as a strategy, fine, but the police might be able to turn that detail around in a number of ways. For example, if he had such a serious condition, why was he driving? Or, the police had no way of knowing that his very suspicious behaviour was caused by PTSD and had no option but to investigate carefully. The court might also decide to request details as to exactly where and how he acquired the condition in the first place. I'm sure there are a number of other ways a crafty lawyer could turn the tables on that one. Or, choosing to waste as little time as possible, they might just ignore it entirely and focus on police rights vs. foreigner rights (which might be their choice, because according to Japan's constitution foreigners don't have any ... which is why an emotional approach may be the only one that has a chance of succeeding).

I am hoping the cops get shafted, but not expecting it, if you know what I mean.

[kurogane]

Just to be clear, I in no way mean to trivialise or question the severity of PTSD amongst those who suffer from it, but I think this is a dangerous legal maneuver. Traffic cops cannot possibly factor that in when making a stop, as Wagyl (I think) pointed out, and even a wrong stop like this one doesn't make it relevant to the situation. Managing PTSD is his problem, not the general public's or their servants, though I am all for support and sympathy, of course. It could also go the wrong way rather quickly by the convolued logic of victim blaming: what is he doing driving if he has such serious PTSD? That could be a huge blow to public sympathy for those who suffer it, and as YokoHammer pointed out there is no shortage of afflicted given the past 5 years of natural disasters. I don't like its introduction into a case that should be about legalities and proper procedure, but I still hope the court finds that the stop and search was wrong, that the cops were unnecessarily rude and confrontational, and that they need to bow and scrape, and maybe even pay.
That line about a foreigner driving a certain kind of car is truly disturbing, and I have noticed a stench of that attitude for about a year or so now, especially regarding Our compensation and consumption patterns. Occasional, but pungent, and from a police officer it is outrageous.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Of course the real issue is whether or not the pigs had probable cause to stop him and search his car. However, both charges pursued and penalties given out in court are often determined by how much damage - physical or mental - is cause by the offending party. If we agree that's legitimate, doesn't it makes perfect sense to bring up his PTSD? Or are we questioning whether or not a pre-existing condition that makes a person more susceptible to damage should ever be a consideration? I'm not claiming to know the answer and obviously physical damage is an easier objective measure than mental but it's an interesting and important question.

[Takechanpoo]

they have the section specialized in 職務質問(questioning).



and vs gaijin(peruvian) version

[Takechanpoo]

another vs gaijin versions

the speech balloons are written by katakana, as expected.

[Coligny]

Looks legit...

[matsuki]

LOL, even with cherry picking, they manage a video of the cops going after a FG because FG? ぽいね？Yeah, dude had no license or Zairyu card but they could tell that how? Stopped for a license check? (is that even legal?) Even after the dudes say Uganda, the narration continues as "gaikokujin." I wonder if Trump studied in Japan cause that's his "PR" style in a nutshell?

No idea what's going on in the second vid but it looks like average police questioning (harassment for being FG?)

[kurogane]

That show is inflammatory rubbish, but anybody taking exception to the actual police work needs to have their head examined. Anywhere but Japan and they would have beat him until he bled for that.

Just to clarify, any FG must carry and produce upon demand identification showing their status, no? Whether that is right or wrong to a Righteous Sovereign Citizen it is the law, and I think somewhat different from your recent stop or the Ikebukuro guy now suing them. If he hadn't been a scofflaw and a scumbag he would have been sent on his way with a polite thank you.

[Coligny]

That show is inflammatory rubbish, but anybody taking exception to the actual police work needs to have their head examined. Anywhere but Japan and they would have beat him until he bled for that.

Just to clarify, any FG must carry and produce upon demand identification showing their status, no? Whether that is right or wrong to a Righteous Sovereign Citizen it is the law, and I think somewhat different from your recent stop or the Ikebukuro guy now suing them. If he hadn't been a scofflaw and a scumbag he would have been sent on his way with a polite thank you.

This thread is just missing some quotations from the one true god as a thanks to Takechimp for getting a stiffy on worthless expired tv reality arrests for the "seen on tv so it must be true" brainfucked local yokels...

www.debito.org

INSTANT CHECKPOINTS IN JAPAN PART TWO
THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND USING IT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE:
UNDERSTANDING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE FACE OF POLICE ACTION

(This Part is the conclusion to a long background article.
Click here to see Instant Checkpoints Part One)

(This has become the basis of a Japan Times Article, dated July 27, 2004, available here)

(Originally sent to Fukuzawa, ISSHO, and Friends Dec 17, 1998. This revised version sent to Fukuzawa Thu, 7 Jan 1999)

Subtitle: What you can legally do to protect yourself if the police decide to spot-check your Gaijin Card.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to:

EXERCISE YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS

Don't misunderstand my motives. I am not advocating anarchy, and I am not saying that you should not cooperate in a police investigation of a specific crime. But the police have to know that they cannot see foreigners as suspect just because they are foreigners. It reduces our standard of living by making us publicly and legally vulnerable in a way that hardly any Japanese have to or will put up with.

For example, let's say you are on the street (or in Haneda Airport, for that matter, since as long as you are not in the office (jimusho) of the police, the law protecting our rights applies), and a policeman comes up to you and asks you for your Gaijin Card. If you do not wish to show it because the cop is being nasty or obstructionist, here's what you can do:

================================================
COP: Show me your Gaikokujin Touroku Shoumeisho.

YOU: Why? (naze desu ka) (Always ask for a reason, please. If he gives you a reason you are satisfied with, then fine. Show. But if they just say something like:)

COP: Because it's the law. (Nippon no houritsu da kara. Miseru gimu ga aru. Misete.)
================================================

which was basically the argument the cop in Haneda Airport made to me last November. That is unsatisfactory. Now it's time to bring out the real law.

(NB: All translations that appear in my article are mine, and if your browser does not read Japanese, you will have gobbets of gibberish every now and then. Gomen. But the letter of the law must be seen to be better heard, so please do press on.)

The Police Execution of Duties Law (Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou--in kanji 警察官職務執行法), Section 2, says

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"A police officer is able to ask for a person's ID, but only if based on a reasonable (gouriteki) judgment of a situation where the policeman sees some strange conduct and some crime is being committed, or else he has enough reason to suspect that a person will commit or has committed a crime, or else it has been acknowledged that a particular person knows a crime will be committed. In these cases a police officer may stop a person for questioning."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Meaning that there must be a *specific crime* or *suspicion of a crime* before questioning can occur. Just being a foreigner is not enough, and without a good reason (soutou na riyuu) a policeman's arbitrary questions to a stranger are against the law.

Of course, as a journalist friend of mine nnotes (who wrote an important article for the Daily Yomiuri on something related to this; it was suppressed in later editions by Yomiuri editors), technically speaking if you are riding a bicycle, a policeman can stop you on the suspicion that you may have stolen it. But any human rights lawyer (they do exist in Japan and they will work for next to nothing) would drool at the prospect of taking a case like that. So call their bluff.

What follows is the Japanese text for the above law, retyped from the Dai Roppou (the Bible of Japanese law). Print this up, put it in your wallet inside your Gaijin Card slipcover, and present it if questioned:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
警察官職務執行法　第二条　警察官は、異常な挙動その他周囲の事情から合理的に判 断して何らかの犯罪を犯し、若しくは犯そうとしていると疑うに足りる相当な理由の ある者又は既に行われた犯罪について、若しくは犯罪が行われようとしていることに ついて知っていると認められる者を停止させて質問することができる。

In Romaji: Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou, Dai Ni Jou Keisatsukan wa, ijou na kyodou sonota shuui no jijou kara gouriteki ni handan shite naniraka no hanzai o okashi, moshikuwa okasou to shiteiru to utagau ni tariru soutou na riyuu ga aru mono mata wa sudeni okonowareta hanzai ni tsuite, moshikuwa hanzai ga okonawareyou to shiteiru koto ni tsuite shitteiru to mitomerareru mono o teishi sasete shitumon suru koto ga dekiru.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That is indeed a mouthful, and mercy sakes, I don't expect anybody to memorize it. Just show it and let them read it. However, you ought to practice two important words until they roll off your tongue, just for deterrence's sake:

the name of the law: "Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou"

and a key concept: "Kyodou Fushin Sha" 挙動不審者--"A person of suspicious conduct"

Which means, after you present them with the law requiring specific suspicion, you can say:

================================================
YOU: According to the KSS Law, only suspicious characters can be questioned. Excuse me, but specifically what am I doing that is so suspicious?
(In Romaji: Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou ni yorimasu to, kyodou fushinsha dake ni shokumu shitsumon suru koto ga dekimasu. Sumimasen ga, gutaiteki ni donna fushin na koui o shiteimasu ka.
(In Japanese: 警察官職務執行法によりま すと、挙動不審者だけに職務質問することができます。すみませんが、具体的にどん な不審な行為をしていますか。)
================================================

This might stop the cop in his tracks. If the policeman comes back with:

================================================
COP: This law applies to Japanese only.

YOU: No. According to the Police Law Number 162, it applies to all individuals in Japan. (ie, chigaimasu. Keisatsu hou dai hyaku roku juu ni gou ni yorimasu to, wagakuni no kojin ni atehamarimasu. Kokuseki wa kankei arimasen. いえ、違います。警察法第百六十二号によりますと、我が国の「個人」 にあてはまります。国籍は関係ありません。)
================================================

Now, if the cop really knows his law (and chances are that he does), he will come back at you with another law, the Foreign Registry Law, which does explicitly state that people officially charged by the Ministry of Justice with immigration or law enforcement can ask for your ID, and if so you must present it. Hence it creates a loophole that needs to be plugged. Here's what it says in Japanese:

**********************************
外国人登録法　第十三条　第二項　外国人は、入国審査官、入国警備官（入管法に定 める入国警備官をいう）、警察官、海上保安官その他法務省令で定める国又は地方公 共団体の職員がその職務の執行に当たり登録証明書の掲示を求めた場合には、これを提示しなければならない。

In Romaji: gaikokujin tourokuhou dai juusan jou dai ni kou gaikokujin wa, nyuukoku shinsakan, nyuukoku keibikan, (nyuukanhou ni sadamaru nyuukoku keibikan o iu), keisatsukan, kaijou hoankan, sonota houmushou rei de sadameru kuni mata wa chihou koukyou dantai no shokuin ga sono shokumu no shikkou ni atari touroku shoumeisho no keiji o motometa baai ni wa, kore o keiji shinakerebanaranai.
**********************************

This is very clear, and I don't recommend you print this up cos it won't help your case. In translation:

**********************************
"The Foreign Registry Law, Section 13, Clause 2. Foreigners, when asked to show their Gaijin Cards by immigration investigation officials (as outlined in separate laws), police, coast guard, or any other national or local public official or group empowered by the Ministry of Justice as part of the execution of their duties, must show."
**********************************

This is bad news. However, there is a check and balance. If you read the next clause it says:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"The Foreign Registry Law, Section 13, Clause 3. Public officials governed by the previous clause, if asking for the Gaijin Card outside of their workplace, must carry a certificate of their identity and present it if asked."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Let that resonate for a minute. This means that unless a cop shows you his ID, you have no proof that this is an authorized official that you have to submit to. He, according to the law, MUST submit if you ask him to submit while you and he are outside of his workplace. That law is there, I assume, to stop con artists and blackmarketeers from running off with your card (like what could have happened to Richard Thieme in, of all places, Sapporo Station). But the beneficial side effect is that you now have a legitimate way to find out his name, his police number, and whatever other information you need to hold him accountable should some abuse of the law occur. Take the time to write this information down in your notebook. It is a valuable check.

So print this up too:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
外国人登録法　第十三条　第三項　前項に規定する職員は、その事務所以外の場所に おいて登録証明書の提示を求める場合には、その身分を示す証票を携帯し、請求があ るときは、これを提示しなければならない。

In Romaji: gaikokujin tourokuhou dai juusan jou dai san kou zenkou ni kitei suru shokuin wa, sono jimusho igai no basho ni oite touroku shoumesho no keiji o motomeru baai ni wa, sono mibun o shimesu shouhyou o keitai shi, seikyuu ga aru toki wa, kore o keiji shinakerebanaranai.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Now, say the cop remains obstinate. Does this mean that if he doesn't show you his first that you don't have to show him yours? That is not, according to a Tokyo lawyer I talked to and the law prof in our university, specifically outlined in the Dai Roppou as a proper sanction. But remember you can still at least demand his identification if you are outside (meaning on the street, or at Haneda Airport, outside the Kouban). Once he gets you on his turf, you lose your legal footing.

One fine but important point. Can't he just drag you to the Kouban and preserve his secret identity? Actually, no. Unwarranted demands to come to the Kouban are illegal too. According to that fat law up back up there called the Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou, Clause Two, I quote:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"It is possible to ask a particular person to accompany the [police] to a nearby police station, police branch [i.e. kouban], or any police administration area for questioning if it is determined that this place is unsuitable for questioning because it obstructs traffic or is disadvantageous to the questionee."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

which means that the police have the right to ASK you. However, the next clause, Clause Three, says you have the right to REFUSE and they have no right to restrict your movements without a formal charge or arrest. I quote:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Unless there is a regulation relating to criminal action, officials may not confine, bring back to any police administration area, or else coerce a person to reply to questions against his will."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This is pretty straightforward and deserves to be known about. So if the policeman demands in public that you come with him to another area, like a separate room at Haneda Airport for questioning, refuse. Print up and pull out this law:

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
警察官職務執行法　第二条　第二項　その場で前項の質問をすることが本人に対して 不利であり、又は交通の妨害になると認められる場合においては、質問するため、そ の者に附近の警察署、派出所又は駐在所に同行することを求めることができる。 警察官職務執行法　第二条　第三項　前二項に規定する者は、刑事訴訟に関する法律 の規定によらない限り、身柄を拘束され、又はその意に反して警察署、派出所若しく は駐在所に連行され、若しくは答弁を強要されることはない。

In Romaji: Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou, Dai Ni Jou, Dai Ni Kou, sono ba de zenkou no shitsumon o suru koto ga honnin ni taishite furi de ari, mata wa koutsuu no bougai ni naru to mitomerareru baai ni oite wa, shitsumon suru tame, sono mono ni fukin no keisatsusho, hashussho mata wa chuuzaisho ni doukou suru koto o motomeru koto ga dekiru. Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou, Dai Ni Jou, Dai San Kou, zennikou ni kitei suru mono wa, keiji soshou ni kansuru houritsu no kitei ni yoranai kagiri, migara o kousoku sare, mata wa sono i ni hansite keisatsusho, hashusso moshiku wa chuuzaisho ni renkou sare, moshikuwa touben o kyouyou sareru koto wa nai.)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That should stop him. Now the policeman either has the choice of showing you his ID (which means you will have to show him yours, of course. Shikata ga nai.), or of refusing and thus not obeying the law. Let's take the worst-case scenario. Say this cop gets really irritated, refuses to show you his ID and tries to either get physical or abusive. The best thing for you to do is not fight back. If you do anything that can be construed as physical violence (boukou 暴行) or threatening (kyouhaku 脅迫) actions, under the "Obstruction of the Execution of Public Duties Crime" (koumu no shikkou o bougai suru zai 公務の執行を妨害する罪) you can formally be charged with a crime and confined to a room. Then you are at the police's mercy and that is definitely dire straits.

Since there is no law of Habeas Corpus in Japan, the Japanese Police can, and often do, keep people in rooms for weeks without charge, adequate food or even sleep until incriminating confessions are signed. You can ask for a lawyer by saying, "Sumimasen, bengoshi ni nandoki de mo renraku suru kenri ga arimasu." (すみ ません、弁護士に何時でも連絡する権利があります。) (NB: The "nandoki" is a word used in the legal document for "any time", and will alert them that you know the law). However, that is not an entirely reliable recourse, since there have been plenty of cases where lawyers were denied access in Japan. Be it known that cops in this country have a lot of arbitrary power; they make their moves and let the lawyers or Amnesty International sort it out later.

My point is that you should not do anything that would be construed as resisting arrest. If the policeman gets physical, sit down and don't move. That means no flailing, no sudden movements. I doubt he will drag you to the nearest cop shop. Then what? Dunno. My legal adviser suggests: "Say to him that if you are not shown Police ID, you will personally begin a formal protest (kouben 抗弁) and refuse to show him your Gaijin Card. If th is winds up in stalemate, walk away and on to your airplane." He says that the policecannot construe calmly walking away as trying to escape, but that's awfully brave. I think being prepared with a long layover is your best course if you really want to take it this far. If so, be patient. Technically speaking, the safest course is waiting until the policeman gives up--anything else, and he probably can charge you for resisting him.

TO REVIEW:

Here's what I suggest you do if a surly policeman asks for your ID in a public place.

COP: Hey you. Show me your Gaijin Card.
YOU: Why?

COP: Because I said so.

YOU: The Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou (brings out copy of the law from wallet) says that you cannot do that unless I am a Kyodou Fushinsha. What Fushin Koui am I doing?

COP: Shaddap. You are a foreigner and you are bound by the Gaikokujin Touroku Hou to show me your Gaijin Card.

YOU: And you are also bound by the Gaikokujin Touroku Hou to show me your Police ID if I ask you to. It says so on this piece of paper I just happen to have right here in my wallet. I hereby ask you to. Show me your ID first, please.

COP: Get stuffed. I don't have to show you anything.

YOU: If you do not, I will not show you mine. I will hereby protest until you show me yours. (Moshi misete itadakanakereba, watashi no mibun shoumeisho o misetaku naku narimasu. Misete kureru made kouben shimasu.) (sounds hokey but the word "kouben" presses a lot of mental buttons with cops)

COP: Alright you, come with me.

YOU: Going with you is optional, right? (Nin'i (任意) desu ka?)

COP: What's going on here? Do as I say or else.

YOU: According to the Keisatsukan Shokumu Shikkou Hou, going with you is my option, not something you can command me to do. See this piece of paper right here? That's the law. Are you arresting (taihou suru) me? If not, I refuse to go.

COP: (about ready to have an aneurysm) Move or I will move you!

YOU: (calmly sits down on the floor) You can't do this. It's against the law (houritsu no ihan desu). It's against human rights. (jinken no ihan desu) It is against the Japanese Constitution. (iken 違憲 desu)
What's next? Depends how far you want to take this. If this happens to you in Haneda Airport, you should here make a couple of phone calls (Emergencies only, please. Let's not abuse the avenue we've been given.) to concerned parties:

Ryokyaku Sentaa Kachou, Koga-san: (03) 5757-8505
Haneda Kuukou Keibi Kachou Watanabe-san, or Jin-san: (03) 5757-0110

They (click here to go to INSTANT CHECKPOINTS Part One if you want to know more about them) have given me permission for me and my friends to contact them in times of trouble. I didn't tell them how many friends I've got.

If you are stopped outside of Haneda, I have less idea what will happen, and it is up to you to make the police accountable. Fortunately, I've only been Carded one other time in my life, on the street in Otaru in 1987, so chances are that only places with tight security, like Haneda Airport, are going to instant checkpoint you.

CONCLUSIONS

In any case, although we cannot refuse to show our ID if the cops really know the law, there are checks--ways to make their job more difficult if they are treating us disrespectfully, and, more importantly, ways to hold them accountable if they are abusing their position. Even if you are not a Rosa-Parks type, please do consider, if suddenly Carded, at least asking for a reason why. If they are inconsiderate, I would request you bring out the laws.

And why? Because the current situation is unacceptable. The Japanese Police, by their own admission in INSTANT CHECKPOINTS Part One would almost never treat a Japanese the way they often treat foreigners, and the main reason they do that in my view is that they believe they are legally entitled to. It's only part of their job, and their are only enforcing some of the laws to the fullest extent. Moreover, nobody up to now, as my Haneda cop said, has complained, and nobody has taken them to task on the checks the law does in fact provide. Up to now, that is.

We can help change this situation by pushing for our rights; in fact, it is the only way. As I pointed out in a recent post, Japanese laws on fingerprinting did not change until people complained. Nor will they change in this case if you accept prejudicial status. Don't make the job easy for them if they are making life hard for you. For the good of Japan, it must be done.

As the police chiefs at Haneda clearly stated in Part One, foreigners are suspects because they are foreigners, and foreigners are singled out on the basis of racial characteristics. This is unnecessary harassment for us as residents and for our diaspora as regular citizens, and does not befit a modern, mature society, signatory to various covenants of human rights which specifically outlaw this sort of behavior.

Dave Aldwinckle (now Arudou Debito)
Sapporo

moar... wait... no... exactly the same:

[Yokohammer]

This is such a load of evasive crap. The law is clear.

If a cop asks to see your residence card, just show it to him. You can ask to see his ID if you really suspect he's a fake, but if not, just show him the card and be done with it.

[kurogane]

I don't believe anything Debito would say: he is too blinded by hate and bigotry, and his Japanese isn't very good when it needs to be. So, since it's all interpretation and FGs are not, by definition, afforded the same rights or protections as Japanese we could at least argue that in practical terms and by most understandings that FGs must carry and produce.

Yokohammer,
I agree, but what I was asking was whether it is actually a legal requirement to do so, not a reasonable and practical compromise, though I fully agree with you, always do so, and never mind when asked, though I have had a few Okinawan cops be rather brusque and presumptuous, which hurt my feelings.

[wagyl]

This is such a load of evasive crap. The law is clear.

If a cop asks to see your residence card, just show it to him. You can ask to see his ID if you really suspect he's a fake, but if not, just show him the card and be done with it.

You clearly don't understand. Why conclude everything in 10 seconds, when you can instead involve yourself and four police officers in a full twenty minutes of effort coming to exactly the same conclusion, and doing absolutely nothing towards "reeducating" the police force other than to convince them that foreign people are all latent troublemakers? You understand nothing about becoming a martyr for the cause. And how do you fill your "living in Japan" blog with content?

Coligny also needs to keep on top of changes to the legal framework behind immigration, but then again the fact that he is behind the times on that in not news to anyone here. The Gaikokujintourokuhou referred to in the Debito extract is no longer in force.