Justices Rule Official's Worship Violates Constitution

Plaintiffs Damage Claims Denied.

Published on October 3, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

as put forth in an 83-page opinion, the osaka high court (outranked only by the japanese supreme court) has determined prime minister junichiro koizumi's visits to the yasukuni shinto shrine violate japan's constitutional barriers between church and state.

in an article which appeared in the october 1, 2005 edition of la times. staff writer, bruce wallace, Link notes:

"Yasukuni honors the souls of Japanese killed in wars since the 19th century Meiji era, including 14 who were tried and convicted of war crimes after World War II. The site includes a museum that presents Japan's march across Asia in the first half of the 20th century as a noble mission to liberate the continent from Western imperialism."

despite koizumi's claim his visits to the shrine consist of private expressions of mourning and prayers for peace, the court noted the prime minister was transported to yasukuni in a state-owned vehicle and included his official title when signing the guest book.

in the words of presiding judge masaharu otani:

"The visits made an impression that the national government particularly supports the Yasukuni Shrine, therefore we consider this a promotion of a certain religion."

the decision carries political rather than legal weight in that it doesn't bar the prime minister from future visits.

koizumi's responded by disagreeing with the court:

"I do not think my paying homage at Yasukuni violates the constitution. I am not paying visits as an official duty."

reaction has been predictably conflicted.

"Politically, I think Koizumi is correct," said Kazuhisa Kawakami of Meiji Gakuin University. "It is unjustified that another country interferes, and a lot of Japanese are angry at the intervention in domestic affairs."

"Now he has a duty to respect the law," said Mitsutaka Nakajima, a lawyer who headed the group that made the legal challenge in Osaka. "If he does go ahead and visit Yasukuni after this, it will be an act of outrageous boldness."

Comments (Page 1)

Daiwa

on Oct 03, 2005

Appears the "Americanization of Japan" is complete.

What other country was interfering here, kb?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Chakgogka

on Oct 03, 2005

What other country was interfering here, kb?

Probably referring to China and South Korea who fiercely protest against the Yakasuni Shrine visit each year.

kingbee

on Oct 03, 2005

What other country was interfering here, kb?

Probably referring to China and South Korea who fiercely protest against the Yakasuni Shrine visit each year.

pretty much all the asian countries (or their modern incarnations) which fell to the japanese prior to 1945, altho china and s korea are the most adamant. a poll taken in south korea earlier this year indicated south koreans consider japan more a threat to them than north korea.

Dr Guy

on Oct 03, 2005

Somehow, other countries showing the same degree (or greater) of stupidity as the US does, does not give me warm fuzzies.

Spc Nobody Special

on Oct 05, 2005

a poll taken in south korea earlier this year indicated south koreans consider japan more a threat to them than north korea.

At least on an economic scale, they're right. And after thirty-some-odd years of what they went through, I wouldn't forget very quickly either.

Barak allah bik.............If that doesn't violate your blogstitution.

bakerstreet

on Oct 05, 2005

I've always had a problem with the losers in a war having to live in abject shame. I don't think the average German soldier needs to walk around with his head bowed any more than the average American soldier. The same goes for the Japanese. They were tools for very evil people, and some of their counterparts did some very evil things, but that doesn't negate the intentions of a war memorial for those who gave their life when their country called on them.

As for the religious part, doesn't this make any practice of religion by a leader in Japan illegal? If he goes to regular worship, will he do so without security? I am trying to imagine some way Bush could go to church without using any governmental support, and for the life of me it doesn't seem possible.

Wouldn't you think the prime minister could counter sue stating that this ruling prevents him from worshipping as he sees fit?

Chakgogka

on Oct 05, 2005

I think one of the things that makes the other Asian nations so touchy is the presence of the war criminals at the Yasukuni shrine. Iris Chang in her book 'The Rape of Nanking' includes an analogy that it would be a bit like the current German President going annually to worship at a cathedral to Hitler. Whether or not that is really so, readers can make their own mind: the shrine's website has an English section. Link

EmperorofIceCream

on Oct 05, 2005

The only thing wrong with a cathedral dedicated to Hitler is that Hitler quite rightly despised Christianity as the religion of cowards and weaklings. As to thhe German Chancellor paying a visit to some shrine to Germany's dead lost in the first and second world wars - I see nothing at all wrong with that. Brave men who die for their countries are just that - no matter what ideology their particular state espouses.

Let the Japanese Prime Minister go pay homage to the men who died fighting for Japan. Even if victors write the history of war they have no right to determine what constitutes honor and what does not.

As to this bleating about 'war crimes'... 'war crimes', like every other fantasy of so-called 'international law' (since there is no sovereign over all states there can be no law to which all states are subject) this is a fiction; in this case intended to vilify the defeated and further emphasise the 'justice' of the cause in which the victors fought.

Chakgogka

on Oct 05, 2005

'war crimes', like every other fantasy of so-called 'international law' ... is a fiction; in this case intended to vilify the defeated and further emphasise the 'justice' of the cause in which the victors fought.

Correct. And...? I would argue that the Nazis deserved vilification and defeating them was a 'justice' that I am happy to see 'emphasised'. If this is just a 'fantasy' it is a very useful one.

drmiler

on Oct 05, 2005

As to this bleating about 'war crimes'... 'war crimes', like every other fantasy of so-called 'international law' (since there is no sovereign over all states there can be no law to which all states are subject) this is a fiction; in this case intended to vilify the defeated and further emphasis the 'justice' of the cause in which the victors fought.

Oh Really? Maybe you should go "read" the Geneva Conventions! You sign, you ratify them, then you are "bound" by them. And in those conventions are contained the definition of "crimes of war" also contained is the punishment for breaking that particular convention. Link

Chakgogka

on Oct 06, 2005

There is a particular difficulty with the Yasukuni Jinja. On the one hand the Japanese have as much right as anyone else to honour their war dead and prime minister Koizumi should have the same rights of religious expression as anyone else (I am giving the benefit of the doubt here that he is a devout Shintoist and is not just playing to a particular political constituency). Both of these aims are served by his annual visits.

Yasukuni, however, is also emblematic of a particular revisionist ideology in Japan that has some resemblance to holocaust denial in the west. This is expressed in a particular historical justification for Japan's former military actions, namely the idea that western imperialist powers had invaded and ruled over much of Asia and Africa and the Japanese were doing nothing more than liberating their fellow Asians from the white man's yoke, a campaign that went right back to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904.

The problem with this idea is that the Japanese, in carving out their 'Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' behaved with enormous savagery and brutality to those fellow asians that they 'liberated' (many of whom they saw as racially 'inferior'). In fact their behaviour far exceeded the brutality of the western powers in Asia (and that took some doing).

The way around this objection is a 'denial' that events like the Rape of Nanking, and countless other atrocities ever took place (and this is the connection with western holocaust deniers). While I have no difficulty imaging some pious Japanese shintoists simply wishing to honour the sacrifices made by Japanese soldiers in defending their country, the fact remains that the shrine is deeply divisive even in Japanese society, and its supporters do seem to come primarily from the revisionist deniers' camp. There is a little more at stake here than simply freedom of religion and separation of 'church' and state.

bakerstreet

on Oct 06, 2005

From that perspective, Chakgogka, could you ever have a war memorial? There are statues of civil war generals that would be tried as war criminals today. There were atrocities on the American side in Vietnam, and yet we have a memorial. WW2 ended with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a nuclear attack that many people around the world consider wrong.

Should we take it down? Given the conditions at Union prison camps, I wonder if we should have the Lincoln memorial. Once started, this kind of thing simply couldn't end. The protest of this Japanese memorial is akin to the revisionists in America that would like to erase the images of Confederates and the Confederate flag from public view. It's akin to the French and German paranoia about Nazi items being available on Ebay.

I don't doubt there are people who believe that Japan was blameless, just like there are people here that believe the holocaust wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. I don't think we should revoke our public respect for veterans based on wackos, though, however distasteful they are.

Chakgogka

on Oct 06, 2005

I don't think we should revoke our public respect for veterans based on wackos, though, however distasteful they are.

I think that you are basically correct. However, what is being protested is not the existence of the shrine, but Koizumi's visits to it.

A perusal of the Yasukuni website's English page includes comments that "Japan's dream of building a Great East Asia was necessitated by history and it was sought after by the countries of Asia". It also mentions the "'Martyrs of Showa' who were cruelly and unjustly tried as war criminals by a sham-like tribunal of the Allied forces (United States, England, the Netherlands, China and others)".

These views are certainly "distasteful" (in my opinion) but, as you say, if we started pulling down monuments to distasteful opinions, where would it end?

I just want to suggest however that Koizumi's annual visits to the shrine, despite opposition from inside, as well as outside Japan are probably not entirely motivated by shintoist piety but have a great deal to do with at least a measure of sympathy for the distasteful opinions mentioned above.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2005

Oh Really? Maybe you should go "read" the Geneva Conventions! You sign, you ratify them, then you are "bound" by them.

And not "all" nations signed them, drmiler.

Never said they did. However Simon basically called war crimes and international law a fantasy and that there was no governing body to enforce (again this is basically what was said. It's not verbatim). And in this he's wrong. And just an FYI....I think if you go read the list of signers. You'll find the non-signers are, in all actuality are very small in number.

Dr Guy

on Oct 06, 2005

The problem with this idea is that the Japanese, in carving out their 'Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' behaved with enormous savagery and brutality to those fellow asians that they 'liberated' (many of whom they saw as racially 'inferior'). In fact their behaviour far exceeded the brutality of the western powers in Asia (and that took some doing).

Not withstanding the brutality, this reminds me of the Confederate kerfuffle. While we need not glorify the bad of our past, what is wrong with honoring the good? I dont see Yasukuni's actions as condoning the evil of the past, but just paying homage to his and Japan's ancestors.

I know the American side of the story about the East Asian Sphere. Which means I dont know much. But I guess what you are saying is that Japan has to trash its past, regardless of teh individuals, in order to be politically correct.

And having been (kind of) in his Shoes, I would tell them where to stick that trash.

Aside - Thanks Chakgogka for the information!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!