翻訳 57
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jp/satoruishido/hiroki-nakamori
December 13, 2017
A country where thousands of people 'disappear.' What is happening in Japan?
A new book by an up and coming sociologist looks at the reality of disappearances in Japan. Today we ask: why have so many disappeared?
By Satoru Ishido
A separate Japanese society of the disappeared
1924 people in 2014. 1803 people in 2015. 985 people in 2016. These are the estimated figures of people who have disappeared from society. They have received almost no attention up until now, but these figures are the key to understanding the nature of disappearances occurring in Japan. It is often said that over 80,000 people go missing every year, but this isn't strictly true. In the majority of cases, missing persons are discovered immediately. 1924, 1803, 985...These are the numbers of people who are actually still missing, who have 'disappeared.' Although these figures themselves may not be completely accurate, as not all missing persons are reported missing. At the very least, over the course of the year, there are around 2000 people who suddenly disappear. It is a number that illustrates another reality of Japanese society.
Disappearances: the overlooked social problem
Why have these disappearances been happening? One book in particular addresses this question: 'The Sociology of Disappearances' (Keio University Press) by up and coming sociologist Nakamori Hiroki. Born in 1985, it was in his days at graduate school, with time on his hands and as yet no definite research topic, when Nakamori happened to catch a daytime soap opera where the protagonist's childhood friend suddenly disappears without trace. It made him think about the loss felt by the protagonist, which he sensed was an extremely specific experience, even if it ultimately led to the sense of bereavement and separation we all feel.
How has society dealt with the issue of disappearances? To Nakamori, this was a question worth spending time on researching. He defines disappearances as, “A phenomenon whereby a person vanishes from a family or group, does not make contact over a long period of time and whose whereabouts remain unknown.” He says that disappearances are the “overlooked social problem” of modern times. It did gain some attention after nine bodies were found in an apartment in Zama, Kanagawa Prefecture, yet equally it can be said that it was only after a series of young people were found dead that society began to talk about the issue.
The history of the 'desirable disappearance'
“Thousands of disappearances occur over the course of a year, and yet they aren't talked about. Obviously it depends on the case, but a family will often feel a sense of inferiority about the issue, and ultimately will not want it to be publicized. There is a desire to deal with it in secret. When it comes to society, as it is a regular occurrence, it doesn't become a topic of conversation. This is how we arrive at our current way of dealing with disappearances. What has been said about cases of disappearance and 'evaporation' up until now? We analyzed articles in weekly magazines. Put simply, the disappearances of the 1970s were seen as something desirable. They talked about becoming free of the confines of domesticity and cutting loose from your serious white collar worker husband. At the same time, the 'evaporated wife' was criticized as outrageous - divorce was not common at the time. There was also the implication at the time that a woman who could leave and be free of marriage could also be liberated from family ties. The beginning of the 1980s saw an increase in divorce rates, and it became harder to associate disappearances with such domestic liberation. They stopped being referred to as 'evaporations,' and from then on, there is a growing discourse that disappearing is an irresponsible thing to do to the people left behind. As the definition of family changes from a relationship that is fixed and inescapable to a relationship that isn't, the implication of what disappearing means also changes.”
From disappearances as an escape from a cage of futile relationships to disappearances as irresponsible behavior, society's reaction to disappearances has changed greatly.
The people affected by disappearances
What do disappearances mean to the people affected? Nakamori interviewed families searching for the disappeared, the people supporting those families, and individuals who had chosen to disappear. One phrase that kept coming up was 'ambiguous loss.' The families left behind continue on living in a kind of halfway state, not knowing whether the person dear to them is alive or dead. The ambiguous nature of the situation only makes it harder to understand. A family that were coping with the disappearance of the husband repeatedly told Nakamori that they wished he had died. Another family has little expectation that their son, who lived alone, will come back: “When someone's missing, there are no facts. I feel like he's probably alive.” This is the reality for families confronting this 'ambiguous loss.' There is no closure.
Do parents really know their children?
“Just because someone is close to you doesn't mean you know everything about them. This is also true for relationships between families and the disappeared. There are cases where families are blamed after the disappearance for not knowing about the person's troubles. People may blame themselves for things they didn't know. Others tend to expect parents to know everything about their children, or a wife to know everything about her husband, but even people who think like that don't know everything about those close to them. This doesn't apply just to disappearances, it just is the nature of family.”
What can others do to help with this 'ambiguous loss'?
What support do friends and family continuing to experience 'ambiguous loss' need? Is there anything that others can do? Another issue is the context in which a person chose to disappear and in so doing created so many painful memories for the family they have left behind. Nakamori discusses care and support, which is often overlooked, and conducts a survey of NPO staff who support families of the disappeared. A lot of families living with 'ambiguous loss' feel hurt by the half-hearted good will of those around them. For example, hearing others say things like, “Do you think they could have been abducted by North Korea?” or, “Maybe their body just hasn't been identified yet?” While they may have had the best intentions, these sorts of remarks can be emotionally damaging for a person experiencing loss.
Support staff and the power of 'the story'
“What I saw when conducting my survey was that to families coping with an ambiguous loss, NPO staff could provide information as outsiders, while at the same time fulfilling the role of a therapist who could listen to their concerns. However, strictly speaking, NPO staff are not experts. They take care not to say things that would be unlikely, give factual information and encourage a realistic outlook, all the while listening to the family's story. What is important is for the person affected by the disappearance is to talk through their feelings to find a new meaning to attach to their experience of loss. The story they tell changes over time. I thought this was incredibly important. It is not about erasing their experience of loss, or clinging to an irrational hope, but rather supporting the creation of a personal story of living with loss.”
Facing the 'ambiguous loss.' Not erasing the feeling of loss, or overcoming it, but accommodating it without struggle. The survey results can be found in 'The Sociology of Disappearances.'
The couple whose son disappeared initially felt no end to their anxiety about their son's safety. A story written by anxiety can only be impacted by being shown concrete evidence that the disappeared took their own life or is still alive. Over the course of discussions with staff, the couple chose a new story, one where their son is alive somewhere. From a story about living with anxiety came a story about believing in the possibility of being reunited one day. This change would not have been possible without outside support.
Is disappearing irresponsible?
We're learning about the need for outside support, but this can also be said for the person wishing to disappear. Do families really consider the disappeared to be irresponsible? It varies from case to case, but as a rule, most families do not think so, says Nakamori. The case of a woman who grew up experiencing neglect from her parents and chose to disappear from her family is particularly noteworthy.
“This lady had attempted taking her own life before disappearing. She saw that her suicide attempts had troubled her family, and feeling a strong sense of responsibility, she chose to disappear, rather than 'taking responsibility' by taking her life. It meant she could live a life free of her family. There are also those people who are trapped in their intimate relationships. I can't say that disappearing from them is a bad thing in every case.”
This is perhaps an extreme case. Having said that, we know there are people choose suicide because they feel trapped at their school, workplace, or organization. So do we really want to criticize those people who choose to disappear as their method of escape as 'irresponsible'? Nakamori argues that if there are still people who take their own lives out of a sense of responsibility, then we should reconsider our stance on disappearance, which can potentially release the individual from such feelings.
Where can people go to escape safely?
This is inextricably linked to the case in Zama mentioned earlier. After the disappearances had been made public, there was a marked trend of people alluding to their own desire to kill themselves on social media. While there are restrictions on overtly talking about suicidal intent, this only hides the problem, which continues existing under the surface.
“While thinking about disappearance, I thought about what people need when their relationships with different aspects of community, like family and school, aren't going well. That may well be a third party outsider, and a place people can escape to safely and be accepted, where no one removes the option to escape the community completely. It would be better if there was such as place people could run away to. These third party outsiders would be less involved and a relationship with them more routine than with family and friends, which would make conversation and support possible. Ideally in a similar way to NPO staff creating a new story with the families left behind after a disappearance.”
People live alongside their stories. The stronger people feel a sense of responsibility towards others, the more they create stories that box themselves in and control who they are. It can create a despair that makes people want to disappear.
What should be asked of a society where thousands of people disappear across the course of a year? Perhaps now is the time to face up to the questions posed by this young sociologist.
翻訳 56 (w)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%91%E5%85%AB%E5%88%86
Murahachibu (村八分) (lit: village eight parts) was a punishment used in village societies whereby inhabitants would simultaneously cut off all social contact with a person who had violated law and order. It is otherwise known as ostracism. Murahachibu is also used to refer to the act of expelling a specific resident from a local community, or excluding a specific member within the group as a form of bullying.
1 Overview
2 Incidents and disturbances
3 Legal implications
3.1 Civil liability
3.2 Criminal liability
Overview
According to the linguist Umegaki Minoru, the person subjected to punishment would be cut off from eight out of ten aspects of community life, and their participation in the remaining two, fire fighting and funerals, was purely to prevent inconvenience to others which would occur if the person affected was completely exempt. Funeral care was still permitted, as not dealing with a dead body would create odor and could become a source of disease. It was also the manifestation of the idea that the living are not able to judge the dead. Fire fighting was also still permitted, to prevent the spread of fires to other homes. The remaining eight aspects of community life consisted of coming-of-age ceremonies, weddings, births, assistance with sickness, building and repairs, assistance with floods, memorial services and travel.
Despite similarity, the word 'hachibu sareru' came about relatively recently [1] and has no connection to village lifestyles, and as 'hachibu' performed an important function in village communities in the Edo period, and considering that, among other things, a suspension of the use of common land was not included in the original meaning of 'hachibu,' it is argued that such an etymology would be far-fetched. There are various theories that 'hachibu' is a corruption of 'habuku' and 'hajiku' (to ostracize) [2]. The writer Yagiri Tomeo argues that 'murahachibu' finds its etymology in a homonym, 'murahachibu' (村八部).
If murahachibu measures were taken, and the use of common land suspended, then a person would struggle to obtain fuel and fertilizer (leaf compost etc), and if they were unable to use the water resources that belonged to the common land, then in reality, life in a village society would become impossible. Village law and order was far from legal, objective or fair, and served the private or subjective interests of an influential person in the region. Often, rules had remain unchanged from the feudal system that was in use until the Edo period, and could not be said to be fair efforts to maintain order. After the Meiji era, it was regarded as a violation of human rights and unlawful, and in 1909, a judgment made by the former Supreme Court declared that a notice of 'murahachibu' was a threat or defamation of character.
Despite that, the practice of murahachibu persisted even after World War Two, and has frequently been a problem in recent years. A case that became famous after World War Two occurred in 1952, in Ueno in Fuji, Shizuoka Prefecture (present day Fujinomiya), when a senior high school girl who reported fraud that occurred during a House of Councilors special election then experienced murahachibu, which was enacted by the whole village on her and her family [3].
In the present day, NHK and many other broadcasters refrain from using the word 'murahachibu.'
It is the original meaning of the word 'haburu,' meaning to exclude or leave someone out.
Incidents and disturbances
- The 1952 murahachibu incident of Ueno in Fuji, Shizuoka Prefecture
- The Sanrizuka Struggle: murahachibu was enacted on residents with opposing viewpoints surrounding the civil conflict over the construction of Narita Airport
- The 2004 murahachibu incident of Sekikawa, Niigata Prefecture
- The murahachibu disturbance in Yakusa in Toyota, Aichi Prefecture [4]
- The 2011 murahachibu incident enacted by a Superintendent of Education in Kasai, Hyogo Prefecture
- Murahachibu disturbance in northern Oita Prefecture (enacted on agricultural workers returning from Kansai) [5]
- Murahachibu disturbance led by the residents' association of Tenri, Nara Prefecture [6]
- Murahachibu lawsuit concerning a village in central Oita Prefecture [7]
Legal implications
Civil liability
In civil law, murahachibu is seen as a violation of rights and classed as an unlawful act, as being on the receiving end of murahachibu creates difficulties for an individual's social life. Murahachibu results in claims for damages, including demands for injunctions and consolation money.
The 2004 murahachibu incident of a village in Sekikawa in Iwafune, Niigata Prefecture
In the spring of 2004, a village in Sekikawa held a char fishing contest to celebrate Obon festival, though some residents decided not to participate, as they did not want to spend the duration of the Obon festival preparing and cleaning up. An influential person in the village responded to this by saying that if the residents did not participate, they would be subject to murahachibu, and subsequently banned 11 households from using garbage services or harvesting edible wild plants. In the summer of the same year, the 11 villagers filed a lawsuit against three influential people in the village in Niigata District Court, seeking to end the murahachibu. The Niigata District Court in Shibata ruled that the conduct of the influential villagers had been unlawful and should be stopped, and ordered that the 11 villagers be paid a total of 2.2 million yen in damages. The influential villagers appealed to the Tokyo High Court, but on October 10, 2007, it upheld the judgment of the district court and dismissed the appeal.
The 2011 murahachibu incident enacted by a Superintendent of Education in Kasai, Hyogo Prefecture
In May 2011, after a dispute over the installation of a cell phone base station, a letter was sent by a number of individuals including the Superintendent of Education in Kasai in Hyogo Prefecture, Nagata Takemi, to four men as a 'notice of ostracism,' saying, among other things, that they would have no personal relationship with the four men as long as neighborhood relations did not improve. The men affected sued for damages, and on March 26 2013, Judge Shingū Tomoyuki of Kobe District Court recognized the violation to the claimants' personal rights and ordered that damages be paid. The claimants had their travel reserve funds unilaterally cancelled, and were not contacted about a nearby funeral, and was, as the Judge stated, “behavior that went beyond the scope of socially acceptable practices, and that must be defined as bullying and harassment.” On August 30, 2013, the Osaka High Court dismissed an appeal made by the Superintendent of Education and others. It upheld the judgment made by Kobe District Court, saying, “There was a notice of ostracism, or murahachibu. It was an illegal act of personal rights violation.”
Criminal liability
Murahachibu, that is, the act of inhabitants of a designated area severing a relationship in unison with an individual or individuals does not in itself automatically result in criminal punishment (nullum crimen sine lege [no punishment without law]). However, the act of giving notice to that effect constitutes contempt to the individual subject to that treatment, as well as damage to that individual's social standing and criminal intimidation to their honor [8].
翻訳 55
日本政府の「報道抑圧」を国連が痛烈批判! それでも大手メディアはだんまり……
もはや先進国とは言えないのでは?
古賀 茂明
元経産省改革派官僚
フォーラム4提唱者
「メディアの独立」の危機
日本の報道の自由の危機。前回はパナマ文書の関係で、日本企業などについて大手メディアがほとんど報道しないことを指摘したばかりだが、またしても日本の報道の自由に関連して、大きなニュースが2つあった。
1つは、国連人権理事会特別報告者、デビッド・ケイ氏が日本に派遣されてきたことだ。国連人権理事会とは、人権擁護のための国連の機関で、各国政府に勧告を行うなどの役割を果たしている。
この理事会が特別報告者を派遣して調査するということは、国連が日本の「報道の自由について」心配しているということだ。しかし、心配されると困る人たちがいる。
安倍晋三首相と菅義偉官房長官だ。そもそもこの調査は、昨年12月に予定されていたのだが、日本政府は、'16年秋までの延期を求め、ドタキャンしてしまった。予算編成が忙しいからというのだが、それは嘘。夏の参議院選挙前に、日本政府の報道抑圧を批判する勧告を出されると政権として困るということなのだ。
だが、ケイ氏が粘り強く早期の訪日実現を求めたことで政府が折れ、今回の調査が実現された。安倍政権としては、4月の調査なら、報告書は春の人権理事会には間に合わず、先送りできるという読みだろう。
しかし、世の中そう甘くはない。ケイ氏が帰国前に記者会見を行うと発表したのだ。
もはや先進国とは言えない……
実は、私も4月16日に2時間ほどケイ氏と話す機会を得た。私は、'14年11月に自民党が出した在京キー局宛の圧力文書や、一般にはあまり知られていないが、同じく11月に出した報道ステーションのプロデューサー宛の圧力文書のコピー、'15年2月の複数のテレビ局の政治部記者による菅官房長官とのオフレコ懇談のメモなどを提出した。
4月19日の記者会見では、ケイ氏は驚くほど率直な政府批判と政策提言を発表した。特に、最重点課題の「メディアの独立」については、テレビ局について、独立規制機関の設立や、「政治的に公平」であることを求め、恣意的に運用されかねない放送法4条の廃止を提言。
日本のメディアには、記者クラブの廃止や新聞・テレビ・ネットを横断する組織を作って政府の圧力と戦えと提言した。政府批判と同時に、痛烈なメディア批判でもある。
さて、これほど重要な会見だったのだが、驚くべきことに、当日夜のテレビも翌朝の新聞もまったくこれを報じないか、あるいは報じたとしても、極めて通り一遍の簡単な扱いで終わってしまった。
16日のケイ氏との会談後の立ち話で、「記者会見をちゃんと報道できるか否かが、日本のマスコミにとっての『テスト』だね」と話していたのだが……。
2つ目のニュースは、4月20日の「国境なき記者団」による「'16年報道の自由度ランキング」の発表だ。日本の順位は、72位。'15年からなんと11位も下がった。こんな状況では、もはや先進国とは言えない。当然の評価だが、悲しくなってくる。
それでもなお、国内主要メディアは政府に抵抗せず、国連の危惧にも反応しない。国民も重大な危機に気づくことができない。「八方塞がり」。最後に思い浮かんだのは、この言葉だ。
https://gendai.ismedia.jp/articles/-/48541
Suppression of the press: the UN's scathing criticism of the Japanese Government
...while major media outlets remain silent. Can Japan still be classed as a developed country?
By Koga Shigeaki
Former reformist government official for the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and proponent of Forum 4
Media independence is in crisis
We are at a crisis for journalistic freedom in Japan. Previously, I have written about how the media barely reported on Japanese corporations and other issues in relation to the Panama Papers, and yet again there have been two big stories concerning the freedom of the Japanese press.
The first was United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression David Kaye's visit to Japan. The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body responsible for the protection of human rights, and its role includes making recommendations to governments.
The fact that the UN sent a special rapporteur to investigate is evidence of their concerns about freedom of the press in Japan. It had potential to create headaches for a number of people.
Not least Prime Minister Abe and Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide. The visit was originally due to take place in December of last year, but the Japanese government sought for it to postponed until the fall of 2016, and ultimately cancelled it last minute. It was claimed that this was due to the compilation of the budget, but that was simply false. The Japanese government felt it was likely to encounter difficulties should criticism of their suppression of press freedom and the UN recommendations be published before the House of Councillors election in the summer.
Kaye persevered in pushing for an early visit to Japan, ultimately the government backed down and the inspection went ahead. The Abe administration had calculated that if the visit happened in April, the report would not be published in time for the spring meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
However, things aren't always quite that simple, as they found out, when Kaye announced that he would hold a press conference before he left Japan.
Can Japan still be called a developed country?
I actually had the opportunity to sit down and talk with Kaye for two hours on April 16. I presented to him the document issued by the LDP to network flagship stations in Tokyo in November 2014, a copy of a similar little known document issued to news station producers in November, and the memo of an off the record chat between Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga and political reporters of several television stations in February 2015.
At a press conference on April 19, Kaye was surprisingly frank in his criticism of the government, and announced his policy recommendations. Regarding the top priority of media independence, he advocated the establishment of an independent broadcasting regulator, and recommended the abolition of Article 4 of the Broadcast Act requiring political impartiality, as it has the potential to be used arbitrarily against broadcasters.
Whilst he had considerable criticism for the government, there was also scathing criticism for the media too. He advised the Japanese media to abolish the press club system and establish a union across newspapers, television and digital platforms to fight governmental pressure. Surprisingly, for such an important press conference, television that night and newspapers the following morning barely reported on it, and if they did, it was nothing more than a simplistic, passing glance.
After my meeting with Kaye on April 16, he himself said, “It will be a test to see whether or not the Japanese media will properly report on the press conference.”
The second big story was the announcement on April 20 of the 2016 Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters without Borders. Japan ranked at 72, slipping 11 places in 15 years. In these circumstances, it is not possible to call Japan a developed nation. It is still saddening, despite this ranking being inevitable.
Even so, the mainstream media in Japan did not confront the government, neither did they respond to the UN's concerns. Japanese citizens have no way to become aware of the grave danger we are in. The only conclusion I can come to is that we are cornered with no way out.
翻訳 54 (w)
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B4%E8%B6%8A%E3%81%97%E6%B4%BE%E9%81%A3%E6%9D%91
Toshikoshi Hakenmura
Toshikoshi Hakenmura (年越し派遣村), or New Year's Village for Dispatch Workers, was a shelter run by an executive committee comprised of several NPOs and labor unions to support poor people affected by company downsizing and subsequent lay-offs in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse over the period of December 31, 2008 to January 5, 2009 in Hibiya Park in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. It was a part of socio-political movement that also included the Etsunen Tousou (越年闘争) movement.
1 Overview
2 Executive committee and opening in 2008
2.1 After withdrawal from Hibiya Park
3 Reaction to Toshikoshi Hakenmura
3.1 Government
3.2 Media and Entertainment
3.2.1 Negative response
3.2.2 Positive response
4 Publicly run Hakenmura post-2009
5 Impact
6 References
Overview
The slogan of the Toshikoshi Hakenmura was “survive the end of the year in Hibiya” [1].
According to Yuasa Makoto, The event had its origins in “conversations we had in izayakas in Tokyo and Iidabashi at the end of the previous year with people who had an awareness [of poverty and rough sleeping]” [2].
Executive committee and opening in 2008
Management structure (2008)
Honorary mayor Utsunomiya Kenji (representative of the Anti-Poverty Network and lawyer)
Mayor Yuasa Makoto (secretary general of the NPO 'Independent Life Support Center Moyai')
Sponsor Hakenmura executive committee
Administration Japan Community Union Federation (JCUF)
Toshikoshi Hakenmura was established near Kasumi Gate in Hibiya Park on December 31, 2008. The executive committee, organized mainly by the Independent Life Support Center Moyai and JCUF, distributed rice, offered life and work counseling and provided guidance on how to apply for welfare. Hello Work set up a cheap accommodation that ran until January 5 [3].
On January 2, 2009, after a request from the executive committee, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare offered a lecture hall in its own building to be used as lodging until 9am on January 5, the day when the ministry's offices would re-open [4]. The executive committee requested that the ministry provide accommodation after January 5, which resulted in the decision to establish in total four temporary shelters: two in Chuo, one in Nerima and one in Sanya. On January 5, the Hakenmura was dismantled.
Around 500 unemployed people visited the Hakenmura over the end of year period, 1680 people volunteered and it received 23.1 million yen in donations [5].
After withdrawal from Hibiya Park
On January 4, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and Tokyo Metropolitan Government decided on the provision of accommodation after withdrawal from Hibiya Park. Between the four sites, Keika Square Gymnasium in Chuo, Jisshi Square Gymnasium in Chuo, Tokyo Shakuji Gakuen Gymnasium and Nagisa hostel (used as accommodation relief for Etsunen Tousou), lodging and meals were provided to 500 people everyday between January 5 and January 12 [6].
On January 5, together with the National Confederation of Trade Unions and The Japan Federation of Prefectural and Municipal Workers' Union (JICHIROREN), the 'villagers' of Hakenmura marched from Hibiya Park to the Diet Building.
By January 9, of the Hakenmura residents, 223 had applied for public assistance, with the majority being approved. After January 12, the executive committee decided to rent two Japanese hotels (ryokan) in Tokyo and use them to provide meals and lodging [7].
At an establishment in Tokyo, Hello Work provided employment counseling to people from Hakenmura, connecting people to over 4000 jobs, which mainly consisted of work where the employee lives on-site. By January 9,125 people had registered for a job and about half had applied for public assistance [8].
According to the Sankei Shimbun, “donations exceeded 50 million yen, yet the Hakenmura was disbanded before details of how the money was to be used had been announced,” and, “It was only possible to confirm that 13 people had started work.” [9]
Reaction to Toshikoshi Hakenmura
Government
Various politicians visited the Hakenmura and gave speeches, including Ōmura Hideaki, of the LDP (the ruling party at the time) and Senior Vice Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare; Katayama Satsuki (LDP); Kan Naoto (from the opposition party, Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan); Shii Kazuo (Japanese Communist Party); Fukushima Mizuho (Social Democratic Party); Kamei Hisaoki (People's New Party); and Suzuki Muneo (New Party Daichi). There were pros and cons to this [10].
On January 3, Prime Minister Asō Tarō instructed Chief Cabinet Secretary Kawamura Takeo to “take all measures necessary” when it came to provision after the executive committee's use of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's lecture hall ended on January 5 [11]. Parliamentary Vice Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications, Sakamoto Tetsushi, said, “I also wonder how serious these people are about working,” and, “There are similar tactics at work to those used in post-war student activism.” [12] These remarks drew criticism from opposition parties, as well as from a representative of the ruling coalition party Komeito, Ōta Akihiro [13], and at a press conference held the following day, Sakamoto withdrew his comments and apologized [14]. However, defence of his comments surfaced on anonymous online message boards [15].
On January 5, during his new year's address, Governer of Tokyo, Ishihara Shintarō, said, “The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare did not know how to deal with [this issue], and ultimately achieved results by working together with volunteers and local government. The country is ignorant to this important place,” thereby praising the efforts involved in the Hakenmura and criticizing the Ministry's response [16].
Tanaka Yasuo, from the New Party Nippon, went to help out at the Hakenmura, and said of his impressions at the time that, “the people who had pitched tents were not people who had suddenly been fired from their jobs, but rather a lot worked temporary jobs everyday and had heard that they would be able to eat if they came to Hibiya Park. I wonder if there is more that the unions [that are working together] like the Japan Teachers' Union and the Communist Party unions should do, like opening up their own organization's facilities,” and, “I remember feeling uncomfortable about the fact unions and political parties were participating, and as a result, maybe it went in a different direction to what Mayor Yuasa had in mind.” [17]
Media and Entertainment
Negative response
On his show 'Mino Monta's Asa Zuba!', Mino Monta said, “I've heard (from someone involved in Hello Work) that there are loads of jobs available. But they're saying, 'no, I want this,' 'I want that.'” and, “The government also has to make an effort, but if you're saying your dispatch jobs have stopped, and you've got no employment, you also have to make an effort. We emphasize the rights people have, to housing and food, but if you've got a job, how about doing some work first [even if you don't like it]?” These statements then received criticism of their own [18].
Positive response
Writer Amamiya Karin praised the efforts involved in the Hakenmura highly, and participated in activities there herself [19].
Publicly run Hakenmura post-2009
Across the period of the end of 2009 and start of 2010, the Japanese government made efforts to support unemployed people across the country as a part of emergency job-creating measures. Of these, the so called 'Publicly run Hakenmura' in Tokyo (official name being Provision of Accommodation and Livelihood Counseling to Support Needy People Including the Unemployed etc over the End of Year Period in Tokyo) ran from December 29 to January 4, at the Youth Education National Olympics Memorial Youth Center, offering unemployed people accommodation and meals, with staff from Hello Work also visiting to provide advice on work and housing. Despite that, many did not manage to establish employment and housing, and were sent on to different public facilities to support unemployed people in Tokyo after January 5.
On January 6, Tokyo Metropolitan Government paid out 22,000 yen to cover things like travel expenses to almost all people affected to find work outside the accommodation facilities. However, of 562 service users, approximately 200 spent nights away from the facilities without permission, which was prohibited by the Metropolitan Government. This was due to incomplete communication of the rules. Subsequently, Tokyo Metropolitan Government stated that it was necessary for residents to concentrate wholeheartedly on rebuilding their lives while using the services [20]. Amongst the service users, there were people who used their job hunting expenses to buy alcohol and tobacco, and were banned from the facility, where drinking alcohol was prohibited [21].
Between January 6 and 7, there were a number of thefts of cash that had been paid to service users as expenses. On the morning of January 7, it was discovered that a man in his 50s died in his sleep due to alcohol related cirrhosis [22].
The executive committee that ran the previous winter's Hakenmura and set up the one stop service in lieu of the Toshikoshi Hakenmura, said in response to the incident, “There were a lot of people who are not used to having money, so it was crucial to consider things like handing money over every two or three days, rather than paying it all at once,” although the same committee had also stated that “it is inconvenient to the residents to hand out payments in small amounts.” [23]
The one stop service committee claimed the PR campaign in the city had been insufficient, and so carried out further publicity efforts, handing out flyers in streets and parks, among other things. As a result, service users increased, and operating expenses greatly exceeded the initial estimate of 60 million yen, and ultimately passed 100 million yen. Yuasa Makoto said that no one could have predicted how many service users there would eventually be. Although metropolitan staff insisted they had worked hard on the management of the operation, the committee pointed to the inaccurate estimates drawn up by the Metropolitan Government [24]. A senior official at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government described the committee's activities as heavy handed, as they sent in a batch of public assistance applications all at once over the office's New Year vacation period, though the committee stressed the significance in the group applications, saying, “At the moment, even when unemployment has continued for a protracted period of time, and people have no choice but to seek public assistance, there are many cases of people visiting the government offices and being turned away without being given an application form, instead being told to 'rely on your family,' or being dismissed with remarks such as 'you seem fine.'”[25]
The day before the move to accommodation facilities, it was decided that a number of residents would stay at a capsule hotel, though due to the dissatisfaction that erupted from the other residents that threatened to turn into full rebellion, it was decided that all residents should stay at capsule hotels [24].
Cases of service users using payments to buy alcohol and tobacco and being banned due to drinking alcohol within facilities were widely reported in the media.
Over 70 comments were received in response to a series of incidents, with the majority of feedback being critical, saying the project was “a waste of taxes.” [26] Many service users spoke out, saying things like, “talking to them, around one in three have no desire to work,” “I'm scared of being robbed in the facility, so I don't carry money on me,” and “there are a lot of people who weren't actually laid off from temporary work or anything, who seem homeless and want a one off payment.” [27]
This led to the one stop service committee's response to the media, under the title, “Do you hit someone when they're down?” criticizing their “spectacular fault finding operation,” specifically naming Sankei Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun.
A staff member at the metropolitan government was reportedly pressed to stop discrimination and kneel down and bow in apology by a resident who had received a public assistance application in an area where it was rumored to be difficult to apply for public assistance. The low level of health care support service for sick and injured service users also became a source of difficulties, leading to the one stop service committee requesting that all rooms be patrolled periodically to check on residents, that residents be connected quickly to a medical institution at times when they need medical assistance, and that follow up checks be made on residents in poor physical shape and residents who had seen a doctor. As there had an incident of a staff member who had poked a resident in the chest and said, “you called an ambulance, so take responsibility,” and refused to accompany an ambulance required by the paramedics, as well as staff who had prevented residents calling for an ambulance when they needed emergency medical care, the committee also sought improvements in approach, clarification of how things had improved, for the names of the staff members involved to be revealed and an apology so that the same mistakes would not be made again.
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government ended its information and support service on January 15, and its accommodation and meals support program on January 18. By the evening of January 17, there were 298 service users who had completed procedures for leaving the facility, with the routes of the remaining 562 registered users as follows [28].
- 419 people had been approved for welfare measures provided by local governments within Tokyo such as public assistance and housing allowance.
- One person had been approved for a stable employment loan provided by the government (Hello Work).
- 28 people left provided accommodation voluntarily. Of those, 15 people went on to re-employment, and 13 returned home due to a personal connection or unknown reasons.
- One person died of illness.
- Two people were forced to leave due to drinking alcohol whilst staying at the accommodation.
- The whereabouts of 111 people were unknown. These include registered users who did not settle their accounts and did not complete the procedures for leaving the facility on their own by January 17, and were subject to discharge procedures by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.
When the project ended on January 18, 264 people used bus transportation provided by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government when leaving the Nagisa hostel in Ōta [29].
Impact
Suzuki Wataru raises the Toshikoshi Hakenmura when talking about the larger context of a drastic increase in public assistance applications among people in their 20s and 30s post-2009. Suzuki stated that as the Toshikoshi Hakenmura received bipartisan support from important politicians, it in effect authorized government offices to accept applications [30].
翻訳 53
20日 2月 2019
〈年越し派遣村から10年〉上／自己責任社会は変わらず？／貧困は可視化できたけれど
リーマンショック後の２００８年末から翌年初めにかけて取り組まれた「年越し派遣村」。職を失って路上に放り出された労働者ら約５５０人が、東京の日比谷公園で命をつないだ。あれから10年。格差と貧困は改善されたのだろうか――そうした問題意識で２月16日、都内で反貧困ネットワーク全国集会が開かれた。
●状況はむしろ悪化
同集会実行委員会が主催した。当時、派遣村名誉村長を務めた宇都宮健児実行委員長は、幅広い労働組合や市民団体、弁護士・医師らの専門家集団が連携して運営し、失業者らの姿が大きく報道される中で「貧困問題を可視化できた」と指摘。その後、同様の取り組みが全国１７０カ所に広がり、政権交代の原動力の一つになったと述べた。
宇都宮氏は「格差と貧困を是正する社会をつくれると期待したが、残念ながら状況はむしろ悪化した。自己責任社会の状況は今も変えることができていない」と語った。
２０１２年12月には自民党が再び政権に就き、登録型派遣などを禁止するはずだった労働者派遣法改正案が骨抜きになり、生活保護基準は切り下げられた。
芸能人の母親が生活保護を受給していたことや、受給者（保護利用者）による飲酒、外食、パチンコ店通いに対し、「どこが貧困なのか」とバッシングが強まった。
●貧困が日常化した
生活保護問題に詳しい猪股正弁護士は「自己責任論は、派遣村で一時的に弱まった。困窮者の実態が伝わったからだと思う。しかし、今は当時よりも強まっていると感じる」。その理由についてこう述べた。
「この10年で非正規率が40％に達し、収入も貯蓄も減少した。生活が苦しくなるなか、自己責任で頑張っている人たちは多い。この人々は他人にも頑張りを求めがちで、頑張り切れない人たちが何らかの恩恵を受けるとバッシングしたくなるのではないか」
作家で活動家の雨宮処凛さんも自己責任論の強まりを指摘した。貧困を訴えた女子高生が千円のランチを食べたことが問題視された事例を紹介しながら、「本当に清く正しい貧困者なのか」という線引きが今も続いていると語った。「貧困が日常化して可視化しにくくなっている」とも述べた。
派遣ユニオンの関根秀一郎書記長は「状況は当時と全く変わっていない。むしろ、派遣労働者は不安定なまま増やされた。今も多くの派遣労働者が簡単に雇い止めされている」と告発した。その上で「派遣は自分で選んだんでしょ」という自己責任論が依然として強いと訴えた。
February 20, 2019
Ten years on from Toshikoshi Hakenmura: has the culture of personal responsibility changed? What happened after we could see poverty
Toshikoshi Hakenmura opened in the post-Lehman Brothers collapse days, at the end of 2008, and continued into the start of 2009. Around 550 workers who had lost their jobs and been thrown out on the streets lived in the 'dispatch workers village' in Hibiya Park in Tokyo. That was ten years ago now, so, have inequality and poverty improved since then? The Anti-Poverty Network explored similar questions and their answers at their national meeting on February 16th in Tokyo.
● “The situation is actually worse now.”
The meeting was sponsored by the executive committee, and heard from executive committee chairman, Utsunomiya Kenji, who was honorary 'mayor' of the village at the time. He said that through media coverage of the unemployed, and the coordinated management of the village by a wide range of trade unions, civic organizations and specialist organizations including lawyers and doctors, the public could more readily visualize poverty. Since then, similar initiatives have sprung up in 170 sites across the country, and became one of the driving forces behind the change in government. However, Utsunomiya continued, “Though I hoped we could create a society that would eliminate inequality and poverty, unfortunately, the situation is actually worse now. The culture of emphasizing personal responsibility has yet to change, even now.”
In December 2012, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) again took power, resulting in the watering down of amendments to the Worker Dispatch Act that were supposed to ban registration-type worker dispatching, and the reduction of the livelihood protection standard. There was widespread and fierce criticism towards cases like that of a celebrity's mother receiving welfare, and other welfare recipients drinking, eating out, and going to pachinko parlors, leading to many people doubting the true existence of poverty.
● “Poverty has become commonplace”
Inomata Tadashi, a lawyer with considerable experience in welfare issues, said, “The idea of personal responsibility temporarily abated when the Hakenmura was on our TV screens. I think the public could see the true reality of poverty. But that way of thinking has crept back and is much stronger again now.” He suggested the reason for this. “In the last 10 years, the rate of irregular employment has reached 40%, and income and savings have decreased. Many people are doing their best, taking personal responsibility, even though their lives have become difficult. It seems to me that people tend to want others to work harder, and when others can't work that hard but still receive some kind of benefit, they are liable to respond with criticism.”
Writer and activist Amamiya Karin pointed to the renewed strength of the personal responsibility ideology. She raised the case of a high school girl, who claimed to be living in poverty, but whose 1000 yen ($9) lunches were seen as evidence to the contrary. “There is still a debate about whether she could really be classed as poor.” She continued, “Poverty has become commonplace, and yet conversely become harder to visualize.” Sekine Shuichirō, secretary general of Haken Union, an organization that supports dispatch workers, said, “The situation has not changed at all.
Rather, there has been an increase in dispatch workers despite the instability. A huge number of dispatch workers still find that they can be laid off easily.” On top of that, he argues, society responds with a strong insistence on personal responsibility, meaning that the public often feel that dispatch workers have chosen this fate for themselves.
翻訳 52
国保組合のご紹介
プロフィール
建設連合国民健康保険組合の概要
建設連合国民健康保険組合（以下、「当国保組合」といいます。）は、一般社団法人日本建設組合連合（建設連合）を設立母体として昭和45年7月10日に愛知県の認可を受けて設立された公法人です。
全国の建設業に従事する仲間で構成され、加入しているみなさまの健康生活を守るための様々な事業を展開しています。
国保組合の位置づけ
国民健康保険には、都道府県及び市区町村が運営する市区町村国民健康保険と、当国保組合のように同種の事業又は業務に従事する人（組合員）で組織する国民健康保険組合（以下、「国保組合」といいます。）の2つがあります。
国保組合は、国民健康保険保険法に定められている医療保険です。
なお、当国保組合に加入する組合員とその家族は、当国保組合が行う国民健康保険の利益を受ける人（被保険者）です。
当国保組合の事業
当国保組合の事業は、次のものが柱になっています。
1. 組合員とその家族の人数を正確に把握して保険料をきちんと集める
2. 病院や薬局、診療所など（医療機関等）に、医療費を、またその他の給付金を適正に支払う
3. 被保険者の健康の保持・増進
当国保組合は、これらの事業を愛知県や厚生労働省の指導を受けながら規約に沿って行います。その運営は、組合員の中から選出される組合会議員で構成する組合会で4月から翌年3月までの1年間の事業計画や予算を定め、理事会でその執行を討議決定しています。
当国保組合の財政
当国保組合の財政は、次のものが収入の柱になっています。
1. 組合員が納める保険料
2. 国からの補助金
当国保組合が事業を運営するために必要な費用から、国の補助金やその他の収入を差し引いた残りを保険料として組合員に負担してもらいます。
https://www.kr-kokuho.or.jp/about/
An introduction to National Health Insurance Societies
Overview of the National Health Insurance Society for the Japan Construction Trade Union Confederation
The National Health Insurance Society for the Japan Construction Trade Union Confederation (hereafter referred to as NHIS JCTUC) is a public corporation that was established as a parent organization of the JCTUC on July 10th 1970 and licensed by Aichi Prefecture. It is comprised of colleagues involved in the Japanese construction industry, and our aim is to work to protect the lives and health of our members.
The context of National Health Insurance Societies
There are two types of National Health Insurance. Firstly, there is 'municipality controlled National Health Insurance,' run by prefectures or local governments. Secondly, there are National Health Insurance Societies (NHIS), which are organized by members of the same industry or involved in the same business. The NHIS JCTUC provides health insurance in line with the National Health Insurance Act. Members of the NHIS JCTUC and their family members receive the benefits of National Health Insurance as insured persons.
The business of NHIS JCTUC
The following are the pillars of the NHIS JCTUC.
1. Accurately record the number of members and their families and properly collect insurance premiums.
2. Pay medical expenses and other benefits accordingly to hospitals, pharmacies, clinics and medical institutions.
3. Preserve and promote the health of insured persons.
NHIS JCTUC operates in accordance with regulations and under guidance of Aichi Prefecture and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Its management consists of Society Meeting Members, who are chosen from our members. At society meetings, they set a business plan and budget for the next year (April to the following March), which then go to the governing board for debate and decision on their implementation.
The finances of NHIS JCTUC
The following are the main income sources for the NHIS JCTUC.
1. Insurance premiums paid by members.
2. Government subsidies.
The running costs of NHIS JCTUC are paid in part by government subsidies and other income streams, with the remaining amount being paid by our members as insurance premiums.
翻訳 51
（社説）「何人死んだ」 沖縄めぐる政治の劣化
2018年1月30日 5時00分
松本文明衆院議員が内閣府副大臣を事実上更迭された。
沖縄で相次ぐ米軍機のトラブルを追及した共産党の志位和夫委員長の代表質問に対し、議場から「それで何人死んだんだ」と、ヤジを飛ばしたのだ。
発言が問題になると、「誤解を招いた」とおなじみの言い訳である。誤解の余地など寸分もない、政治家としての資質を欠く暴言だ。しかも、松本氏は沖縄担当の副大臣を務めたこともあるというのだから、あきれるほかはない。
安倍首相はきのうの衆院予算委員会で「沖縄の方々の気持ちに寄り添いながら、基地負担の軽減に全力を尽くす」と陳謝した。だがその言葉とは裏腹に、政府は辺野古の埋め立て工事をしゃにむに進める。今回の早期更迭の背景にも、投票が迫る名護市長選への影響を抑えたいとの思惑が透けて見える。
松本氏のふるまいは、沖縄県民の思いよりも米国を重視する政府の姿勢が、乱暴な形で表面化しただけではないのか。
沖縄はその空気を感じ取っている。翁長知事がヤジを「びっくりするようなものではない」と突き放し、普天間飛行場をかかえる宜野湾市の住民が本紙の取材に「何人死んだら動いてくれるのですか」と語っているのは、その表れといえよう。
１９７２年の本土復帰後だけで、沖縄での米軍機の事故は７００件以上にのぼる。さすがに最近の頻発をうけて政府は米軍に飛行停止などを求めたが、あっさり無視されている。
政府与党の一員として本来進めるべきは、こうしたゆがんだ関係の是正である。だが難しい課題からは逃げ、中傷もどきのヤジを飛ばして悦に入る。歴史を知らず、学ばず、危険と隣り合わせの日常を想像する力もない政治家とは何なのか。
松本発言の翌日、野中広務氏が亡くなった。自民党の実力者として辺野古移設を進めた一人だ。一方で沖縄の苦難の歩みに心を寄せた。９７年に軍用地の収用を強化する法律が成立した際、本会議場で、法律の必要性を認めつつ「沖縄県民を軍靴で踏みにじるような結果にならないように」と訴えた。ヤジと同じ不規則発言として議事録から削られたが、心ある人々の記憶に刻まれた。
多数のためなら少数者の犠牲はやむをえないのか。沖縄は本土にそう問いかけ、野中氏を含む少なからぬ自民党の政治家たちも、その声に何とか答えようと真摯（しんし）にとり組んできた。
いま、政治の著しい劣化に危機感を覚えざるを得ない
https://www.asahi.com/articles/DA3S13336305.html
Editorial: “And how many people have died?” - The broken politics of Okinawa
January 30th 2018 5:00
Matsumoto Fumiaki, a Member of the House of Representatives, has been forced to quit his position of deputy minister of the Cabinet Office.
His resignation comes after a heckle he made from the floor of the House following a query made by Shii Kazuo, the Chairman of the Japanese Communist Party, about the succession of incidents related to US military aircraft in Okinawa. Matsumoto heckled in response, “And how many people have died as a result?”
Under fire for his interjection, his reply included the well worn defense that his words had “caused misunderstanding.” Yet what he said was unreasonable, left no room to be misunderstood, and was not the kind of interruption a qualified politician should make. His remarks are all the more astounding given Matsumoto served as a senior vice minister for Okinawa.
Prime Minister Abe apologized for the incident yesterday in the Budget Committee of the lower house of the Diet, saying, “We will consider the feelings of Okinawan citizens while doing our utmost to minimize the burden of hosting military bases.” His words, however, were in direct contrast to the government's furious efforts to complete landfill work off the coast of Henoko to allow for the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. It is clear that a desire to minimize any impact on the imminent mayoral election in Nago in Okinawa played a part in Matsumoto's swift resignation.
Matsumoto's behavior may have violently brought to the surface the government's position of prioritizing the needs of the United States over the concerns of Okinawan residents.
This is felt acutely in Okinawa. Governor of Okinawa Onaga Takeshi brushed off Matsumoto's outburst, saying he was “not surprised.” A similar reaction came in comments given by a citizen of Ginowan (where MCAS Futenma is based), who said, “If more people did die, would they do something about it then?”
There have been over 700 incidents involving US aircraft in Okinawa since the islands were handed over to Japanese control in 1972. In the light of numerous recent incidents, the government has petitioned the US to suspend flights, but their requests have fallen on deaf ears.
Correcting this strained relationship is imperative for the ruling party. And yet we have Matsumoto, taking pleasure in making his pseudo-slanderous outburst, avoiding the difficult questions. What is the use of a politician who does not even know history to be able to learn from it, who lacks any ability to imagine what everyday life must be like living next door to such danger?
The day after Matsumoto's interjection in the House, Nonaka Hiromu died. A dominant figure in the LDP, Nonaka helped with the campaign for the relocation of the military base. At the same time, he was moved by the suffering of Okinawa. In 1997, with the passing of a law allowing expropriation of land for US military use to occur with greater ease, Nonaka acknowledged the necessity of the law, but said in a plenary session, “we must ensure that combat boots do not trample Okinawa underfoot.” It was not recorded in the minutes of the meeting as it was seen as an 'extraneous statement,' the same as Matsumoto's outburst, but it touched the hearts of many people.
Is the suffering of the few unavoidable for the sake of the many? This was the question Okinawa asked of the mainland, and a considerable number of LDP politicians, including Nonaka, have worked diligently towards finding some kind of answer. Now, however, with politics in such a broken state, there is only a feeling of impending crisis.
