Kyoto Court Bans Hate Speech

[Yokohammer]

Some good news: The Kyoto District Court has ruled that demonstrations held at a Korean school by anti-Korean activists were racial discrimination and has ordered them to pay damages. They have also been banned from holding further rallies.

The actions “constitute racial discrimination as defined by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” which Japan has ratified, (presiding judge) Hashizume said.

Court bans rightists’ hate speech, rallies

There have been a couple of developments like this lately, possibly coinciding with Tokyo's Olympics win. It's all good anyway, regardless of the reasons. This ruling in particular could prove to be a very positive precedent.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Good news my ass. Laws banning hate speech are ridiculous.

[Yokohammer]

Good news my ass. Laws banning hate speech are ridiculous.

You're welcome to your opinion, but for the current situation in Japan I think it sends an important message about racial discrimination and hate speech.

Hate speech really does hurt people, and not just emotionally. Organized rallies like the one(s) in question do have the effect of ostracizing their targets from the community at large. Any deliberate activity that impacts on the rights and freedoms of people to make a life for themselves is wrong. Attempting to force people out of a community and thereby deprive them of their life and livelihood is wrong.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless you can come up with a really good reason to change it).

[TennoChinko]

[Coligny]

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless you can come up with a really good reason to change it).

Ssssssimon says...

Slippery slope, censorship is bad, the Japs have a tradition of abusing any rainbow shitting laws into a 1984 nightmare.

First they ban telling gooks to go home, then don't say bad things against politicians or public servants, then don't report any accident not to create stress (remember this one)... Then you are so fucked that your bunghole can fit a submarine without you noticing...

There are these 'hate speech' laws in yurop... Turn any person criticizing the behaviour of Israel versus the Palestinian into an holocaust denying, jew hating, neo nazi... They even pulled this bullshit against moderate Jews who were not comfortable with the abuse done to the Gaza strip...

Unless someone ends up bleeding... Don't make laws against it... Being a loud mouthed racist cunt should not be subject of a special law... Any law bringing more potential to abuse than any direct positive outcome should not even be considered. Remember the saying, better a criminal free than an innocent in prison...

It should not be laws that get dunce like Ishihara shitcanned, it should be people not voting for him. They dig their own grave, let them enjoy the worms...

[Yokohammer]

That's an interesting way to commit suicide.

[Coligny]

D00d, Die Hard III... john McLane...

[Yokohammer]

I'm detecting a distinct contradiction here.

On the one hand you guys complain that Japan is a racist country with a poor human rights record, and that efforts to curtail racial discrimination are inadequate, and then when a Japanese court makes a landmark ruling against racial discrimination you complain about that.

I don't get it.

So far my mind is not in the slightest danger of being changed.

[Russell]

Good news my ass. Laws banning hate speech are ridiculous.

You're welcome to your opinion, but for the current situation in Japan I think it sends an important message about racial discrimination and hate speech.

Hate speech really does hurt people, and not just emotionally. Organized rallies like the one(s) in question do have the effect of ostracizing their targets from the community at large. Any deliberate activity that impacts on the rights and freedoms of people to make a life for themselves is wrong. Attempting to force people out of a community and thereby deprive them of their life and livelihood is wrong.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless you can come up with a really good reason to change it).

I completely agree with Hammer here.

BTW, these loud anti-Korean demonstrations in Korean communities and near Korean schools go beyond hate speech. Don't know how to call it, but it is the first stage to lynchings.

[Coligny]

Behaviour is not speech.

-"no foreigners" sign in an onsen: no good at all
-"gooks go home" bumper sticker on a black van: no probs

Basic concept of freedom, your right to wave your fist stop where my face start... but not before...
People can feel threatened/oppressed all they want. It should not be a matter of law, but a matter of growing balls.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Good news my ass. Laws banning hate speech are ridiculous.

You're welcome to your opinion, but for the current situation in Japan I think it sends an important message about racial discrimination and hate speech.

Hate speech really does hurt people, and not just emotionally. Organized rallies like the one(s) in question do have the effect of ostracizing their targets from the community at large. Any deliberate activity that impacts on the rights and freedoms of people to make a life for themselves is wrong. Attempting to force people out of a community and thereby deprive them of their life and livelihood is wrong.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless you can come up with a really good reason to change it).

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

And don't tell me they're entitled to their opinion they just can't express it publicly because that's the same fucking thing as not being allowed to have that opinion.

You can punish people for things like inciting violence, harassment, intimidation, and trespassing. If they're not committing any of those, you're punishing them for a thought crime which is absolutely unacceptable in supposedly liberal democracies. With hate speech laws the slope tends to get slippery very quickly. Look at the way hate speech laws in Europe are used to stifle legitimate criticism of radical Islam and multiculturalism. Here's the standard: Would their protest lead to punishment if it were any other issue? If the answer is no, they shouldn't be punished just because their views are politically incorrect.

Hate speech laws are lazy and in the long run only serve to silence people with opinions the left doesn't like.

Thank the gods we have the ACLU in America.

[Russell]

There are these 'hate speech' laws in yurop... Turn any person criticizing the behaviour of Israel versus the Palestinian into an holocaust denying, jew hating, neo nazi... They even pulled this bullshit against moderate Jews who were not comfortable with the abuse done to the Gaza strip...

I am not aware of laws in Europe forbidding one to criticize Israel for its foreign policy. Some Zionists may have the gut to equal criticism to antisemitism, but many people will not agree. In fact, Israel has lost much of its support in Europe that it had in the past.

[Coligny]

I completely agree with Hammer here.

BTW, these loud anti-Korean demonstrations in Korean communities and near Korean schools go beyond hate speech. Don't know how to call it, but it is the first stage to lynchings.

SIGNATURE:
Voltaire
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Dood...

Seriously...

[Coligny]

There are these 'hate speech' laws in yurop... Turn any person criticizing the behaviour of Israel versus the Palestinian into an holocaust denying, jew hating, neo nazi... They even pulled this bullshit against moderate Jews who were not comfortable with the abuse done to the Gaza strip...

I am not aware of laws in Europe forbidding one to criticize Israel for its foreign policy. Some Zionists may have the gut to equal criticism to antisemitism, but many people will not agree. In fact, Israel has lost much of its support in Europe that it had in the past.

The laws are not specifically protecting criticism of Israel, the generic anti hates speech laws are abused to silence criticism of Israel... Can you try to understand the difference...

[Russell]

I completely agree with Hammer here.

BTW, these loud anti-Korean demonstrations in Korean communities and near Korean schools go beyond hate speech. Don't know how to call it, but it is the first stage to lynchings.

SIGNATURE:
Voltaire
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Dood...

Seriously...

And your point is?!?

That I am ruled by Koreans?

BTW, the above post by SJ mentioned this one word I was looking for in this legal case: Harassment. Basically, those right-wingers were harassing that Korean school by regularly demonstrating loudly in front of it. It goes beyond hate speech.

[Samurai_Jerk]

BTW, the above post by SJ mentioned this one word I was looking for in this legal case: Harassment. Basically, those right-wingers were harassing that Korean school by regularly demonstrating loudly in front of it. It goes beyond hate speech.

So go after them for that. Not for hating Koreans.

It's like other hate crime laws. If I punched you in the face just because I'm having a bad day and don't like the way you looked at me, that's somehow not as bad as if I punched you in the face just because you're Dutch. Really?

[Yokohammer]

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

There's a problem right there. I don't see how what those anti-Korean protestors are doing qualifies as expressing an "unpopular political view." To me it's nothing of the sort. It's an out-and-out attempt to bully and harass.

So, for example, if some group decided they didn't like you and started marching around outside your home and place of work at regular intervals with banners and bullhorns, yelling "Death to Samurai Jerk, he's less than human!", you'd be OK with that?

Perhaps we need to define our terms a little better.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

There's a problem right there. I don't see how what those anti-Korean protestors are doing qualifies as expressing an "unpopular political view." To me it's nothing of the sort. It's an out-and-out attempt to bully and harass.

So, for example, if some group decided they didn't like you and started marching around outside your home and place of work at regular intervals with banners and bullhorns, yelling "Death to Samurai Jerk, he's less than human!", you'd be OK with that?

Perhaps we need to define our terms a little better.

Are purposely being obtuse? I specifically assessed that point in the post you're quoting.

[matsuki]

Yoko, while I agree the sentiment is in the right direction, the execution of "Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" is really weak here. Usually taking action against racial discrimination starts with making actual laws against it with reasonable penalties for violating it. (which as far as I know, Japan still lacks) I will, however, share your optimism that this could be the start of some positive changes. (though I have to agree wit SJ and Coligny that this could also be opening the floodgates for a new law to be abused...silencing whoever they want. Kind of like the no dancing law that is being used to conduct raids on clubs and such. Japan seems like like to leave bullshit laws on the books and then use them like "loopholes" for unrelated actions when convenient)

It should not be laws that get dunce like Ishihara shitcanned, it should be people not voting for him. They dig their own grave, let them enjoy the worms...

THIS x 100000000000000

I'd say social embarrassment/shaming is usually more effective in stomping out racist shit than any laws. (then again, most of the racist jiji's and baba's here seem to have no shame)

BTW, the above post by SJ mentioned this one word I was looking for in this legal case: Harassment. Basically, those right-wingers were harassing that Korean school by regularly demonstrating loudly in front of it. It goes beyond hate speech.

SJ just said it but I'll echo it, the nationalist/racist turds should be arrested for harassment, not for "hate speech."

[Yokohammer]

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

There's a problem right there. I don't see how what those anti-Korean protestors are doing qualifies as expressing an "unpopular political view." To me it's nothing of the sort. It's an out-and-out attempt to bully and harass.

So, for example, if some group decided they didn't like you and started marching around outside your home and place of work at regular intervals with banners and bullhorns, yelling "Death to Samurai Jerk, he's less than human!", you'd be OK with that?

Perhaps we need to define our terms a little better.

Are purposely being obtuse? I specifically assessed that point in the post you're quoting.

No, I'm not purposely attempting to be obtuse. That's why I said "perhaps we need to define out terms better."

It looks like we're arguing over semantics, not the core issue. What those demonstrators are doing is intimidation, harassment, inciting violence, etc. etc. I think that's clear.

The media have chosen to label it "hate speech," perhaps, but the label doesn't matter. I'd be interested to know the actual wording of the court ruling. The words "hate speech" might not even be involved, so it's kind of silly to argue that point. Also, keep in mind that things are often defined a bit differently here. For example: "Revenge" means having a second shot at something. It doesn't to us, but it does to them.

The court has ruled that what the anti-Korean demonstrators were doing is wrong, and that it contravenes Japan's ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That's the point. And that's what I'm saying is good news.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

There's a problem right there. I don't see how what those anti-Korean protestors are doing qualifies as expressing an "unpopular political view." To me it's nothing of the sort. It's an out-and-out attempt to bully and harass.

So, for example, if some group decided they didn't like you and started marching around outside your home and place of work at regular intervals with banners and bullhorns, yelling "Death to Samurai Jerk, he's less than human!", you'd be OK with that?

Perhaps we need to define our terms a little better.

Are purposely being obtuse? I specifically assessed that point in the post you're quoting.

No, I'm not purposely attempting to be obtuse. That's why I said "perhaps we need to define out terms better."

It looks like we're arguing over semantics, not the core issue. What those demonstrators are doing is intimidation, harassment, inciting violence, etc. etc. I think that's clear.

The media have chosen to label it "hate speech," perhaps, but the label doesn't matter. I'd be interested to know the actual wording of the court ruling. The words "hate speech" might not even be involved, so it's kind of silly to argue that point. Also, keep in mind that things are often defined a bit differently here. For example: "Revenge" means having a second shot at something. It doesn't to us, but it does to them.

The court has ruled that what the anti-Korean demonstrators were doing is wrong, and that it contravenes Japan's ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That's the point. And that's what I'm saying is good news.

Like I already said, I have no problem with the courts going after people for intimidation, etc. However, if they're saying it's a form of racial discrimination, they're still on that slippery slope. If people were doing the exact same kind of protest at an all-Japanese school that was erecting a new building that would block their sunlight and ruin their view, would they be punished in the same way?

Racial discrimination is not hiring someone, not promoting someone, not renting to someone, not serving someone a beer, not letting someone stay at your hotel, or not letting someone use your onsen because of their race. That's completely different from being a vocal racist asshole.

This gets us back to the weakness of Japanese law when it comes to non-violent intimidation and harassment. The uyoku harass Japanese people they disagree with in the same way all the time and get away with it. This decision is essentially saying it's only wrong because of the the content of what the protesters were saying not because of their actions.

[Russell]

The discussion has got to the point where I agree with everyone now.

[matsuki]

All the article really says is the judge called the actions illegal, based upon Japan's ratification of the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.” As I said before though, I don't think there are any actual Japanese laws against racial discrimination. (though I do applaud the judge for basically calling these turds out.

This is where things get sticky:

In street rallies held in major Korean communities in the Tokyo area, hundreds of group members and supporters called Koreans “cockroaches,” shouted “Kill Koreans” and threatened to “throw them into the sea.”

Zaitokukai defended its actions as “freedom of expression”

Protests are one thing, those are pretty much death threats right there....at children....how about firing all the local police on duty at the time for not taking any action?

...then there is this:

Four of the eight defendants have been convicted of forcible obstruction of business and property destruction in connection with the demonstrations, while the school’s former principal has been fined ¥100,000 for unauthorized occupancy of the park.

Nothing to do with hate speech or racism, it's a civil suit??

[Samurai_Jerk]

I don't think there are any actual Japanese laws against racial discrimination.

If I remember correctly from the Japanese political science class I took in college, the Japanese constitution protects "citizens" regardless of their ethnicity. The problem is that word citizens.

[Yokohammer]

Like I already said, I have no problem with the courts going after people for intimidation, etc. However, if they're saying it's a form of racial discrimination, they're still on that slippery slope. If people were doing the exact same kind of protest at an all-Japanese school that was erecting a new building that would block their sunlight and ruin their view, would they be punished in the same way?

In that case the protest is against the building and how it would negatively affect the lives of the protestors, not against the people who occupy it.

Racial discrimination is not hiring someone, not promoting someone, not renting to someone, not serving someone a beer, not letting someone stay at your hotel, or not letting someone use your onsen because of their race. That's completely different from being a vocal racist asshole.

And what if that vocal racial assholeness en masse had, through intimidation or other coercive influence, the effect of causing others to reject people (not hire, not serve, etc ...) because of their race? People aren't going to want loud racist asshole demonstrators marching around in front of their businesses because they hired or served someone who the demonstrators are targeting.

This gets us back to the weakness of Japanese law when it comes to non-violent intimidation and harassment. The uyoku harass Japanese people they disagree with in the same way all the time and get away with it. This decision is essentially saying it's only wrong because of the the content of what the protesters were saying not because of their actions.

As mentioned elsewhere, the "content" amounted to death threats in some cases. I also think we can be marginally hopeful that this precedent might result in rulings against uyoku harassment in the future. (Marginally ... maybe ... at least there's hope).

[matsuki]

I don't think there are any actual Japanese laws against racial discrimination.

If I remember correctly from the Japanese political science class I took in college, the Japanese constitution protects "citizens" regardless of their ethnicity. The problem is that word citizens.

Debito seems to agree with that:

In its (very late) periodic reports to UN committees on human rights (1998, 2001), the GOJ states, "We do not recognize that the present situation of Japan is one in which discriminative acts cannot be restrained by the existing legal system. . .a law prohibiting racial discrimination is not considered necessary." The GOJ also voided any domestic application of the International Convention on Racial Discrimination by stating that nobody in Japan is covered by it: Minorities such as Ainu and Burakumin are not racially different, while Koreans, Chinese, etc are not citizens anyway. The UN: "We regret that previous recommendations on civil and political rights have largely not been implemented", chiding Japan for its "repeated use of popularity statistics to justify attitudes", and finishing with "human rights standards are not determined by popularity polls".

[Samurai_Jerk]

Like I already said, I have no problem with the courts going after people for intimidation, etc. However, if they're saying it's a form of racial discrimination, they're still on that slippery slope. If people were doing the exact same kind of protest at an all-Japanese school that was erecting a new building that would block their sunlight and ruin their view, would they be punished in the same way?

In that case the protest is against the building and how it would negatively affect the lives of the protestors, not against the people who occupy it.

Racial discrimination is not hiring someone, not promoting someone, not renting to someone, not serving someone a beer, not letting someone stay at your hotel, or not letting someone use your onsen because of their race. That's completely different from being a vocal racist asshole.

And what if that vocal racial assholeness en masse had, through intimidation or other coercive influence, the effect of causing others to reject people (not hire, not serve, etc ...) because of their race?

This gets us back to the weakness of Japanese law when it comes to non-violent intimidation and harassment. The uyoku harass Japanese people they disagree with in the same way all the time and get away with it. This decision is essentially saying it's only wrong because of the the content of what the protesters were saying not because of their actions.

As mentioned elsewhere, the "content" amounted to death threats in some cases. I also think we can be marginally hopeful that this precedent might result in rulings against uyoku harassment in the future. (Marginally ... maybe ... at least there's hope).

I'm really surprised by the level of intellectually dishonesty coming from you. You keep changing the argument. I've already said I agree with going after people for things like death threats. That's a separate issue from racial discrimination or hate speech. If the judge's ruling was only based on what they were doing regardless of the reason, adding the comment about it being against Japan's commitment to ending racial discrimination was meaningless editorial. If the ruling was based on the fact that their actions were motivated by racism, it was wrong and goes against the fundamentals of free speech and liberal democracy.

[Yokohammer]

I'm really surprised by the level of intellectually dishonesty coming from you. You keep changing the argument. I've already said I agree with going after people for things like death threats. That's a separate issue from racial discrimination or hate speech. If the judge's ruling was only based on what they were doing regardless of the reason, adding the comment about it being against Japan's commitment to ending racial discrimination was meaningless editorial. If the ruling was based on the fact that their actions were motivated by racism, it was wrong and goes against the fundamentals of free speech and liberal democracy.

I'm really surprised that you think I'm being dishonest. And I don't see how I'm changing the argument. I'm responding, as honestly as I can, to each of your comments.

For example, right after you said that you agree that death threats are wrong (and I acknowledge that you said that), you said:

This decision is essentially saying it's only wrong because of the the content of what the protesters were saying not because of their actions.

Which looks to me like you are changing tack.

I stand by my assessment that argument within this thread is more about definitions than it is about the actual ruling. And I'll repeat my assertion that unless we know the actual wording of the court's decision we're only arguing over whatever labels the media has chosen to use.

[J.A.F.O]

Am I welcome to my opinion? Gee, thanks for giving me a freedom you won't give to people with unpopular political views.

There's a problem right there. I don't see how what those anti-Korean protestors are doing qualifies as expressing an "unpopular political view." To me it's nothing of the sort. It's an out-and-out attempt to bully and harass.

So, for example, if some group decided they didn't like you and started marching around outside your home and place of work at regular intervals with banners and bullhorns, yelling "Death to Samurai Jerk, he's less than human!", you'd be OK with that?

Perhaps we need to define our terms a little better.

Are purposely being obtuse? I specifically assessed that point in the post you're quoting.

No, I'm not purposely attempting to be obtuse. That's why I said "perhaps we need to define out terms better."

It looks like we're arguing over semantics, not the core issue. What those demonstrators are doing is intimidation, harassment, inciting violence, etc. etc. I think that's clear.

The media have chosen to label it "hate speech," perhaps, but the label doesn't matter. I'd be interested to know the actual wording of the court ruling. The words "hate speech" might not even be involved, so it's kind of silly to argue that point. Also, keep in mind that things are often defined a bit differently here. For example: "Revenge" means having a second shot at something. It doesn't to us, but it does to them.

The court has ruled that what the anti-Korean demonstrators were doing is wrong, and that it contravenes Japan's ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That's the point. And that's what I'm saying is good news.

I'd be ok with that... but then again I have issues. Mostly because if I wanted ban together to vocalize our opposition to say... a known child molester living on my block, (I know apples and oranges) I should be able to. I want to be able to protest whatever I want, be it apples or oranges. I just don't happen to want to protest too much.

I catch a lot of racial flak. From not being allowed in certain bars or clubs to mothers jerking their kids by the arm away from my vicinity at the grocery store. Walking through the parking lot and hearing the audible "click" of cars being locked as I pass by. I have even been threatened with stabbing by an old codger for making too much noise. (Was cutting ceramic floor tile and the guy came in to see what the noise was, he was all smiles until he saw me take off my face mask and bandana EEK GAIJIN then he went total hostile)

To me it's water off a ducks back and being in japan I expect it. Just par for the course I suppose. But I'm in their cuntry and its by my own choice. I could always leave if I truly felt threatened. The way I see it is that it would be like me moving in to someone's house without their general approval and then demanding them to be nice to me on top of it. Yea maybe some of the errant kids in the family might find me amusing and have no problems with me staying in the attic or basement so long as I'm not being a jerk.

I've waded through picket lines and I have been on the picket line. Angry japanese crowding the military bases after a rape or protesting some new helicopter that the U.S. is bringing over. And I've been on the picket line as a union member of the UAW. It's all douchebaggery, How you view it depends on which side of the coin your on.

International law is a joke as well. It always has been. It just a tool for the stronger cuntries to meddle into the affairs of smaller ones. International law hasn't stepped into countries like Rhodesia or South Africa when it comes to the killing of the afrikaan farmers and taking their property but jumps right in when it comes to an apartheid state. YET when countries like Israel or Islamic countries with huge assets or wealth practice it "Oh thats just fine" Its a cultural or religious custom. Same with Japan. As long as you keep buying up other countries debts and producing great quality export on the cheap, no problems with your backward domestic policies. (Just keep it on the down low because if it becomes international politic we might have to jump in and save face)

(for the record I'm not promoting apartheid or genocide or israel or islam etc. just pointing out hypocrisy in international politic)

[Yokohammer]

It's probably also worth noting that many of the Koreans the demonstrators are targeting were born and raised here, so "going home" isn't really an option. And it's not their parents' fault or their parents' parents' fault either. Should they attempt to avoid discrimination by using only Japanese names, speaking only Japanese, and hiding their ethnic background? That, historically, has been the case for many. Same for people of Ainu or Burakumin extraction who hid their background so they wouldn't be denied decent jobs, marriage prospects, etc.

Part of the reason for all the anti-whatever nastiness of late, I think, is that those ethnic minorities who have long existed in Japan have simply stopped hiding their backgrounds and in fact started showing a little ethnic pride.

I'm also prepared to bet that if you did the research you'd find that some of the anti-Korean racists are actually ethnically Korean or part Korean, possibly to their own surprise.