Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

Japan should prohibit all propaganda advocating racial superiority or hatred that incites to discrimination, hostility or violence as well as demonstrations intended to disseminate such propaganda.

38 Comments

U.N. Human Rights Committee report, expressing concern at the widespread racist discourse in Japan, such as hate speech, against members of minority groups including Koreans. (Jiji Press)

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

AGREED- -------- But that resolution should not ONLY apply to Japan - - I can think of some neighboring countries to whom it also NEEDS to be addressed .

2 ( +7 / -5 )

This is an excellent idea.

How about stopping the China/NK bashing on Japan Today?

The kind of post I am referring to is, "China never produces anything of any quality." (actual post)

This is just hate.

Moderator: No one has made such a post on this thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree that hate speech should be prohibited in Japan. I also agree with semperfli that this should be world wide.

Hate speech begins very small with a remark, jibe or joke and then progresses to active discrimination, hostility and violence.

I think that we could do something about this by nipping it in the bud and not posting hate speech on Japan Today. As another poster has pointed out, it seems to be a "fashion" to bash China and North Korea. Many of these posts show discrimination in broad generalities. A good example is a post that appeared on the 24th July: "People still have not learned China produces nor makes anything of quality.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

AGREED- -------- But that resolution should not ONLY apply to Japan - - I can think of some neighboring countries to whom it also NEEDS to be addressed

Amazing -- it only took one post for someone to say that "Yes, Japan should finally take the moral high road, BUT, others should do it too." Pure nonsense. This comment by the U.N. is aimed at Japan's domestic behavior, and what other countries do or do not do is of no relevance to Japan deciding to do what is right.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

@jerseyboy FYI -------------- the United Nation represents ALL countries- - - It is not spokesperson for the national interest of specific countries !!!!!!! . . . The UN remained curiously silent re some Middle East rhetoric that is malignantly inciteful against certain nations and people groups i n the world . . . . . . The UN remained oblivious to the Rwandan ethnic cleanings . . .Just read Romeo Dallaire's "SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL" . . . so PLEASE , if the UN proposes to stand for Human Rghts - lets even the playing field - - - - . . BESIDES - BY ALL INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS- from the last part of the 20th Century Japan has been a leading proponet for world peace .

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Strongly disagree. Speech must remain free. That includes disgusting, racist, incensing, propagandist, ignorant, hate-fueled speech. The bad needs to be taken along with the good. Society's proper job is to teach people how to hear/read that kind of speech, shake their heads, write it off as the filth that it is, and ignore it. When society starts banning certain kinds of speech, that means someone needs to decide what's good and what's bad - that's a slippery slope with an infinite number of gray area examples. One bad call on those gray area examples sets a precedent. That precedent leads to further banning. Suddenly, despite our good intentions, there's too much being banned, and the censors are doing more controlling than they are preventing. It's a dangerous, dangerous idea. Free speech must be protected, no matter how vile the ideas are.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

When society starts banning certain kinds of speech, that means someone needs to decide what's good and what's bad

Some things are obviously bad, and agreed upon by everyone other than those who want to say them - like hate speech.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@jerseyboy FYI -------------- **the United Nation represents ALL countries- - - It is not spokesperson for the national interest of specific countries !!!!!!! . . .

semperfi -- Thanks, but I fully understood the role of the U.N. prior to your rant. But SO WHAT? How does "even the playing field" as you suggest make their recommendation any less applicable to Japan? Instead of pointing the fingers at others, ask yourself -- wouldn't it be better if Japan did not need this kind of report from the U.N.? If instead of saying "we're no worse than anyone else", they could actually take pride in being the leaders on some sort of moral issue!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Original Wing-Strongly disagree. Speech must remain free.

That's it!

The UN is pushing people into corners!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Original WingJUL. 26, 2014 - 09:40AM JST Strongly disagree. Speech must remain free. That includes disgusting, racist, incensing, propagandist, ignorant, hate-fueled speech. The bad needs to be taken along with the good. Society's proper job is to teach people how to hear/read that kind of speech, shake their heads, write it off as the filth that it is, and ignore it. When society starts banning certain kinds of speech, that means someone needs to decide what's good and what's bad - that's a slippery slope with an infinite number of gray area examples. One bad call on those gray area examples sets a precedent. That precedent leads to further banning. Suddenly, despite our good intentions, there's too much being banned, and the censors are doing more controlling than they are preventing. It's a dangerous, dangerous idea. Free speech must be protected, no matter how vile the ideas are.

There is no good argument for protecting the right to public express hate towards other peoples. It's all very well for white people (like yourself?) to want to say whatever you want - you are unlikely to ever be at the end of hate speech. If you were black, or Korean, Chinese or Muslim you would feel differently.

Hate speech disturbs the peaceful environment and generates social fears and anger. I wouldn't want my children to walk down a street and read or hear that they are hated for who they, would you?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Well at least we have a few enlightened people on here, who feel that if hate speech should be banned in Japan, it should be banned everywhere.

I value freedom of speech no matter how vile.

It doesn't matter Japan, Germany, or the U.S.

Freedom of speech!!!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@oldman_13

It is not enlightened to want to live in an environment where people are allowed to openly abuse each other. Hate breeds hate. If you want to express hate do it in your own room and don't pollute the peaceful public environment.

"Professor Waldron insists that a “sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good,” like pretty beaches or clean air, and is so precious that the law should require everyone to maintain it:

Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . . [I]t creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good.

http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I think banning freedom of speech in Japan is good thing. It's a great way to get rid of LDP statesman one by one unless they wise up which I doubt.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Hate speech is usually based on stupidity and ignorance and a tends to lump all people into a stereotype. Bertie Wooster already pointed out how you can read moronic and vicious rants against Chinese and Korean people ( not their government policies ) on this site that would be attacked mercilessly rather than thumbed up if they were directed against the people of other countries. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we can only pity the stupid, ignorant and hateful but when this turns into marching into a an area with a large Korean population ( whose opinions are not known ) shouting 'cockroaches' and 'kill Koreans', the line has been crossed and they should be stopped. Incitement to 'kill' a group of people isn't what a civilized country should allow.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No, it should not. Freedom of Speech is a good thing. It means s%theads can say what they please.

The Japanese are a decent people. They should keep their freedoms.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Go Home UN. Nobody wants you waltzing around dictating people's behavior.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Hate-speech is certainly wrong, but the idea of having the UN administer it is even worse. Japan should tell those people to take a hike.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The problem i have with this who decides what is hate speech? These type of laws are easily open to abuse by politicians. In Britain people have been jailed for what the government has decided are offensive tweets and Facebook posts. These have usually been just one tweet or post whilst drunk. It's easy to say these laws are needed to protect people but they are so open to abuse.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

igloobuyer: It's all very well for white people (like yourself?) to want to say whatever you want - you are unlikely to ever be at the end of hate speech. If you were black, or Korean, Chinese or Muslim you would feel differently.

Wow. Just...wow. Thanks for assuming my race and using that assumption to supposedly disprove my point. That's not just misguided - that's offensive and ignorant.

jpn_guy: @original wing and others: Why would banning hate speech produce a slippery slope to banning other types of speech?

That's an important question, and the answers are long and complex. To cover a few points of it, firstly, banning "hate speech" first requires lawmakers to define what "hate speech" really is. That's a very, very difficult thing to do. It sounds easy, but any definition you come up with could include many other forms of expression that many would say shouldn't be banned. Just to put this in an English-language context, I think there's a particular term for black people that we could (and most of us do) consider hate-speech. But what if a black rap artist uses that word in a song? Should that artist be punished? What if someone wrote a novel about racist characters who used that word, but the overall point of the novel was to show the downsides of racism? Should the novelist be punished? It's easy to say "The law would have to determine the speaker's intent - was it intended to be harmful or artistic?"...but what about satire? What about irony? These things are hard to define. Can an artist produce offensive work in an effort to make a noble point? Absolutely. But how can you legally prove what the artist's intention was? You can't.

I once had a Japanese person tell me that I couldn't possibly have Type AB blood, because that's a "Japanese blood type" and that I have some sort of "gaijin blood type." Is that hate speech? I have an Italian friend who told me that he'll never date a Japanese woman again, because "all Japanese women care about is money." Is that hate speech? I think reasonably, no one would lock the Japanese or Italian people mentioned above in jail for their transgressions, but at the same time, couldn't they technically be considered "hate speech"? Perhaps your answer is "No, no, they're just ignorant or uninformed." What about someone screaming about how (Members of country ABC) need to get out of Japan and go home now!!!"? Is that hate? Or is that just ignorance and being uninformed? Where do you draw the line?

So, I urge you to try to come up with a workable definition of "hate speech that ought to be black-and-white illegal and punishable by the legal system." I'm sure that we can find ten or twenty examples of things that would meet your criteria that most of us agree should not be punished by authorities. And that's the short version of why speech must remain free.

(And to anticipate some answers, threatening to harm someone is already illegal in many instances, and is a different issue from hate speech)

5 ( +10 / -5 )

@Original Wing

Very well said. Can't argue with any of that.

The "anti-hate speech" crowd would do well to read what you've said, and think...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If hate speech is so hard to define, then why have some governments been able to define it?

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Strangerland

People can define anything to fit what they want, it doesn't mean it is correct or fair. This world is turning mad, there was a lot more discrimination and intolerance in days gone by and these laws were not needed. They are used as part of the control mechanism it is a clever tool. What decent person would not want laws against these awful things? These awful things can turn into things like demonstrating on speaking ill of the government. Don't believ these things are done for the good of the general public, it don't work that way anymnore.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

People can define anything to fit what they want, it doesn't mean it is correct or fair

Neither does it mean its not. But considering that hate speech has been made illegal in some countries, and requires a trial to determine if the speech is in fact hate speech or not, says that there are checks and balances to whether or not it is appropriate to call the speech hate speech.

It's like drunk driving. Some people can function entirely fine at 0.08, while others may be impaired. So technically it's not correct or fair to be charging some people for being impaired at 0.08, when in fact they aren't actually impaired. So it makes it difficult to say exactly where the impaired level is, yet societies have decided on a point (often 0.08), and said that this is the point where we are going to make it illegal, for the benefit of society. On this same note, drawing a line at where speech becomes hate speech in order to benefit society, is worthwhile.

there was a lot more discrimination and intolerance in days gone by and these laws were not needed.

On the contrary, yes they were. If the laws had been in the books in the past, there would have been less discrimination and intolerance.

These awful things can turn into things like demonstrating on speaking ill of the government

No.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@strangerland

If you honestly believe and trust that these politicians are making these laws for the benefit of the public then i do feel sorry for you.

Of course these things can change into being against demonstrating or speaking ill of the government. Governments and their elite friends are masters of manipulation. For example, look how many Americans supported the war against Iraq and believed the link with Bin Laden and that Saddam was a threat, he had WMD, nukes etc.

Hate speech laws can easily be used as an excuse to monitor (spy) on people to make sure they are not breaking the law and repress free speeeh, don't believe the hype.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Freedom of speech is the right to give ones opinion and have it heard in relative safety. It's fully possible to give an opinion, even if you don't like a particular race, creed, colour or sexual proclivity, without the use of contemptuous and derogatory language designed to foment hate. This isn't an issue of free speech, it's about reigning in a minority who wish to spread fear and hatred because it somehow makes them feel powerful.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"reining in....."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lucabrasi, thanks. Damn that predictive text!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If you honestly believe and trust that these politicians are making these laws for the benefit of the public then i do feel sorry for you.

If you feel that a blanket statement applies to all politicians, and that none of them have the greater good of the public in mind, then I do feel sorry for you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'd like to see all propaganda banned. Throw in the loud speaker abusers (local politicians!), too!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Freedom of speech is one thing. Standing outside a school or community and telling them to drop dead is another. Do people really need this explained to them?!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

As much as I love Japan, and wish they could snap out of it; Japan's xenophobic nature (to their detriment, unfortunately) puts pretty much the whole society on the same page (like thinking) when it comes to ...well pretty much anything to do with anything non-Japanese!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"In early afternoon on a Sunday in March, Makoto Sakurai was spewing words of hate over a loudspeaker in Tokyo's Shin-Okubo district, known as a Korea town. "Good afternoon, cockroaches in Shin-Okubo. We are demonstrators from All-Japan cleaning committee to expel insects that are noxious to society".

This should be a criminal offense. The government's failure to act has already resulted in a poisonous environment where it is quite acceptable to throw the most evil bile at Korea and China in public discourse without fear of retribution. Why would you want to allow this? Where does it lead?

Absoutely. What does anyone supose the Japanese authorities reaction would have been if a Chinese, Korean, or say one of US got up with a loudspeaker in Ginza and started spewing out racial hatred against the Japanese? How long would you give us? I would say 30 seconds to a minute tops before it was shut down. Freedom of speech is fine, but incitement of hatred and violence is a different thing. As tmarie rightly said, does anyone really need the difference explained to them?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If you were black, or Korean, Chinese or Muslim you would feel differently.

Or a woman. The recent incident in the Japanese Parliament where the woman speaking was heckled and abused. That was hate speech too.

But even without specific hate-speech laws (which can be debated case by case in a court of law to create a body of precedence), banning all public address announcements throughout Japan (except for emergency broadcasts) would do much to help the situation described.

No one deserves the public peace disturbed in that manner--especially not to wake up to public abuse by being called out as cockroaches. Technically, Japan is a civilized 21st-century nation with a national pride in being hyper-politely uniquely Japanese. Time to live up to that.

That said, the problem is not only Japan's. Nations everywhere rely on hate speech (or subtler equally hateful abuses). It's going to be a long, long time before the world cleans up its act in this department.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In a landmark case several years back, the South Korean court found a man guilty of hate speech against a foreigner based on racial prejudice. As usual, the Koreans are way ahead of the Japanese in matters of ethics and conscience.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

As usual, the Koreans are way ahead of the Japanese in matters of ethics and conscience.

Such a joke. They have an anti-Japanese education in their schools.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Such a joke. They have an anti-Japanese education in their schools.

Please elaborate and provide supporting links.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites