SPEAKING
FREELY The
return of 'thought crimes' in
Japan By Scott North
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Japan's government
is pushing for the passage of an anti-conspiracy
law with potentially far-reaching consequences.
Called the Kyoubouzai Hoan (conspiracy or
collusion law), the legislation appears headed for
passage in the diet (parliament) as soon as next
week. In its present form, it could result in
Japanese citizens being detained or punished for
merely agreeing with one another.
In
combination with another statute that permits
detention without charge, the new law could have a
chilling effect on civil
liberties, including
freedoms of speech and assembly and the right to
organize.
Domestic critics of the plan say
it evokes comparison with the
pre-World War II Peace
Preservation Law, which made opposing the war a
thought crime. The proposed statute is a vaguely
worded, two-sentence amendment to an existing law.
It defines "conspiracy" as an agreement, whether
overt or tacit, fanciful or earnest, between two
or more people that might be construed as planning
to violate any statute for which the minimum
sentence is four years or more. There are
currently 619 such statutes, and more could be
added by changing the minimum sentence guidelines.
Lawyers say that a husband and wife
imagining nefarious ways to get back at their
landlord for raising their rent fit the
amendment's definition of a "group" planning
criminal activity. Labor-union members
brainstorming ways to resist harsh workplace
practices could be held for colluding to violate
laws that prohibit interfering with business
activity. Teens discussing how to hot-wire cars
could be held on conspiracy charges even if they
did not attempt to act on their knowledge.
Simply belonging to a group or being in
the same room where such conversations take place
could make a person subject to the new law. No
crime need be actually carried out for the police
to detain suspects. Failing to report overheard
conspiratorial talk could be construed collusion.
In the postwar era, Japanese law has
generally punished only crimes actually committed
or attempted. In cases such as murder or arson,
prison time is sometimes given to accomplices who
knowingly provide weapons or gasoline. However,
punishment for conspiracy alone has been limited
to rare cases of sedition.
The statute
promises co-conspirators who reveal plans to the
police reduced sentences or immunity from
prosecution. People fear the new law would
encourage self-censorship or spying in non-profit
organizations, churches, labor unions, and
political groups. Constitutional guarantees of
freedom of speech and assembly, as well as
protections against searches and seizures, could
be rendered null. Various forms of
cyber-communication could be mined for
incriminating agreements.
Much would
depend on enforcement. Japan's police have a
well-documented tendency to assume the guilt of
those detained and have been known to conduct
lengthy interrogations aimed at extracting
confessions, rather than exerting themselves in
pursuit of corroborative evidence. New detention
facilities currently under construction give
domestic observers pause to consider the
government's motives for bringing this law now.
The ruling party's smug reluctance to acknowledge
the amendment's shortcomings or extend debate on
the matter is also cause for concern.
The
rationale for the legislation is that Japan is a
signatory to a United Nations treaty designed to
stop international organized criminal activity.
But the draft amendment makes no mention of the
treaty, which Japan's UN representatives
originally opposed as unnecessary. A Kyoto student
group used Japan's version of the US Freedom of
Information Act to get the transcripts of the
committee that drafted the amendment. They
reportedly received pages in which most of the
text had been blackened out.
Japan already
has domestic laws against organized criminal
groups. The new conspiracy provision raises the
specter that much daily speech and activity could
be criminalized or made subject to police
scrutiny, if not immediately, then at some time in
the future.
Japan should reflect on the
historical lesson that threats born of free
thought and speech are nothing compared with the
corrosive power of unchecked authority. One need
look no further than Guantanamo Bay or Japan's own
history for persuasive examples of why this
amendment is unnecessary.
Scott
North PhD is associate professor, Graduate
School of Human Sciences, Osaka University.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
