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].