Japan Law Geek

Oops.

It seems that Singaporean photographer, Leslie Kee, has just been arrested by Japanese police for violating Japan’s law against obscenity (わいせつ); or more specifically, Article 175 of the Criminal Code.

The penal provision stipulates that Kee may now be facing imprisonment of up to 2 years or a fine of not more than 2.5 million yen. Given that this was a for-profit venture (he was selling his book for 6000 yen – bargain!), it’s more than likely that he will be given a fine. I would be surprised if he (and especially the two employees of the book publisher) were to serve any time in prison for this.

As unfortunate as this is, it does serve as a good opportunity to shine a spotlight on the ironically perverse manner in which Japan defines obscenity, and enforces against it. Forget that the Japanese Constitution (drafted by Americans, let us not forget), provides at Article 21 that:

Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.
No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.

It’s fairly explicit; pithy yet certain in its language. And yet, the Supreme Court seems unconcerned in upholding it in any meaningful way.

The most curious thing about this legal contradiction is the paradox that emerges from the juxtaposition also of this seemingly totalitarian penal code re: naughty rags with the abundance of soft-core porn in newspapers and magazines, and also the ease with which one can obtain borderline criminal material like the Rapeman comic. Perhaps the newly-minted Minister Tanigaki could take a look a reforming this archaic law… but we would be wise not to hold our breath.

For more reading, I suggest looking at the journal article, Obscenity, Pornography, and Law in Japan: Reconsidering Oshima’s In the Realm of the Senses, by James R. Alexander - it’s a nice (and relatively recent) introduction to the topic. Another, perhaps more relevant, article is Obscenity in Japan: Moral Guidance without Legal Guidance, by Amanda Dobbins.

Lets be honest – it you have been trying to keep tabs on the Minister of Justice, you (like me) will have experienced a profound and painful episode of whiplash. The year 2012 witnessed the rise (and inevitable fall) of six Ministers of Justice. With those numbers, you’re more likely to last longer as a prime minister; a jarring and sobering statistic.

And so it is that we welcome Sadakazu Tanigaki as the new official seat warmer; lets see how long he lasts.

During his inaugural press conference as the newly-minted Minister of Justice, there isn’t much that comes as much as a surprise. He lists the priorities of his tenure as making Japan the safest country in the world (really, as if it already isn’t!!). To accomplish this, he aims to support victims of crimes, fight against recidivism (by supporting their reintegration into society), and finally, always the crowd-pleaser, fight against organised crime.

Given the revolving door that is the Minister-ship, and reflecting on the vagueness of these completely immeasurable goals, it’s hard to muster much of feeling about him (or really, any of them). What is perhaps more interesting, though, is reading between the lines of his answers to the only two substantive questions (you lose, Asahi!).

Yomiuri asks him about his position on the death penalty; his response is predictably elusive, but he does seem to hint that he is uncomfortable with it, falling back into the safe zone of saying that he will respect the decision of the courts, and that capital punishment is reflective of social values. It’s hard to hold this against him given just how singularly minded the Japanese people are when it comes to government-sanctioned murder – something I reported on the last time I bothered to review a Minister of Justice.

NikoNiko asked him about the recording of interrogations, where again, he backs into the safe corner of not wanting to tie the hands of investigators, but assures the reporter that he will watch the situation carefully and make his decision as he goes.

Interesting to see what, if anything, he does, but I’m inclined to think that the bureaucracy will do what it wants to do, and he will just warm that seat until another cabinet reshuffle (probably within the next year).

Watch the press conference (below) and judge for yourself if you think he will have any influence over the behemoth that is the gyousei.

Here is a unique idea – let’s review a human being for a change… the Minister of Justice, Mr Toshio Ogawa.

There is, of course, a knack to passing judgment on someone else which, coincidentally, appears to be part of the new Justice Minister’s job description. According to the (at least) the title of the Japan Times, Ogawa “feels signing off on hangings just part of job description“. This is misleading though, because he does go on to explain in the interview that “I don’t really want to do it, but that is one of the justice minister’s job descriptions. With 130 inmates on death row and public opinion showing 85 percent of Japanese support the death sentence, it is inexcusable not to sign off on executions“.

Fair point. Although I am vehemently opposed to capital punishment, any Japanese Justice Minister would be in a difficult position when it comes to signing off on an execution. A 2009 Survey found that 85.8% were supported the death penalty. Read more…

The Ministry of Justice has uploaded the full text of the 2011 White Paper on Crime in Japanese (sadly, the English versions of the White Papers are limited to those up to 2009).

I will post more after reviewing the data.