After a few months of disappointingly uncontroversial JBC’s, Mr Arudou is back on form with more ill-thought through material. The basic premise that 外国人風 is a useless and offensive term in police reports is one that I hope all my readers would agree with, however.
This is why judiciaries provide mechanisms to keep media accountable.
Hmm, that doesn’t seem quite right to me; I would say they provide mechanisms to provide redress from irresponsible media.
But what about broadcasting misleading or false information about groups? That’s a different issue, because Japan has no laws against "hate speech" (ken’o hatsugen).
We have two different issues conflated here; "All foreigners hate natto" is most certainly false, but it’s not hate speech. Furthermore, hate speech seems to be 憎悪発言, 差別発言 or just ヘイトスピーチ.
If there is a crime where the perpetrator might be a non-Japanese (NJ), the National Police Agency (and by extension the media, which often parrots police reports without analysis) tends to use racialized typology in its search for suspects.
I expect VK to pop up and explain why this use of "racialized typology" is all wrong!
Typology such as this has long been criticized by scholars of racism for lacking objectivity and scientific rigor.
The police and press are passing on witness descriptions, not carrying out a scientific analysis.
One might see [...] the occasional chūgokujin-kei, firipin-kei, etc., for suspects involved in organized crime or the "water trade."
Tut-tut Mr Arudou. Shall I report you to your censorship police for suggesting Chinese and Filipinos are Triads and prostitutes?
1) When there is a suspect on the run, and the public is being alerted to be on the lookout, then give phenotypical details (e.g., gender, height, hair color) — the same as you would for any Japanese fugitive.
Does Mr Arudou believe that skin colour or indeed nose size is a phenotypical detail?
2) When there is a suspect in custody for interrogation (as in, not yet charged for prosecution), then it is not necessary to give phenotypical or nationality details.
3) When there is an arrest, giving out details on specific nationality is permissible
A suspect in custody by definition has been arrested. I think in 2) he means a person of interest, someone the police want to eliminate from their enquiries.
2) [...]it is not necessary to give phenotypical or nationality details. Why? [...] It is also not yet a fact of the case that this particular crime has been committed by this particular person — innocent before proven guilty, remember.
3) When there is an arrest, giving out details on specific nationality is permissible
3) contradicts 2).
when there is an acquittal, the police and media should mention the nationality of the former suspect in a public statement, to counteract the social damage caused by any media coverage that may have inadvertently linked criminality to a nationality.
I’m getting reminded of the Monty Python News for Parrots sketch…
In addition, the police should repeatedly caution the media against any tone associating nationality with criminality.
NO, NO, and thrice NO!
Because the media must not only watch the watchers; it must watch itself.
I thought you just said that was the police’s job?
I also know that policymakers read the Japan Times Community pages and this column, because they have changed their policies after withering criticisms here.
Anyone ready to say in public "He’s a criminal because he’s from Osaka"?
Didn’t the Asahi Weekly imply Hashimoto was a criminal because of his Burakumin roots? And people seem quite happy to ask similar questions on Q&A sites. You’ll also see similar broad brushes on Japan Today and, dare I say it, Debito.org.
The first question was about the need for constitutional amendments. 42% thought it was necessary to do so, 16% that it was unnecessary, and 39% couldn’t say one way or the other. However, when NHK previously asked the question six years ago, the numbers were 41%, 24% and 30%, so it would appear that all the recent talk about external threats like China in the Senkaku islands and North Korea have not convinced a significant number of people of the necessity of change.
Looking specifically at Article Nine, just 33% thought it was necessary to amend it, 30% thought it was unnecessary, and 32% couldn’t say either way. Six years ago, the numbers for and against were 28% and 41% respectively.
This article spells out how the constitution may be amended, namely that a two-thirds majority of all members (not just those present for the vote) of both Houses, and then a national referendum where a simple majority of the votes cast will be sufficient to ratify the amendment. The proposed amendment to the Amendment Article is that both houses need just a simple majority of all members of each House.