総務省の松田隆利次官は２６日の記者会見で、ＮＨＫの受信料値下げ問題について、「放送法改正案の取りまとめ（国会提出時期）は３月１３日がタイムリミットという事情も考慮願いたい」と述べ、ＮＨＫに対して期限を区切り、受信料値下げと経営改革の具体的な計画を早急に表明するよう求めた。
総務省は今国会に提出する放送法改正案に、ＮＨＫの受信料支払い義務化を盛り込む方針だが、松田次官の発言は、ＮＨＫが早急に値下げ計画を示さなければ、義務化を見送る可能性があることを示唆したものだ。
菅総務相は、２００８年度に受信料の支払いを義務化すると同時に、ＮＨＫに対して２割前後値下げするよう求めている。
これに対し、ＮＨＫの橋本元一会長は値下げを視野に入れた受信料体系の見直し案を９月までに作成する考えを示しているが、値下げの時期や幅は明言していない。
（2007年2月26日19時23分 読売新聞）
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
総務省、再発防止計画の要求を柱に・放送法改正案
総務省は21日、自民党の通信・放送産業高度化小委員会に出席し、関西テレビ（大阪市）の情報番組「発掘！あるある大事典２」のねつ造問題を受け検討していた放送法改正案の概要を説明した。放送局が事実を曲げてでっちあげた内容を放送した場合などに、総務相が再発防止計画の提出を求めることができるようにすることなどが柱。
総務相は提出を受けた計画に意見を付して公表する。計画の提出を求めるときや総務相の意見については電波監理審議会（総務相の諮問機関）に諮問することも義務づける。総務省は放送法改正案を今国会に提出する方針。(日本経済新聞 2007年2月21日12:38)
総務相は提出を受けた計画に意見を付して公表する。計画の提出を求めるときや総務相の意見については電波監理審議会（総務相の諮問機関）に諮問することも義務づける。総務省は放送法改正案を今国会に提出する方針。(日本経済新聞 2007年2月21日12:38)
放送法改正案：番組ねつ造、再発防止策を強制
関西テレビの「発掘！あるある大事典２」の番組ねつ造問題を受けて、総務省が検討している放送法改正案の概要が２０日、明らかになった。「報道は事実をまげないですること」に違反した放送局に、総務相が再発防止計画の提出を求める規定を新設することが柱になる。計画提出を求める場合には、総務相が電波監理審議会に諮問する手続きを設けて恣意（しい）的な行政処分に歯止めをかける方向だ。だが、総務相が「事実」かどうかを基に放送内容に踏み込んで行政処分する規定を新設することは、憲法が保障する表現の自由に抵触する恐れもあり、論議を呼びそうだ。
総務省が検討している放送法改正案では、これまで行政指導で任意で求めてきた不祥事の事実関係調査や、再発防止策について提出を強制するものとなる。対象は「事実でないことを事実であるかのように放送し、国民の生活や権利に悪影響を及ぼすおそれがある」場合に限定することで、ねつ造の再発を防ぐ考えだ。
放送局が法令に反した場合、総務省はこれまで「警告」などの行政指導をしてきた。電波法に基づいて、一定期間の電波停止や放送免許を取り消す厳しい行政処分を行うことも可能だが、放送局の経営に影響が大きいことなどを理由に前例がない。このため、菅義偉総務相は、中間的な行政処分を導入する必要性を強調していた。【小島昇、臺宏士】
◇解説…「報道の自由」制約の懸念
放送局に対する新たな行政処分として総務省が固めた放送法改正案は、報道や番組内容が事実でないと総務相が判断した場合、再発防止計画の提出を求めるものだ。公権力が放送の内容に関与し「報道の自由」を制約する懸念が強い。
同計画の提出を求めるには報道（番組）が事実かどうかを認定する必要がある。だが、関西テレビの情報番組のように客観的にねつ造が確認できる例ばかりではない。例えば、旧日本軍の従軍慰安婦を取り上げたＮＨＫ特集番組の改変問題では、当時官房副長官だった安倍晋三首相ら政治家による「圧力」問題を報じた朝日新聞と、圧力を否定した政治家で見解が分かれた。このケースで報じたのがテレビ局であれば、総務相が直ちに「事実を曲げた」などと断定しかねない。
また、再発防止計画では、報道の根拠となった情報源とのやりとりなどの検証が求められる可能性がある。それは取材源の秘匿という報道倫理の根幹に抵触する。
改正案は電波監理審議会を介在させることで客観性を担保する考えだが、ＮＨＫ命令放送問題で電監審は菅義偉総務相の諮問を追認。公権力乱用の歯止めとしての機能に疑問符が付いた。改正案は、憲法が保障する報道の自由を軽視するものと言わざるを得ない。【臺宏士】
毎日新聞 2007年2月21日 3時00分
総務省が検討している放送法改正案では、これまで行政指導で任意で求めてきた不祥事の事実関係調査や、再発防止策について提出を強制するものとなる。対象は「事実でないことを事実であるかのように放送し、国民の生活や権利に悪影響を及ぼすおそれがある」場合に限定することで、ねつ造の再発を防ぐ考えだ。
放送局が法令に反した場合、総務省はこれまで「警告」などの行政指導をしてきた。電波法に基づいて、一定期間の電波停止や放送免許を取り消す厳しい行政処分を行うことも可能だが、放送局の経営に影響が大きいことなどを理由に前例がない。このため、菅義偉総務相は、中間的な行政処分を導入する必要性を強調していた。【小島昇、臺宏士】
◇解説…「報道の自由」制約の懸念
放送局に対する新たな行政処分として総務省が固めた放送法改正案は、報道や番組内容が事実でないと総務相が判断した場合、再発防止計画の提出を求めるものだ。公権力が放送の内容に関与し「報道の自由」を制約する懸念が強い。
同計画の提出を求めるには報道（番組）が事実かどうかを認定する必要がある。だが、関西テレビの情報番組のように客観的にねつ造が確認できる例ばかりではない。例えば、旧日本軍の従軍慰安婦を取り上げたＮＨＫ特集番組の改変問題では、当時官房副長官だった安倍晋三首相ら政治家による「圧力」問題を報じた朝日新聞と、圧力を否定した政治家で見解が分かれた。このケースで報じたのがテレビ局であれば、総務相が直ちに「事実を曲げた」などと断定しかねない。
また、再発防止計画では、報道の根拠となった情報源とのやりとりなどの検証が求められる可能性がある。それは取材源の秘匿という報道倫理の根幹に抵触する。
改正案は電波監理審議会を介在させることで客観性を担保する考えだが、ＮＨＫ命令放送問題で電監審は菅義偉総務相の諮問を追認。公権力乱用の歯止めとしての機能に疑問符が付いた。改正案は、憲法が保障する報道の自由を軽視するものと言わざるを得ない。【臺宏士】
毎日新聞 2007年2月21日 3時00分
Saturday, February 17, 2007
放送局の新行政処分導入に賛成意見…自民小委
自民党は１４日、通信・放送産業高度化小委員会を開き、フジテレビ系の情報番組「発掘！あるある大事典２」の捏造（ねつぞう）問題に関連し、番組不祥事の再発防止策として新たな行政処分の導入が必要とする菅総務相の考えを支持する声が多数を占めた。
片山虎之助委員長は会合後、報道陣に、業務改善命令などの行政処分を「放送法や電波法に入れたらよい」と述べ、必要な関連法の改正案を今国会に提出すべきだとの考えを示した。
片山委員長は、「いっぺんに電波を取り上げられたら（放送局側も）困る。是正命令などで処分をしてから、という方が穏当だ」と述べ、番組の不祥事が発覚した場合は、第１段階として業務改善命令などを出し、改善が認められない場合は、電波停止など現行の罰則を適用すべきだとした。（2007年2月14日13時58分 読売新聞）
片山虎之助委員長は会合後、報道陣に、業務改善命令などの行政処分を「放送法や電波法に入れたらよい」と述べ、必要な関連法の改正案を今国会に提出すべきだとの考えを示した。
片山委員長は、「いっぺんに電波を取り上げられたら（放送局側も）困る。是正命令などで処分をしてから、という方が穏当だ」と述べ、番組の不祥事が発覚した場合は、第１段階として業務改善命令などを出し、改善が認められない場合は、電波停止など現行の罰則を適用すべきだとした。（2007年2月14日13時58分 読売新聞）
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Courts, Japan's 'Military Comfort Women,' and the Conscience of Humanity: The Ruling in VAWW-Net Japan v. NHK
By Norma Field
For those inclined to keep their hopes well under control when it comes to the Japanese judiciary's capacity to deliver decisions even mildly critical of the political establishment, news of the Tokyo High Court's finding in favor of the Violence-against-Women-in-War Japan Network (VAWW-Net Japan) against the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) was stunning enough to provoke initial eye-rubbing. At least I can say for myself that I had to read twice, and thrice, the first brief listserv message from Nishino Rumiko, one of VAWW-Net's two co-representatives since the premature death (2002) of founder Matsui Yayori.
The High Court fined NHK and two subsidiary companies two million yen in total, whereas the District Court had not found NHK liable. Although the charge of political interference was denied, NHK was deemed to have reneged on the autonomy fundamental to the editing rights it claimed as a broadcaster in making alterations to a documentary on the Women's International Tribunal War Crimes Tribunal of which VAWW-Net Japan was a major organizer. NHK immediately appealed the ruling.
The Context of the Tokyo High Court Decision
The subject of the contested television program was the December 2000 Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery (the "Women's Tribunal"). The Women's Tribunal, proposed by Matsui and actualized through the efforts of an international army of legal experts, scholars, citizen activists, and of course, the survivors of Japan's military sexual slavery, construed itself as the continuation of the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (1946-48), which notably had refused to take up the issues of sexual slavery and bacteriological warfare. Matsui YayoriDuring the three days it was in session in Tokyo (a fourth day, during which the international team of justices deliberated to produce a preliminary finding, was devoted to testimony about current acts of sexual violence perpetrated in war zones the world over), the Tribunal put on record a mountain of historical documentation; demonstrated the solidarity of prosecution teams from China, East Timor, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and Taiwan, with North and South Korea memorably producing a joint indictment; and perhaps mostly importantly, gave the aging survivors from eight Asian countries and Holland a respectful hearing in a formal setting including a large, international audience.
Each member of the audience will have her own set of outstanding moments. For me, these include the compact live history lesson in serial colonialism—the Netherlands, Japan, Indonesia, East Timor--in which a member of the Indonesian prosecution team who had just examined witnesses from her country covered her face as an East Timorese prosecutor told the court that evidence she had hoped to introduce had been destroyed by the occupying Indonesian military; the remarkable instance of perpetrator testimony by two Japanese veterans who had served in China; and finally, the pronunciation by Chief Justice Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (President of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) that the judges had found the late Emperor Hirohito guilty of crimes against humanity. That moment, when the audience rose to its feet in response to the utterance of words that few who know Japan would have thought likely to hear in public, is well captured in the Tribunal documentary produced by VAWW-Net Japan. [1]
The drama and the historic significance of the Tribunal amply justified the presence of over 300 representatives of the media from around the world. Of that number, however, only one-third were from Japan, and resulting coverage was scanty at best, restricted principally to the Asahi Shimbun (where Matsui had been a pioneering woman foreign correspondent and member of the editorial board) and regional papers carrying the Kyodo News Service. [2] All the more important, then, was the prospect of NHK's educational channel devoting one program in its four-part series on war responsibility in January of 2001. The disappointment and anger when the program actually aired on 30 January, four minutes short of the scheduled forty-four, are proportional to the hopes raised when subcontractor Documentary Japan (DJ), took its detailed proposal for the program to VAWW-Net in October of the previous year and secured promises of full cooperation. The changes cut the heart of the promised film that had been proposed by subcontractor Documentary Japan (DJ) in its detailed proposal for the program to VAWW-NET in October of the previous year. Gone was Chinese survivor testimony, perpetrator testimony, and of course, the guilty verdict against the emperor. Instead, there was an interview with Hata Ikuhiko, a historian known to be critical of the Tribunal, who had not attended it, whose knowledge of the actual proceedings, given the paucity of media coverage, was accordingly confined to precirculated announcements and most especially the yield of his preconceptions. Inordinately lengthy as it was, the interview filled in only some, not all, of the emptied minutes, suggesting how frantically the last-minute alterations had been made.
VAWW-Net Japan sued NHK, DJ, and NHK Enterprises 21, Inc. (an NHK subsidiary that had subcontracted the project to DJ), in July of 2001, for 20 million yen, charging them with having violated its trust in making fundamental alterations to the program without prior explanation in response to right-wing pressures. The Tokyo District Court verdict of March 2004 found only DJ guilty of having violated expectations raised by the original proposal and imposed a fine of one million yen. NHK was found not to be liable under the principle of "freedom to edit" as provided for in the Broadcast Law. Both defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The High Court hearings were scheduled to conclude at the end of January 2005 when the Asahi broke the news of whistleblowing by the program's chief producer, Nagai Satoru, who, taking seriously NHK's compliance regulations, had come forward in December to state that the program had been altered in response to pressures by then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo and Economics and Industry Minister Nakagawa Shoichi. On January 13, the day after the story appeared in the Asahi, Nagai himself appeared in a moving press conference in which, in addition to addressing the issues at hand, and calling on the top leadership of NHK to take responsibility and resign, he referred to the difficulty of coming forward, wishing no more than anyone to risk turning himself and his family out on the streets, and yet concluding that the truth had to be told. [3]
In response to these disclosures, VAWW-Net applied for and received an extension of the hearings. Abe and Nakagawa vehemently denied having intervened, and the media embarked on a feeding frenzy, framing the issue as a contest between media giants NHK and Asahi, but in effect pillorying the latter on the dubious grounds that any favorable reporting on the Tribunal would promote pro-North Korean sentiment. It will be recalled that revelation of North Korean abductions had fanned hostility to North Korea and also provided the occasion for Abe's meteoric rise to prominence. [4] For its part, the Asahi conducted an internal investigation and appointed an external review committee consisting of four lawyers and scholars, and announced on October 1, 2005, that while there had been some regrettable shortcomings in the preparations leading to the first article, it stood by the main point of the original article, namely, that "'remarks by politicians had in effect exerted pressure and led to the alteration of the content of the NHK program.'" [5]
The Tokyo High Court Decision I: Editing Rights vs. Expectation Rights and Duty to Disclose?
In the High Court case, VAWW-Net accused the defendants of having violated the plaintiffs' "expectation rights" (kitaiken) and also failed to fulfill their "duty to disclose" (setsumei gimu, literally, "obligation to explain"). The reason NHK and its subsidiaries committed these violations, they charged, was external intervention, first by rightists, and then by elected politicians. The defendants denied political intervention and countered the "expectation rights" and the "duty to disclose" with their own "freedom to edit" (henshu no jiyu in the Broadcast Law, Article 3, "freedom to compile a broadcast program," hoso bangumi hensei no jiyu). [6] The court, with Judge Minami Toshifumi presiding, acknowledged VAWW-Net's claims with the exception of the charge of interference by elected politicians. [7]
Although most media attention has focused on the drama of charges and countercharges over Nakagawa's and Abe's roles, the question of political interference goes to the heart of broadcast freedom and therefore, to freedom of expression. The media's sensationalizing treatment has left in the shadows the key terms of the court battle, that is, "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" on the one hand, and editing rights on the other. The first is unfamiliar enough that the Asahi glosses it as a key word after one of its articles on the High Court decision. [8] There, its examples are drawn from medical malpractice cases or labor cases in which the employer goes back on words that had led an employee to expect contract renewal. "Duty to disclose" usually pertains to consumer transactions (real estate, securities, etc.) and health-care issues. [9] In other words, in according legitimacy to the plaintiffs' use of these concepts, the Court is effectively expanding the terms of argument for broadcasting cases.
But first we should pause before the apparent tension between "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" on the one hand, and on the other, editing rights, which is at the heart of NHK's defense. The Court is sensitive to the tension and lays out its reasoning carefully. It acknowledges that the content of broadcast programs is subject to constant change from the planning stage to airtime and that moreover, it is usual for those who cooperate with and participate in such programs to understand that the content may change from what had originally been explained to them. Because editing rights follow logically from the freedom of speech, the press, and "all other forms of expression" guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 21), they are not to be unduly restricted ("Decision," p. 51). On the other hand, since those who cooperate in the production of a program do so of their free will, the prospective use of their participation understandably constitutes a factor in their decision to collaborate or not. The Court distinguishes between news programming and the case at hand, namely a documentary or a cultural or educational program, and determines that especially in the case of the latter, those who cooperate have a particular interest in the "extent and manner in which [their role] is presented, and how their opinions and activities are reflected" ("Decision," p. 52). In weighing these respective claims, it becomes necessary to examine the overall relationship between the two parties to determine whether the words and actions of the program makers had led cooperators to entertain expectations with respect to the resulting program that exceptionally merit legal protection.
On the basis of careful examination of the detailed program plans presented to representatives of VAWW-Net as well as the frequency and quality of interaction, the Court concludes that the plaintiff was led to form concrete expectations with respect to the program. ("Decision," p. 54). Of special interest is that the Court notes that with respect to questioning by Shoji Rutsuko (co-representative with Nishino), DJ had stated that if the Tribunal were to indict the emperor and produce a verdict, that should be included in the broadcast ("Decision," p. 52). As for the "duty to disclose," the Court is also cautious about using this principle to infringe on editing rights and therefore on freedom of the press. Balancing interests of the two parties again, it nonetheless observes that had VAWW-Net been told that plans had changed and the program would be considerably different from what they had originally understood, VAWW-Net would have had the option of withdrawing from the program, proposing preferred alternatives, or approaching another broadcaster. Thus, the defendant's failure to disclose had resulted in the violation of the plaintiff's legally protected rights ("Decision," p. 66).
Celebrating the court victoryMost impressive is the Court's willingness to spell out alternatives to the deletions made by NHK. It rejects NHK's reasoning that it deleted scenes of survivors breaking down in sobs or fainting because of the "strong impression" they would create. All that was called for was deletion of the fainting scene, the Court observes. "As for the claim that because opinion was divided on the question of the emperor's responsibility, the section pertaining to explanation of the judgment was deleted, the defendant could have repeated the explanation that opinion was divided as to the legal responsibility of the Japanese state and the emperor, or to have made clear that it was not NHK's view ...." ("Decision," p. 62).
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are so important that even those critical of NHK and supportive of VAWW-Net have worried that the latter's appealing to "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" was potentially threatening to freedom of expression, which would be ironic indeed. NHK's defense is clever because it appeals to a genuinely precious democratic principle: they are saying, in effect, we could not have observed the plaintiffs' "expectation rights" or fulfill our "duty to disclose" without infringing on our freedom to edit as we see fit, which is constitutionally guaranteed. The Court, however, pierces through this reasoning: NHK, it finds, "abused or deviated from the editing rights valued and guaranteed by the Constitution in the changes [it effected], and it as good as abandoned the autonomy and independence that are the substance of editing rights; to acknowledge the 'duty to disclose' owed the plaintiffs is not to infringe on the editing rights of the defendants" ("Decision," p. 65). Rather than restricting editing rights in recognizing VAWW-Net's claims, the Court is saying, it is reprimanding NHK for having failed to exercise its editing rights. In upholding VAWW-Net's claims, the decision begins by balancing the interests at hand, but in the end, it seems that the Court in fact sees no opposition between VAWW-Net's expectation rights and NHK's duty to disclose, on the one hand, and NHK's editing rights, on the other. [10] It gets there by considering the process whereby NHK came to justify its actions by appealing to editing rights.
The Tokyo High Court Decision II: What Constitutes Political Interference?
That process, of course, is described by VAWW-Net as NHK's yielding to political pressure, initially from rightist groups, and subsequently, from powerful LDP politicians, namely Abe and Nakagawa. This is the claim that has caught public attention, or more precisely, the only aspect of the Tribunal that has garnered widespread media attention. The part of the decision reviewing the contacts between NHK leadership and then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Abe describes the scene of the latter stating his own long-held views and following up by urging that the program be "fair and neutral," as befits a public broadcaster, but goes on to cite a passage from Abe's personal website in which he records his own account of the meeting with the NHK representatives:
Since I had heard from a concerned party that efforts were being made to manipulate coverage according to the wishes of the sponsors, such as by requiring those who wished to attend the mock tribunal to sign a pledge of "agreement with the goals of the tribunal," I inquired into the facts of the matter. As a result, I learned that even though the roles of judge and prosecutor were to be filled, there were no lawyers [or] witnesses [for the defense] [11] and therefore, that this was clearly of a biased nature, so I pointed out that the coverage needed to be fair and neutral, as was required especially of NHK. I suspected that this might be part of an underground plan to quell [public reaction] to the abductee problem and to portray North Korea as a victim ("Decision," pp. 45-46).
The Court's conclusion, however, is that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the politicians in question had said anything concrete or made suggestions pertaining to the program in question that exceeded the bounds of general opinion ("Decision," p. 61). Rather, the problem lay with NHK: tension was mounting even before the program was aired, "with interest expressed from various quarters, such as protests from right-wing organizations," coinciding with a new budgetary cycle. Anxious to avoid any adverse impact by the program on the budget, NHK leadership sought explanatory meetings with parliamentary representatives. Given the context and content of the words, they took the injunction to be "fair and impartial ... more seriously than necessary and, guessing the intent [behind the words], they attended a prescreening with the goal of producing a program that would not offend anyone, giving repeated and direct instructions for revisions" ("Decision," pp. 59-60).
Both Prime Minister Abe and NHK claimed that the decision refuted the charge of political interference. VAWW-Net proclaimed total victory. Both are right and both are wrong. A literal reading of the decision, which states that there is inadequate evidence to prove political interference, supports Abe and NHK. But to acknowledge broadcasters' worries that elected politicians' views of a program would adversely affect budget decisions and their responding to comments from powerful politicians by editing a problematic program is in fact to point to a form of political pressure. To put it all on the subjective response of the broadcasters—recognized, to be sure, as an unfortunate response, one tantamount to reneging on the autonomy that is the whole point of "editing rights"—is surely to ignore the fundamental meaning of the power of the purse.
Two experts clarified the merits and limits of the decision shortly after it was announced. While commending the court for criticizing NHK's self-censorship, University of Tokyo professor Takahashi Tetsuya, who had appeared as a commentator in the program, goes on to say, "The decision fails to understand that to be told by politicians to be 'fair and neutral' constitutes pressure . . . . The decision should have indicated what it is that has the potential of turning into pressure." [12] Media critic Matsuoka Hiroshi points out the astonishing fact that even though there have been countless instances of alleged political interference in programming and self-censorship in the postwar decades, this is the first instance where the issue has been fought in the courtroom. Even if the words "political interference" do not appear in the decision, the causal relationships are clear. Excessive self-censorship is promoted by the LDP practice of summoning NHK management from the executive on down for the purpose of budgetary deliberations. The budget, in effect, is held hostage to the government and the majority party. [13]
In the Meanwhile and for the Future
The case will now go to the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, it is almost tempting to think that in refusing to pronounce what it must surely have recognized, namely, the presence of political pressure, Chief Judge Minami's decision was leaving the door open, just a crack, to avoid being overturned.
In the meanwhile, the high court victory brings sorely needed encouragement to progressive forces in Japan. Worries remain, nevertheless, about the long-term consequences of the introduction of what have essentially been contractual concepts (expectation rights and disclosure) into deliberations about freedom of the press: what if a rightist politician were to sue a broadcaster or a publisher on the grounds of violation of expectation rights? The knotty challenges of this case underscore the difficulty of getting dissenting views heard in Japan today, with minority parties at a severe disadvantage since the electoral system was changed in 1994 [14], and the mainstream media increasingly inhospitable to controversial views challenging the political establishment. A lawsuit, protracted and costly as it is, is one of the few avenues for gaining visibility.
The current regime is going full steam ahead to assure NHK subservience to ruling party priorities. In November of 2006 the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications directed NHK to give priority to coverage of the North Korean abduction issue in its international short-wave broadcasts. The Japan Congress of Journalists promptly issued a demand for retraction of the directive, citing freedom of expression and "freedom to edit" as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Broadcast Law. [15]
In February, the first exhibit in Hokkaido of artwork by former comfort women opened in a department store in the city of Obihiro. The sponsors had originally requested use of space in a municipal citizens' hall but were turned down on the grounds that such space was reserved for the "promotion of arts and culture." The city's education board, asked to sponsor an event scheduled for March titled "A Gathering to Listen to the Testimony of "Japanese Military Comfort Women" refused, saying that the terminology deviated from the government's use of "so-called (iwayuru) military comfort women." [16]
The Abe administration still formally stands by the Murayama Statement of 1995 expressing remorse and apology for the "facts of history"—i.e., a "mistaken national policy" that led to war and through "colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations" [17] and the 1993 Comment by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei acknowledging the fact of the establishment and maintenance of comfort stations directly or indirectly by the Japanese military and the deceptive and or coercive recruitment of women. [18] Yet many of its supporters seem bent on undoing the historical understanding they represent. Recently, Democratic Representative Michael Honda (California) called attention to this in the preface to his Congressional resolution calling for Japanese government apology. The Japanese government will lobby, again, to demonstrate how it has already apologized and the efforts made through the Asian Women's Fund (coming to an end in March of this year). Honda is well aware that apologies have been made:
However, it is clear that these statements are not viewed by the government of Japan with unequivocal respect, and the comfort women themselves do not consider them formal apologies. Japan has equivocated in its stance on this issue, which is made clear in their recent attempts to alter previous public statements and their school textbooks .... Today, some members of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party strive to review and even possibly rescind Secretary Kono's statement. [19]
Addressing "Madame Speaker," Representative Honda refers to a fact of which both the Japanese government and VAWW-Net are exquisitely aware: "the few surviving comfort women in the world who live with this burden are dying." For rightist zealots, an increasingly vocal group, their natural passage from this world seems inadequate: the women must somehow be discredited for the restoration of Japan's honor. For VAWW-Net members and other Japanese committed to postwar responsibility and reconciliation with Asia, seeking justice for the frail and dwindling group is also crucial to their self-understanding, and to the kind of society that Japan will become.
The International Women's Tribunal for Japanese Military Sexual Slavery has been repeatedly referred to as a "mock" tribunal (in Japanese, mogi saiban). It is gratifying to see the organizers' term of "international people's tribunal" (kokusai minshu hotei) appear in the high court decision. The Women's Tribunal took its inspiration from the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal of 1967, formed, as the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said in his inaugural statement, "to decide whether the accusation of 'war crimes' leveled against the government of the United States as well as against those of South Korea, New Zealand and Australia, during the conflict in Vietnam, are justified." [20] It was to be a tribunal of "simple citizens," who, "coopting ourselves from all over the world," have been able "to give our Tribunal a more universal structure than that which prevailed at Nuremberg." The importance of this point rests not in numbers of countries represented, but rather, in the fact that US citizens were among the members of the jury. The tribunal, in other words, could not be characterized as one set of nation states trying another.
The charter of the Women's Tribunal acknowledges that its organizers are "Mindful that while the Tribunal, as a people's and women's initiative, has no real power to enforce its judgments, it nonetheless carries the moral authority demanding their wide acceptance and enforcement by the international community and national governments." [21]
A still more recent tribunal created by international civil society, the World Tribunal on Iraq, which met in Istanbul in June 2005, states as its principal objective "to tell and disseminate the truth about the Iraq War, underscoring the accountability of those responsible and underlining the significance of justice for the Iraqi people." Its legitimacy is said to be "located in the collective conscience of humanity." [22]
Each tribunal has sought to have a real effect in the world. Each has amassed knowledge for the future in the form of gathered testimony. That is a palpable legacy, more so than the effect any has had on the moral obtuseness of national governments. And yet the most powerful effect of all may be their reminder of an inextinguishable desire to make visible the "collective conscience of humanity.”
The Tokyo High Court decision of January 2007 represents a moment when that conscience met with recognition, however faulty, however impermanent, on the part of an institution of the nation-state. The joy of a legal victory won on behalf of the conscience of humanity is perfectly expressed by the figure darting from the courthouse to unfurl the white banner bearing the characters, "shoso," "case won." Shoji Rutsuko, co-representative of VAWW-Net, wrote the organization listserv that when she heard the decision, along with incredulity, the long-held desire to raise her hands in joy just once in the courthouse yard overcame her, so she "raised her hands and ran." [23]
The conscience of humanity will have its day.
Norma Field is currently working on the proletarian writer Kobayashi Takiji and together with Heather Bowen-Struyk, preparing Literature for Revolution, an anthology of Japanese proletarian fiction and criticism for the University of Chicago Press. She is a member of VAWW-Net Japan. She wrote this article for Japan Focus. Posted February 10, 2007.
[1] Video Juku, VAWW-Net Japan, Breaking the History of Silence (2001) and the sequel, also by Video Juku, The Hague Final Judgment (2002).
[2] For information and analyses of media representations of the Tribunal, see Section IV, "Jyosei kokusai sempan hotei o meguru gensetsu/eizo kukan" in Sabakareta senji seiboryoku, edited by VAWW-Net Japan (Nishino Rumiko and Kim Puja, chief eds.), Hakutaku-sha, 2001.
[3] As of February 4, 2007, this press conference can still be viewed. Asked if there were similar instances of political interference in NHK programming, Nagai referred to canceled plans for re-airing a documentary on the government's role in preventing mad cow disease.
[4] For a thoroughgoing presentation of the Tribunal and NHK's role and an analysis of the structural problems of the Japanese media, see Tessa Morris-Suzuki , "Free Speech—Silenced Voices: The Japanese Media, the Comfort Women Tribunal, and the NHK Affair."
[5] Quoted in an Asahi article on the Tokyo High Court decision, "NHK ga menkai toritsuke; Abe-shi o meguri kosai nintei," January 30, 2007, satellite edition. As for the basis of the original (January 2005) Asahi article, written by Honda Masakazu (dubbed "the North Korean spy" in the rightist media), journalist Uozumi Akira presented a transcription of Honda's interviews of Executive Director-General of Broadcasting Matsuo Takeshi, Nakagawa, and Abe, in Nikkan Gendai, September 2005, now available through the internet News for the People in Japan. The transcribed tapes as presented here graphically contradict subsequent statements by the three. The News for the People in Japan website states that it was posting Uozumi's article because, one month into the Abe administration, not a single question regarding allegations of intervening in NHK programming had been posed to the Prime Minister.
[6] The Broadcast Law (Hoso ho, 1950) may be found here; an unofficial English translation may be found here.
[7] The decision is posted on the News for People in Japan site. I will refer to it as "Decision" in the text, giving page numbers from the pdf file.
[8] "'NHK ga bangumi kaihen' 200 man'en baisho meijiru Tokyo Kosai," Asahi Shimbun, January 29, 2007, accessed here.
[9] See the plaintiffs' press conference after the decision.
[10] For its part, VAWW-Net, felt itself to be in solidarity with production workers in NHK. Shoji Rutsuko, co-representative, hopes that VAWW-Net's legal struggle will lead to securing those workers' freedom of expression and thought. (Personal email, February 6, 2007.)
[11] The original only has "bengoshi shonin."
[12] "'Seiji ni kajo hanno' nintei," Asahi Shimbun, January 30, 2007, satellite edition.
[13] "Kaihen nintei, yuki aru hanketsu," Asahi Shimbun, January 30, 2007, satellite edition.
[14] The system now provides for 300 single-member seats ("first-past-the-post") and 180 seats filled proportionally. The preponderance of single-member seats favors large, well organized parties.
[15] "'NHK ni taisuru kokusai hoso meirei' no kyoko ni kogi suru seimei" is available here. The determination to exploit the abduction issue seemingly knows no bounds. The film Abduction: The Megumi Yokota Story (2006) is being promoted internationally by the Japanese government, which even took it to the World Economic Forum in Davos with Koike Yuriko, special national security adviser to Prime Minister Abe, hosting a sushi reception. See here. In addition to the Bloomberg account included in the above, the screening shows up on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2007/1/0126-2.html. Let me state unequivocally that the North Korean abductions are a grave human rights violation that need to be appropriately addressed by the international community. This will not be accomplished by approaches that serve to bolster the position of the LDP in Japanese politics.
[16] "Jugun ianfu no sakuhinten dame: Obihiro-shi ga shimin horu shiyo kyakka," Hokkaido Shimbun, January 3, 2007, here. Note the slight but decisive difference from the terminology used by those who seek justice for the comfort women, namely, "former (moto) military comfort women."
[17] "Statement of Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi 'On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end' (15 August 1995) is available here. I have written critically of the apologies of what seem by now the halcyon days of the early 1990s in "War and Apology: Japan, Asia, the Fiftieth, and After," positions 5:1 (Spring 1997).
[18] "Ianfu kankei chosa kekka happyo ni kansuru Kono naikaku kambochokan danwa," available here.
[19] Here.
[20] Jean-Paul Sartre, "Inaugural Statement" .
[21] From the Tribunal Charter.
[22] http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/.[23] Message to the VAWW-Net Japan listserv, January 30, 2007. Quoted with permission.
For those inclined to keep their hopes well under control when it comes to the Japanese judiciary's capacity to deliver decisions even mildly critical of the political establishment, news of the Tokyo High Court's finding in favor of the Violence-against-Women-in-War Japan Network (VAWW-Net Japan) against the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) was stunning enough to provoke initial eye-rubbing. At least I can say for myself that I had to read twice, and thrice, the first brief listserv message from Nishino Rumiko, one of VAWW-Net's two co-representatives since the premature death (2002) of founder Matsui Yayori.
The High Court fined NHK and two subsidiary companies two million yen in total, whereas the District Court had not found NHK liable. Although the charge of political interference was denied, NHK was deemed to have reneged on the autonomy fundamental to the editing rights it claimed as a broadcaster in making alterations to a documentary on the Women's International Tribunal War Crimes Tribunal of which VAWW-Net Japan was a major organizer. NHK immediately appealed the ruling.
The Context of the Tokyo High Court Decision
The subject of the contested television program was the December 2000 Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery (the "Women's Tribunal"). The Women's Tribunal, proposed by Matsui and actualized through the efforts of an international army of legal experts, scholars, citizen activists, and of course, the survivors of Japan's military sexual slavery, construed itself as the continuation of the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (1946-48), which notably had refused to take up the issues of sexual slavery and bacteriological warfare. Matsui YayoriDuring the three days it was in session in Tokyo (a fourth day, during which the international team of justices deliberated to produce a preliminary finding, was devoted to testimony about current acts of sexual violence perpetrated in war zones the world over), the Tribunal put on record a mountain of historical documentation; demonstrated the solidarity of prosecution teams from China, East Timor, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and Taiwan, with North and South Korea memorably producing a joint indictment; and perhaps mostly importantly, gave the aging survivors from eight Asian countries and Holland a respectful hearing in a formal setting including a large, international audience.
Each member of the audience will have her own set of outstanding moments. For me, these include the compact live history lesson in serial colonialism—the Netherlands, Japan, Indonesia, East Timor--in which a member of the Indonesian prosecution team who had just examined witnesses from her country covered her face as an East Timorese prosecutor told the court that evidence she had hoped to introduce had been destroyed by the occupying Indonesian military; the remarkable instance of perpetrator testimony by two Japanese veterans who had served in China; and finally, the pronunciation by Chief Justice Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (President of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) that the judges had found the late Emperor Hirohito guilty of crimes against humanity. That moment, when the audience rose to its feet in response to the utterance of words that few who know Japan would have thought likely to hear in public, is well captured in the Tribunal documentary produced by VAWW-Net Japan. [1]
The drama and the historic significance of the Tribunal amply justified the presence of over 300 representatives of the media from around the world. Of that number, however, only one-third were from Japan, and resulting coverage was scanty at best, restricted principally to the Asahi Shimbun (where Matsui had been a pioneering woman foreign correspondent and member of the editorial board) and regional papers carrying the Kyodo News Service. [2] All the more important, then, was the prospect of NHK's educational channel devoting one program in its four-part series on war responsibility in January of 2001. The disappointment and anger when the program actually aired on 30 January, four minutes short of the scheduled forty-four, are proportional to the hopes raised when subcontractor Documentary Japan (DJ), took its detailed proposal for the program to VAWW-Net in October of the previous year and secured promises of full cooperation. The changes cut the heart of the promised film that had been proposed by subcontractor Documentary Japan (DJ) in its detailed proposal for the program to VAWW-NET in October of the previous year. Gone was Chinese survivor testimony, perpetrator testimony, and of course, the guilty verdict against the emperor. Instead, there was an interview with Hata Ikuhiko, a historian known to be critical of the Tribunal, who had not attended it, whose knowledge of the actual proceedings, given the paucity of media coverage, was accordingly confined to precirculated announcements and most especially the yield of his preconceptions. Inordinately lengthy as it was, the interview filled in only some, not all, of the emptied minutes, suggesting how frantically the last-minute alterations had been made.
VAWW-Net Japan sued NHK, DJ, and NHK Enterprises 21, Inc. (an NHK subsidiary that had subcontracted the project to DJ), in July of 2001, for 20 million yen, charging them with having violated its trust in making fundamental alterations to the program without prior explanation in response to right-wing pressures. The Tokyo District Court verdict of March 2004 found only DJ guilty of having violated expectations raised by the original proposal and imposed a fine of one million yen. NHK was found not to be liable under the principle of "freedom to edit" as provided for in the Broadcast Law. Both defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The High Court hearings were scheduled to conclude at the end of January 2005 when the Asahi broke the news of whistleblowing by the program's chief producer, Nagai Satoru, who, taking seriously NHK's compliance regulations, had come forward in December to state that the program had been altered in response to pressures by then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Abe Shinzo and Economics and Industry Minister Nakagawa Shoichi. On January 13, the day after the story appeared in the Asahi, Nagai himself appeared in a moving press conference in which, in addition to addressing the issues at hand, and calling on the top leadership of NHK to take responsibility and resign, he referred to the difficulty of coming forward, wishing no more than anyone to risk turning himself and his family out on the streets, and yet concluding that the truth had to be told. [3]
In response to these disclosures, VAWW-Net applied for and received an extension of the hearings. Abe and Nakagawa vehemently denied having intervened, and the media embarked on a feeding frenzy, framing the issue as a contest between media giants NHK and Asahi, but in effect pillorying the latter on the dubious grounds that any favorable reporting on the Tribunal would promote pro-North Korean sentiment. It will be recalled that revelation of North Korean abductions had fanned hostility to North Korea and also provided the occasion for Abe's meteoric rise to prominence. [4] For its part, the Asahi conducted an internal investigation and appointed an external review committee consisting of four lawyers and scholars, and announced on October 1, 2005, that while there had been some regrettable shortcomings in the preparations leading to the first article, it stood by the main point of the original article, namely, that "'remarks by politicians had in effect exerted pressure and led to the alteration of the content of the NHK program.'" [5]
The Tokyo High Court Decision I: Editing Rights vs. Expectation Rights and Duty to Disclose?
In the High Court case, VAWW-Net accused the defendants of having violated the plaintiffs' "expectation rights" (kitaiken) and also failed to fulfill their "duty to disclose" (setsumei gimu, literally, "obligation to explain"). The reason NHK and its subsidiaries committed these violations, they charged, was external intervention, first by rightists, and then by elected politicians. The defendants denied political intervention and countered the "expectation rights" and the "duty to disclose" with their own "freedom to edit" (henshu no jiyu in the Broadcast Law, Article 3, "freedom to compile a broadcast program," hoso bangumi hensei no jiyu). [6] The court, with Judge Minami Toshifumi presiding, acknowledged VAWW-Net's claims with the exception of the charge of interference by elected politicians. [7]
Although most media attention has focused on the drama of charges and countercharges over Nakagawa's and Abe's roles, the question of political interference goes to the heart of broadcast freedom and therefore, to freedom of expression. The media's sensationalizing treatment has left in the shadows the key terms of the court battle, that is, "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" on the one hand, and editing rights on the other. The first is unfamiliar enough that the Asahi glosses it as a key word after one of its articles on the High Court decision. [8] There, its examples are drawn from medical malpractice cases or labor cases in which the employer goes back on words that had led an employee to expect contract renewal. "Duty to disclose" usually pertains to consumer transactions (real estate, securities, etc.) and health-care issues. [9] In other words, in according legitimacy to the plaintiffs' use of these concepts, the Court is effectively expanding the terms of argument for broadcasting cases.
But first we should pause before the apparent tension between "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" on the one hand, and on the other, editing rights, which is at the heart of NHK's defense. The Court is sensitive to the tension and lays out its reasoning carefully. It acknowledges that the content of broadcast programs is subject to constant change from the planning stage to airtime and that moreover, it is usual for those who cooperate with and participate in such programs to understand that the content may change from what had originally been explained to them. Because editing rights follow logically from the freedom of speech, the press, and "all other forms of expression" guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 21), they are not to be unduly restricted ("Decision," p. 51). On the other hand, since those who cooperate in the production of a program do so of their free will, the prospective use of their participation understandably constitutes a factor in their decision to collaborate or not. The Court distinguishes between news programming and the case at hand, namely a documentary or a cultural or educational program, and determines that especially in the case of the latter, those who cooperate have a particular interest in the "extent and manner in which [their role] is presented, and how their opinions and activities are reflected" ("Decision," p. 52). In weighing these respective claims, it becomes necessary to examine the overall relationship between the two parties to determine whether the words and actions of the program makers had led cooperators to entertain expectations with respect to the resulting program that exceptionally merit legal protection.
On the basis of careful examination of the detailed program plans presented to representatives of VAWW-Net as well as the frequency and quality of interaction, the Court concludes that the plaintiff was led to form concrete expectations with respect to the program. ("Decision," p. 54). Of special interest is that the Court notes that with respect to questioning by Shoji Rutsuko (co-representative with Nishino), DJ had stated that if the Tribunal were to indict the emperor and produce a verdict, that should be included in the broadcast ("Decision," p. 52). As for the "duty to disclose," the Court is also cautious about using this principle to infringe on editing rights and therefore on freedom of the press. Balancing interests of the two parties again, it nonetheless observes that had VAWW-Net been told that plans had changed and the program would be considerably different from what they had originally understood, VAWW-Net would have had the option of withdrawing from the program, proposing preferred alternatives, or approaching another broadcaster. Thus, the defendant's failure to disclose had resulted in the violation of the plaintiff's legally protected rights ("Decision," p. 66).
Celebrating the court victoryMost impressive is the Court's willingness to spell out alternatives to the deletions made by NHK. It rejects NHK's reasoning that it deleted scenes of survivors breaking down in sobs or fainting because of the "strong impression" they would create. All that was called for was deletion of the fainting scene, the Court observes. "As for the claim that because opinion was divided on the question of the emperor's responsibility, the section pertaining to explanation of the judgment was deleted, the defendant could have repeated the explanation that opinion was divided as to the legal responsibility of the Japanese state and the emperor, or to have made clear that it was not NHK's view ...." ("Decision," p. 62).
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are so important that even those critical of NHK and supportive of VAWW-Net have worried that the latter's appealing to "expectation rights" and "duty to disclose" was potentially threatening to freedom of expression, which would be ironic indeed. NHK's defense is clever because it appeals to a genuinely precious democratic principle: they are saying, in effect, we could not have observed the plaintiffs' "expectation rights" or fulfill our "duty to disclose" without infringing on our freedom to edit as we see fit, which is constitutionally guaranteed. The Court, however, pierces through this reasoning: NHK, it finds, "abused or deviated from the editing rights valued and guaranteed by the Constitution in the changes [it effected], and it as good as abandoned the autonomy and independence that are the substance of editing rights; to acknowledge the 'duty to disclose' owed the plaintiffs is not to infringe on the editing rights of the defendants" ("Decision," p. 65). Rather than restricting editing rights in recognizing VAWW-Net's claims, the Court is saying, it is reprimanding NHK for having failed to exercise its editing rights. In upholding VAWW-Net's claims, the decision begins by balancing the interests at hand, but in the end, it seems that the Court in fact sees no opposition between VAWW-Net's expectation rights and NHK's duty to disclose, on the one hand, and NHK's editing rights, on the other. [10] It gets there by considering the process whereby NHK came to justify its actions by appealing to editing rights.
The Tokyo High Court Decision II: What Constitutes Political Interference?
That process, of course, is described by VAWW-Net as NHK's yielding to political pressure, initially from rightist groups, and subsequently, from powerful LDP politicians, namely Abe and Nakagawa. This is the claim that has caught public attention, or more precisely, the only aspect of the Tribunal that has garnered widespread media attention. The part of the decision reviewing the contacts between NHK leadership and then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Abe describes the scene of the latter stating his own long-held views and following up by urging that the program be "fair and neutral," as befits a public broadcaster, but goes on to cite a passage from Abe's personal website in which he records his own account of the meeting with the NHK representatives:
Since I had heard from a concerned party that efforts were being made to manipulate coverage according to the wishes of the sponsors, such as by requiring those who wished to attend the mock tribunal to sign a pledge of "agreement with the goals of the tribunal," I inquired into the facts of the matter. As a result, I learned that even though the roles of judge and prosecutor were to be filled, there were no lawyers [or] witnesses [for the defense] [11] and therefore, that this was clearly of a biased nature, so I pointed out that the coverage needed to be fair and neutral, as was required especially of NHK. I suspected that this might be part of an underground plan to quell [public reaction] to the abductee problem and to portray North Korea as a victim ("Decision," pp. 45-46).
The Court's conclusion, however, is that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the politicians in question had said anything concrete or made suggestions pertaining to the program in question that exceeded the bounds of general opinion ("Decision," p. 61). Rather, the problem lay with NHK: tension was mounting even before the program was aired, "with interest expressed from various quarters, such as protests from right-wing organizations," coinciding with a new budgetary cycle. Anxious to avoid any adverse impact by the program on the budget, NHK leadership sought explanatory meetings with parliamentary representatives. Given the context and content of the words, they took the injunction to be "fair and impartial ... more seriously than necessary and, guessing the intent [behind the words], they attended a prescreening with the goal of producing a program that would not offend anyone, giving repeated and direct instructions for revisions" ("Decision," pp. 59-60).
Both Prime Minister Abe and NHK claimed that the decision refuted the charge of political interference. VAWW-Net proclaimed total victory. Both are right and both are wrong. A literal reading of the decision, which states that there is inadequate evidence to prove political interference, supports Abe and NHK. But to acknowledge broadcasters' worries that elected politicians' views of a program would adversely affect budget decisions and their responding to comments from powerful politicians by editing a problematic program is in fact to point to a form of political pressure. To put it all on the subjective response of the broadcasters—recognized, to be sure, as an unfortunate response, one tantamount to reneging on the autonomy that is the whole point of "editing rights"—is surely to ignore the fundamental meaning of the power of the purse.
Two experts clarified the merits and limits of the decision shortly after it was announced. While commending the court for criticizing NHK's self-censorship, University of Tokyo professor Takahashi Tetsuya, who had appeared as a commentator in the program, goes on to say, "The decision fails to understand that to be told by politicians to be 'fair and neutral' constitutes pressure . . . . The decision should have indicated what it is that has the potential of turning into pressure." [12] Media critic Matsuoka Hiroshi points out the astonishing fact that even though there have been countless instances of alleged political interference in programming and self-censorship in the postwar decades, this is the first instance where the issue has been fought in the courtroom. Even if the words "political interference" do not appear in the decision, the causal relationships are clear. Excessive self-censorship is promoted by the LDP practice of summoning NHK management from the executive on down for the purpose of budgetary deliberations. The budget, in effect, is held hostage to the government and the majority party. [13]
In the Meanwhile and for the Future
The case will now go to the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, it is almost tempting to think that in refusing to pronounce what it must surely have recognized, namely, the presence of political pressure, Chief Judge Minami's decision was leaving the door open, just a crack, to avoid being overturned.
In the meanwhile, the high court victory brings sorely needed encouragement to progressive forces in Japan. Worries remain, nevertheless, about the long-term consequences of the introduction of what have essentially been contractual concepts (expectation rights and disclosure) into deliberations about freedom of the press: what if a rightist politician were to sue a broadcaster or a publisher on the grounds of violation of expectation rights? The knotty challenges of this case underscore the difficulty of getting dissenting views heard in Japan today, with minority parties at a severe disadvantage since the electoral system was changed in 1994 [14], and the mainstream media increasingly inhospitable to controversial views challenging the political establishment. A lawsuit, protracted and costly as it is, is one of the few avenues for gaining visibility.
The current regime is going full steam ahead to assure NHK subservience to ruling party priorities. In November of 2006 the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications directed NHK to give priority to coverage of the North Korean abduction issue in its international short-wave broadcasts. The Japan Congress of Journalists promptly issued a demand for retraction of the directive, citing freedom of expression and "freedom to edit" as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Broadcast Law. [15]
In February, the first exhibit in Hokkaido of artwork by former comfort women opened in a department store in the city of Obihiro. The sponsors had originally requested use of space in a municipal citizens' hall but were turned down on the grounds that such space was reserved for the "promotion of arts and culture." The city's education board, asked to sponsor an event scheduled for March titled "A Gathering to Listen to the Testimony of "Japanese Military Comfort Women" refused, saying that the terminology deviated from the government's use of "so-called (iwayuru) military comfort women." [16]
The Abe administration still formally stands by the Murayama Statement of 1995 expressing remorse and apology for the "facts of history"—i.e., a "mistaken national policy" that led to war and through "colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations" [17] and the 1993 Comment by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei acknowledging the fact of the establishment and maintenance of comfort stations directly or indirectly by the Japanese military and the deceptive and or coercive recruitment of women. [18] Yet many of its supporters seem bent on undoing the historical understanding they represent. Recently, Democratic Representative Michael Honda (California) called attention to this in the preface to his Congressional resolution calling for Japanese government apology. The Japanese government will lobby, again, to demonstrate how it has already apologized and the efforts made through the Asian Women's Fund (coming to an end in March of this year). Honda is well aware that apologies have been made:
However, it is clear that these statements are not viewed by the government of Japan with unequivocal respect, and the comfort women themselves do not consider them formal apologies. Japan has equivocated in its stance on this issue, which is made clear in their recent attempts to alter previous public statements and their school textbooks .... Today, some members of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party strive to review and even possibly rescind Secretary Kono's statement. [19]
Addressing "Madame Speaker," Representative Honda refers to a fact of which both the Japanese government and VAWW-Net are exquisitely aware: "the few surviving comfort women in the world who live with this burden are dying." For rightist zealots, an increasingly vocal group, their natural passage from this world seems inadequate: the women must somehow be discredited for the restoration of Japan's honor. For VAWW-Net members and other Japanese committed to postwar responsibility and reconciliation with Asia, seeking justice for the frail and dwindling group is also crucial to their self-understanding, and to the kind of society that Japan will become.
The International Women's Tribunal for Japanese Military Sexual Slavery has been repeatedly referred to as a "mock" tribunal (in Japanese, mogi saiban). It is gratifying to see the organizers' term of "international people's tribunal" (kokusai minshu hotei) appear in the high court decision. The Women's Tribunal took its inspiration from the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal of 1967, formed, as the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said in his inaugural statement, "to decide whether the accusation of 'war crimes' leveled against the government of the United States as well as against those of South Korea, New Zealand and Australia, during the conflict in Vietnam, are justified." [20] It was to be a tribunal of "simple citizens," who, "coopting ourselves from all over the world," have been able "to give our Tribunal a more universal structure than that which prevailed at Nuremberg." The importance of this point rests not in numbers of countries represented, but rather, in the fact that US citizens were among the members of the jury. The tribunal, in other words, could not be characterized as one set of nation states trying another.
The charter of the Women's Tribunal acknowledges that its organizers are "Mindful that while the Tribunal, as a people's and women's initiative, has no real power to enforce its judgments, it nonetheless carries the moral authority demanding their wide acceptance and enforcement by the international community and national governments." [21]
A still more recent tribunal created by international civil society, the World Tribunal on Iraq, which met in Istanbul in June 2005, states as its principal objective "to tell and disseminate the truth about the Iraq War, underscoring the accountability of those responsible and underlining the significance of justice for the Iraqi people." Its legitimacy is said to be "located in the collective conscience of humanity." [22]
Each tribunal has sought to have a real effect in the world. Each has amassed knowledge for the future in the form of gathered testimony. That is a palpable legacy, more so than the effect any has had on the moral obtuseness of national governments. And yet the most powerful effect of all may be their reminder of an inextinguishable desire to make visible the "collective conscience of humanity.”
The Tokyo High Court decision of January 2007 represents a moment when that conscience met with recognition, however faulty, however impermanent, on the part of an institution of the nation-state. The joy of a legal victory won on behalf of the conscience of humanity is perfectly expressed by the figure darting from the courthouse to unfurl the white banner bearing the characters, "shoso," "case won." Shoji Rutsuko, co-representative of VAWW-Net, wrote the organization listserv that when she heard the decision, along with incredulity, the long-held desire to raise her hands in joy just once in the courthouse yard overcame her, so she "raised her hands and ran." [23]
The conscience of humanity will have its day.
Norma Field is currently working on the proletarian writer Kobayashi Takiji and together with Heather Bowen-Struyk, preparing Literature for Revolution, an anthology of Japanese proletarian fiction and criticism for the University of Chicago Press. She is a member of VAWW-Net Japan. She wrote this article for Japan Focus. Posted February 10, 2007.
[1] Video Juku, VAWW-Net Japan, Breaking the History of Silence (2001) and the sequel, also by Video Juku, The Hague Final Judgment (2002).
[2] For information and analyses of media representations of the Tribunal, see Section IV, "Jyosei kokusai sempan hotei o meguru gensetsu/eizo kukan" in Sabakareta senji seiboryoku, edited by VAWW-Net Japan (Nishino Rumiko and Kim Puja, chief eds.), Hakutaku-sha, 2001.
[3] As of February 4, 2007, this press conference can still be viewed. Asked if there were similar instances of political interference in NHK programming, Nagai referred to canceled plans for re-airing a documentary on the government's role in preventing mad cow disease.
[4] For a thoroughgoing presentation of the Tribunal and NHK's role and an analysis of the structural problems of the Japanese media, see Tessa Morris-Suzuki , "Free Speech—Silenced Voices: The Japanese Media, the Comfort Women Tribunal, and the NHK Affair."
[5] Quoted in an Asahi article on the Tokyo High Court decision, "NHK ga menkai toritsuke; Abe-shi o meguri kosai nintei," January 30, 2007, satellite edition. As for the basis of the original (January 2005) Asahi article, written by Honda Masakazu (dubbed "the North Korean spy" in the rightist media), journalist Uozumi Akira presented a transcription of Honda's interviews of Executive Director-General of Broadcasting Matsuo Takeshi, Nakagawa, and Abe, in Nikkan Gendai, September 2005, now available through the internet News for the People in Japan. The transcribed tapes as presented here graphically contradict subsequent statements by the three. The News for the People in Japan website states that it was posting Uozumi's article because, one month into the Abe administration, not a single question regarding allegations of intervening in NHK programming had been posed to the Prime Minister.
[6] The Broadcast Law (Hoso ho, 1950) may be found here; an unofficial English translation may be found here.
[7] The decision is posted on the News for People in Japan site. I will refer to it as "Decision" in the text, giving page numbers from the pdf file.
[8] "'NHK ga bangumi kaihen' 200 man'en baisho meijiru Tokyo Kosai," Asahi Shimbun, January 29, 2007, accessed here.
[9] See the plaintiffs' press conference after the decision.
[10] For its part, VAWW-Net, felt itself to be in solidarity with production workers in NHK. Shoji Rutsuko, co-representative, hopes that VAWW-Net's legal struggle will lead to securing those workers' freedom of expression and thought. (Personal email, February 6, 2007.)
[11] The original only has "bengoshi shonin."
[12] "'Seiji ni kajo hanno' nintei," Asahi Shimbun, January 30, 2007, satellite edition.
[13] "Kaihen nintei, yuki aru hanketsu," Asahi Shimbun, January 30, 2007, satellite edition.
[14] The system now provides for 300 single-member seats ("first-past-the-post") and 180 seats filled proportionally. The preponderance of single-member seats favors large, well organized parties.
[15] "'NHK ni taisuru kokusai hoso meirei' no kyoko ni kogi suru seimei" is available here. The determination to exploit the abduction issue seemingly knows no bounds. The film Abduction: The Megumi Yokota Story (2006) is being promoted internationally by the Japanese government, which even took it to the World Economic Forum in Davos with Koike Yuriko, special national security adviser to Prime Minister Abe, hosting a sushi reception. See here. In addition to the Bloomberg account included in the above, the screening shows up on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2007/1/0126-2.html. Let me state unequivocally that the North Korean abductions are a grave human rights violation that need to be appropriately addressed by the international community. This will not be accomplished by approaches that serve to bolster the position of the LDP in Japanese politics.
[16] "Jugun ianfu no sakuhinten dame: Obihiro-shi ga shimin horu shiyo kyakka," Hokkaido Shimbun, January 3, 2007, here. Note the slight but decisive difference from the terminology used by those who seek justice for the comfort women, namely, "former (moto) military comfort women."
[17] "Statement of Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi 'On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end' (15 August 1995) is available here. I have written critically of the apologies of what seem by now the halcyon days of the early 1990s in "War and Apology: Japan, Asia, the Fiftieth, and After," positions 5:1 (Spring 1997).
[18] "Ianfu kankei chosa kekka happyo ni kansuru Kono naikaku kambochokan danwa," available here.
[19] Here.
[20] Jean-Paul Sartre, "Inaugural Statement" .
[21] From the Tribunal Charter.
[22] http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/.[23] Message to the VAWW-Net Japan listserv, January 30, 2007. Quoted with permission.
2.25 NHK番組改変事件 高裁判決勝訴・判決評価シンポジウム～判決は何を明らかにしたか～
去る1月29日、ＮＨＫ番組改変を巡る控訴審判決が言い渡されました。判決はＮＨＫの番組制作・放送について「憲法で保障された編集の権限を濫用し、又は逸脱したもの」「放送番組編集の自由の範囲内のものであると主張することは到底できない」と認定。バウネットが主張してきた「期待権」の侵害と「説明義務」違反を認め、ＮＨＫの責任は最も重いとしつつ、番組制作に関わったＮＨＫエンタープライズ21と番組制作会社ドキュメンタリー・ジャパン三者の共同不法行為を認定し、200万円の賠償支払いを命じました。しかし、高裁判決について「政治介入は認定されなかった」などと歪曲して報道するメディアもあり、さらなる報道被害が広がっています。シンポジウムではこうした判決報道の問題を明らかにし、この画期的判決を様々な角度から読み解きます。多くの皆様の参加をお待ちしております。
日時：2月25日（日）午後1:00～5:00（開場 午後0:30）
会場：主婦会館プラザエフB2 クラルテ
※交通 JR・東京メトロ四谷駅 麹町口徒歩1分
資料代：1000円
プログラム
○原告挨拶 東海林路得子
○第一部 高裁判決報道を検証する
・メディアは判決をどう報道したか？ 板垣竜太（メキキネット）
・「政治圧力は認められなかった」報道について 飯田正剛弁護士
○第二部 シンポジウム 「高裁判決を読み解く」
・「編集の自由」に制約を与えた「特段の事情」 大沼和子弁護士
・「慰安婦」問題への政治圧力はどう裁かれたか 西野瑠美子（原告）
・「言論弾圧」の視点から 斉藤貴男（ジャーナリスト）
・「放送の自律」の視点から 小玉美意子（武蔵大学社会学部教授）
・「編集の自由」の視点から 桂敬一（立正大学文学部講師）
・当事者から見た判決 坂上香（元ドキュメンタリー・ジャパンディレクター)
主催：「戦争と女性への暴力」日本ネットワーク（VAWW-NETジャパン）
連絡先：TEL & FAX 03-3818-5903
vaww-net-japan@jca.apc.org--VAWW-NET ジャパン事務局
*************************************************
戦争と女性への暴力日本ネットワーク
（VAWW-NET Japan）Violence against Women in War-Network Japan
112-0003 東京都文京区文京春日郵便局留
TEL/FAX 03-3818-5903
E-mail vaww-net-japan@jca.apc.org
Poste Restante, Bunkyo-Kasuga Post Office, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0003 JAPAN
TEL/FAX +81-3-3818-5903
http://www.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/
*************************************************
日時：2月25日（日）午後1:00～5:00（開場 午後0:30）
会場：主婦会館プラザエフB2 クラルテ
※交通 JR・東京メトロ四谷駅 麹町口徒歩1分
資料代：1000円
プログラム
○原告挨拶 東海林路得子
○第一部 高裁判決報道を検証する
・メディアは判決をどう報道したか？ 板垣竜太（メキキネット）
・「政治圧力は認められなかった」報道について 飯田正剛弁護士
○第二部 シンポジウム 「高裁判決を読み解く」
・「編集の自由」に制約を与えた「特段の事情」 大沼和子弁護士
・「慰安婦」問題への政治圧力はどう裁かれたか 西野瑠美子（原告）
・「言論弾圧」の視点から 斉藤貴男（ジャーナリスト）
・「放送の自律」の視点から 小玉美意子（武蔵大学社会学部教授）
・「編集の自由」の視点から 桂敬一（立正大学文学部講師）
・当事者から見た判決 坂上香（元ドキュメンタリー・ジャパンディレクター)
主催：「戦争と女性への暴力」日本ネットワーク（VAWW-NETジャパン）
連絡先：TEL & FAX 03-3818-5903
vaww-net-japan@jca.apc.org--VAWW-NET ジャパン事務局
*************************************************
戦争と女性への暴力日本ネットワーク
（VAWW-NET Japan）Violence against Women in War-Network Japan
112-0003 東京都文京区文京春日郵便局留
TEL/FAX 03-3818-5903
E-mail vaww-net-japan@jca.apc.org
Poste Restante, Bunkyo-Kasuga Post Office, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0003 JAPAN
TEL/FAX +81-3-3818-5903
http://www.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/
*************************************************
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
英ＢＢＣより高水準…ＮＨＫに給与基準公表義務付け
総務省は７日、ＮＨＫ役職員の報酬や給与、諸手当の支給基準について「社会一般の情勢に適合した水準」などと規定した上で公表を義務付ける方針を固めた。今国会に提出する放送法改正案に盛り込む。ＮＨＫでは既にホームページ上で自主的に支給基準を公表しているが、同省は法制化することで透明化の徹底を図る。
ＮＨＫは現在、会長、理事ら役員の報酬と、職員給与と退職手当の総額についても自主的に公表している。同省の試算によると、２００７年度予算案ベースで、職員１人当たりの平均給与額（平均年齢４０．３歳）は年１１６３万円で、英国の公共放送ＢＢＣより高水準となっている。一方、在京民間放送局の社員の平均給与額は年１２００万―１５００万円台となっている。
法律改正では、役職別や資格別などで給与や諸手当などの支給基準の公表を義務化する方針で、同省は「役員報酬や職員給与の抑制効果が期待できる」（放送政策課）としている。
今回の法改正は、改正日銀法を参考にした。日銀法３１条では、局長・審議役級、参事役級など職位と事務職、技術職など職種ごとに基本給与や手当などの支給基準を公表している。
ZAKZAK 2007/02/08
ＮＨＫは現在、会長、理事ら役員の報酬と、職員給与と退職手当の総額についても自主的に公表している。同省の試算によると、２００７年度予算案ベースで、職員１人当たりの平均給与額（平均年齢４０．３歳）は年１１６３万円で、英国の公共放送ＢＢＣより高水準となっている。一方、在京民間放送局の社員の平均給与額は年１２００万―１５００万円台となっている。
法律改正では、役職別や資格別などで給与や諸手当などの支給基準の公表を義務化する方針で、同省は「役員報酬や職員給与の抑制効果が期待できる」（放送政策課）としている。
今回の法改正は、改正日銀法を参考にした。日銀法３１条では、局長・審議役級、参事役級など職位と事務職、技術職など職種ごとに基本給与や手当などの支給基準を公表している。
ZAKZAK 2007/02/08
声を出す権利なし／支払いは義務化： 納得できる？ＮＨＫ受信料
ＮＨＫ受信料の支払いを義務化する放送法改正案が、今国会に提出される。成立すれば不払い世帯、未契約世帯への支払い請求が強化される見通しだ。だが、不払い世帯が増えたのは、ＮＨＫ内部で不祥事が相次いだため。総務省は支払い義務化の前提として、受信料の二割前後の減額をＮＨＫに求めているが、この改革案、国民の納得を得られるだろうか。 （吉田瑠里）
現行の放送法では、ＮＨＫ受信料について「協会（ＮＨＫ）の放送を受信することのできる受信設備を設置した者は、協会とその放送の受信について契約しなければならない」と規定されている。テレビ、放送受信機能のあるパソコン、カーナビ、携帯電話などが家に一台でもあれば、対象となる。ほぼ全世帯といえるが、契約していても受信料を払っていない家庭（不払い世帯）が百万世帯弱、ほかに未契約の家庭も約一千万世帯に達している。
受信料の支払いについては契約の内容を定めたＮＨＫの規約に規定されているだけで、今回の放送法改正案は「契約の義務」に加えて「支払いの義務」を明文化するものだ。
これに対しＮＰＯ法人「株主オンブズマン」（大阪）の阪口徳雄弁護士は疑問を呈する。「たとえば税金や下水道料金に支払い義務があるのは当然だが、税金を課す国や地方自治体の首長は選挙で選ばれる。下水道料金は市民が選んだ議員たちが議会で条例を決める。でも、受信料は、ＮＨＫが金額を決め、総務大臣が認可する。私たちが選ぶことができないＮＨＫ執行部が決めた使用料を支払え、と強制できるのか」
阪口弁護士自身は、受信料を支払っているが、これまで「不払い」を通じて意見を表明できた視聴者の行動が封じられることも危惧（きぐ）する。
「視聴者が不満を表明する手段を奪われれば、ますます政府・与党寄りの放送になってしまう」受信料を二年間払っていない東京都内の女性（２７）も「支払いが義務化されたら、不祥事に対して絶対に許せないし、番組の内容にも今以上に不満が高まると思う。まず顧客の意見が反映される仕組みをつくるのが先ではないか」と話す。
◇ ◇
ＮＨＫ受信料の不払いが増えたのは、二〇〇四年夏の元チーフプロデューサーによる制作費着服事件がきっかけ。その後も内部の不祥事が相次ぎ、二〇〇五年十月から十一月のピーク時には、不払い世帯は百二十八万軒に達した。昨年十月、ＮＨＫは不払い者四十七人と一事業所に対し、支払わなければ法的処置を取ることを明記した文書を送付。その波及効果で不払い世帯は減少している。
支払いが義務化されれば、割増金などの強化策が予想される。未契約世帯に対しても「契約の有無に限らず、支払い義務を明確化する」（ＮＨＫ）という姿勢だ。
現行の放送法では、ＮＨＫ受信料について「協会（ＮＨＫ）の放送を受信することのできる受信設備を設置した者は、協会とその放送の受信について契約しなければならない」と規定されている。テレビ、放送受信機能のあるパソコン、カーナビ、携帯電話などが家に一台でもあれば、対象となる。ほぼ全世帯といえるが、契約していても受信料を払っていない家庭（不払い世帯）が百万世帯弱、ほかに未契約の家庭も約一千万世帯に達している。
受信料の支払いについては契約の内容を定めたＮＨＫの規約に規定されているだけで、今回の放送法改正案は「契約の義務」に加えて「支払いの義務」を明文化するものだ。
これに対しＮＰＯ法人「株主オンブズマン」（大阪）の阪口徳雄弁護士は疑問を呈する。「たとえば税金や下水道料金に支払い義務があるのは当然だが、税金を課す国や地方自治体の首長は選挙で選ばれる。下水道料金は市民が選んだ議員たちが議会で条例を決める。でも、受信料は、ＮＨＫが金額を決め、総務大臣が認可する。私たちが選ぶことができないＮＨＫ執行部が決めた使用料を支払え、と強制できるのか」
阪口弁護士自身は、受信料を支払っているが、これまで「不払い」を通じて意見を表明できた視聴者の行動が封じられることも危惧（きぐ）する。
「視聴者が不満を表明する手段を奪われれば、ますます政府・与党寄りの放送になってしまう」受信料を二年間払っていない東京都内の女性（２７）も「支払いが義務化されたら、不祥事に対して絶対に許せないし、番組の内容にも今以上に不満が高まると思う。まず顧客の意見が反映される仕組みをつくるのが先ではないか」と話す。
◇ ◇
ＮＨＫ受信料の不払いが増えたのは、二〇〇四年夏の元チーフプロデューサーによる制作費着服事件がきっかけ。その後も内部の不祥事が相次ぎ、二〇〇五年十月から十一月のピーク時には、不払い世帯は百二十八万軒に達した。昨年十月、ＮＨＫは不払い者四十七人と一事業所に対し、支払わなければ法的処置を取ることを明記した文書を送付。その波及効果で不払い世帯は減少している。
支払いが義務化されれば、割増金などの強化策が予想される。未契約世帯に対しても「契約の有無に限らず、支払い義務を明確化する」（ＮＨＫ）という姿勢だ。
総務省が放送法改正案 民放に持ち株会社解禁、ＮＨＫ受信料義務化
FujiSankei Business i. 2007/2/10 TrackBack（ 2 ）
総務省は９日、自民党の通信・放送産業高度化小委員会で、放送法改正案の概要を提示した。改正案は、同一企業による複数の放送局支配を規制した「マスメディア集中排除原則」を緩和し、純粋持ち株会社の設立を解禁する。総務省は今国会で放送法改正案を提出し、２００８年度からの施行を目指す。
現在は、複数の放送局に２０％以上出資することができない。これに対して、持ち株会社導入でグループの一体経営を可能にし、地上デジタル放送の設備投資負担を強いられている地方局への支援を容易にする。持ち株会社には２０％の外資規制を設けるとともに、子会社化できる放送局の数は総務省令で定める。
ＮＨＫに関しては、受信料の支払いを義務化するほか、経営委員会の監督機能強化や外部監査の導入でガバナンス（組織統治）を徹底させることなどを盛り込んでいる。また、総務相がＮＨＫの国際放送のなかで取り扱う事項を指示できる「放送命令」制度は、「命ずる」との文言を「求める」に変更した。 また、過去のＮＨＫ番組のインターネット配信を可能にするほか、携帯端末向け地上デジタル放送「ワンセグ」で独自の番組を取り扱えるようにする。
総務省は９日、自民党の通信・放送産業高度化小委員会で、放送法改正案の概要を提示した。改正案は、同一企業による複数の放送局支配を規制した「マスメディア集中排除原則」を緩和し、純粋持ち株会社の設立を解禁する。総務省は今国会で放送法改正案を提出し、２００８年度からの施行を目指す。
現在は、複数の放送局に２０％以上出資することができない。これに対して、持ち株会社導入でグループの一体経営を可能にし、地上デジタル放送の設備投資負担を強いられている地方局への支援を容易にする。持ち株会社には２０％の外資規制を設けるとともに、子会社化できる放送局の数は総務省令で定める。
ＮＨＫに関しては、受信料の支払いを義務化するほか、経営委員会の監督機能強化や外部監査の導入でガバナンス（組織統治）を徹底させることなどを盛り込んでいる。また、総務相がＮＨＫの国際放送のなかで取り扱う事項を指示できる「放送命令」制度は、「命ずる」との文言を「求める」に変更した。 また、過去のＮＨＫ番組のインターネット配信を可能にするほか、携帯端末向け地上デジタル放送「ワンセグ」で独自の番組を取り扱えるようにする。
「不払い罰則化」で問われるＮＨＫ、政府と視聴者の関係
ＪＡＮＪＡＮ 2007/02/13
官邸主導をうたう、長期的視点に欠けた政策の最悪のケースがＮＨＫ受信料問題ではないか。総務大臣が、受信料不払いの罰則化と引き替えに、受信料の値下げをＮＨＫに迫り、両者の対立が伝えられている。
気がかりは、総務大臣とＮＨＫ会長の対立としてメディアが伝える問題点が、値下げの余裕の有無をめぐる見解の相違となっていることだ。この場、一体、ＮＨＫ会長は不払い罰則化については、承知なのか不承知なのか、その方が根本問題だからだ。
まさか「罰則化」をＮＨＫから「お願い」したとは考えたくないが、政府から罰則の法制化を持ちかけられて、会長がきっぱり拒否したのか、拒否できなかったのか。もしかすると、総務大臣につけこむスキを見せてしまったのではないか。
このところ、値下げ問題中心に政府とＮＨＫの対立が伝えられる空気から推測すると、ＮＨＫ会長が、「罰則化」がＮＨＫと視聴者の私的契約を原則とする受信料制度の根幹にかかわる問題であることを十分認識して、政府に対してこの点を注意喚起し、毅然と対応しているとは考えにくい。
昭和２０年代以降、国民の合意の中で曲がりなりにも育ててきた公共放送制度の根幹を、あいついだ不祥事に誘発された収納率低下という、当面の危機回避を目的に、あっさり投げだしていいのだろうか。
ＮＨＫを国民の側に軸足をおく協同組織として維持し、時の権力から公共放送の独立を守るために、放送行政当局も、学者の助言を用いるなどして、それなりに中立性の維持に努力し、言論機関としてのＮＨＫには曲がりなりにも一定の距離を保っていた（現総務大臣のような権力的な介入は、歴代大臣は注意深く避けてきた）。
ＮＨＫと受信者の間に、受信料の強制徴収制度などによって、国家権力が介入するという安易な解決を、現行放送制度の成り立ちを理解した先達たちが最後まで回避してきたからではないか。
理由は明確だ。当時郵政省で新しい放送制度のとりまとめにあたっていた電波監理局次長の荘宏氏は、当時、受信機を設置したら自動的に契約とみなして支払い義務を負うようにすべし（強制徴収）という議論に対し、こうのべていた。
「このような制度の下においは名は契約であっても、受信者は単に金を取られるという受け身の立場に立たされ、自由な契約によって、金も払うがサービスについても注文をつけるという心理状態から遠く離れ、ＮＨＫとしても完全な特権的・徴税的な心理になり勝ちである。かくて、ＮＨＫは、国民の総意によって設立し、国民の総体的支援によって維持し、ＮＨＫはその支持にこたえて公共奉仕に努めるようにしたいという放送法の基本方針にそわないことになる」（荘宏『放送制度論のために』より）
ＮＨＫ会長が、受信料の値引きに当てる原資があるなしの議論に引きずる込まれては、相手の思うツボだ。ここは、「不払い罰則化」反対を表明し、国民の側に軸足をおくＮＨＫとしては、政権の介入を招く放送法の改悪には与しないことを国民に訴え、国営放送化の疑惑を晴らし、政府に正面から反論してほしい。 ＮＨＫと受信者の自由契約を基本とすることが、社団法人を出自とする日本の公共放送の守るべき原則であり、不払いの民事対応も受信料額もＮＨＫの事業運営の自律性を確保してはじめて判断できることであり、「強制徴収」という甘言にそそのかされず、時の政権の指図は受けないことを国民の前に明言してほしい。
いまこそＮＨＫは政府の方ばかり見ないで、国民に語りかける時だ。言論機関の面目にかけてガラス張りの解決をはかってほしい。(桜木七郎)
官邸主導をうたう、長期的視点に欠けた政策の最悪のケースがＮＨＫ受信料問題ではないか。総務大臣が、受信料不払いの罰則化と引き替えに、受信料の値下げをＮＨＫに迫り、両者の対立が伝えられている。
気がかりは、総務大臣とＮＨＫ会長の対立としてメディアが伝える問題点が、値下げの余裕の有無をめぐる見解の相違となっていることだ。この場、一体、ＮＨＫ会長は不払い罰則化については、承知なのか不承知なのか、その方が根本問題だからだ。
まさか「罰則化」をＮＨＫから「お願い」したとは考えたくないが、政府から罰則の法制化を持ちかけられて、会長がきっぱり拒否したのか、拒否できなかったのか。もしかすると、総務大臣につけこむスキを見せてしまったのではないか。
このところ、値下げ問題中心に政府とＮＨＫの対立が伝えられる空気から推測すると、ＮＨＫ会長が、「罰則化」がＮＨＫと視聴者の私的契約を原則とする受信料制度の根幹にかかわる問題であることを十分認識して、政府に対してこの点を注意喚起し、毅然と対応しているとは考えにくい。
昭和２０年代以降、国民の合意の中で曲がりなりにも育ててきた公共放送制度の根幹を、あいついだ不祥事に誘発された収納率低下という、当面の危機回避を目的に、あっさり投げだしていいのだろうか。
ＮＨＫを国民の側に軸足をおく協同組織として維持し、時の権力から公共放送の独立を守るために、放送行政当局も、学者の助言を用いるなどして、それなりに中立性の維持に努力し、言論機関としてのＮＨＫには曲がりなりにも一定の距離を保っていた（現総務大臣のような権力的な介入は、歴代大臣は注意深く避けてきた）。
ＮＨＫと受信者の間に、受信料の強制徴収制度などによって、国家権力が介入するという安易な解決を、現行放送制度の成り立ちを理解した先達たちが最後まで回避してきたからではないか。
理由は明確だ。当時郵政省で新しい放送制度のとりまとめにあたっていた電波監理局次長の荘宏氏は、当時、受信機を設置したら自動的に契約とみなして支払い義務を負うようにすべし（強制徴収）という議論に対し、こうのべていた。
「このような制度の下においは名は契約であっても、受信者は単に金を取られるという受け身の立場に立たされ、自由な契約によって、金も払うがサービスについても注文をつけるという心理状態から遠く離れ、ＮＨＫとしても完全な特権的・徴税的な心理になり勝ちである。かくて、ＮＨＫは、国民の総意によって設立し、国民の総体的支援によって維持し、ＮＨＫはその支持にこたえて公共奉仕に努めるようにしたいという放送法の基本方針にそわないことになる」（荘宏『放送制度論のために』より）
ＮＨＫ会長が、受信料の値引きに当てる原資があるなしの議論に引きずる込まれては、相手の思うツボだ。ここは、「不払い罰則化」反対を表明し、国民の側に軸足をおくＮＨＫとしては、政権の介入を招く放送法の改悪には与しないことを国民に訴え、国営放送化の疑惑を晴らし、政府に正面から反論してほしい。 ＮＨＫと受信者の自由契約を基本とすることが、社団法人を出自とする日本の公共放送の守るべき原則であり、不払いの民事対応も受信料額もＮＨＫの事業運営の自律性を確保してはじめて判断できることであり、「強制徴収」という甘言にそそのかされず、時の政権の指図は受けないことを国民の前に明言してほしい。
いまこそＮＨＫは政府の方ばかり見ないで、国民に語りかける時だ。言論機関の面目にかけてガラス張りの解決をはかってほしい。(桜木七郎)
「放送命令は違憲」ＮＨＫ巡り市民団体が国を提訴へ
朝日新聞、2007年02月06日
菅総務相が昨秋、北朝鮮による日本人拉致問題を国際放送で扱うようＮＨＫに命令したことに対し、総務相に命令権限を与えた放送法３３条は憲法が保障する「報道の自由」を侵害するとして、関西の市民グループが国を相手取り、同条の違憲確認と命令の取り消しなどを求めて大阪地裁に提訴する。ＮＨＫに対しても、命令に従う義務がないことの確認を求める。同条の違憲性を問う初めての訴訟となる見込みだ。（並木昌廣）
提訴するのは「ＮＨＫをよくするためにアクセスする市民の会」のメンバーら。３月初めまでに原告数を確定し、訴状を出す。訴えなどによると、菅総務相は昨年１１月、ＮＨＫに対し、短波ラジオ国際放送で北朝鮮による日本人拉致問題を重点的に扱うよう命令。従来の命令項目は（１）時事（２）国の重要な政策（３）国際問題に関する政府の見解――だったが、「拉致問題に特に留意すること」との具体的項目を初めて加えた。
市民の会は、放送法３３条について、言論や出版、放送の自由を保障した憲法２１条に違反すると主張。「政府が３３条を利用して恣意的（しいてき）に情報をコントロールする可能性がある」としている。
菅総務相が昨秋、北朝鮮による日本人拉致問題を国際放送で扱うようＮＨＫに命令したことに対し、総務相に命令権限を与えた放送法３３条は憲法が保障する「報道の自由」を侵害するとして、関西の市民グループが国を相手取り、同条の違憲確認と命令の取り消しなどを求めて大阪地裁に提訴する。ＮＨＫに対しても、命令に従う義務がないことの確認を求める。同条の違憲性を問う初めての訴訟となる見込みだ。（並木昌廣）
提訴するのは「ＮＨＫをよくするためにアクセスする市民の会」のメンバーら。３月初めまでに原告数を確定し、訴状を出す。訴えなどによると、菅総務相は昨年１１月、ＮＨＫに対し、短波ラジオ国際放送で北朝鮮による日本人拉致問題を重点的に扱うよう命令。従来の命令項目は（１）時事（２）国の重要な政策（３）国際問題に関する政府の見解――だったが、「拉致問題に特に留意すること」との具体的項目を初めて加えた。
市民の会は、放送法３３条について、言論や出版、放送の自由を保障した憲法２１条に違反すると主張。「政府が３３条を利用して恣意的（しいてき）に情報をコントロールする可能性がある」としている。
命令放送「なじまない」ＮＨＫ橋本会長
朝日新聞、2007年02月14日11時48分
ＮＨＫの橋本元一会長は１４日、総務相によるＮＨＫ国際放送への放送命令制度を事実上存続させる法改正案が検討されていることについて「報道機関として自主的な編集権を大事にするということで、命令放送はなじまない」と話した。これまでは命令放送について「自主的な編集を貫く」と主張していたが、今回は改正案に異議を唱えた格好だ。
自民党の通信・放送産業高度化小委員会に出席後、記者団に述べた。命令放送制度を放送法から削除するよう求めるか、との質問には「そこまで言っていないが、趣旨を申し上げた」と述べた。命令放送の改正案は、命令を「要請」に改めるとともにＮＨＫに「応諾義務」を課すことになる。命令放送制度は看板を掛け替えて事実上存続する。
また、関西テレビ制作の「発掘！あるある大事典２」のデータ捏造（ねつぞう）問題で、菅総務相が再発防止を促す放送局への新たな行政処分を放送法などに盛り込む考えを表明したことについて、小委員会の片山虎之助委員長は同日、記者団に対し「必要だと思う。（電波停止命令などの前に）是正命令とかがあるほうが穏当だ」と述べた。今国会での法案提出も間に合うとの見通しも示した。
ＮＨＫの橋本元一会長は１４日、総務相によるＮＨＫ国際放送への放送命令制度を事実上存続させる法改正案が検討されていることについて「報道機関として自主的な編集権を大事にするということで、命令放送はなじまない」と話した。これまでは命令放送について「自主的な編集を貫く」と主張していたが、今回は改正案に異議を唱えた格好だ。
自民党の通信・放送産業高度化小委員会に出席後、記者団に述べた。命令放送制度を放送法から削除するよう求めるか、との質問には「そこまで言っていないが、趣旨を申し上げた」と述べた。命令放送の改正案は、命令を「要請」に改めるとともにＮＨＫに「応諾義務」を課すことになる。命令放送制度は看板を掛け替えて事実上存続する。
また、関西テレビ制作の「発掘！あるある大事典２」のデータ捏造（ねつぞう）問題で、菅総務相が再発防止を促す放送局への新たな行政処分を放送法などに盛り込む考えを表明したことについて、小委員会の片山虎之助委員長は同日、記者団に対し「必要だと思う。（電波停止命令などの前に）是正命令とかがあるほうが穏当だ」と述べた。今国会での法案提出も間に合うとの見通しも示した。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)