PDA

View Full Version : Japan's backward legal system



Maciamo
Jun 19, 2004, 01:21
A backward legal system

Japan's foremost claim to backwardness must come from its legal (and political) system. Due to cultural differences or not, Japanese laws often make the headlines for their lack of humanism and poor protection of fundamental human rights.

The US has put Japan on a watch list over human trafficking, ranking it at the same level as countries like India, Laos or Zimbabwe.

Laws regarding sexual harassment or women's right to continue working after marriage are all fairly new in Japan. But there is much more that remains to be done.

Marriage

Regarding marriage especially, Japan has a few issues to address. At present, divorced couples cannot legally share the custody of their children. Only one parent is allowed to keep (all) the children, and it is in 90% of the cases the mother. As a result, kidnapping from the other parent are not infequent, and rarely taken care of by the police, as they see it as private disputes.

Worse is that in case of international marriages, Japan is one of the few developed countries that has refused to sign the 1980 Hague Convention promising to return abducted children to the rightful custody of an overseas parent. So if a Western man married to a Japanese woman (or vice versa) has his child(ren) suddenly taken to Japan by his (ex-)spouse, there is no legal way for him to recover them. Even if he had received the custody after a divorce in his country, it will not apply in Japan, while it would in most other (developed) countries. (see => Foreign parents usually lose their children to Japanese ex-spouse (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3234))

Still regarding marriage, Japanese almost never make pre-nuptial agreements to settle possible issues such as money or the charge of the children in case of divorce, eventhough Japan's divorce rate is as high as countries like Germany. This however is due to the culture rather than the law itself.

In case of divorce, women cannot remarry before 6 months, while men can remarry the same day. The explanation is that women could be pregnant without knowing it. That would have made sense 60 years ago, but DNA tests can now easily be made, and anyhow, the chances for a divorced woman to be pregnant of her ex-husband are very low, and that won't change much to remain single or remarry.

Adoption and surrogate mothers

One more concern is that Japanerse lawmakers and judges do not want to recognize the genetic parents of children born from a surrogate mother (=> see article (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9309)). Their pretext is that it could destabilize the traditional family unit. But how ? Is it better to have a child that is genetically ours, but not legally ours ? Adoption could be an easy solution elsewhere, but Japanese are generally reluctant to adopt for some reason. The few adoptions happening in Japan are inside the same family (eg. one's nephew or niece, if their parents die).

Government's responsibility

In the West, governments have the role to educate people and keep society safe and liveable. Japan has a rather biased approach of the matter.

First of all, we could point the finger at corrupt politicians who, as all Japanese will tell you, care only about power and money and have no ideals or desire to work for the people.

Racism & immigration

In these circumstances, it is no wonder that racism and discrimination are not only legal, but almost encouraged by the authorities. Tokyo's governor, Shintaro Ishihara, who has been re-elected for a second term, it openly racist, criticising foreigners for Japan's woes and rise in crime (which really lacks of discernment. => check Crimes committed by foreigners in Japan (http://www.wa-pedia.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml)), and want them out of Japan. Then, there are no laws condemning signs such as "foreigners and dogs not allowed", and even the police post signs like "beware of foreigners" in public places. But that is only natural as we are in Japan ! The government does not have any scrupules or even conscience of why this is not acceptable.

Japan's attitude toward foreigners is also reflected in its immigration policy. Japan welcomes less political refugees than almost any Western country (=> see Japan is not an asylum country (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1055)) and rarely grants citizenship, even to second or third generation Koeans or Chinese born and raised in Japan. Some people will claim that Japan is not traditionally an immigration country, like the USA or Australia. But that misses completely the point, as European countries do not have a history of accepting lots of immigrants either.

Most immigrants in Europe came from ex-colonies inn the 1950's, 60's and 70's, and both Korea, China, as well as several South-East Asian countries are ex-Japanes colonies as well. Germany, which is almost as racially homogenous as Japan, and which had almost no colonies (anyway taken over by Britain and France in 1918), is the country which accepts the most (non-European) immigrants and refugees in Europe. Even better, it now grants German citizenship to anybody born there. However, Japan denies Japanese nationality even to children of Japanese born outside Japan or foreigners born in Japan. Until recently, only children born from a Japanese father could claim Japanese nationality. This law has been changed due to foreign pressures though.

Conservatism, prostitution & pornography

Some people will say that Japan is just conservative, and shouldn't be blamed for that. I believe that Japan is conservative for what it wants (i.e. immigration, marriage, etc.). When it comes to pornography and prostitution, Japan is far from being conservative. Prostitution has "officially" been prohibited due to Western criticism, but authorities turn a blind eye on it, as the numerous "soaplands" or "massage parlours" witness.

Pornography is not only legal, it is barely regulated. Any of Japan's ubiquitous convenience store has a dozens of porn magazines, and even other magazines and newspapers usually have pornography in it (otherwise it wouldn't sell). There is no separation between pornographic material and children's comics. In video shops, Walt Disney movies are side-by-side with erotic videos. Some will claim that cultural sensitivities are different, and nudity does not offend Japanese. There is some truth in in it, but that remains unbelievable for Westerners.

The police

The Japanese police has legally the right to arrest someone just on the grounds of suspicion of crime, without evidence, and keep them in the police station for up to 20 days. The arrested does not have the right to contact anybody, not even a lawyer, their family or work. Consequently, people mistakenly arrested (and there has been lots of cases) may have to endure interrogation and bad treatments for 3 weeks, lose their job as they don't show up without excuse during that period, and eventually have their life ruined, just because of the police's error or abuse.

Protectionism

Japan has been protectionist for times immemorial. During the Edo Era, the country was almost completely closed to foreign (= Western) powers. In recent times, Japan still keep high tariffs on imported products, and until the turn of the millenium, foreign companies (except some US corporations) could not legally establish themselves in Japan, so as not to compete with Japanese firms. But Japan didn't see any problem in opening car factories in Europe, North America or south-East Asia. Nowadays, it is still difficult for foreign companies to enter the Japanese market. The only way is to be associated, merge or take over a Japanese company. A few cases have occured so far, like Renault's take over of Nissan, or Vodaphone's acquisition of J-phone. But the change of law only aimed at bringing foreign capital to Japan in order to fight the economic crisis. When all goes well, Japan closes itself while seeling its products abroad. Unbeatable tactics, but how long should other countries tolerate such unequalities ?

infinitijapan
Jul 14, 2004, 06:41
this is very sad... i have read so many bad things about this but when i talked about it to my friend he said that wasnt really true but ya very sad... so wat this basicly tells me is that i cannot really become a japanese citizen? how would i live there then tell me how this works...and i hate that law with the police im going on a trip with my band to japan next year and im afraid some cop will arrest us because we are long haired foreign musicians and think were doing drugs and stuff... isnt there some law against the police that could stop them from arresting you for no reason? i thought i saw something about it once?... well japan has a terrible government i think... very primitive...

Bandit
Jul 14, 2004, 07:50
Wow, I never realized that all of those laws existed. I think that some of them deffinatley need to be changed or just thrown out.

Mandylion
Jul 14, 2004, 08:21
Worse is that in case of international marriages, Japan is one of the few developed countries that has refused to sign the 1980 Hague Convention promising to return abducted children to the rightful custody of an overseas parent. So if a Western man married to a Japanese woman (or vice versa) has his child(ren) suddenly taken to Japan by his (ex-)spouse, there is no legal way for him to recover them.

This is tragic. About the only thing a foreign spouse can do is spend a lot of time and money getting the ex-spouse on the Interpol list of child abductors (if the child was taken over international borders). I know only of one case where the husband (non-Japanese) pulled this off, and I have no idea how many times it has been tried. However, being on the Interpol list, in theory, means that if the mother ever tries to get a visa or visits one of the countries
that participates with Interpol, her name will come up as having a warrant out for her arrest. If the process works, she will be detained until the problem gets sorted out. In short, she can never leave Japan.


However, Japan denies Japanese nationality even to children of Japanese born outside Japan or foreigners born in Japan.

Last I heard, Japan does grant citizenship to children born outside Japan, but there is, of course - this is Japan - paperwork to file. This is the first I have heard that citizenship is summarily denied. Are there any good links spelling this out?

Foxtrot Uniform
Jul 14, 2004, 16:43
Sad, isn't it. The reason why many of these laws have not changed or gotten ridden of is because the LDP (uber-conservatives political party) has always had the most power in the government. Until this changes, these laws will not change.

Daniel
Jul 17, 2004, 18:40
I don't believe that you can just blame it on the LDP. Would other parties be less protectionist for instance? I think so. The route that has been followed in Japan is a super-keynesian and mercantilistic one. This is slowly changing IMO, but it takes time, and I doubt that it has to do with one single party.

gokarosama
Mar 9, 2005, 08:40
...sources for this information ́H

PopCulturePooka
Mar 9, 2005, 12:35
Interesting read.
I do agree mor sources would ahve been good.

I agree with your views on most things except this:



Pornography is not only legal, it is barely regulated. Any of Japan's ubiquitous convenience store has a dozens of porn magazines, and even other magazines and newspapers usually have pornography in it (otherwise it wouldn't sell). There is no separation between pornographic material and children's comics. In video shops, Walt Disney movies are side-by-side with erotic videos. Some will claim that cultural sensitivities are different, and nudity does not offend Japanese. There is some truth in in it, but that remains unbelievable for Westerners.

You phrase it as if having pornography be legal is bad? Or am I misreading?

Also I find a slight erroneous point in the video shop thing. Every video shop I went to in Japan, iclduing tiny dingy mum and pop joints, had their porn and AV videos in a seperate area, usually fairly obviously the adult movies section and closedof with a curtain or tunnel. Not 'next to the Walt Disney movies'.

Ma Cherie
Mar 9, 2005, 12:41
This is sad, but Japan is flawed just like any other nation.

Maciamo
Mar 9, 2005, 23:20
This is sad, but Japan is flawed just like any other nation.

Don't be fooled by living in a particularily flawed nation, many Western European countries are not nearly as bad as that - even on other respects.

Maciamo
Mar 9, 2005, 23:23
You phrase it as if having pornography be legal is bad? Or am I misreading?

What I meant was that there was no minimu age to buy porn magazine in a combini (to the best of my knowledge), while people can't buy alcohol and tobacco before 20. What's that for a logic ?


Also I find a slight erroneous point in the video shop thing. Every video shop I went to in Japan, iclduing tiny dingy mum and pop joints, had their porn and AV videos in a seperate area, usually fairly obviously the adult movies section and closedof with a curtain or tunnel. Not 'next to the Walt Disney movies'.

Those I went to had a separate section for most porn (more "hard core"), but not for the "erotic" videos (which anyway show nude girls on the cover) that were next to the Disney movies.

Mycernius
Mar 9, 2005, 23:31
A backward legal system

Japan's foremost claim to backwardness must come from its legal (and political) system. Due to cultural differences or not, Japanese laws often make the headlines for their lack of humanism and poor protection of fundamental human rights.

The US has put Japan on a watch list over human trafficking, ranking it at the same level as countries like India, Laos or Zimbabwe.

That's rich. Coming from a country which has the third highest executions, behind Saudi Arabia and China. In some areas has people earining less than they do in some third world countries. Big companies polluting areas because their CEO is in the government and getting away with it. I'm not going to continue or else I will start to rant :okashii:

Shooter452
Mar 9, 2005, 23:48
I do not like the Japanese legal system. I was compelled to deal with it while I was on Okinawa, and it scared the feces out of me with its seeming capriciousness and its utter lack of protections for the accused.

Nevertheless I think that it is presumptious of the US Gov't to declare the Japanese as unjust. They are a different culture. Let me say that again, in case y'all weren't listening: they are a different culture. This should be evident from the fact that they look different, talk different and correspondingly think different from us.

The criminal justice system for Japan works. Ask me how I know! Because they ain't changed it. If they did not like it, it would change. And since the crime figures in Japan (although on the rise) have yet to approach our own, I sense a certain measure of hypocrisy. This "one size fits all" approach to law is more than that, it might even be risky. I can think of no better way to throw a culture into chaos.

I would not want to live under a system of justice like that of the Japanese. Nor would I recommend that they consider adopting that legal system with which we are comfortable.

Facilis descensus Averno

bossel
Mar 10, 2005, 03:01
What I meant was that there was no minimu age to buy porn magazine in a combini (to the best of my knowledge), while people can't buy alcohol and tobacco before 20. What's that for a logic ?
Tobacco & alcohol are actually bad for your health, while porn is not. OK, you could say porn is bad for your mental health, but then again, that's not really proven. Or is it? What's more, I doubt that Walt Disney movies are that much better for a kid's mental health.


Those I went to had a separate section for most porn (more "hard core"), but not for the "erotic" videos (which anyway show nude girls on the cover) that were next to the Disney movies.
Now you sound almost like a US American. Nudity is natural, there is absolutely no problem if kids see some boobs. (Or even if they see the real action, IMO)

Ma Cherie
Mar 10, 2005, 04:00
Just because Japan is a different culture that does make their legal system no more unjust. And the reason why they probably haven't changed is because they may think their legal system is good.

PopCulturePooka
Mar 10, 2005, 09:13
Haha American bashing.
You know how hyporcritical half of you sound saying you cant speak negatively about Japan, all the while bashing the US, when YOU AREN'T EVEN AMERICANS?

PopCulturePooka
Mar 10, 2005, 09:16
That's rich. Coming from a country which has the third highest executions, behind Saudi Arabia and China.
Japan executes too. And with Japans 'stellar' and 'fair' (Haha) legal system thats a very scary idea.


Big companies polluting areas because their CEO is in the government and getting away with it.
This one made me laugh, again this applies so so beautifully to Japanese big business as well. The companies get away with murder and there are very very few Environmrntal Protection Laws in Japan.

PopCulturePooka
Mar 10, 2005, 09:30
What I meant was that there was no minimu age to buy porn magazine in a combini (to the best of my knowledge), while people can't buy alcohol and tobacco before 20. What's that for a logic ? Ahh ok. Most stores I visitied had 18+ signs on their porn area, but likely a token gesture.
There was also the half arsed public measure last year where porn mags had to be sealed in the shops.


Nevertheless I think that it is presumptious of the US Gov't to declare the Japanese as unjust. They are a different culture. Let me say that again, in case y'all weren't listening: they are a different culture. This should be evident from the fact that they look different, talk different and correspondingly think different from us.If they wanna be big world players with the world they take criticism from others, simple enough.


The criminal justice system for Japan works. Ask me how I know! Because they ain't changed it. If they did not like it, it would change. And since the crime figures in Japan (although on the rise) have yet to approach our own, I sense a certain measure of hypocrisy.
I disagree. Japan has a very ingrained culutural belief in keeping system, even if broken because thats the 'way' something is done. Heaven and hell need to be moved to invoke change in Japanese public services and systems and the legal justice system, which is a majorly flawed beast, is one such example. Don't tell me a justice system which automatically prejudices against foreigners, which allows Judges to freely admit their judgements are made only to keep their 99% guilty record and which accused people have very little rights 'works'.



Tobacco & alcohol are actually bad for your health, while porn is not. OK, you could say porn is bad for your mental health, but then again, that's not really proven. Or is it? What's more, I doubt that Walt Disney movies are that much better for a kid's mental health.Have you watched a selection of Japanese porn?
Can you tell me, with a straight face, that exposing children to a lot of Japanese porn, with themes like rape, bondage, groping, forced sex, humiliation, degradation, simulated pedophilia (all of which are very common in Japanese poen) etc are not harmful to children?
That Disney movies are worse than exposing a kid to that?
:erm:


Now you sound almost like a US American. Nudity is natural, there is absolutely no problem if kids see some boobs. (Or even if they see the real action, IMO)
Disagree here too. The way Japanese erotic videos and porn are packaged almost universally treat women as subservient and 'controlled' sex objects. Japan has a big problem with the way women are treated and viewed by some men and exposing boys to media which depicts women as subservient objects only useful for sex will not help fix that issue. Its deeper than the 'nudity is natural' track and goes into cultural perceptions of women.

gokarosama
Mar 10, 2005, 09:52
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit.

The fact that the first post appears as an uncredited article in the "Society" section of this site (albeit with a kinder, gentler title in the hyperlink) is what gets me.

My original question still stands. Source material for the information? Is it mostly anecdotal? Based on personal experience? Did the information come from an online source? A book? Are you quoting someone else? All of this is relevant, as this website, for better or worse, is seen by many--particularly those who do not live in Japan and have only a mild interest in the country--as itself a real "source" of factual information. Mixing facts (such as a Forbes list of Who's who among businessmen) with editorialising (such as this post) without labeling which is which is, to me, irresponsible.

The very tone of the first post is at best derogatory, at worst self-serving paternalism. "Backward?" Quite a few presumptions there.

I won't insult the original poster (who obviously has a lot of knowledge about Japan) by going point-by-point through his post. In fact I could probably find many areas where I agree with the writer. A leeeeeetle bit more self-awareness and, perhaps, a caveat (in the Society Section) that these articles are either complete editorializing (read: opinion) or at the very least some kind of bibliography where one can look up the information asserted. "As far as I know" is fine as a backup if you're just telling someone whether the convenience store sells Ginger Ale or not, but not when posting a diatribe which would be considered libelous if stated about a person.

Let the counter-argument begin.

Takara
Mar 10, 2005, 11:17
Wow..I never knew that their legal system is like that. For me, that's quite scary, but it shows how reality is.

Maciamo
Mar 10, 2005, 12:55
The fact that the first post appears as an uncredited article in the "Society" section of this site (albeit with a kinder, gentler title in the hyperlink) is what gets me.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was the author, as I linked to the forum post were it was originally posted. I have also edited the title of the article (although it was meant to catch the attention).


My original question still stands. Source material for the information? Is it mostly anecdotal? Based on personal experience? Did the information come from an online source? A book? Are you quoting someone else?

Didn't you follow the various links in each paragraph citing the source of the information ? There is also a lot of information gathered from discussing these issues with Japanese lawyers, busines people or from reading/watching the news everyday.


A leeeeeetle bit more self-awareness

What do you mean by slef-awareness ? Do you want to compare point by point with every European country so as to definitely prove that Japan is backward from a legal point of view ?


and, perhaps, a caveat (in the Society Section) that these articles are either complete editorializing (read: opinion) or at the very least some kind of bibliography where one can look up the information asserted.

I have just added that now, in addition to the links already provided in the text. The problem is that there are very few books treating of these issues. The sources regarding the legislation are very easy to find though. Just read the Japanese code of laws and see for yourself how the law is. You could also compare it with Western countries' laws. It is also easy to double-check whether Japan signed the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24) or not by doing a quick internet search.

bossel
Mar 10, 2005, 18:10
Have you watched a selection of Japanese porn?
Can you tell me, with a straight face, that exposing children to a lot of Japanese porn, with themes like rape, bondage, groping, forced sex, humiliation, degradation, simulated pedophilia (all of which are very common in Japanese poen) etc are not harmful to children?
That Disney movies are worse than exposing a kid to that?
:erm:
It is fairly secure to say that porn in general doesn't have adverse effects. I know of several studies which showed this. Whether you should let your kids watch porn unsupervised is another question. I'd say, of course not.

Unsupervised access to WD's crap is also not recommendable. The ideal world pictured there might lead to trauma if confronted with the real world (just IMO, though, also depending on the circumstances).



Disagree here too. The way Japanese erotic videos and porn are packaged almost universally treat women as subservient and 'controlled' sex objects. Japan has a big problem with the way women are treated and viewed by some men and exposing boys to media which depicts women as subservient objects only useful for sex will not help fix that issue. Its deeper than the 'nudity is natural' track and goes into cultural perceptions of women.
That's not the problem of erotica, but of society. Negative effects of exposure to some pictures like that are questionable. Blame the parents, not the pic!

PopCulturePooka
Mar 10, 2005, 21:48
It is fairly secure to say that porn in general doesn't have adverse effects. I know of several studies which showed this.Depends on what porn you watch. Again I ask you, is watching simulated rape porn as a child ok? Is watching porn with violent imagery and storyline ok? Porn where women are ravaged by 20 plus men is ok for kids? At least better than Disney? Please tell me straight yes or no as ALL of these types of porn are common in Japan. They are not underground fetishes but readily available forms of AV.
You mean to say that exposing these forms of porn to kids would not have negative developmental effects? Boy thats rich.


Whether you should let your kids watch porn unsupervised is another question. I'd say, of course not.When it comes to a whole lot of Japanese porn I wouldnt let kids watch it supervised. I know adults who quite happily watch Western porn that get disturbed by Japanese porn.


Unsupervised access to WD's crap is also not recommendable. The ideal world pictured there might lead to trauma if confronted with the real world (just IMO, though, also depending on the circumstances).Sturm and drang, back this up or start talking sense. You shouldn't make ridiculous arguments. Instead show statistics where kids from anywhere are messed up from watching Mickey Mouse and Beauty & the BEast. I'd dare say you would be VERY hard pressed.




That's not the problem of erotica, but of society. Negative effects of exposure to some pictures like that are questionable. Blame the parents, not the pic!'Art' imitates life. In this case life in Japan involves to some degree treating women as second class objects, fit for humliation, objectification, bondage and forced actions. This is demonstrated in its erotic art as like I said it imitates life. The perverts take the pics and demand the pics. I think there are problems in exposing kids, especially boys already being raised to believe women are beneath them to imagery that shows women way beneath men, as nothing more than objects. We aren't just talking playboy nudes here. We are, in japan, potentially talking about images that involve women tied up, crying, looking shamed or humiliated or worse. Thats natural and ok too show too children? Ha.

Mycernius
Mar 10, 2005, 23:29
Japan executes too. And with Japans 'stellar' and 'fair' (Haha) legal system thats a very scary idea.


This one made me laugh, again this applies so so beautifully to Japanese big business as well. The companies get away with murder and there are very very few Environmrntal Protection Laws in Japan.
I wasn't American bashing as such. I was just pointing out the fact that the American Government go around putting these countries on UN watchlist when they are one of the worst offenders. I know Japan excutes people, I know they pollute. I thought it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Japan at least signed up to Kyoto, which is more than the US government did, and they are the biggest polluters in the world.

Flaight
Mar 11, 2005, 00:00
Hello all,

Interesting thread. A lot has been said, but personally I don't know if all that should be bracketed under the same title as "backward" - it starts with a negative thrust, and that negative thrust automatically follows down the list indiscriminately, though the nature of debate varies drastically from section to section.

There are some genuinly backward things in Japan, but there are also things that is just different in base-perception. Historically it's so typical to use the West as the absolute frame of reference to measure the rest of the world, having made an assumption that the west has the monopoly on righteousness. This in itself is debatable.
In either case, I hope such differences will not result in driving tanks and dropping bombs, though sadly politics in the west often result in that - one could also argue that that is a very backward attitude by politicians too, depending on how you look at it, to give one small example.

So really, by shifting the point of emphasis a lot of things could be seen as forward or backward because the real question here is that of the frame of reference. I hope we'll all keep our minds open when dealing with a profoundly different culture, ready to accept that, sometimes, what you see is not necessarily everything there is to know about this world.

Note that I didn't necessarily disagree with the points raised in the original post!

Shooter452
Mar 11, 2005, 00:36
...and they are the biggest polluters in the world.
I question that conclusion.

The magnitude of pollution that occurred in the ex-Soviet Union might well eclipse anything done by the United States. The world is still discovering the air, water and soil pollution that remains there, and is still being committed by the Republics.

But none of this changes the fact that the US is a producer of pollutants and is not terribly eager to deal with that problem. I do not regard the Kyoto accords as being substansive, insofar as the entire Third World is excused responsibility for the pollution that it creates and might create in the future.

And yet, we stray from the issue of the law. I am still appalled that the USA should cast rocks of this size while residing in a house of brittle windows such as we have!

Still....

Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro

bossel
Mar 11, 2005, 02:49
Oh my, why so aggressive? Do I smell some personal issue there?



Depends on what porn you watch. Again I ask you, is watching simulated rape porn as a child ok? Is watching porn with violent imagery and storyline ok? Porn where women are ravaged by 20 plus men is ok for kids? At least better than Disney? Please tell me straight yes or no
How could I say a straight yes or no? It depends. Porn in general is not a problem, I'm not aware of any studies into particular varieties of porn. As long as kids watch this stuff under supervision, it shouldn't pose much of a problem, though. That's what parents are there for: telling their kids what's right or wrong.


You mean to say that exposing these forms of porn to kids would not have negative developmental effects? Boy thats rich.
Did I say so? Please quote that particular passage.



Sturm and drang, back this up or start talking sense.
You know the meaning of "IMO"? I'll look for some studies, but as I said it's just IMO, anyway.


I think there are problems in exposing kids, especially boys already being raised to believe women are beneath them to imagery that shows women way beneath men, as nothing more than objects. We aren't just talking playboy nudes here. We are, in japan, potentially talking about images that involve women tied up, crying, looking shamed or humiliated or worse. Thats natural and ok too show too children? Ha.
Misrepresenting me again? Nowhere did I say that humiliating pics are natural. That these pics as such have a negative effect on children is highly doubtful (maybe you could quote some studies to support your point?). You should not confuse cause & effect. The pics are only the effect, not the cause.


Addendum:
There don't seem to be any studies on WD stuff in particular, & only a few on cartoons in general. There is one interesting study (only on violence in cartoons) I stumbled across, though:
Kaj Björkqvist, Kirsti M.J. Lagerspetz (1985). Children's experience of three types of cartoon at two age levels. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 77-93.

"In many children's cartoons, the heroes, such as Woody Woodpecker and Donald Duck, behave extremely aggressively. Due to their identification with such heroes, children may be expected to attain a more permissive attitude towards aggressive behaviour. In that way, identification with aggressive film heroes can enhance subsequent aggressive behaviour due to a change in attitudes towards vioIence"

Shooter452
Mar 26, 2005, 01:12
If they wanna be big world players with the world they take criticism from others, simple enough.
Since when does anyone's position in the "new world order" make them liable to meet certain requrements of "legal minimums?" And exactly where does the USA--standing so deeply in the dry and locked concrete of Sovereign Immunity as we are--get off expecting everyone to "get like us?" BTW, "like us" ain't so great, according to human rights watchdog groups like Amnesty International (hey, I don't like them either, but they at least are non-partisan, a claim that the Congress cannot make!).


I disagree. Japan has a very ingrained culutural belief in keeping system, even if broken because thats the 'way' something is done. Heaven and hell need to be moved to invoke change in Japanese public services and systems and the legal justice system, which is a majorly flawed beast, is one such example. Don't tell me a justice system which automatically prejudices against foreigners, which allows Judges to freely admit their judgements are made only to keep their 99% guilty record and which accused people have very little rights 'works'.
.
And this is the business of outsiders exactly how? In fact, I don't understand this conversation at all, Pook. At the very beginning I pointed out how I personally do not like the Nippon system of jurisprudence, and why--reasons not unlike your own, I might add--but that it is their system and if they want to change it they will. The fact that it is unlikely, difficult, whatever does not alter my statement one bit, nor does it explain your objection very well. When they think it is necessary, they will change it. If you have any problems with that, do not travel to Japan. If you must set foot on Japanese soil with your reservations I would recommend pre-paid legal services or counsellor insurance before you clear customs.

I concur with all of your objections. I saw them work up close and personal and I would not want to be accused of a crime in Japan because I know that I would never receive some/most/all of the legal protections to which I am accustomed. I know of at least two cases in 1979 when the court in Naha handed down decisions of guilt that were based solely on the facts that one defendant was Black and that both were gaijin. When the JAG representative offered evidence that suggested the plain old everyday innocence of both accused, it was ruled inadmissable because (a) the JAG officer had no standing in Japanese court and (b) the local prosecutor had not found that evidence themselves ("If we don't discover it, it don't exist!"). Those two kids--well, they ain't kids no longer, are they?--are probably still inside, if they are still alive.

And that means what? Nada. We were there as guests with rules of conduct plainly stated on our arrival in extensive indocrination classes "...welcome to Japan...hope you have a nice time...stay on base if you know what is good for you!" These two defendants went on liberty out in town and were accused of taking liberties they shouldn't. In Japan, that is end-of-story.

BTW, staying on base will not save you. I heard of a case where the JP's hauled some USAF master sergeant "downtown" and it took the assembled authority of the entire military legal community to convince the Japanese judge that he could not have been guilty since he had been over the China Sea in a C-141 at the time that the crime was committed! The judge finally relented and let yon MSgt go, but it had been easier to convince Pharaoh than it was to convince him!

So, getting back to my original statement, what actually sticks in your craw?

PopCulturePooka
Mar 29, 2005, 08:52
Sorry, have't had time to refute everything.

But put it this way.

If America, Australia or England had a legal system that actively and obviously discriminated against foreigners and non-japanese by race, skin colour or what have you would a Japanese person living in those countries have a right to complain and find the rules unfair? Would you hold it against the Japanese community for having siad things tick in their craw, even if they were honest law abiders in said country?

If shops displayed 'No Japanese' signs should a Japanese person be ok with that? if single mothers with Japanese ex-spouses could remove EVERY right father had in terms of his child should the Japanese father be ok with that? If a Japanese man was arrested, detained for 23 days with no explanation and given legal concil that was exceptionally shoddy, with no translaters or access to them, should they ok with that? If that man was then convicted of the crime, even though he didn't commit it, because the judge openly disliked Japanese and didn't want to taint his 99% conviction rate, should the Japanese be ok with that? If he is ever released, the convistion overturned, should he be ok with the police never apologising to him and compensation being laid out??

You would tell Japanese not to travel to your country I wager? You would tell them that arguing for change isn't on?

Leroy_Brown
Mar 31, 2005, 05:38
Any European would think that a judicial system that allowed the death penalty would be "backward."

But I think Japanese don't need to fix anything that's not broke. Their system works for them. They get criminals off the street, and off this earth when necessary.

PopCulturePooka
Mar 31, 2005, 07:31
Any European would think that a judicial system that allowed the death penalty would be "backward."

But I think Japanese don't need to fix anything that's not broke. Their system works for them. They get criminals off the street, and off this earth when necessary.
But a few innocent people, including foreigners, getting put away as well is ok?

DoctorP
Mar 31, 2005, 08:05
Which innocent people are you referring to?

PopCulturePooka
Mar 31, 2005, 10:30
Which innocent people are you referring to?
People like Govinda
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050325a6.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA220012000?open&of=ENG-JPN
http://www.phaseloop.com/foreignprisoners/prison-japan05a.html

Or PAtrick Loughlin
http://www.freepatrick.org.uk/

You think in a legal system where evidence is ignored, judges pride themselves on 99% conviction rates and unfair treatment to foreigners that innocent people don't slip through?

The system is inherently broken.

Leroy_Brown
Mar 31, 2005, 10:57
Do you think every single person who sits in prison in the U.S., UK, Canada, or Australia is guilty? Might be a few innocent ones there as well.

Maciamo
Mar 31, 2005, 11:00
Do you think every single person who sits in prison in the U.S., UK, Canada, or Australia is guilty? Might be a few innocent ones there as well.

But what about the fact that 99% of criminal cases brought to trial in Japan end with a conviction ? (see sources (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15906)). That's a far cry from anything seen in Western countries. It's almost like saying that any suspect is guilty.

PopCulturePooka
Mar 31, 2005, 11:24
Exactly Big Mac!


And don't try and peddle crap that they just have better investigators, evidence clearing etc.

Leroy_Brown
Mar 31, 2005, 11:48
But what about the fact that 99% of criminal cases brought to trial in Japan end with a conviction ? (see sources (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15906)). That's a far cry from anything seen in Western countries. It's almost like saying that any suspect is guilty.

Maybe that means if the prosecutors don't think they have enough to convict, they don't take it to trial. DAs in the U.S. work like that all the time.

If the evidence is there, why shouldn't a suspect be convicted?

In the U.S., jurors often will either convict or acquit on purely emotional reasons rather than on facts and evidence.

Besides, I don't intend to commit crime in Japan when I go there. I have nothing to worry about.

Maciamo
Mar 31, 2005, 11:57
Besides, I don't intend to commit crime in Japan when I go there. I have nothing to worry about.

I see it the other way round. Considering the tendency of the Japanese police to suspect foreigners first (even Westerners, as my having my bicycle registration checked 6 times in the last 2 years confirms), and the fact that in many cases there is no evidence apart from a confession exhorted by the police after depriving the suspect of sleep for days and refusing them access to a lawyer or any communication with their family or embassy (if they are foreigners), how could you not be afraid of being mistakenly arrested by the Japanese police, which means nearly automatical conviction.

Leroy_Brown
Apr 1, 2005, 03:50
I'm not convinced.

The fact that many foreignors in Japan DO commit crime doesn't help. Then the police are doing a good job if they ethnically profile. I'm generally dressed in a suit and tie and have a neat appearance when I go to Japan. I have never felt the cops had their eyes on me, ever.

The jury system in the U.S. has many problems of its own. Defense attorneys usually don't want people who can think analytically. Many jurors are simply stupid people who don't follow the rules. Just recently, a conviction was overturned in Colorado because a woman had brought a Bible to deliberation and kept quoting from it ("an eye for an eye"). Lastly, many jurors don't want to be there--they don't really care about what's going on. They're there because they have to. I would rather have my fate in the hands of a PANEL of judges who know the law.

If you feel so strongly about it, why in the world do you stay in Japan?

I also don't buy your argument that you criticize Japan to try to improve the country. Improve it to your own liking? The only ones who should feel they need improving and actually do it are the Japanese themselves. A colleague in Japan once told me he was so upset by the Japanese TV show "Soko ga Hendayo", where a studio full of Gaijin scream and complain about what's wrong about Japan. My Japanese colleague said "Why don't these people just leave? I would never go to the U.S. and criticize the country on their own TV.""

Maciamo
Apr 1, 2005, 10:30
Leroy, I think you react like this because you are American. I have noticed that Europeans people tend to accept easily criticism, even coming from a foreigner, while many American people don't accept criticism of their country for patriotic reasons (a concept that doesn't have any meaning to me), and especially don't like criticism from foreigners, always saying ""Why don't these people just leave?".

Please have a look at the thread entitled Do you accept easily foreign criticism about your country's system or government ? (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14986). I see you haven't voted at this poll yet. You will see however that people who disapprove of criticism of their country, or except counter-criticism in return are almost all Americans, while most Europeans chose "I am completely open to criticism from abroad and also criticize my own country a lot".

Knowing that, I would actually be afraid of criticising the US openly while living in there (especially given the high number of religious fanatics in some regions). But Japanese people usually don't mind criticism (partly because they have little freedom to express their own frustrations about the government due to the honne/tatemae culture), and I was told many times that they like knowing how foreigners see their country and what they think could be improved.

nurizeko
Apr 4, 2005, 00:45
The police

The Japanese police has legally the right to arrest someone just on the grounds of suspicion of crime, without evidence, and keep them in the police station for up to 20 days. The arrested does not have the right to contact anybody, not even a lawyer, their family or work. Consequently, people mistakenly arrested (and there has been lots of cases) may have to endure interrogation and bad treatments for 3 weeks, lose their job as they don't show up without excuse during that period, and eventually have their life ruined, just because of the police's error or abuse.

this is the biggest point of concern for me, simply because out of all the laws, these ones are ones which have no valid excuse, and most basic assaults on basic human rights.
this kind of treatment belongs back in pre-ww2 in the west, i just find it fairly medieval.

Shooter452
May 9, 2005, 03:00
Sorry, have't had time to refute everything.

But put it this way.

If America, Australia or England had a legal system that actively and obviously discriminated against foreigners and non-japanese by race, skin colour or what have you would a Japanese person living in those countries have a right to complain and find the rules unfair? Would you hold it against the Japanese community for having siad things tick in their craw, even if they were honest law abiders in said country?

If shops displayed 'No Japanese' signs should a Japanese person be ok with that? if single mothers with Japanese ex-spouses could remove EVERY right father had in terms of his child should the Japanese father be ok with that? If a Japanese man was arrested, detained for 23 days with no explanation and given legal concil that was exceptionally shoddy, with no translaters or access to them, should they ok with that? If that man was then convicted of the crime, even though he didn't commit it, because the judge openly disliked Japanese and didn't want to taint his 99% conviction rate, should the Japanese be ok with that? If he is ever released, the convistion overturned, should he be ok with the police never apologising to him and compensation being laid out??

You would tell Japanese not to travel to your country I wager? You would tell them that arguing for change isn't on?
If you were predicting my words, you guessed wrong, pook.

What I would say is if you don't want to lose, don't gamble. If you are afraid of being unjustly accused and convicted (not an unreasonable fear in Japan) stay off Japanese soil.

I had no choice. I went there in the performance of my duties. I figure it was worth the risk because I learned much about Okinawa, the Ryukyan people, and Japanese in general. I also learned how it feels to be a second-hand citizen. But I can say this retrospectively, now in the safe environment of North Carolina. I did not get arrested.

I would like to travel back to Okinawa some day. If I go, I will leave CONUS knowing full well what risks I take. I will not rant about how the legal systems of Japan are not to my liking. And I will not spend much time worrying about things that I cannot control.

Dura lex, sed lex.

Tim33
May 10, 2005, 05:38
Indeed many of these laws and problems are unjust but as where most countries in the past and many of todays. you can say japan is wrong or backward because of this. Japan has progressed in many ways very quickly. Maybe to quickly to keep up with itself in all areas. But society takes time to change.

As for porn and woman being degraded. That happens all over the world.

As for porn in relation to being located next to the disney section. I went to barcelona this year just after christmas, i went to a newsagents and found on the bottom shelf next to childrens comics and magazines lots of porn. Bondage, S&M even granny porn. So this is not just a japanese problem.

celtician
May 10, 2005, 19:44
Basically I think we all know that Japan is a truly backward country when it comes to anything to do with human rights (any HUMAN) These primitives are not averse to selling their own children. Just have a little look into their history.

Shooter452
May 11, 2005, 01:13
Basically I think we all know that Japan is a truly backward country when it comes to anything to do with human rights (any HUMAN) These primitives are not averse to selling their own children. Just have a little look into their history.
And also it is largely untrue. The Japanese are a sophisticated culture. Their legal system is finely tuned to their needs.

They define "human rights " differently than do Amercians. I do not need to agree with them to defend their right to be different. I would not want to be a woman in Japan, but if the women of Japan want change, they know how to get it. It must suit them on some level to be the way they are.

As far as selling their children...maybe in the previous eras this was true. But I have yet to see an example of that. When I was last in Japan (Okinawa in 1980) the big argument about children--foundlings in this case--was resistance to allowing gaijin to adopt orphans and remove them from Japan. Do you have any documented specific examples of this, celtician? It would interest me to read them.

Homines quod volunt credunt.

Tim33
May 11, 2005, 01:57
Why is giving up your child to someone else so wrong. Maybe the people did not want a child and saw the opportunity to give it to a wealthier family. Maybe this child would grow up with a better standard of life by doing this. Would it be wrong to want your child to grow up with the best life that can be given.

Maybe they should just have an abortion and kill it instead and then no one ends up with a child???

Just an alternative look at it but
It may be seen that by not offering your child to this better life you are actually being selfish in as much as holding your child back in life to have it as your POSSESSION.


Basically I think we all know that Japan is a truly backward country when it comes to anything to do with human rights (any HUMAN) These primitives are not averse to selling their own children. Just have a little look into their history.


I think this is a serious error in judgement and i in no way see the Japanese as backwards. I think you are seriously misguided if you also cannot see deeper then the surfac.


And also it is largely untrue. The Japanese are a sophisticated culture. Their legal system is finely tuned to their needs.

They define "human rights " differently than do Amercians. I do not need to agree with them to defend their right to be different.

Agreed, all cultures are differnt and have varying societies to suit there needs. It is wrong to say they are backward because of this.
You may not agree with all there laws and ways of working but im sure they do not agree with yours either. Does this make you backwards??

Pachipro
May 11, 2005, 02:32
The police

The Japanese police has legally the right to arrest someone just on the grounds of suspicion of crime, without evidence, and keep them in the police station for up to 20 days. The arrested does not have the right to contact anybody, not even a lawyer, their family or work. Consequently, people mistakenly arrested (and there has been lots of cases) may have to endure interrogation and bad treatments for 3 weeks, lose their job as they don't show up without excuse during that period, and eventually have their life ruined, just because of the police's error or abuse

But what about the fact that 99% of criminal cases brought to trial in Japan end with a conviction ? (see sources). That's a far cry from anything seen in Western countries. It's almost like saying that any suspect is guilty.

...and the fact that in many cases there is no evidence apart from a confession exhorted by the police after depriving the suspect of sleep for days and refusing them access to a lawyer or any communication with their family or embassy (if they are foreigners), how could you not be afraid of being mistakenly arrested by the Japanese police, which means nearly automatical conviction.

I would like to travel back to Okinawa some day. If I go, I will leave CONUS knowing full well what risks I take. I will not rant about how the legal systems of Japan are not to my liking. And I will not spend much time worrying about things that I cannot control.

The Japanese are a sophisticated culture. Their legal system is finely tuned to their needs.
Since I have a "little" experience with this, let me add my two yen's worth. While most of what Maciamo has written is true and I agree with Shooter452's argument, let me point out what a detective friend once told me. Remember this is what I was told, not my own opinion or research:


The Japanese do alot of painstaking investigation before they make an arrest and their evidence is usually rock solid. A person may be hauled in for questioning, but must be let go within 24hrs if there is no evidence to hold him any longer. A person, when arrested for a crime, may be held for up to 30 days without so much as seeing a lawyer or being allowed to make a phone call to let others know where they are. Before 30 days they either have to be indicted by the equivelant of a district attorney or let go. A person may be hauled in as many times as necessary for questioning. Japanese police are not allowed to physically abuse any persons in their custody.
Now before you argue with me, I know their are exceptions to what I have quoted above (which is over 18 years old) and I have read of the others serving time there even though they may not have comitted a crime.

I had the unfortunate experience of being arrested in Japan for posession of hashish which I will relate in more detail in the Stories Thread later on. (I was turned in by another gaijin whom I only knew by face only!) They entered my house with a legitimate search warrant, but seeing the inevitable, I turned over what little I had. Through it all they were professional and polite. I was promptly arrested and held for two weeks while they questioned me on a daily basis with everything being taken down in long hand. I was not allowed a phone call or to see a lawyer until I was indicted. After indictment I was allowed bail and to make a phone call.

I was visited by personnel from the American Embassy only because my family in the states had contacted them when they couldn't get in touch with me. They informed me that they couldn't help me, but they would let my family know that I was alright. They also said I was on my own in this case.

During my stay I was never once treated harshly or spoken to in a loud voice by any of the detectives or guards. This surprised me as I had heard many horror stories about being arrested in Japan.

I was never deprived of sleep, I was given three meals a day, allowed access to English novels and books (apparently I wasn't the first one), and was allowed a bath three times a week. Not once was I abused either verbally or physically by the detectives, guards, or my Japanese cell mate. In fact the guards let us listen to the baseball game on the radio at night and even let us out to smoke when they weren't supposed to.

I must honestly say they were fair and so was the judicial system. I think I was treated better there than I would have been in the states. Although I do not have any experience with being arrested in the US I have also heard the horror stories. However, I do not agree with their system of not allowing one to make a phone call when arrested, but it is their country and their laws and I broke them. Therefore I had to suffer the consequences. But again I say they were fair in their treatment.

Believe it or not, in the end, I was allowed to remain in the country, allowed to return at will and only received a suspended sentence. (Luckily my detective friend never knew I was arrested and if he did, he never let on.) For the full reasons why and why I was allowed to remain in the country you'll have to wait for the full story. ;-) Suffice it to say I was not treated harshly or abused.

Mycernius
May 11, 2005, 03:27
Basically I think we all know that Japan is a truly backward country when it comes to anything to do with human rights (any HUMAN) These primitives are not averse to selling their own children. Just have a little look into their history.
This can be said of any country. I come from a country that does not have the death penalty. Could I say that the US legal system is backwards because they execute people and infringe their human rights? Most Americans would jump onto their high horse and say that their legal system is fair and they have legal rights. Remember 50/40 years ago the US southern states discriminated against the colour of a persons skin. I would say that is infringement of human rights. George Bush Snr regards anyone who doesn't believe in God shouldn't be regarded as a true US citizen. I can say the same about my own country and it's treatment of terrorist belonging to the various Irish republican groups. Just because a countries mindset is not the same as your own does not give you the right to call a country backwards. That breeds intolerance.