翻訳　60 (w) - D Baker - 日英翻訳者

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E6%88%A6%E7%B7%9A%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

The Popular Front Incidents (人民戦線事件, jinmin sensen jiken) refer to mass arrests made on December 15, 1937 and February 1, 1938 of university professors and scholars associated with a post-war non-communist Marxist ideology known collectively as “the workers' and farmers' faction,” or rо̄nо̄-ha, as a result of efforts made to form a united people's front against fascism in Japan called for by Communist International (Comintern) [1]. Until this point in time, arrests of left wing thinkers had been limited to members of the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), but this incident saw the scope of arrests extended to non-communist Marxists and socialists. It is known as a representative example of how article one of the Public Security Preservation Law of 1925 concerning conspiracy or association was broadly interpreted [2].

1 Background

2 Case history

3 Broad interpretation and application of “conspiracy or association”

4 Not guilty verdict and aftermath

5 Verdict

Background

In July 1935, the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International was held in Moscow, where it was announced that in a change of policy, a united anti-fascist front would be formed in alliance with opposing social democratic forces [3]. In February 1936, a letter explaining the change of policy, the “Letter to Communists of Japan,” signed by Okano (Nosaka Sanzо̄) and Tanaka (Yamamoto Kenzо̄), was brought to Japan in secret via the United States [4] [5] [6].

Rо̄nо̄-ha, a collective of non-communist leftists including supporters of the magazine Rо̄nо̄, played a major role in the people's front movement in Japan [4]. The ethos of rо̄nо̄-ha was grounded in one stage revolution theory (proletariat revolution), in opposition to Comintern's two stage revolution theory (bourgeois revolution and proletariat revolution). Adherents of another school of thought called kо̄za-ha followed the route set by the Comintern [4]. In July 1936, the Metropolitan Police arrested kо̄za-ha scholars for being leaders of the JCP reconstruction despite kо̄za-ha having no such plans to reconstruct the JCP [4]. It became known as the “Communist Academy Incident” [4]. From this point on, anyone found engaging in activity related to reinstating the JCP was arrested, even if those actions were minor [4].

The internal circumstances of the arresting Special Higher Police (Tokkо̄) and thought crime prosecutors played a role in the Communist Academy Incident. At the time, people who had been targeted for arrest by the Special Higher Police and thought crime prosecutors had all but entirely disappeared [7]. Cuts to budget and staffing between 1935 to 1936 had left them trying to find new people to arrest as a way of defending the existence of the organization [7]. The anti-fascist movement experienced an upsurge after the attempted coup of February 1936, and links were made between that movement and Comintern's people's front strategy. Determining that the anti-fascist movement was linked to communism meant new people could be targeted for arrest [7]. It is within this context that the Popular Front Incidents took place.

Case history

The anti-fascist united front was a movement that included diverse ideologies, such as social democracy, liberalism, and the anti-war movement. It was the opinion of the Ministry of Justice that social democracy and liberalism were a breeding ground for communism, and subscribing to this view, the Home Ministry Police Affairs Bureau set about making arrests [2].

At 6am on December 15, 1937, police arrested 466 people in 18 prefectures across the country, including Committee Chairman of the Japan Proletarian Party Katо̄ Kanjū, central and local leaders of support organizations like the National Farmers Union and the National Council of Trade Unions, as well as scholars and critics [8]. This is known as the first People's Front Incident. On December 22, the Japan Proletarian Party and National Council of Trade Unions were declared to be illegal and forced to disband [9]. In the following year, on February 1, 1938, 38 people were arrested across nine prefectures [8], in the second People's Front Incident, sometimes referred to as the 'faculty group' [9]. This incident seemed to involve internal conflicts that were occurring at the time within the Faculty of Economics at Tokyo Imperial University [10]. It is said that Hijikata Seibi, Tanabe Tadao, Honiden Yoshio and Hashizume Akio were involved in the arrests, particularly Hashizume, who had working as a spy for the Home Ministry Police Affairs Bureau [10].

Of those arrested, there were 265 people who had connections to the Japan Proletarian Party, 174 people connected to the National Council of Trade Unions (including 42 people who also had connections to the Japan Proletarian Party), 34 people of the rо̄nо̄-ha, and 11 people in the faculty group [8]. Notable people arrested in the first Popular Front incident include Diet members Katо̄ Kanjū and Kuroda Hisao, activists Yamakawa Hitoshi, Arahata Kanson, Suzuki Mosaburо̄, Okada Sо̄ji, Sakisaka Itsurо̄, Ōmori Yoshitarо̄, and in the second Popular Front incident, Ōuchi Hyо̄e, Arisawa Hiromi, Wakimura Yoshitarо̄, Uno Kо̄zо̄, Minobe Ryо̄kichi, Sasaki Kо̄zо̄ and Eda Saburо̄.

Broad interpretation and application of “conspiracy or association”

After the arrests, examining judges contended that the Japan Proletarian Party was not an organization banned by article one of the Public Security Preservation Law, and if there was no evidence of attempts to overthrow the emperor system, then the activities would only be covered by article one, clause two of the law [11]. Though these cases were predicated on a violation of the Public Security Preservation Law, the attempted application of this law was often incorrect, and even at the time, there was also a degree of hesitation to use it [12], with others regarding it as problematic [2].

In an attempt to answer questions and avoid confusion, the Ministry of Justice produced a manual on how to apply the law. This took the form of a pamphlet called “Rо̄nо̄-ha and the Japan Proletarian Party” (“Ideological Materials Pamphlet,” edition one, March 1938), written by Supreme Court thought prosecutor Ikeda Katsu [11]. Ikeda was a leading proponent of the broad interpretation of the “conspiracy or association” aspect of the Preservation Law [13]. While there were objections that this broad interpretation of the law meant investigations and evidence gathering ran into difficulties, making it difficult to justify prosecutions, Ikeda vehemently refuted this [12]. From June to September of 1938, the Ministry of Justice gathered judges and prosecutors in various places for meetings on thought crime, and sent Ikeda and Masaki Akira, who was also a Supreme Court prosecutor, to enforce its aims [11].

The justification for a broad application of the Public Security Preservation Law was set out clearly in the aforementioned pamphlet, “Rо̄nо̄-ha and the Japan Proletarian Party.” The pamphlet made frequent use of plausible though misleading arguments focusing on the end result, as well as forced logic to justify the broad interpretation of “association or conspiracy” as stipulated by article one of the Public Security Preservation Law. The theory of results over all else is often quoted in criticism of the broad interpretation of the “association and conspiracy” aspect of the law.

Another problem with the application of the Public Security Preservation Law was that rо̄nо̄-ha was a loose term applied to people with a certain ideology, rather than an established organization [9]. The Public Security Preservation Law could not be applied in these situations, as it was ultimately a law to crack down on organizations. The activities of rо̄nо̄-ha were within the scope of legal activities, and neither did the anti-fascist movement aim to change the 'kokutai' (national essence) [9] (article one of the Public Security Preservation Law states, “Anyone who forms, or knowingly participates in, groups whose goal is to deny the system of private property or to change our national essence shall be sentenced to prison or penal servitude of up to ten years. Anyone who attempts to commit this crime also will be punished.”).

Thought prosecutors did not however pay any regard to this. Despite it being a foreign entity, they saw Comintern as an organization trying to change the kokutai, and impossibly attempted to apply domestic law to it [14]. They advanced such a broad interpretation of the Preservation Law that as long as suspects had an awareness of Comintern, or even knew what kind of organization it was, they were liable for punishment [14].

Not guilty verdict and aftermath

This forcible application of the law led to significant confusion and people being arrested for engaging in legal activities. This was due in no small part to the lack of clarity in the criteria as to whether or not to prosecute [15]. Okayama District Public Prosecutors Office questioned whether or not rо̄nо̄-ha should be recognized as an organization, and Akita District Court queried whether article one of the Public Security Preservation Law could be applied to the so-called Popular Front movement [15]. The forced arrests ultimately backfired, with not guilty verdicts being returned one after another, notably in the faculty group [15].

Discontented with this, thought prosecutors again pushed on with efforts to revise the Public Security Preservation Law in 1938 [15]. Their motive was not merely to amend the law. Thought prosecutors wanted to change the cumbersome Public Security Preservation Law as it stood to make it easier to arrest suspects, after the Special Higher Police had been forced to minimize the illegal detention and torture commonly used against suspects due to these practices being regarded as problematic within the National Diet. In addition to this, as it was not legal to apply the Public Security Preservation Law when arresting members of “similar religious organizations” in instances of emerging religions among the general public, prosecutors wanted to amend the law so this was also classified as a violation. The demands made by thought prosecutors were entwined with other factors, such as the Ministry of Justice's desire to give prosecutors the power to compel searches without the need for a warrant from the court [16][17].

Verdict

All of the people arrested in the Popular Front Incidents were charged under the Public Security Preservation Law, and while a large number (including all of the faculty group arrested in the second incident) received not guilty verdicts at a second trial, Katо̄ Kanjū, Suzuki Mosaburо̄, Yamakawa Hitoshi and others were found guilty at a second trial. The Public Security Preservation Law was repealed after World War Two, and as a result, Katо̄ and the rest were released in 1945. Research in 1970 established the following judgments were made [18].

Yamakawa Hitoshi

First trial judgment of September 21, 1941

Prosecutor's recommended sentence: 7 years

Sentence: 5 years in prison

Total pre-sentencing detention: 100 days

Second trial judgment of September 25, 1944

Sentence: 3 years in prison

Total pre-sentencing detention: 100 days

Final appeal judgment of November 7, 1945

Released due to repeal of the Public Security Preservation Law

Katо̄ Kanjū

First trial judgment of September 30, 1942

Sentence: 3 years in prison

Total pre-sentencing detention: 650 days

Second trial judgment : guilty

Final appeal: released

Suzuki Mosaburо̄

First trial judgment of September 30, 1942

Sentence: 5 years in prison

Second trial judgment of September 25, 1944

Sentence: 2 years 6 months in prison

Total pre-sentencing detention: 150 days

Final appeal judgment of November 8, 1945: release

Ōmori Yoshitarо̄

Died in July 1940 after being granted bail

First trial judgment of October 30, 1940: case dismissed

Arahata Kanson

Pretrial hearing judgment of December 28, 1939: put to trial

Sakisaka Itsurо̄

First trial judgment of September 21, 1942

Sentence: 2 years in prison

Arisawa Hiromi

First trial judgment of September 28, 1942

Sentence: 2 years in prison, 3 years suspended sentence