VAOJ has been covering this issue for some time since the film, Against Coercion, came out. The latest installment of this social drama, set in Osaka, features a court decision that says the smooth running of a ceremony is more important than basic human rights. This idea of smoothness is not limited to forced patriotism; recently the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that women cannot use their maiden names on official documents after they get married because having different names in the same family would cause confusion and somehow threaten society. (See the opinion piece, The scourge of conformism besetting Japanese society by Jiro Yamaguchi in The Japan Times, 12/25/15.)
But for now, back to the Osaka court ruling on the forced singing of the national anthem...
From Japan Today, 12/22/15:
The Osaka District Court on Monday ruled that a prefectural ordinance obligating teachers to stand up to sing the national anthem during school ceremonies is constitutional, rejecting a lawsuit filed by a teacher saying the rule violates freedom of thought.
It is the first time that the court has handed down a ruling in connection with the 2011 Osaka prefectural ordinance on standing for “Kimigayo,” which carries lines wishing for the eternal reign of the emperor that are seen by some as a symbol of Japan’s past militarism.
Presiding Judge Hiroyuki Naito said in the ruling that orders from the plaintiff’s superiors to follow the ordinance “indirectly restricted” the constitutional right of freedom of thought and conscience, but they were necessary for “the smooth progress of the ceremonies to an allowable extent.”
He also said the ordinance is in line with Japanese law, including legislation enacted in 1999 that designated the Hinomaru as the national flag and “Kimigayo” as the national anthem.
Yasutaka Okuno, a 58-year-old teacher at a prefectural-run school, filed the lawsuit as he was given an official warning for refusing to follow an order from the school principal to comply with the ordinance regarding a graduation ceremony in March 2012.
Okuno said he refused to comply because “it goes against my Christian faith.”
Okuno was also slapped with a one-month pay cut over his behavior at the graduation ceremony in March 2013. He was assigned to work outside the place where the ceremony was held, but entered the venue and refused to follow the vice principal’s order to leave. He also did not stand up when the anthem was sung.
The court said the pay cut was not illegal because Okuno had “actively” engaged in behavior that “damaged the order and atmosphere of important school events,” such as refusing to exit the venue even though he was told to do so.
In the lawsuit, Okuno sought to invalidate the punishment and requested 2 million yen ($16,500) in compensation from the Osaka prefectural government.
The ordinance was passed in June 2011 when the governor of the western Japan city was Toru Hashimoto, known for his nationalist political views. It obligates teachers and other school staff of public schools in the prefecture to stand up and sing the anthem during school ceremonies.
Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/court-rules-ordinance-on-standing-for-national-anthem-constitutional
Click here for previous VAOJ coverage.
See also The scourge of conformism besetting Japanese society.
Link: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/12/25/commentary/japan-commentary/scourge-conformism-besetting-japanese-society/.
Showing posts with label court case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court case. Show all posts
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
"NHK ordered to pay damages to indigenous Taiwanese woman for defaming her"
From Japan Today, 11/30/13:
A Japanese court has ordered public broadcaster NHK to pay damages to an indigenous Taiwanese woman for defaming her by using the term “human zoo” in a program, officials said Friday.
Overturning a lower court ruling, the Tokyo High Court ordered NHK to pay 1 million yen to the woman, with presiding judge Noriaki Sudo reportedly saying the broadcaster used a term that had a “serious discriminatory meaning”.
The program looked at the “Japan-Britain Exhibition” held in London in 1910 to which Japan took several members of Taiwan’s aboriginal population, including the father of the woman, as exotic exhibits, Jiji Press and Kyodo News reported.
Taiwan was a Japanese colony at the time, and the practice of exhibiting the little-known peoples of far-flung territories was a common one among Western imperial powers.
Historians say Japan, which had emerged from self-imposed isolation just half a century earlier, joined in partly as an attempt to establish itself as an imperial power and mitigate the perceived risk of being colonised itself.
In the ruling, Sudo said NHK “repeatedly used the term without giving consideration to its discriminatory meaning,” which implied the people of the Paiwan—Taiwan’s indigenous population—were uncivilized, the Tokyo Shimbun reported.
Some of those who took part did so earnestly, and not as mere curiosities, the judge said, according to the paper.
In a statement sent to AFP on Friday, NHK said: “We are sorry that our argument was not taken up. We will decide how to deal with the issue after studying closely the court’s verdict.”
Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/nhk-ordered-to-pay-damages-to-indigenous-taiwanese-woman-for-defaming-her
A Japanese court has ordered public broadcaster NHK to pay damages to an indigenous Taiwanese woman for defaming her by using the term “human zoo” in a program, officials said Friday.
Overturning a lower court ruling, the Tokyo High Court ordered NHK to pay 1 million yen to the woman, with presiding judge Noriaki Sudo reportedly saying the broadcaster used a term that had a “serious discriminatory meaning”.
The program looked at the “Japan-Britain Exhibition” held in London in 1910 to which Japan took several members of Taiwan’s aboriginal population, including the father of the woman, as exotic exhibits, Jiji Press and Kyodo News reported.
Taiwan was a Japanese colony at the time, and the practice of exhibiting the little-known peoples of far-flung territories was a common one among Western imperial powers.
Historians say Japan, which had emerged from self-imposed isolation just half a century earlier, joined in partly as an attempt to establish itself as an imperial power and mitigate the perceived risk of being colonised itself.
In the ruling, Sudo said NHK “repeatedly used the term without giving consideration to its discriminatory meaning,” which implied the people of the Paiwan—Taiwan’s indigenous population—were uncivilized, the Tokyo Shimbun reported.
Some of those who took part did so earnestly, and not as mere curiosities, the judge said, according to the paper.
In a statement sent to AFP on Friday, NHK said: “We are sorry that our argument was not taken up. We will decide how to deal with the issue after studying closely the court’s verdict.”
Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/nhk-ordered-to-pay-damages-to-indigenous-taiwanese-woman-for-defaming-her
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
"Kyoto court bans 'hate speech' around school for ethnic Koreans"
VAOJ has been covering this story since 2009. This court case decision is important and a step in the right direction in fighting against any form of discrimination in Japan. But there is still much to be done. This can be illustrated by the press coverage of the major Japanese newspapers. I am providing the story as covered by the left-leaning Asahi Shimbun not because of their ideology (and perhaps greater sympathy) but because they had the greatest amount of information in their story. This is opposed to the more right-leaning The Japan News (English version of The Yomiuri Shimbun) story consisting of 5 short paragraphs buried deep in its website. Click the link below to see the first VAOJ coverage. More commentary appears after the Asahi story.
Previous coverage from VAOJ (including a YouTube video of one of the hate speech incidents): http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/12/men-yell-children-of-spies-at-korean.html
From The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 8, 2013:
A court here on Oct. 7 banned an anti-Korea organization from demonstrating near a pro-Pyongyang elementary school, ruling that the group’s words blared through sound trucks were “extremely insulting and discriminatory.”
The Kyoto District Court also ordered Zainichi Tokken wo Yurusanai Shimin no Kai (Group of citizens who do not tolerate privileges for ethnic Korean residents in Japan) to pay about 12.26 million yen ($126,400) in damages.
“It is defamation of character and amounts to racial discrimination,” Presiding Judge Hitoshi Hashizume said about the use of sound trucks by the group, known more commonly as Zaitokukai.
The lawsuit was filed by Kyoto Chosen Gakuen, an operator of pro-Pyongyang Korean schools, including Kyoto Chosen Elementary School in Kyoto’s Fushimi Ward.
The operator sought a ban on Zaitokukai activities using sound trucks within a radius of 200 meters from the main and east gates of the school building. They also sought 30 million yen in damages from the group and nine members for past protests, saying their activities made it difficult to carry out ethnic education in a quiet environment.
“The ruling recognized the wrongfulness of the hate speech that was directed at the children, guardians and teachers, and it also took into consideration the psychological damage that we suffered,” Son Ji Jong, head of Kyoto Chosen Gakuen, said at a news conference.
Kyoto Chosen Elementary School was created through a merger of two schools, including Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School, in April 2012. It moved to Fushimi Ward in April 2013.
The Zaitokukai has not sent sound trucks to the new school site, but the district court referred to previous acts near the site of Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School in Minami Ward.
According to the plaintiffs, Zaitokukai members on three separate occasions between December 2009 and March 2010 gave speeches near Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School. Their words included: “Children are being educated by criminals” and “Go back to the Korean Peninsula.”
Zaitokukai argued that it had performed a legitimate protest based on the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
But the court ruled that “acts to defame the character of the school through demonstrations could not be considered as having a public objective since they involved the use of sound trucks and microphones near the school while classes were being held.”
The ruling also said the Zaitokukai speeches were racially discriminatory in light of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which Japan is a signatory.
Article 4 calls on signatory states to legally ban “incitement to racial discrimination.” However, Japan has not passed legislation against hate speech.
A lawyer for the plaintiff said it is extremely rare for a court to order compensation in cases involving hate speech.
The district court said it accepted the injunction because of the danger that the group and its members could demonstrate in front of the new school building.
Yasuhiro Yagi, deputy chairman of Zaitokukai, told reporters that the ruling was unfair.
“It is regrettable that our actions were not recognized,” he said. “While there may have been some inappropriate comments made (during the protest), most were legitimate. We cannot be convinced by the argument that the comments were discriminatory through the focus on less than 10 percent of the comments.”
He added that his group’s activities were gaining the sympathy of society.
Amid strained relations between Japan and South Korea, as well as lingering problems concerning North Korea, incidents of hate speech against ethnic Koreans have become more prevalent this year, especially in the Shin-Okubo district of Tokyo.
The U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has called on Japan to prevent hate speech.
Groups are taking action to counter anti-Korea protesters who have shouted such words as “Kill all Koreans” in the Koreatowns of Tokyo and Osaka.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has also expressed disdain toward the actions and words in the anti-Korea rallies.
During the court proceedings, Zaitokukai also argued that the plaintiff had been the one acting illegally.
“The comments were a fair commentary based on facts,” a Zaitokukai official said. “The activities by the sound trucks were in protest of the illegal occupation of a children’s park, and the activities have stopped since the problem was resolved. There is no reason for the court to approve an injunction protecting the vicinity of the new school building.”
In 2010, the Kyoto District Court made a provisional decision banning sound truck activities around Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School.
Subsequently, four Zaitokukai members were indicted on charges of using force to interfere with school operations and insulting the school.
In April 2011, the Kyoto District Court convicted the four on grounds that their actions went beyond the limits of political expression.
In September 2010, the former principal of Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School was fined for violating the law controlling urban parks. The elementary school used a nearby park for some school activities because it did not have its own playground.
By GAKUSHI FUJIWARA
Source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201310070090
Coverage from The Japan News: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000705914
Coverage from Japan Today: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/kyoto-court-rules-anti-korean-hate-speech-illegal
Commentary:
It is important to note that Japan has no laws of its own that bans discrimination. This case was decided upon the fact that Japan signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Why doesn't Japan has its own anti-discrimination laws?
The Japan News (The Yomiuri Shimbun) despite its brief coverage of the court decision ran a longer editorial two days later. It begins:
The Kyoto District Court’s recent ruling on an ethnic discrimination case stated that a derogatory street campaign aimed at inciting ethnic discrimination constituted an unlawful act. The court decision can be seen as compatible with socially accepted moral norms.
Later it states:
...caution must be exercised in restricting hate speech.
Huh? But wait, there's more:
...it should be noted that when it comes to thinking about discrimination, Japan’s historical background greatly differs from that of Europe, where there still is a clear memory of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.
The Japanese government has been cautious about laying down legal restraints on potentially discriminatory speech and behavior, wary that such legislation might infringe on freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If such legal restrictions are in place, it would be difficult to draw a line between what is lawful and what is not. That could prompt public authorities to impose legal restrictions in a manner that would serve their own interests. There also is no denying that such legislation would discourage people from exercising their legitimate right to express their opinions. Given this, the government should adhere to its cautious stance on such legal restrictions.
Link to the whole editorial, "Hate speech ruling laudable, but restrictions must be limited," October 10, 2013: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000710714
It seems that there is no clear memory of Japanese imperialism and its colonization of Korea, which can be seen as the cause of this particular court case. How did Koreans get to Japan in the first place?
The Asahi Shimbun in its editorial acknowledged the difficulty in Japan drafting its own anti-discrimination laws:
Imposing any restriction on people’s expression of thought and opinion is tricky because of the difficulty in drawing the line of acceptability.
There are also concerns about the possibility that such legal restrictions can be used arbitrarily. The issue requires careful and cautious debate.
But it concludes:
It is vital for Japanese society as a whole to share the view that discrimination is absolutely unacceptable and take a harsh stance against any words and actions that incite discrimination. By accumulating such efforts, we need to prevent our own society from falling into a vicious cycle of hate begetting hate.
Link to the whole editorial, "Kyoto court ruling a strong warning against hatemongers," October 8, 2013: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/AJ201310080028
In 2006 Chiba was the first prefecture to draft and pass an ordinance to prohibit discrimination against disabled people. The ordinance included examples of what constitutes discrimination, mediation, coordination and corrective orders to remedy the situation. But in the end there were no penalty clauses if the discrimination continued. The Daily Yomiuri ("Chiba finds helping disabled no easy task," 2006) covered this story and quoted one Chiba official:
"No one opposes the elimination of discrimination against handicapped people, but there was no precedent of a public system for procedures to eliminate discriminatory actions, partly because of the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes discrimination."
Unfortunately I can't find the original story on the internet anymore, but here is a link to general information about the Chiba ordinance: http://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/newsinbrief-en/section2/2006/10/chiba-became-the-first-prefecture-in-japan-that-prohibits-discrimination-against-people-with-disabil.html
It seems as if the Japanese really don't understand what discrimination is, they should study this ordinance, the international treaty they signed and this recent court decision.
Previous coverage from VAOJ (including a YouTube video of one of the hate speech incidents): http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/12/men-yell-children-of-spies-at-korean.html
From The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 8, 2013:
A court here on Oct. 7 banned an anti-Korea organization from demonstrating near a pro-Pyongyang elementary school, ruling that the group’s words blared through sound trucks were “extremely insulting and discriminatory.”
The Kyoto District Court also ordered Zainichi Tokken wo Yurusanai Shimin no Kai (Group of citizens who do not tolerate privileges for ethnic Korean residents in Japan) to pay about 12.26 million yen ($126,400) in damages.
“It is defamation of character and amounts to racial discrimination,” Presiding Judge Hitoshi Hashizume said about the use of sound trucks by the group, known more commonly as Zaitokukai.
The lawsuit was filed by Kyoto Chosen Gakuen, an operator of pro-Pyongyang Korean schools, including Kyoto Chosen Elementary School in Kyoto’s Fushimi Ward.
The operator sought a ban on Zaitokukai activities using sound trucks within a radius of 200 meters from the main and east gates of the school building. They also sought 30 million yen in damages from the group and nine members for past protests, saying their activities made it difficult to carry out ethnic education in a quiet environment.
“The ruling recognized the wrongfulness of the hate speech that was directed at the children, guardians and teachers, and it also took into consideration the psychological damage that we suffered,” Son Ji Jong, head of Kyoto Chosen Gakuen, said at a news conference.
Kyoto Chosen Elementary School was created through a merger of two schools, including Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School, in April 2012. It moved to Fushimi Ward in April 2013.
The Zaitokukai has not sent sound trucks to the new school site, but the district court referred to previous acts near the site of Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School in Minami Ward.
According to the plaintiffs, Zaitokukai members on three separate occasions between December 2009 and March 2010 gave speeches near Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School. Their words included: “Children are being educated by criminals” and “Go back to the Korean Peninsula.”
Zaitokukai argued that it had performed a legitimate protest based on the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
But the court ruled that “acts to defame the character of the school through demonstrations could not be considered as having a public objective since they involved the use of sound trucks and microphones near the school while classes were being held.”
The ruling also said the Zaitokukai speeches were racially discriminatory in light of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which Japan is a signatory.
Article 4 calls on signatory states to legally ban “incitement to racial discrimination.” However, Japan has not passed legislation against hate speech.
A lawyer for the plaintiff said it is extremely rare for a court to order compensation in cases involving hate speech.
The district court said it accepted the injunction because of the danger that the group and its members could demonstrate in front of the new school building.
Yasuhiro Yagi, deputy chairman of Zaitokukai, told reporters that the ruling was unfair.
“It is regrettable that our actions were not recognized,” he said. “While there may have been some inappropriate comments made (during the protest), most were legitimate. We cannot be convinced by the argument that the comments were discriminatory through the focus on less than 10 percent of the comments.”
He added that his group’s activities were gaining the sympathy of society.
Amid strained relations between Japan and South Korea, as well as lingering problems concerning North Korea, incidents of hate speech against ethnic Koreans have become more prevalent this year, especially in the Shin-Okubo district of Tokyo.
The U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has called on Japan to prevent hate speech.
Groups are taking action to counter anti-Korea protesters who have shouted such words as “Kill all Koreans” in the Koreatowns of Tokyo and Osaka.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has also expressed disdain toward the actions and words in the anti-Korea rallies.
During the court proceedings, Zaitokukai also argued that the plaintiff had been the one acting illegally.
“The comments were a fair commentary based on facts,” a Zaitokukai official said. “The activities by the sound trucks were in protest of the illegal occupation of a children’s park, and the activities have stopped since the problem was resolved. There is no reason for the court to approve an injunction protecting the vicinity of the new school building.”
In 2010, the Kyoto District Court made a provisional decision banning sound truck activities around Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School.
Subsequently, four Zaitokukai members were indicted on charges of using force to interfere with school operations and insulting the school.
In April 2011, the Kyoto District Court convicted the four on grounds that their actions went beyond the limits of political expression.
In September 2010, the former principal of Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School was fined for violating the law controlling urban parks. The elementary school used a nearby park for some school activities because it did not have its own playground.
By GAKUSHI FUJIWARA
Source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201310070090
Coverage from The Japan News: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000705914
Coverage from Japan Today: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/kyoto-court-rules-anti-korean-hate-speech-illegal
Commentary:
It is important to note that Japan has no laws of its own that bans discrimination. This case was decided upon the fact that Japan signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Why doesn't Japan has its own anti-discrimination laws?
The Japan News (The Yomiuri Shimbun) despite its brief coverage of the court decision ran a longer editorial two days later. It begins:
The Kyoto District Court’s recent ruling on an ethnic discrimination case stated that a derogatory street campaign aimed at inciting ethnic discrimination constituted an unlawful act. The court decision can be seen as compatible with socially accepted moral norms.
Later it states:
...caution must be exercised in restricting hate speech.
Huh? But wait, there's more:
...it should be noted that when it comes to thinking about discrimination, Japan’s historical background greatly differs from that of Europe, where there still is a clear memory of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis.
The Japanese government has been cautious about laying down legal restraints on potentially discriminatory speech and behavior, wary that such legislation might infringe on freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If such legal restrictions are in place, it would be difficult to draw a line between what is lawful and what is not. That could prompt public authorities to impose legal restrictions in a manner that would serve their own interests. There also is no denying that such legislation would discourage people from exercising their legitimate right to express their opinions. Given this, the government should adhere to its cautious stance on such legal restrictions.
Link to the whole editorial, "Hate speech ruling laudable, but restrictions must be limited," October 10, 2013: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000710714
It seems that there is no clear memory of Japanese imperialism and its colonization of Korea, which can be seen as the cause of this particular court case. How did Koreans get to Japan in the first place?
The Asahi Shimbun in its editorial acknowledged the difficulty in Japan drafting its own anti-discrimination laws:
Imposing any restriction on people’s expression of thought and opinion is tricky because of the difficulty in drawing the line of acceptability.
There are also concerns about the possibility that such legal restrictions can be used arbitrarily. The issue requires careful and cautious debate.
But it concludes:
It is vital for Japanese society as a whole to share the view that discrimination is absolutely unacceptable and take a harsh stance against any words and actions that incite discrimination. By accumulating such efforts, we need to prevent our own society from falling into a vicious cycle of hate begetting hate.
Link to the whole editorial, "Kyoto court ruling a strong warning against hatemongers," October 8, 2013: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/AJ201310080028
In 2006 Chiba was the first prefecture to draft and pass an ordinance to prohibit discrimination against disabled people. The ordinance included examples of what constitutes discrimination, mediation, coordination and corrective orders to remedy the situation. But in the end there were no penalty clauses if the discrimination continued. The Daily Yomiuri ("Chiba finds helping disabled no easy task," 2006) covered this story and quoted one Chiba official:
"No one opposes the elimination of discrimination against handicapped people, but there was no precedent of a public system for procedures to eliminate discriminatory actions, partly because of the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes discrimination."
Unfortunately I can't find the original story on the internet anymore, but here is a link to general information about the Chiba ordinance: http://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/newsinbrief-en/section2/2006/10/chiba-became-the-first-prefecture-in-japan-that-prohibits-discrimination-against-people-with-disabil.html
It seems as if the Japanese really don't understand what discrimination is, they should study this ordinance, the international treaty they signed and this recent court decision.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Deaf X-mas in Japan II: The Bad News
Subtitle: Top court rejects appeal by Koreans seeking disability benefits
I have been following this court case since the beginning of my research on deafness in Japan. It has gone all the way to the Japanese Supreme Court, and on x-mas day the court gave this present to my Korean-Japanese Deaf friends in Kyoto: NO BENEFITS!
News of this judgment has been almost non-existent in the Japanese press. It did appear in Japan Today but was quickly removed as it was not a popular discussion article. You can read a short article at the following web site:
Link to Kyodo article on Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TOEJMG0&show_article=1
"...[N]ot taking compensation measures is evidently not unconstitutional." What a wonderful quote! These people were born in Japan and use Japanese Sign Language. They pay taxes but are doubly burdened because of their status as Korean-Japanese (click here for more background information on this issue) and an extremely puzzling law that sets up arbitrary age limits to receive social welfare assistance.
Not much is known about this issue. I certainly didn't know about it when I first came to Japan ten years ago. I remember being at a Deaf dinner party and getting frustrated with everyone asking me if I was American. I decided to confront the next person who asked me the question with "Are you Japanese?" The person I ended up confronting was Mr. Kim, who politely signed to me that, no, he was not Japanese but rather a Korean-Japanese. Mr. Kim has been an active fighter of this issue for several years. I interviewed him and the following passage appears in my dissertation:
I have a double burden, one is being a Korean person living in Japanese society and the other is being a disabled person, and because of that I have experienced really upsetting moments. Now Japan's economy is bad and it has been very difficult for me to have a job. Because of that, my younger brother and deaf friends have found me jobs and I have been working doing public works. I told people from the beginning that I can't hear. My boss said he understood but when I made mistakes at work, he said with his voice that it was incorrect and he told me many things. I told him I didn't understand but he scolded me many times saying "it's wrong" so I got angry, too... I got fired. Even when I was working, I was forced to work for a lower wage. One time my salary was unexpectedly small, and when i asked for the reason, I was told, "disabled people get pension [social welfare assistance] so it should be enough." Most people don't know that foreign "disabled people" living in Japan don't get a pension and even when I explain to them why we don't get a pension, people have difficulty understanding. It was such a chagrin and very upsetting, too. People have thought that I have been getting a pension like Japanese people. (Kim quoted in Fedorowicz 2002:102)
Somehow, Kim's boss, thinking Kim was receiving social welfare payments, deducted the same amount from Kim's paycheck. The double burden is a double penalty here. Deaf people because of their so-called "disabled" status earn much less than their hearing counter-parts in Japan. This is bad enough (and so the social welfare payments in theory try to make up for this difference) but what about the plight of the Korean-Japanese Deaf? The Japanese government doesn't seem to understand their plight, or even care about it.
Mr. Kim's fight continues. Why? Merry Christmas indeed...
I have been following this court case since the beginning of my research on deafness in Japan. It has gone all the way to the Japanese Supreme Court, and on x-mas day the court gave this present to my Korean-Japanese Deaf friends in Kyoto: NO BENEFITS!
News of this judgment has been almost non-existent in the Japanese press. It did appear in Japan Today but was quickly removed as it was not a popular discussion article. You can read a short article at the following web site:
Link to Kyodo article on Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TOEJMG0&show_article=1
"...[N]ot taking compensation measures is evidently not unconstitutional." What a wonderful quote! These people were born in Japan and use Japanese Sign Language. They pay taxes but are doubly burdened because of their status as Korean-Japanese (click here for more background information on this issue) and an extremely puzzling law that sets up arbitrary age limits to receive social welfare assistance.
Not much is known about this issue. I certainly didn't know about it when I first came to Japan ten years ago. I remember being at a Deaf dinner party and getting frustrated with everyone asking me if I was American. I decided to confront the next person who asked me the question with "Are you Japanese?" The person I ended up confronting was Mr. Kim, who politely signed to me that, no, he was not Japanese but rather a Korean-Japanese. Mr. Kim has been an active fighter of this issue for several years. I interviewed him and the following passage appears in my dissertation:
I have a double burden, one is being a Korean person living in Japanese society and the other is being a disabled person, and because of that I have experienced really upsetting moments. Now Japan's economy is bad and it has been very difficult for me to have a job. Because of that, my younger brother and deaf friends have found me jobs and I have been working doing public works. I told people from the beginning that I can't hear. My boss said he understood but when I made mistakes at work, he said with his voice that it was incorrect and he told me many things. I told him I didn't understand but he scolded me many times saying "it's wrong" so I got angry, too... I got fired. Even when I was working, I was forced to work for a lower wage. One time my salary was unexpectedly small, and when i asked for the reason, I was told, "disabled people get pension [social welfare assistance] so it should be enough." Most people don't know that foreign "disabled people" living in Japan don't get a pension and even when I explain to them why we don't get a pension, people have difficulty understanding. It was such a chagrin and very upsetting, too. People have thought that I have been getting a pension like Japanese people. (Kim quoted in Fedorowicz 2002:102)
Somehow, Kim's boss, thinking Kim was receiving social welfare payments, deducted the same amount from Kim's paycheck. The double burden is a double penalty here. Deaf people because of their so-called "disabled" status earn much less than their hearing counter-parts in Japan. This is bad enough (and so the social welfare payments in theory try to make up for this difference) but what about the plight of the Korean-Japanese Deaf? The Japanese government doesn't seem to understand their plight, or even care about it.
Mr. Kim's fight continues. Why? Merry Christmas indeed...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)