Crusading for rights without understanding them
Posted by ampontan on Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Naturalized citizen/gaijin activist Debito Arudou writes a self-congratulatory article in Japan Focus about how he led a movement to remove the magazine Gaijin Hanzai (Foreigner Crime) from store shelves.
The magazine, which I’ve never seen on a store shelf, seems more stupid than repellent. A detailed summary of its content is at the Japan Focus link.
DA states this magazine constitutes “hate speech” and violates the “rights” of foreigners. He also cites some UN treaties about hate speech to which Japan is a signatory. But he also notes:
Japan still has no laws or official guidelines regarding “hate speech”, particularly towards Japan’s ethnic minorities and international residents.
And I hope they never do. The very idea of any laws prohibiting “hate speech” is based on a grave misunderstanding of rights–in this case, the right to free speech.
Rights by definition are absolute, so it isn’t possible to for them to be in conflict. Therefore, the right to be free from people saying nasty things about someone and bruising their tender feelings is not a right at all, but a figment of the imagination.
Why the statutes of the UN, a nearly useless organization, should be cited as an authority on rights and hate speech is beyond comprehension. After all, they elected Libya as the chair of their human rights commission by secret ballot.
The activitists dealt with the magazine the right way, by threatening boycotts. There’s nothing wrong with that, assuming they think it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, and it worked.
But if they really have deluded themselves into thinking a magazine violates some phantom rights, why don’t they just buy a bunch, stack them up in a vacant lot, and burn them in a public ceremony? That’s in keeping with the tradition they inherit.
Are we supposed to ban books just because someone somewhere might be offended? And what would be the standards for determining “hate speech”? They would inevitably be subjective and necessitate the use of Orwellian thought police.
It’s a tragedy that by descending to the use of the hate speech concept, antithetical to classical liberalism, these activitists have turned themselves into petit authoritarians. For that matter, in other similar causes, the idea of fighting for rights is really just boilerplate covering a secondary objective. The primary goal is to play Little Jack Horner: “He stuck in his thumb, pulled out a plum, and said ‘What a good boy am I’.” The idea is to feed their vanity and congratulate themselves on their moral superiority.
When it comes to the concept of rights, this group needs some serious self-reflection rather than the self-congratulation of the Japan Focus article. Forget about that muyo no chobutsu, the UN. They should go to a better source and read the American Bill of Rights.
Several times.
Infimum said
One more instance of his love for the UN.
(MS Word file)
http://www.debito.org/dienefccjhandout022607.doc
REPORT TO UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR DR. DOUDOU DIENE
THIRD TRIP TO JAPAN, FEBRUARY 2007
UPDATE REGARDING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN JAPAN’S MEDIA CONCERNING TREATMENT OF NON-JAPANESE RESIDENTS, THE JAPANESE JUDICIARY’S NEGLIGENCE IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS AND RESISTANCE TOWARDS ESTABLISHING HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS.
By ARUDOU Debito, naturalized Japanese citizen, Associate Professor, Hokkaido Information University
Author, JAPANESE ONLY: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (Akashi Shoten Inc Revised 2006, http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html)
Here is the Google search result of ドゥドゥ・ディエン.
I sometimes can’t help wondering if Debito is suffering some sort of identity crisis as a naturalized Japanese citizen.
madne0 said
Another great post Ampontan. I wish i could add something, but you just said all the right things.
haafu said
I’ve always thought that Debito’s whole approach of flashing his Japanese passport everywhere and crying discrimination just because some soaplands won’t let in foreigners to be exactly what you should NOT do in Japan.
Albion said
Ampotan,
What do you suppose should be done if, say, a magazine on convenience store shelves in the US had big headlines saying, “Niggers and Kikes the source of nationwide crime wave!!!”?
Call it freedom of speech and go on with your day?
yasuyasu said
I support AMPONTAN’s opinion.
Though it is freedom that criticize contents of a book, an obstruction of the circulation is an act of throttler.
And,this book&publisher is not famous.
I do not think that it is proper to criticize the whole social system with such a minor example.
I do not think that I buy this book and will read,too.
However, a book of such contents can understand that there is constant demand.
The reason is because nationality and the real name of a Korean criminal are hidden by the Japanese crime news.
Even statistics announcement of the police is operated so that the number of the crimes of a Korean(Zainichi) does not come to the front.
On the other hand, Japanese racial discrimination awareness is thin.
For a Japanese, it is difficult to distinguish a Chinese and a Korean from a Japanese by appearance.
And, to a Japanese, distinction of a Jew and a gentile is more difficult, too.
Except the postwar confusion period, there is not jim crow, too.
There is not even Japanese equivalent to a European and American hate crime.
A Japanese is generally defenseless for a brutal crime.A surplus title will be caused by these national traits.
Albion said
I don’t think the magazine should be banned. I think Debito Arudou and anyone else who protested against the magazine or participated in a boycott are perfectly within their rights to do so.
Protesting against the content of a publication when it is racist or othwerwise offensive is not the same as starting down some “slippery slope” that will lead to Orwellian thought control. To say as much is to engage in the kind of grandstanding the author usually rails against.
Also, “classical liberalism” (read: libertarianism, or worse yet, Objectivism) is only ONE philosophical take on rights. There are many other schools of thought on the subject of human rights in political science and philosophy. To claim that “negative rights” are the only “real” rights (that is, to claim that “positive rights” are NOT “real” rights) is simply one opinion. (Nozick vs. Rawls, yadda yadda yadda …)
Libertarianism, and even more so Objectivism, assumes that for the purposes of politics and economics people are merely logic machines who make decisions based on reason. Unfortunately, Ampotan, experience shows that very few such people actually exist. They are a philosophical assumption that is necessary in order to keep libertarian (Objectivist) philosophy internally consistent.
Even (or should I say “especially”?) the US, where the Bill of Rights was created, is hardly a “classical liberal” state by any stretch of the imagination.
People have feelings and emotions, and to simply discount them because they don’t fit into some philosophical model is a bit simplistic.
ampontan said
“What do you suppose should be done if, say, a magazine on convenience store shelves in the US had big headlines saying, “Niggers and Kikes the source of nationwide crime wave!!!”?
Call it freedom of speech and go on with your day?”
I note with interest your use of the passive voice: “what…should be done”.
What makes you think something should be done?
If you insist something “should be done”, it is not the obligation of other people to accept someone else’s solution that infringes on everyone’s inalienble rights just because someone’s feelings are hurt.
It is up to you to come up with an acceptable solution. Restricting free speech is not an acceptable solution.
As for your rhetorical question, I am not privileged to be a member of one of those ethnic groups. I am, however, a foreigner in Japan. And if I were to see that magazine on a convenience store rack, I would not think of free speech. That is a given that doesn’t come into question.
I would think, what a jerk, and walk on.
ampontan said
“People have feelings and emotions, and to simply discount them because they don’t fit into some philosophical model is a bit simplistic.”
I discount them not because they don’t fit into a philosophical model, but because they *are* feelings and emotions, which are indeed figments of the imagination. Many of them are just conditioned responses. The rest are functions of the organism, and are just passing clouds. The problem is that we live in an age that glorifies them.
Of course I have feelings and emotions too, and I even indulge them, but I try to never glorify them and think they have any beyond an intrinsic meaning.
One of the reasons there are laws is to prevent the vagaries of emotion from ruling civil society.
If you extend the use of the standards of feelings or emotions to its logical conclusions, no one will be able to say anything at all.
Should we use the standards of the feelings of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims when we discuss Islamic terrorism?
I frankly cannot understand why anyone would be in the slightest bit interested in laws against hate speech. They are indefensible from any perspective I can think of.
Albion said
I think the problem is encapsulated in the statement, “feelings and emotions are figments of the imagination.” Denying the reality of feelings certainly is convenient.
Something should be done about hate speech because it is a form of violence, something a libertarian should be more concerned about.
buvery said
Ampontan:
I know you are living in Japan long enough to know the Hokkaido crusader.
Then you should know Tony Laszlo too.
http://www.han.org/hanboard/c-board.cgi?cmd=one;no=920;id
Recent developments show that David and Tony are completely separated, and Tony became a “Darling,” of Oguri Saori. Tony dropped all his documents on his web cite and seems to be in hiding (from those crusader’s viewpoint).
Silly Sally:
The way they do “activity” is very disgusting. Americans used to tell me that they act like Al Sharpton. I feel that there is a little bit difference. Al Sharpton is provocative but he did not provoke NYPD in Queens to let the shooting happen, at least.
In Otaru Onsen case, and ICERD in Geneva or a similar meeting in South Africa, Tony went there to protest, meaning injecting biased version of the stories to the ICERD board members, and imported the feedback of the board back to Japan. In other words, they are proactive, not reactive, and heavily invested their time to look Japan bad.
The Japanese in general dismiss or are simply indifferent to their actions, naively believing that they are foreigners and they do not what they do. They know what they do to discredit the society and people of Japan. IMO, the people of Japan should do something because negative reputation created by their activity harm all the people of Japan.
Matt said
“Naturalized citizen/gaijin activist Debito Arudou writes a self-congratulatory article in Japan Focus about how he led a movement to remove the magazine Gaijin Hanzai (Foreigner Crime) from store shelves.”
Debito is talking credit but I do not think he deserves it. It was http://www.japanprobe.com that took up the banner of boycott. There, with the assistance of a Japanese commenter called Ponta, they made their concerns known to the convenience stores. After that, the magazine was withdrawn. Debito makes no mention of the Japanese commenter at JapanProbe that was the essential person in having the magazine withdrawn. Instead he writes an article about how the existence of a magazine in a country with free speech is a statement on the character of the people at large. Ignoring the fact that it was Japanese and foreigners working together to resolve this strikes me as racism.
Debito wrote – “Japan still has no laws or official guidelines regarding “hate speech”, particularly towards Japan’s ethnic minorities and international residents.”
I want to like Debito, but for reasons like the statement above, I just cannot. He would have people thrown into prison for expressing their opinions. No doubt there would be some sort of committee that decides what is “hate speech”, and anyone being investigated by them (I think “victim” is the right word) would be at the mercy of their good faith and competence, and a person that had both would not participate in a committee like that.
The upside is that Debito does not “represent” whites or any other ethnic minority in Japan. He has some supporters but as far as I know most do not like his methods, and many do not like his goals either, which is not just about working towards parity with Japanese people or opening doors for naturalized foreigners. Debito supports a policy of multiculturalism and multiracialism, in other words, to open the doors to migrants and set about negating the Japanese culture in favor of “multiculturalism”.
Debito wrote – “A significant contrast is a recent case of hate speech in the United States. On February 23, AsianWeek published a column by Kenneth Eng entitled “Why I Hate Blacks”. Within it he made allegations justifying “why we should discriminate against blacks”: their racist attitudes towards Asians, their weak constitution (“the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years”), their lack of intelligence, and their Christianity.
Within days, several ethnic anti-defamation leagues and news media were reporting and demanding apologies and retractions; even Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a public condemnation [22]. Eng lost his job. Civil society kicked into action, debated the issue, and shouted the author down. Hate speech has hardly disappeared in the United States, but egregious cases cannot escape the attention of the media, civil organizations and the state.”
Debito uses the above to make a negative comparison with the US, the country of which he was formerly a citizen. Debito does not know what he was talking about. In fact, Eng had previously written an article in the same newspaper about hating whites, and that was not censured at all. It was only when Eng wrote about blacks that people rose up in outrage. The article about hating blacks was with withdrawn from their website, but the one about whites is still available. See here -
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=33bdb64c5b346a69bab3a2d448603596
All this just goes to show that any laws regulating “hate speech” will be hypocritically and unfairly applied. It is ironic that this “crusader for civil rights” is actively working to have them taken away.
Aceface said
Ardou does have Japanese passport and he has his right as a minority in the society.I also believe “Foreign Crime File” do need to get slammed.
But Japan Focus?Man.Do any of you know who Gavan Macormack is?
ampontan said
Albion:
“Denying the reality of feelings certainly is convenient.”
Examining the nature of one’s feelings and their origin is most certainly not convenient. It takes time, and, if pursued seriously, will force one to reappraise (and usually discard) many of the basic assumptions under which one has lived until that point.
Do it and you get it.
“Something should be done about hate speech because it is a form of violence.”
I disagree. It’s just someone shooting off their mouth.
Again, the use of the passive voice is interesting. Who should do what to whom, by what authority?
ampontan said
Maceface:
“If you don’t have faith in a God of providence, it’s more logical and coherent to see a global authority — such as the UN — as the ultimate authority over man. Global governance — for those without faith — would be the closest thing to God.”
I disagree because I think there are more possibilities than those two. Perhaps that’s because I’ve lived in the East and have been interested in the study of so-called “esoteric religions”. But I can’t explain that briefly in a comment section.
Also, I only said my conditioning was possible, not probable.
“Similar to your hyper-sanitary squeamishness about someone pissing the truth on your blog. The spirit of tyranny lurks in every soul … maybe even yours.”
Here is my idea. I want anybody who has anything to say on a particular topic to feel comfortable about being able to come here and say it. I may not agree with them, but I don’t want them to think I’m going to arbitrarily delete it because I disagree, or dump on them because that’s the way they think about something.
Also, allowing two people to dump on each other personally may inhibit others from speaking up. Who wants the hassle? If someone supports the idea of the UN, say, I don’t think they’d mind so much if someone else dislikes the UN, but I think they would if someone said they were a jerk for liking it.
And I have a selfish reason. I get an e-mail notification of every comment (except today!), and I look at them. I really don’t want to have to wade through dozens of notes of poster A writing under a pseudonym personally blasting poster B writing under a pseudonym. I suspect I am not alone in that opinion.
ampontan said
Matt made the following comment, but it got diverted to spam somehow, for reasons I don’t understand. Here it is. Remember, it is him speaking and not me.
—————————
“Naturalized citizen/gaijin activist Debito Arudou writes a self-congratulatory article in Japan Focus about how he led a movement to remove the magazine Gaijin Hanzai (Foreigner Crime) from store shelves.”
Debito is talking credit but I do not think he deserves it. It was http://www.japanprobe.com that took up the banner of boycott. There, with the assistance of a Japanese commenter called Ponta, they made their concerns known to the convenience stores. After that, the magazine was withdrawn. Debito makes no mention of the Japanese commenter at JapanProbe that was the essential person in having the magazine withdrawn. Instead he writes an article about how the existence of a magazine in a country with free speech is a statement on the character of the people at large. Ignoring the fact that it was Japanese and foreigners working together to resolve this strikes me as racism.
Debito wrote – “Japan still has no laws or official guidelines regarding “hate speech”, particularly towards Japan’s ethnic minorities and international residents.”
I want to like Debito, but for reasons like the statement above, I just cannot. He would have people thrown into prison for expressing their opinions. No doubt there would be some sort of committee that decides what is “hate speech”, and anyone being investigated by them (I think “victim” is the right word) would be at the mercy of their good faith and competence, and a person that had both would not participate in a committee like that.
The upside is that Debito does not “represent” whites or any other ethnic minority in Japan. He has some supporters but as far as I know most do not like his methods, and many do not like his goals either, which is not just about working towards parity with Japanese people or opening doors for naturalized foreigners. Debito supports a policy of multiculturalism and multiracialism, in other words, to open the doors to migrants and set about negating the Japanese culture in favor of “multiculturalism”.
Debito wrote – “A significant contrast is a recent case of hate speech in the United States. On February 23, AsianWeek published a column by Kenneth Eng entitled “Why I Hate Blacks”. Within it he made allegations justifying “why we should discriminate against blacks”: their racist attitudes towards Asians, their weak constitution (”the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years”), their lack of intelligence, and their Christianity.
Within days, several ethnic anti-defamation leagues and news media were reporting and demanding apologies and retractions; even Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a public condemnation [22]. Eng lost his job. Civil society kicked into action, debated the issue, and shouted the author down. Hate speech has hardly disappeared in the United States, but egregious cases cannot escape the attention of the media, civil organizations and the state.”
Debito uses the above to make a negative comparison with the US, the country of which he was formerly a citizen. Debito does not know what he was talking about. In fact, Eng had previously written an article in the same newspaper about hating whites, and that was not censured at all. It was only when Eng wrote about blacks that people rose up in outrage. The article about hating blacks was with withdrawn from their website, but the one about whites is still available. See here -
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=33bdb64c5b346a69bab3a2d448603596
All this just goes to show that any laws regulating “hate speech” will be hypocritically and unfairly applied. It is ironic that this “crusader for civil rights” is actively working to have them taken away.
ampontan said
“I also believe “Foreign Crime File” do need to get slammed.”
If people think that, that’s OK. For example, in the post I said that I have no problem with boycotts. That’s a good way to get someone’s attention, and they can choose themselves what to do after that.
The problem I have is with “hate speech” laws.
tomojiro said
Basically I agree with you Ampontan. Hate speech law would be a problem.
But still it is also true that some “speech” can damage peoples feeling and society in general, and there must be a limit to such speech. Should the limit be left to the “common sence” of the peoples? Yes it should.
But how about Nazi germany, in which one kind of this speach gained superiority about others voices? I mean they were elected. Maybe that is an extraordinaire case, but I think we should also be prepared for that.
tomojiro said
Aceface
I only know that Gavan Macormack is a left leaning Japanologist from Australia. Sometimes, Japan Focus has great articles, but sometime it is ultra left,in my opinion. I am curious about your opinion.
Aceface said
Can’t we use “Hate Speech”law to whack some disgruntled gaijins like Ardou?Joking.
But yes it could be a problem for the target may go beyond the convenient archenemy like Nazi or KKK or Japanese extreme rightist.The wrongs in Japanese society are usually ubiquitous and ambiguous.Law would harm the freedom and could potentially daunt the vitality of the civic society.
I mean I know some French teachers want sue Ishihara for his usual missay about French language,but I read French teachers argument and it was pretty much arrogant in the sense they were rather Frenchcentric and you get an impression that they are demanding us all to be some kind of Francphilia.Not to intending to defend Ishihara in anyway nor saying French is not an international toungue,but the law suit to an elected politician is to me an overkill.
Matt said
“But still it is also true that some “speech” can damage peoples feeling and society in general, and there must be a limit to such speech. Should the limit be left to the “common sence” of the peoples? Yes it should.”
Tomojiro, I have to disagree with you. Someone that wants to throw another person in prison for saying something is far more dangerous than a person that uses a racial slur or hurts someones feelings. Relying on “common sense” is crazy when you consider people cannot even agree on what constitutes “common sense”. Consider that when cartoons of Mohammad that were offensive to Muslims were published in Europe, the “common sense” of many Muslims was to attack foreign embassies, and kill priests and nuns. Some people have said I should be thrown into jail for having my blog. So no, I am not going to trust in the often misguided and completely subjective “common sense” of people to judge what kind of speech is permissible and what kind of speech is not.
You make an example of Germany, and it occurs to me that despite the mistakes that Germany made in the 1930s and 1940s, that the German state still presumes to try to regulate peoples speech and thoughts, just like they did in the Nazi era.
tomojiro said
That is exactly the predicament in our society that I wanted to refer. Sometimes I think it is “easier” to have a “hate speach” law or regulations if you want. Because then it would be a kind of manual what you shouldn’t speak out and what you can.
But that, In another word, would be exactly what Ampontan refers as a kind of Orwellian world.
On the other hand if you allow limitless free speach, in a democratic society, you allow a possibility that a certain kind of “speach” gaines supperiority against other voices and that this will become dominante and thus authorized.
I was refering to the Nazi in the Weimar republic not after 1933, in other words not about the Nazi after they legaly and in a democratic way grasped the power.
I know it is an absurd example, but for sake of the arguments, what because you allow limitless free speach when fundamentalistic Islamic speech gains the dominance? Wouldn’t be the same as during the Weimar republic? Contemporary Germany forbid Nazis because their is a danger that it could harm democracy, even if they gain power through democracy.
What is the answer for this predicament?
Aceface said
Tomo:
Firstly,I don’t trust McCormack’s intellectual integrity.
Japan Focus does have some interesting articles sometimes.But have you ever read”Emptiness of Japanese afluence憂鬱な楽園（みすず書房）”？or “Cold war Hot War侵略の舞台裏（シアレヒム社）”？
and his latest “Target North Korea北朝鮮をどう考えるのか？（平凡社）”？I did.And did’nt like them.
He also wrote with Jon Halliday(Yeah,Mr.Jung Chang)a book called “Japanese Imperialism Today” in the 70′s of which I have not read.But Halliday is the chap who wrote notorious “Mao,The unknown story” and I believe there is a shift in the mind of Halliday after he wrote book with McCormack.
There is a description on Huanggutun Incident that killed Manchurian warlord Zhang Zuolin張作霖 and Halliday(and Chang)claimed it was a conspiracy by Soviet GRU colonel.
Now Conventional wisdom says Zhang was killed by the bomb planted by Japanese Kwangtung Army officer Col.Koumoto Daisaku and PM Tanaka Giichi had to resign for this rogue colonel’s venture,this I believe been taught in Japanese highschool history class and one of the concrete fact on history of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.Halliday overthrew this with lame argument like he found some new document in Soviet archive or something.To me,this incident has proved that Halliday is not to be trusted as a historian.
And why this is related to comrad McCormack? Very much so,because McCormack had written a book about Zhang Zuolin in 70′s.He must have known well enough that Halliday book is nothing but a hoax on this matter.
So far I have read no criticism from McCormack on his old mate’s historical fiasco neither in Japan Focus nor anywhere else that I know(I could be wrong on this,but if there is it must be on JF,and if so I apologize to the world for misbehave)
The assacination of Zhang Zuolin could be a trivia to some,but not to Japanese.Now”Mao” is being used by the likes of Nakanishi Terumasa of Kyoto Univ(who is currently the unofficial Advisor to Abe Shinzo,especially on historical matter)to lessen Japanese guilt on China.
So McCormack should start write somekind of criticism.Heck ,he did complain Japanese skiing in the gigantic indoor ski resort(now gone) as some kind of insult to the humanity(and this I agree with him to certain degree)why not write about history distortion commited by his old Brit friend?
My credit is reserved with this man until I see some kind of writing on this matter.Although I probably would not going to like Japan Focus anyway.
Secondly,I wouldn’t call MacCormack an ultra,but he is a left wing indeed.And unlike American left who are sometimes very sympathetic to Japanese,Aussie left are quite mean with us.Not to say that is wrong,however I feel pretty much like a fox facing a trapper when I read their book.Don’t know the reason why.
tomojiro said
Again, thumbs up to your post,Aceface
I began to question about “Mao” when it reached the part about the Zhang Zuolin incident. After doing a little bit research, every historian about modern history was sceptical about this. And after Nakanishi rushed in, every historian was laughing about him (exepte the revisionist, ofcourse).
I don’t understand Nakanishi. Why he is so “willing” to play the clown. Nobody takes him seriously now. He litteraly jumps to any conspiracy theory which “seems” to exempt Japan for war responsibility. What he is doing is a big joke.
jion999 said
Aceface
Tomojiro
The comment about assassination of Zhang Zuolin 張作霖 in “Mao the unknown story” is the only and biggest reason why leftists (who attack the enemies as “revisionist”) prefer to criticize that book.
A man like 矢吹晋 rushed in and claimed the whole of the book is incredible.
Very laughable.
You didn’t read it in English, do you?
The original English book says as follows’
“This assassination is generally attributed to the Japanese, but Russian intelligence sources have recently claimed that it was in fact organized, on Stalin’s orders, by the man later responsible for the death of Trotsky, Naum Eitingon, and dressed up as the work of the Japanese.”
The writers just introduced the comment of Russian intelligence sources only. The writers did not conclude which is correct by themselves.
And this comment is just a marginal note.
Tomojiro
“I began to question about “Mao” when it reached the part about the Zhang Zuolin incident.”
You just like to protect your old dreams, don’t you?
Aceface said
Kind of funny that those who hates Iris Chang’s “The Rape Of Nanking”and call it a trash, rush onto Jung Chang,Jon Halliday’s”Mao,Untold story”praise it and believe every single word on it and same goes vice versa.These books which in my opinion the reliability is pretty much the same.
Listen Jion666, maybe you should just go to The marmot hole and have poke around with likes of yours.I just have trouble communicating with someone who makes me feel like a rightist and those who makes me feel like a leftist.Tomojiro and I are intelligent men who love crossword, not crossfire.Hope you would understand.
jion999 said
Aceface
Well, it is the first time for you to reply to me.
Don’t mind the fact that you criticized Jung Chang, Jon Halliday’s ”Mao,Unknow story” even if you didn’t understand the exact wording about “Zhang Zuolin incident”
If you like to conclude that book is dog shit like Iris Chang’s book, you must find the reasons without “Zhang Zuolin incident” by yourself.
I love crossword, but I can enjoy crossfire also.
And I hate guys who try to tattle without crossword.
buvery said
Jion999:
The reason why I am skeptical about Mao book is that the book contains numerous “untold stories,” and some of them are hard to believe.
張作霖爆殺事件 is one thing. There are other stories that are very hard to believe.
For example: her claim that crossing of the Dadu Bridge during Long March, so eloquently described by Edgar Snow, is complete fabrication. Any one who has read “the red star over China” knows the story. I am not a historian, so I do not have first-hand knowledge, and it is possible that the story was created by Edgar Snow or his communist friends. But it is also possible that Jung Chang’s claim is simply wrong. What worries me is she claims extraordinary things with weak circumstantial evidence. This character seems to be shared by both Changs.
jion999 said
Buvery
I know many people want to degrade that book and try to find fault.
The page which mentions 張作霖爆殺事件“Zhang Zuolin incident” is the most famous point they used as the reason why that book is not credible.
As I verified on the above, the writers just introduced the comment of Russian intelligence sources only. The writers did not conclude it by themselves. Misunderstanding happened because of bad Japanese translation.
As for the other stories, historians would try to challenge about those credibility. It is good thing to have a new debate about modern Chinese history. After the establishment of PRC, all of westerners were kicked out from China, and many histories have been fabricated. All of westerners, except Russians. So, documents and testimonies from Russia are very important to study about modern Chinese history in the future.
Because that book contains quite new ideas with a lot of evidences from Russia, it would take some years to verity all of them.
However, it is nonsense you conclude that book is dog shit like Iris Chang’s book without any evidences.
Labeling the writers as “revisionists” immediately is out of question.
Bad custom of leftists.
The word “revisionist” is a fossil of the era of Cultural Revolution.
Albion said
Ampotan,
Political, legal, economic and many other decisions in public life are made on the basis of emotional responses all the time.
Why is the stock market up one day and down the next? People react emotionally to a wide variety of possible scenarios suggested by various minutiae of information, and in many cases pack mentality takes over.
Why do some criminals get lighter sentences than others even after being convicted of the same crimes? Because courts take into account to some extent the feelings of the victims, the families of victims, the perpetrator, et al.
Why does one country legislate so that comprehensive health care is availble to most citizens while another country’s legislation fails to implement such a system, leaving many without recourse to medical care? Because there is, in the US anyway, an extreme emotional aversion to most forms of “collective” organization.
These are not decisions based solely (or even mainly, in some cases) on reason or logic. They are based on emotional responses.
As I said in a post above, simply concluding that emotions are disqualified from the decision-making process is very convenient for a person who has hitched his wagon to the stars to a particular ideology. In the hard sciences it is called “fudging the data.” You simply ignore what doesn’t fit the program.
You said: “Examining the nature of one’s feelings and their origin is most certainly not convenient. It takes time, and, if pursued seriously, will force one to reappraise (and usually discard) many of the basic assumptions under which one has lived until that point.”
This is your path to better governing? It sounds to me like some kind of religious talk or perhaps something out of a “self-help” book.
Sure, some emotions are not rational. That’s basically a tautology. Sure, people are conditioned by genetic propensity, upbringing, environment, chance, etc. Sure, it is helpful in many cases to examine one’s emotional responses and better understand them.
But to say that politics MUST be based on emotionless reason is to advocate a hopelessly idealistic ideology. Demanding that people discard most or all of their emotions in public life is in itself irrational.
As for hate speech, as a libertarian, I’m sure you are aware of the phrase “do not initate violence.”
There are laws against slander and defamation. People cannot simply say whatever they like and expect that the First Amendment will protect them. There must be a concept of personal responsibility connected to freedom, and in fact — in the law — there is.
Hate speech is a violent attack in most cases. For that reason, legislative bodies have a responsibility to make laws that protect citizens against being victimized by it. Just like they have fulfilled their responsibility to make laws against physical violence and fraud, etc.
Of course the line we draw between “utterances subject to legal action” and those that are not is not clear.
Welcome to democracy, that untidy political system we have.
tomojiro said
Albion
Very thoughtful and interesting post. Indeed, we are living in a society in which “speaches” are limited as you have described. There are limits which can only sometimes decided through legal process as, for example what constitutes a violent utterance about “sexual harrassement”.
But on the other hand, this system should be guided on the philosophy what Ampontan suggest. Emotions are involved in any corner of our society or system if you want, but it should not pay “too much” focus to emotions. That will destroy a free society. The individual should follow the principles what Ampontan suggests,but the society must also take care emotions which are involved. The balance between that is very difficult.
Sorry for my bad english (and maybe my logic). I can’t express my thoughts enough in English.
“Welcome to democracy, that untidy political system we have.”
Yeah,that’s true.
Albion said
Tomojiro,
I agree with you completely.
“Too much” focus on emotions certainly is bad. Discounting them completely is equally bad.
You said, “The balance between that is very difficult.”
That is exactly my point. People need to carefully consider each situation and make the best decision they can. That’s how democracy works.
If someone tries to impose a blanket rule (a rule that is supposed to apply in every real and/or imagined situation) then that person is essentially a dictator. Dictatorships are, at the very least, efficient. If efficiency is your goal, you go for the blanket rule rather than thought, the absolutist preconception rather than observation, the ideology rather than the reality.
Blanket rules would be great if everyone were the same and life offered nothing unexpected.
Your English and your logic are fine.
Asi said
About free speech, someone once asked me if people have the right to yell “Fire!” in a cinema. I disagree that all rights are absolute.
About hate speech, I heard that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany. Does that disturb you also ampontan?
ampontan said
You lost me there. Denying the Holocaust anywhere is stupid speech, not hate speech. People have the right to be stupid.
You “heard” it was illegal? Why are you asking me about what you “heard”? Bring me a fact.
I’m not disturbed about these people. Human nature doesn’t disturb me. It is what it is.
I just have an opinion and expressed it in this post. It shouldn’t be too hard to draw conclusions about what I think from reading it.
The columnist George Jonas wrote the following. I couldn’t have said it better.
Jonas is a Canadian Jew, by the way.
I trust that answers your question.
Asi said
Asi said
I’m sorry I didn’t know how to use these XHTML, so click on the last sentence for the link to the Wikipedia article.
My argument is that it is idealistic to say that censorship of hate speech is wrong.
Asi said
Ampontan says
Denying the Holocaust anywhere is stupid speech, not hate speech. People have the right to be stupid.
If I was not clear, many societies do disagree, and make laws against hate speech (for example the 13 countries where is is a crime to deny the Holocaust, I hope you can click the link above to find out about this). Such laws, I believe are because people in these countries don’t want someone standing outside a school handing out flyers that read, for example, “Blacks/Jews/Homosexuals are retarded/evil/sick . . .” (and so on).
I think the societies in Europe for example which ban hate speech do so because people prefer to progress their social environments toward tolerance. It seems to me that you think “tolerance” means allowing everything, including hate speech.
That’s interesting but I think idealistic, although by understanding that you support the “absolute right” for example to deny the Holocaust or deny equal access to goods and services for minorities, I can appreciate why you attack Debito so aggressively, as he might seem idealistic to you.
cheers
Overthinker said
“It seems to me that you think “tolerance” means allowing everything, including hate speech.”
It seems that way to me – surely not allowing hate speech is being intolerant of hate speech? Granted, there are certainly things I am intolerant towards, but being intolerant itself is not a bad thing. Or a good thing. What do you think “tolerance” means here?
bender said
Holocaust denial is of a completely different time-space continuum. Let’s bring the discussion back to Earth!
Asi said
I think this is a libertarian view, and I can see why Ampontan is aggressive toward Debito who is practically fighting for laws against hate speech and racial discrimination.
To Bender, there are people in Europe today who would love to deny the Holocaust through print, television and the internet. There are people in America who would love to use this media to target specific minorities, such as Jews, Blacks, the Disabled and so on. They are largely prevented from doing so by laws against hate speech.
I would say that “tolerance” does not mean tolerating intolerance, which I think is what Ampontan and Overthinker are suggesting. Personally I think “tolerance” is seen in a social environment that nurtures diversity by opposing discrimination and hate speech.
Does Japan have laws against discrimination and hate speech? No. Ampontan and some here are glad that is the case. Debito is not, and so some here attack what he says. Maybe that is ironic?
ampontan said
Japan and the US don’t have any hate speech laws, and in 24 years here, and growing up there, I have never seen a flyer like that outside a school.
It isn’t working, is it? Muslims spout hate speech every day in Europe; few stop it. There is a rise in anti-Semitism again in Europe; few complain.
He doesn’t seem idealistic to me. I think he’s a brownshirt.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H. L. Mencken
Jews, blacks, and the disabled can handle themselves with existing laws.
Please tell us about some of the specific government laws in the United States against hate speech.
Not me. It’s not the government’s business to write laws about tolerating people.
I grew up in America. I’ll tell you about the people in the last office where I worked:
1. The boss was a black woman younger than me.
2. The secretary was a white woman married to a black man.
There were three workers.
1. A woman born in The Philippines
2. A man born in Mexico married to an Iranian woman.
3. Me
America was naturally diverse before you and I were born. It doesn’t need to nurture it. It happens.
“Nurture diversity” sounds like propaganda to me.
Hate speech is impossible to define. To do so requires thought police. Any such laws will always be misused. They are being abused right now in Canada, if you’ve been reading about their Human Rights Commissions.
And the Supreme Court in the US has already ruled that hate crime/speech laws violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Hate speech laws are ugly and fascist.
Overthinker said
At the risk of being thought of a sock (or a sockophant?) I am largely in agreement with Ampontan here. There was a recent episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!” which discussed similar ideas – that of the government intervening to (ostensibly) make life easier for people who weren’t in the majority. In fact that has been the theme of a few of their shows, frankly. All too often, what happens is that the law gets misused and abused and doesn’t really fix the issue (like the laws requiring braille on drive-through ATMs – the reasoning was apparently that blind people might take taxis). Those so-called liberals who want to force everyone to be nice to each other or the planet are all too often people who end up more concerned with the political power they attain from their position (“Animal Farm” is a good read here) and since they draw their power from these protests, they are not really interested in having them end – and should they end, these people need to find something else to butt into our lives with.
That said, the issue in the US as I understand it is not so much with Federal laws preventing hate speech, but (in a nice twist against private property rights etc) certain groups and organisations demanding it – schools, in particular. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say, the people at FIRE have some very interesting things to say about free speech, or the lack of it, on US university campuses.
Hate speech is linked to racism, and that in the West is too linked to the idea that racism is an expression of white power and white privilege, and thus Europeans complaining about immigrants are racist, but immigrants demanding that Europe’s laws change (check out recent comments by a senior UK politician about adding aspects of Sharia law to the UK re divorces or something) are standing up for their rights. And if you can toss children into the argument – why, no one wants to be seen not supporting the children. The all-intrusiveness and interconnectedness of the modern world is, ironically, in some ways reducing freedom by holding all our actions up to the scrutiny of the entire world.
This actually disturbs me a bit, especially the second sentence:
“I would say that “tolerance” does not mean tolerating intolerance, which I think is what Ampontan and Overthinker are suggesting. Personally I think “tolerance” is seen in a social environment that nurtures diversity by opposing discrimination and hate speech.”
I could suggest that the truest test of tolerance is the ability to tolerate that which you despise, but Voltaire got there ahead of me. Because if someone has a worldview that is so dramatically opposed to your own as to threaten it, are you going to consider them tolerant? They don’t tolerate you, at least. Tolerance is won through mutual respect, and respect must be earned, not forced. Fight for your rights if you like, but don’t rob me of mine. Where exactly is the dividing line between hate and tolerance? That is, what constitutes hate speech and what speech must we tolerate? If we are only to allow that speech which no one finds offensive, then how much tolerance is left?
I’m not saying there are no limits, and that everything is equal and that I support the mob lynching of blacks or gays. But it’s already illegal to lynch someone, whatever the race or sexual orientation. Extreme forms of expression that cause harm are already banned. All hate speech laws can do is add another layer of punishment, and make people afraid to say anything because in this day and age anyone can be offended by anything, and we have raised a generation of people who think it is their right never to be offended. And underemployed lawyers willing to make a fuss about it for a commission….
The issue with Japan specifically is not so much that there are not laws on the books – there are, ones that have in the past been used to deal with these issues. But the problem comes in applying and interpreting and enforcing the existing laws, and we need to get that sorted out before demanding new ones. It should be a basic rule of thumb: never give the government any power that it has not demanded (and remain vigilant about the demands as well). This applies to any situation really – never give those who have power over you more power.
Personally I meet tolerance with tolerance, intolerance with intolerance. Do unto them as they do unto you…. Anyway, go watch South Park’s “The Death Camp of Tolerance.” If nothing else, it’s funny….
PS: Ampontan, there seem to a fair few hate crime laws in the US already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
bender said
Overthinker:
Those are laws that enhance punishment of violent crimes motivated by hate, not laws that make hate speech a crime. It’s completely different from European laws.
Overthinker said
The wiki page says “federal prosecution of people who “by force or threat of force wilfully injures, intimidates or interferes with… any person because of his race, colour, religion or national origin and because he is or has been” attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school.” So this is a way to re-classify the existing crime of “force or threat of force”?
I think I see some of my confusion:
“The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.”
vs
“The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint.”
It’s the difference between adding a penalty to an existing crime and making something that is not a crime a crime. Or as you say, [hate] crime vs [hate] speech.
Though I am forced to wonder how the courts can prove that a black man killing a white man (or vice versa) is a hate crime rather than a normal crime. “No, your honour, it was just a coincidence that the six men I killed and ate were all black. I don’t hate blacks – I love them, especially their liver with a nice Chianti and fava beans….”
So is a “Japanese Only” sign an act (banning foreigners from entering) or just (protected) speech?
Asi said
I believe you. Now, I have lived almost 50 years in Japan and the USA, and I have never seen a murder. By your logic, therefore there is no need for laws against murder. I am sorry but your position is not logical, it is ridiculous.
Permit me, to all you all here who are calling Debito a “brownshirt” (which means Nazi Party Fascist!) and attacking both him and the proposal for laws against discrimination and hate speech, I have a question: Are you Chinese or Korean or Brazilian factory workers? Are you Are you Filipino or Thai nightclub hostesses? Because this is the majority of foreigners in Japan, do you speak for them when you oppose laws against discrimination and and so on? Maybe, just perhaps, might you be speaking for your own narrow interests, as privileged white Americans? Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect, I am trying to understand your aggressive attitude toward Debito.
ampontan said
You are comparing murders, which we all know exist, to a situation of imaginary racists passing out imaginary leaflets at imaginary schools.
There have always been laws against murder, because it exists.
If there were a serious need to prevent all those ignorant racists out there from passing out leaflets at the school door, children would be bringing those leaflets home all the time. The newspapers and TV would be filled with stories of weirdos hanging out at schoolyards.
I haven’t seen any of that, either.
Murder is not that easy a thing to do.
Meanwhile, all anybody has to do to pass out leaflets at schools is to write something on a computer, print it out, copy it (or get it copied) at little expense, and spend about 15 minutes a day outside the school.
And since there’s no law against it, no one would be able to stop it.
Since it’s so easy to do, why isn’t anyone doing it?
The incorrect assumption here is that white people are “privileged”, whatever that means.
Keep in mind that I am a ten-minute walk away from an English school that employs a woman as a part-time teacher who was born in the Bahamas and has a complexion almost as dark as the color of my wallet. She also has a part-time job at a local high school. That English school also employed a woman from Jamaica, with a similar complexion, who before that was the Kyushu supervisor for all English teachers for a Japanese juku chain. Both of these women have spent at least five years in Japan that I know of.
That English school also has hired several Sri Lankans, a woman from the Philippines, and a man from Zaire.
Meanwhile, as a freelance translator, the day I turn in a bad translation is the day I lose a customer. None of my Japanese clients care at all about my complexion.
I’m just writing what I think, which I’m sure some people would like to ban as “hate speech”.
If you don’t understand what I’ve written by now, I suspect you don’t really want to.
To conclude: You’ve ignored about 80% of what I wrote, and not thought about the rest of it. My time and patience for answering people who cherry-pick arguments is limited.
Asi said
I see you are calling me ignorant and not thoughtful because I do not agree with you. And you have no time or patience for such people who do not agree with you. Fine. I have visited at Debito’s site and he does not attack you, yet you are aggressively attacking him and calling him a Nazi Fascist, and still, all the while, you are making appeals for free speech. To me you seem disturbed.
Good luck in your website and your campaign for USA-style social consciousness in Japan. I do not hate USA, but I want to participate in and support intelligent discussions to make social progress. Moreover, I do not make attacks on people by calling them Nazi Fascists such as you do, that is shameful I think and I believe you should reconsider your approach. Thank you.
bender said
Moreover, I do not make attacks on people by calling them Nazi Fascists such as you do, that is shameful I think and I believe you should reconsider your approach.
In fact you’re doing it yourself, by comparing Ampontan to a Holocaust denier. This and your murder analogy and also the allegation of Ampontan trying to spread “USA-style consciousness” are typical strawman arguments, and I don’t see any sincerity or intellect in them. No thank you.
Ken said
Bill,
I have not read the magazine ‘Gaijin Hanzai’.
Is the content about the foreigners of statistically high ratio of crime such as Koreans, Chinese, etc. or just all non-Japanese?
ampontan said
Ken: Neither have I; this post was originally about Debito’s article about it in Japan Focus. The link above to the Japan Focus article still works. From that, it looks like all non-Japanese crimes.
Overthinker: Should have stuck to hate speech laws while I was ahead. Saw that claim about hate crime laws on a different site, but should have checked further.
Ken said
Japanese people in Hokkaido, where the David is living, associate Russians at higher ratio than those in main islands with whites as the fishermen were captured and killed around northern islands.
Well, why doesn’t the David return to the US because this kind of pugnacious person is not welcomed in Japan?
bender said
Well, why doesn’t the David return to the US because this kind of pugnacious person is not welcomed in Japan?
Now let’s not get into this kind of argument. We’re talking about free speech here, and Debito is entitled to this, too. Besides, he’s Japanese, not American.
Ken said
“We’re talking about free speech here, and Debito is entitled to this, too. Besides, he’s Japanese, not American.”
Only those who do not infringe others’ right can demand freedom in Japan.
bender said
Only those who do not infringe others’ right can demand freedom in Japan.
What right did he infringe?
Ken said
“What right did he infringe?”
As Far as I read a few articles, he disclosed real name of raped woman without rational reason at his blog.
It comes under Defamation crime in Japan.
Overthinker said
“Only those who do not infringe others’ right can demand freedom in Japan.”
Really? Where is this law written?
Ken said
“Really? Where is this law written?”
Don’t you know common sense?
bender said
As Far as I read a few articles, he disclosed real name of raped woman without rational reason at his blog.
It comes under Defamation crime in Japan.
Maybe. But he still has freedom of speech – your “violator has no rights” claim is not true. Also, as a Japanese citizen, he will not be subject to deportation regardless of what crime he commits. Not to forget that he hasn’t been charged with any crime as of yet. Let’s stick to counter arguments rather than telling him to get lost, shall we?
BTW, as you can tell, I think Asi’s argument- comparing Japan’s failure to enact anti-discrimination laws with Holocaust denial is fallacious and insincere. So is the murder analogy. Japan did try to introduce an anti-discrimination law called the “Jinken Yogo Ho (Human Rights Protection Act)” but the bill never went through because it was coupled with prohibition of discriminatory speech (aka “hate speech”), which many constituents, including the media from left to right, opposed. Japan could have anti-discrimination laws (I mean laws that prohibit discriminating people for services based on nationality/race, not hate-speech ban) – many US states have this, too – but I guess people aren’t concerned about diversity as the Americans are.
Here’s an example of one US state law (California)):
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/publications/publications.aspx?showPub=36
Note that it’s still not a crime for hotels/restaurants to discriminate people based on race/gender. It’s a only a civil offense. Also, members-only club are still allowed to discriminate in the US. The next issue will be, then, is the organization a true members-only club or really should be open to everyone? Boy Scouts of America v Dale was one such case. This is an hot issue in golf clubs.
Why compare with the US? Well, the Japanese constitution is based on the US constitution, especially the Bill of Rights section. I also think it’s a pretty lame argument to say the US is no role model…of course America is. Why do so many foreign students flock to US graduate schools?
Ken said
“But he still has freedom of speech – your “violator has no rights” claim is not true. Also, as a Japanese citizen, he will not be subject to deportation regardless of what crime he commits. Not to forget that he hasn’t been charged with any crime as of yet.”
Don’t catch me in the words. I have not suggested deportation.
What is worse, he must have known that he would not be charged because the victim would not sue him.
Anyway, what I would like to say is that Japanese people do not welcome him and he seems unhappy in Japan so that somebody should advise him to return where he got used to and can contribute positively.
Overthinker said
If “common sense” were truly valid we wouldn’t need the police. Rudeness is not necessarily legislated. Besides, whose common sense? This varies between people and regions, even in the same country – even in Japan. Osaka 常識 is not Tokyo 常識.
“I also think it’s a pretty lame argument to say the US is no role model…of course America is. Why do so many foreign students flock to US graduate schools?”
This does not follow. Foreign students go to US grad schools to get degrees from (ideally) prestigious institutions, the same reason anyone does. You might as well use the same argument for Japan, which attracts a great deal of foreign students as well. Normal immigrants as well are attracted by economic and lifestyle factors more than abstract socio-political systems.
As for Debito’s happiness or unhappiness, if you read his site you will see that he seems even unhappier in the US, where he feels out of place and his family hates him. And to make a blanket statement like “the Japanese people do not welcome him” is presumptuous and rude. You do not speak for the Japanese people. One assumes too that having granted him citizenship, his “welcome” has been made as official as it gets – Japan officially wants him.
ampontan said
Thanks for that comment. I didn’t know that. Things just got a bit clearer…
bender said
This does not follow. Foreign students go to US grad schools to get degrees from (ideally) prestigious institutions, the same reason anyone does. You might as well use the same argument for Japan, which attracts a great deal of foreign students as well. Normal immigrants as well are attracted by economic and lifestyle factors more than abstract socio-political systems.
Completely and totally disagree. Just go see one of the most prestigious US graduate schools and you’ll know they got the best students in the world. You’re underestimating America, maybe because you’re American.
Ken said
“If “common sense” were truly valid we wouldn’t need the police. Rudeness is not necessarily legislated. Besides, whose common sense? This varies between people and regions, even in the same country – even in Japan. Osaka 常識 is not Tokyo 常識.”
I do not blame you for you do not know Japanese common sense as far as you are Korean in Japan or Korean-Japanese.
However, you had better study at least constitution law of Japan as common sense if you are living in Japan.
For instance, article 12, article 13 and article 29.
Costitution law of Japan is based on not only the US constitution law as Bender mentioned but also the struggle for freedom and human rights which began in the UK.
Haven’t you studied history too?
Overthinker said
Bender: “Completely and totally disagree. Just go see one of the most prestigious US graduate schools and you’ll know they got the best students in the world. You’re underestimating America, maybe because you’re American.”
Some of the top universities in the world are American. So they attract some of the stop students. What on earth has that to do with the US being a role model for the world? And are you saying top grad students are “normal” immigrants? Anyway, the top grad students for the academics, not to escape totalitarian crapholes (though some might do both).
What, by the way, makes you think I am American? Ken seems to think I am Korean-American, though I’m not sure.
Ken: Yes, it’s a nice debating trick to mention various articles without saying what is in them that supports your argument, isn’t it? That way the responder is forced to try and analyse them and figure out what you mean. Articles 12 and 13 are about rights and freedoms and the old pursuit of happiness stuff, and 29 is about property law. Which of these has Debito or Occidentalism violated by asking the shop owner if he wouldn’t mind removing his sign? And if it is a violation, why has no one been arrested, and why was Debito allowed to naturalise despite having done this sort of thing since long before he did?
Yes, I have studied history. It’s very likely I have studied it more than you have. Your point is?
Ken said
“it’s a nice debating trick to mention various articles without saying what is in them that supports your argument, isn’t it?”
I did not mention it at all. How can you take other’s comments in such strained way?
I just inferred you as above because it seems that you do not know constitution law of Japan though you are able to speak Japanese well.
“And if it is a violation, why has no one been arrested, and why was Debito allowed to naturalise despite having done this sort of thing since long before he did?”
What are you talking about?
“It’s very likely I have studied it more than you have.”
Well! Did you make game of me with ‘Really? Where is this law written?’?
If so, is it interesting to intimidate around?
Overthinker said
“I did not mention it at all. How can you take other’s comments in such strained way?”
Probably where you said: “For instance, article 12, article 13 and article 29.”
You have stated “Only those who do not infringe others’ right can demand freedom in Japan.” I asked you for your reasons for saying this. You said it was “common sense” (though note that 常識 is not really the same as the English “common sense.” Joushiki is more like “stuff everyone knows,” and “common sense” more like “behaviour or knowledge that should be obvious”). Then you referred to three articles in the Constitution, without saying why these support your argument that Debito has no grounds to demand freedom.
I don’t follow your last sentence. I have not been intimidating anyone. You made a bold statement with no evidence or background and expect people to take it at face value. You don’t say anything like “it is the custom in Japan…” that could mitigate it and suggest it’s an unwritten code. You state flat out that this is the case, an absolute. Customs are not absolute. Laws, however, tend to be. So if this is not a law, then technically Debito can do what he likes.
Matt@occidentalism.org said
Asi, anyone that tries to steal away my right of free speech is a brownshirt Nazi facist. That is what Nazis do. Anyone that would put another in prison for speaking their mind is evil.
Asi said
Matt, it seems you regard Israel and France and New Zealand (and Germany and other countries which have laws against hate speech), as evil Nazi fascist states. And you consider Debito, because he has supported the idea of hate speech laws in Japan, to be an evil Nazi fascist.
I think this means you put absolute value on “free speech.” This is interesting, “understanding rights as absolute.” I think Ampontan said the same thing here.
Matt@occidentalism.org said
Asi, you are demagoguing the issue. You are making it out like I am calling the people of those states evil, fascists, and Nazis, which I am not. However, when a state acts to jail or punish people for expressing their opinions, then the state is acting in a fascist, evil, and indeed Nazi like manner (I repeat what I said – “that is what Nazis do”). People in states that do not have free speech are often victims of their governments. The solution to problems are not restrictions on speech, but more free speech.
This reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson said about this -
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
If he is working to take away the rights that I currently enjoy, then he is indeed just that. He is also very, very misguided, and any tribunal or group that judges hate speech will no doubt be comprised of people just like him. How misguided is he? Well, I had a run in with him, here and here. If you don’t like those words, then you give me a word for someone that works to take away my rights.
Free speech is a natural, human right, and human rights are absolute, OK?
Asi said
It seems you regard the state as a threat to the individual, and not as a legislative arm of society. I think the second description better represents the value system that people in Europe and some other countries would like their states to reflect — a social system where individual rights are not absolute, but subject to conditions or restrictions determined by society through the courts.
I used to go to an office near the Russian Embassy, and every day the neighborhood was buzzed by dozens of black buses with loudspeakers blaring racist crap. In Europe, they would not be allowed to disrupt, on a daily basis, residences and hospitals and schools with their hate-laced “free speech.” Yet, in Europe, the average citizen is much more politically informed and involved, and unlike in Japan, the media addresses issues, there is real public debate and the governments actually change.
I am more sympathetic to that model.
Finally, I see Debito working for human rights not against them, unless you take the narrow definition of “rights” as the right to discriminate against and make scapegoats of minorities. (Which worries me a hell of a lot more than society putting limits on hate speech.)
ampontan said
If it isn’t absolute, it isn’t a right. It’s something else. Rights are what we are all born with, and if governments take them away, they are totalitarian fascists and deserve to be removed from power.
This European attitude is one reason they’ve had so much trouble with fascism over the years, from Madrid to Moscow, and the United States hasn’t.
The laws against hate speech are in place in Europe because the political awareness of the people is too undeveloped to handle free speech, as evidenced by their history. They toss people into ovens or gulags. The cure is as bad as the disease.
If you don’t like sound trucks blaring in your neighborhood, pass some laws about noise levels, not speech content.
The Social Democrats (Socialists) parked across the street from my house last year and a guy got on his electronically amplified loudspeaker and gave a political harangue for ten minutes. It was annoying as hell, not for his message, but for the racket.
I think Socialists who encourage class warfare could be considered just as much hate speech as whatever the ultranationalists say, but that doesn’t bother the people who agree with it.
And that’s why hate speech laws are repugnant. People use them to shut up people they don’t want to hear.
I respect people to much for that. I say let them hear all of it and make up their own minds. What they decide to think is their business, not the business of jackbooted thought police.
Overthinker said
“Rights are what we are all born with”
Because the government allows us to be. It’s no use treating rights as some sort of natural law like gravity. We like to think that these rights are inalienable, but the sad fact is that we are just granted rights, and as soon as the powers that be want something from us, we get those rights removed. Even in the US “community standards” are frequently used as legal reasons to restrict rights. This is why people move out to shacks in the wilds of Montana….
It would be nice if we truly did have inalienable rights, in the same way we are subject to gravity, for example, but our perceptions of rights are the result of intellectual development over the centuries (mainly in Europe, especially in the Enlightenment, during which the US was founded based on these grand ideas). The ones we currently enjoy are those wrested from the government through long struggle, either ideological or political or physical. We retain them as modern first-world governments are dependent on a prosperous consumer and tax base and gain this through capitalism, which is predicated on freedom of choice, which is the basis of human rights. Also, these governments have realised that many of these rights do not seriously affect their operation of power. (I am reminded of a cartoon I once saw in “Punch” about an activist in the UK talking about all the horrid things various [made up] fascist regimes did to those that protested. But then, this activist concluded after a day’s futile protesting, at least those governments actually listened….)
“The laws against hate speech are in place in Europe because the political awareness of the people is too undeveloped to handle free speech, as evidenced by their history.”
This is a little unkind. You can’t really judge them by their history, or you imply that they cannot or will not change. Do you have any reason to suspect that their current political awareness is too undeveloped to allow free speech, other than the fact that there are currently laws against certain forms of speech? There are some who say that the US is currently having problems with fascism, but that aside, there are also countries in Europe that did not have problems with fascism.
I once had the local Communist candidate stand outside my bedroom window with a loudspeaker for half an hour in the early (to me) morning. Boy did she ever lose my vote, if I had a vote….
Matt@occidentalism.org said
OK, you have ignored most of what I have written, but lets get to it anyway.
I see what you are trying to do, and that is pigeon hole me as an anarchist. How about this for an idea – when government legislate justly, they are no threat to the individual, but when they legislate unjustly, they are.
I am fine with the people of Europe choosing their own social systems, as long as they don’t trample on the rights of others. I recall there have been many duly constituted laws in Europe, where rights are not considered absolute.
Here is another quote from Thomas Jefferson, for he was a wiser man than I (and you, also).
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Your ideas find common ground with Hilter, Mussolini, and Stalin, mine with Thomas Jefferson. I do not mean to guilt by association arguments, but they would agree with you that rights must be “subject to conditions or restrictions”.
Well, to me the idea that nations without a right of free speech can have real democracy is laughable. Free speech is the essential prerequisite to democracy. Anyway, I disagree with you that European governments change in any substantial manner, but that is a different issue.
On the black trucks, are you sure they were saying “racist” things? I have heard the black trucks too, but their message is usually ultra-nationalist, not racist, because they have a different set of issues to those of European nationalist groups. What exactly were they saying? By the way, criticism of North Korea does not count as “racism”.
If Debito succeeds, one day I have the right of free speech, and the next I do not. That means Debito is working against my rights. By the way, I am not Japanese and I do not feel scapegoated at all, and the discrimination cited by Debito is often easily resolved, as I reveled in the links I put in my previous comment.
Anyway, I think the claim that Japanese people need laws to control their “hate speech” against foreigners is racist, and is hate speech. Perhaps you need to be investigated. Then executed. Anything to purify society of racists.
bender said
Some of the top universities in the world are American. So they attract some of the stop students. What on earth has that to do with the US being a role model for the world? And are you saying top grad students are “normal” immigrants? Anyway, the top grad students for the academics, not to escape totalitarian crapholes (though some might do both).
What, by the way, makes you think I am American? Ken seems to think I am Korean-American, though I’m not sure.
You’ve never heard of an MBA or LLM? Guess how many foreign students are in these programs, and guess what is taught there. And who said the foreign grad students were immigrants? Are they really? I’d suggest you obtain sufficient knowledge over the basis of someone’s argument before you try to brush it off as nonsense.
Because the government allows us to be. It’s no use treating rights as some sort of natural law like gravity. We like to think that these rights are inalienable, but the sad fact is that we are just granted rights, and as soon as the powers that be want something from us, we get those rights removed. Even in the US “community standards” are frequently used as legal reasons to restrict rights. This is why people move out to shacks in the wilds of Montana.
Gee, you’re sarcastic. So you believe that democratic form of governments never work? Or are you just nitpicking on everyone’s comments here just for the fun of it? Also, your “community standards” has nothing to do with human rights being granted from the state…it’s an issue where rights conflict, not how the state wants it to be. I think you have no idea how the American system works. Shacks of Montana, right on. Take a look at this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2677/is_200206/ai_n7041500
BTW, there’s no federal consumer tax in the US. So you must not be American!
Overthinker said
“So you believe that democratic form of governments never work?”
The best argument for democratic governments is that they don’t work well. The democratic process makes things so inefficient that they end up being inefficient at removing powers and rights from the individual. As opposed to a dictatorship when all the ruler has to do is snap his fingers.
“You’ve never heard of an MBA or LLM? Guess how many foreign students are in these programs, and guess what is taught there. And who said the foreign grad students were immigrants? Are they really?”
I never said they were immigrants. I made the difference clear from the start between foreign students who go to get an education, and those ‘normal’ immigrants who go because they are attracted to the economy and/or political situation. The former go for education. The latter are attracted by its “role model” status.
You have stated a position – that foreign students go to the US as the US is a role model – and not provided any evidence whatsoever to back up that assertion. “You’ve never heard of an MBA or LLM?” is not an argument, merely a cheap debating point to try and cast aspersions on my knowledge by asking an “obvious” question. Here is some evidence that the prestige of a US-based degree is prime motivation:
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/961028/sidefor.html
Of the four students interviewed, all four cited the prestige and educational quality factors.
The issues where community standards are used to define and restrict rights may be rights issues, but the judgements are enforced by the power of the state: the court system. This is how any rights that may be or may not be granted by the state can be overridden by other decisions of the state. This even affects issues such as freedom of expression – such as art galleries being ordered to remove nudes from where they can be seen by passers-by.
“BTW, there’s no federal consumer tax in the US.”
Where did I say there was? Or did you read “dependent on a prosperous consumer and tax base” as “federal consumer tax”?
Ken said
Overthinker,
“I don’t follow your last sentence.”
I do not follow your all sentences because I am not interested in debate with metaphysical logic in blog.
You are indeed sarcastic as your pen name.
bender said
You have stated a position – that foreign students go to the US as the US is a role model – and not provided any evidence whatsoever to back up that assertion. “You’ve never heard of an MBA or LLM?” is not an argument, merely a cheap debating point to try and cast aspersions on my knowledge by asking an “obvious” question. Here is some evidence that the prestige of a US-based degree is prime motivation:
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/961028/sidefor.html
Of the four students interviewed, all four cited the prestige and educational quality factors.
Then why the heck is having an US degree on one’s resume look prestigious? Looks to me that you’re trying to argue with mere superficial understanding of the phenomenon. And you’re so-called “evidence” is only four Asian students studying the field of science. Please do look for better examples, like those who came to study the American political, legal or business management system. It’s not like I pointed out MBA and LLM for nothing. The evidence is there, if you’re humble enough to see them.
The issues where community standards are used to define and restrict rights may be rights issues, but the judgements are enforced by the power of the state: the court system. This is how any rights that may be or may not be granted by the state can be overridden by other decisions of the state. This even affects issues such as freedom of expression – such as art galleries being ordered to remove nudes from where they can be seen by passers-by.
Ever heard of the separation of powers? Rights are not “absolute”, I agree, but there’s a limit because they inevitably conflict with each other, and not because rights are illusions that can be given and taken away by the Big Brother with whim. In your example of nudity, it’s the freedom of artistic expression conflicting with the freedom to not see obscenity (or whatever). It’s not because “the state” haphazardly decides what the people should see and should not see. At least in a democratic country it works this way. Also, about government efficiency: of course the democratic system is insufficient when it comes to making fast decisions. That’s the whole idea behind it: check and balance. Again, seems to me like you’re trying to argue without really understanding the dynamics.
Where did I say there was? Or did you read “dependent on a prosperous consumer and tax base” as “federal consumer tax”?
You’re right. Sorry about that.
BTW, I realise that you’re British, or have British education, at least.
ampontan said
That’s not possible. If what you call “rights” conflict with each other, then either one or both are not rights to begin with.
Overthinker said
“Then why the heck is having an US degree on one’s resume look prestigious?”
Because, as these students say, the education levels and research opportunities are good. You are the one not refusing to see this. These people are not saying “My US degree is great because the US is a role model” they are saying “My US degree is great because US higher education (esp post-grad) is great.” And people know this: Harvard is the top-ranked university in the world.
“And you’re [sic] so-called “evidence” is only four Asian students studying the field of science.”
That’s four more than you have given.
Where is the right not be offended enshrined? It’s just people making noise and using the power of the state, through the court system, to remove or restrict rights, such as freedom of speech.
“Also, about government efficiency: of course the democratic system is insufficient when it comes to making fast decisions. That’s the whole idea behind it: check and balance. Again, seems to me like you’re trying to argue without really understanding the dynamics.”
That’s why I said that the inability to act easily was what was good about democracy. Seems to me that you’re trying to argue without really understanding what I am saying….
I have no idea why you seem to think I am British or have a British education, or consider it relevant.
Bender said
Ampontan:
Sure they do. Take property rights, for example. Is the property owner allowed to pollute his property with impunity? No, because it may harm others. Balancing conflicting rights is of the centerpieces of constitutional law. Here’s what I found randomly on the net (it’s Canadian law, but I think it’s a good example).
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/ccs/keywords.cfm?keyword=8
Bender said
Oops!
…one of the centerpieces…
Oh, BTW…
Where is the right not be offended enshrined? It’s just people making noise and using the power of the state, through the court system, to remove or restrict rights, such as freedom of speech.
Here you are! Enjoy:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment
ampontan said
Bender: What rights are in conflict? People have the right to own property, but they don’t have the right to do anything they want to do on it, and never have. People can’t kill each other on their own property either.
I’m not sure about what “right” you’re talking about, but whatever it is, it isn’t a right.
bender said
I’m not sure about what “right” you’re talking about, but whatever it is, it isn’t a right.
I don’t understand why you don’t. Did you take a look at the Canadian site? It’s explained quite nicely:
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reflects the basic principle that individual rights and freedoms cannot be absolute and that, in some circumstances, they must be limited by the state in order to protect competing rights or the interests of the community as a whole.
This kind of “balancing” approach has been taken by the courts of democracies for many, many years.
As a property owner, you’re allowed to do whatever you want with it. That’s what property rights are about. You can check the net if you don’t believe me. But there are limits: you can’t harm others, for example. People have the right not to be deprived of their health/life. Want me to give examples from the Japanese constitution?
It’s very complicated, and rights are not illusory as OT claims them to be, nor are they absolute. BTW, I checked the net and yes, it seems that many Americans think that rights (especially 1st Amendment rights) are “absolute”. Not true. The difference between Europe and the US regarding hate speech is NOT whether free speech rights are considered absolute, but whether the people think limiting hate speech has a compelling interest to serve. Americans don’t, and the Europeans do. BTW, “compelling interest” is the test used by the US Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws that limit rights. There are several other tests. The tests should be easy to find on the net, if you’re interested. Here is one: http://www.yourdictionary.com/compelling-interest-test
Also, you can check the net under the category “unprotected speech” of you want to know the limits of free speech under US law. Profanity is one.
If you still insist that what I’m saying is wrong, go ask the nearest bengoshi near you, or ask a law professor.
ampontan said
Sorry, but the Canadians are not a good example. They have Human Rights Commissions that hear complaints about Hate Speech with a 100% convinction rate. There are a lot of Canadians who wouldn’t agree with that theory, much less Americans.
I do not consider the Canadian government a valid authority in this instance. Let me state this even more clearly: they are wrong. Anyone who says there are “competing rights” doesn’t understand the original concept of rights.
Note the language used in the US Constitution, particularly, the Bill of, you know, Rights.
1. Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
2. …the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The American conception is that *rights precede governments*. We’re born with them. They are Laws of Nature, as Jefferson put it. Any Canadians or law professors that try to argue otherwise can, in my humble opinion, go suck eggs.
As for laws, slavery used to be regulated by law at one point, but that doesn’t make it OK.
Some law professors think people have a “right” to affordable housing or health care. They’re wrong too. If there were rights to such things, they would *have* to be provided free of charge, with the building contractors, the doctors, and the nurses working without remuneration. Sounds a bit bolshie to me.
My shovel is my property too, but that doesn’t mean I’ve ever had the right to hit you over the head with it.
If they conflict there’s no point in calling them rights because they’re something else. They then become privileges granted by the government on its whim. At that point the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence comes into play.
Matt@occidentalism.org said
Bender, Canada is the wrong country to cite as one that respects the rights of it citizens.
In fact, freedom in Canada is in dire straits.
When it comes to “hate speech” the people that are doing the judging are usually the worst vindictive haters. No person with an ounce morality or sense of justice would participate in a witch hunts or star chambers of the sort that have been set up in Canada, Europe and Australia.
Overthinker said
“http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment”
That’s not quite what I meant by “enshrined” – I was referring to something more like the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. In fact the concept of “public nuisance” is the sort of thing I meant by the court system being able to over-rule various rights.
“The American conception is that *rights precede governments*. We’re born with them. They are Laws of Nature, as Jefferson put it.”
Isn’t that just Jefferson’s opinion about what they should be in an ideal world? It seems to me that if they truly were natural laws it wouldn’t be so easy to suppress them…. Even TJ’s concept of rights isn’t the modern one. These concepts change and evolve with society and the state.
ampontan said
I’m not down with the concept of rights changing with the times. Jefferson used the phrase inalienable about rights, i.e., can’t take them away. He sure got a lot of support for a mere opinion, starting with the signers of the DOI (who were all subject to criminal penalties for treason for their signatures, which meant drawing and quartering, which sounds as if it were an extremely unpleasant way to die).
It’s very easy to suppress the right to life, isn’t it? Governments have been killing their citizens ever since there have been governments, and it continues today.
It is because it is so easy for governments, particularly despotic ones, to suppress rights, that the founders of American democracy went out of their way to limit the authority of government.
ampontan said
Ran across something related just tonight somewhere else, by Ken Blackwell, former governor of Ohio, I think.
“What kind of “right” do you have, when the government can completely rob you of 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason?
“That’s like saying you have the right to worship as you choose, but the government has the power to ban attending church. Or that you have the right to free speech, but that government has the power to stop you from speaking about any subject it wants. Or that you have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that anything the government wants to search at your house is automatically reasonable.
“A right that the government can completely take away at any time is no right at all.”
bender said
Jefferson? I guess you agree with Justice Scalia, who loves quoting the words of the Founding Fathers, but many disagree with him.
Check out “Originalism”:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
(there’s also an article in Wikipedia that looked pretty informative)
Ken Blackwell is a politician, right? I don’t think he even went to law school. Check “First Amendment Materials” in this site (again, UMKC. Sorry I couldn’t find Harvard or Yale law school sites, but I don’t think it really matters):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.htm
Maybe this part may be helpful:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm
I’m pretty sure the pure “absolutist” approach is not taken by everyone. It’s probably correct to say that nobody takes the “pure” approach.
That’s not quite what I meant by “enshrined” – I was referring to something more like the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. In fact the concept of “public nuisance” is the sort of thing I meant by the court system being able to over-rule various rights.
Thought you would say something like that. Look up “sources of law”. Are you from a Common Law country or a Civil Law country?
bender said
Matt:
It’s a matter of how a country thinks of the “chilling effects” when restricting some forms of speech, and not so much whether a country does not respect the rights of its citizens. America (and Japan) thinks restricting hate speech will ultimately suppress free speech, while those countries that follow the Western European approach thinks it enhances it by snuffing out hatred. Good example of the latter (German Grundsetz):
Article 18
[Forfeiture of basic rights]
Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the
press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of
Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association
(Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications
(Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article
16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit
these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal
Constitutional Court.
It’s not as obvious and bold as the German constitution, but even America follows the concept that there are limits to rights, even free speech. It’s just the disagreement over where the limits are. Not that I agree with the Western European approach.
ampontan said
No approach for anything is taken by everyone. Just look at the different approaches all the seduction gurus take in the earlier post this week!
Blackwell may not be a lawyer, but Jefferson certainly was…
BTW, I disagree with the idea that you need narrow specialists to understand these things. If a law is so complex that it requires a lawyer to understand it, it probably shouldn’t be a law.
The original concept of juries, incidentally, was (partially) to prevent the misuse of ill-considered laws. That’s another good idea that’s gone out of fashion.
Naturally, laws related to complex financial transactions and the like are an exception, though they would require more than a lawyer’s background to understand.
Caveat: About a thousand years ago, I used to testify as an expert witness in court cases in the U.S. (At least 700, perhaps as many as 1,000). The people who see the legal system from that perspective are often the ones who are the most suspicious of it. It’s sort of like watching how hot dogs are made.
When I lived in California, you could erase the points from a traffic ticket by spending a Saturday at traffic school. I got a speeding ticket once, and went.
Part of the activities at the traffic school were to split up into groups and discuss various things. One question was the fairness of the legal system.
In addition to me, my group also contained a young undercover narcotics detective (he was bearded and hippified in appearance). He got a traffic ticket for something.
We all were asked to rate the legal system on a scale from 1-10, 10 being the highest. After the detective and I got done talking, our group rated the legal system at a 3.
The person conducting the traffic school was, literally, shocked, particularly because of our direct involvement. I distinctly remember his jaw dropping.
So, the fact that Mr. Blackwell didn’t go to law school does not disqualify him from this discussion in my book.
bender said
So, the fact that Mr. Blackwell didn’t go to law school does not disqualify him from this discussion in my book.
Deny the important role the law and law professionals have played in American history you may, but it stands as it is. Or for other democracies as well. Politicians are sensational. So I’d warn you quoting them in connection with such things as the interpretation of law. Of course, we also need politics, too. But your argument won’t hold in the courts. That’s the good thing about it, in fact, otherwise you’ll have the country overridden by sensationalism: not much different from hate-speech haters trying to impose their sensation to dissidents.
BTW, I think my postings of Originalism and others are worth more deliberation than few minutes of reading. It’s the history of your great country. Not rubbish.
Matt@occidentalism.org said
Bender, the idea of throwing people into jail for expressing an opinion “chills” me to the bone. Moreover that Germany, which has an extraordinarily bad record when it comes to oppressing it’s citizens, should do so is even more chilling. The problem with this line of thinking is that the idea that the government owns human beings and can tell them what to think and feel, under the threat of government violence. Once people’s rights are respected 100% you don’t have concentration camps or such things. The German government however still follows the line of thinking that they can throw someone into detention for thinking the wrong thoughts. That is just fascist.
bender said
Matt:
I think that Germany is trying to prohibit cults, as well as Nazis. They’re actually trying to protect the people from madness. And democracy from fanaticism. I’m no expert in German law, but I think you can understand that in a democracy, abuse of rights by the people will be a problem because the government is elected by the people. That is where the court comes in to protect rights, and limit them when abused. I believe that’s the basic idea behind the German system. I’ve heard criticisms, mainly from Americans, that Germans are walking on a thin line. Maybe.
However, I don’t think hate speech laws will work in Japan. So I agree with you. I’m pretty sure it will lead to state-sanctioned witch hunting: abuse of one’s rights. And people will shut up. In fact, it’s already happening without hate speech laws. It’ll probably make the situation worse.
bender said
BTW, no offense, guys. Sorry if I used too much harsh expressions. My shortcomings.
I just happened to take constitutional law…With regards to fundamental rights, Japanese law takes the categorical approach (some laws should be more protected than others: free speech is one of the most protected ones) and the balancing approach. This idea comes from the US model. Here are the relevant articles from the JP constitution (emphasis added):
Article 11:
The people shall not be prevented from enjoying any of the fundamental human rights. These fundamental human rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be conferred upon the people of this and future generations as eternal and inviolate rights.
Article 12:
The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare.
Article 13:
All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.
ampontan said
Bender: No problem, I didn’t take offense. You took Constitutional law, I’ve been debating this issue for about 30 years (g).
I’d have a real problem with Article 13. Seriously. You do know the political orientation of the Americans who helped write that, don’t you? In fact, it looks like it contradicts 11.
I’d also have a real problem with the idea that it was possible to “abuse rights”. Sounds very screwy to me. And sounds like some people thought society is more important than the individual. There’s a word for that (g).
Bender said
Ampontan:
The majority view in the schools of Japanese constitutional law is that Articles 11 and 12, 13 are adjusted by the theory of “internal limits of rights (権利の内在的制約)”, which means that rights in their nature have limits. OTH, the Meiji Constitution used to have the view that the people are entitled to rights as defined by the state (法律の留保). There’s supposed to be a difference between “internal limits” and “limits as defined by the state”, and this distinction is important in understanding the difference in the protection of human rights in post-war Japan and the Japanese Empire. It’ll take a long post to explain this, but this argument is settled in Japan, so it’s actually tested in bar exams and exams for hiring government officials.