Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Minorities in Japan have often influenced the government policy as 'tōjisha'. My presentation discusses whether and how 'tōjisha undō' (victims' movements) open a space of hope for minorities by legislative means, using the Hate Speech Law of 2016 and its implementation as a case study.

Paper long abstract:

'Tōjisha' (directly affected people), usually referred to as 'victims' in the English-language literature, have been recognized as key players in Japan's social movements, because they have often influenced the government policy (Upham 1987; Feldman 2000; Arrington 2016). The term has a wide application and includes minority people who are ill-treated by government policy or are suffering from discrimination. It refers not to victims passively awaiting relief but to committed victims who are seeking redress for damage including policy change on their own initiative. My presentation discusses whether and how victims' movements (Tōjisha undō) open a space of hope for minorities by legislative means, more specifically, 'principle laws' (rinenhō). 'Principle laws' tend to consist of few articles, introduce no specific penalty, get almost no budget, and explain only basic principles in relatively abstract terms. Based on his analysis of the recent burakumin's movement and a principle law which was introduced in response to the movement, Bondy (2019) argued that principle laws and their implementation rely exclusively on administrative guidance with no binding force and therefore remain weak and symbolically only. In contrast to his research, my presentation will show the potential of administrative guidance, using the Hate Speech Law of 2016 and its implementation as a case study. Since the Hate Speech Law was enacted in 2016, far-right protests have been rapidly decreasing. I argue that victims can hope that a principle law can have considerable impact if it is implemented in accordance with Japan's 'soft' method of conflict resolution: Japan has historically implemented administrative measures not to directly ban but discourage social activities that are deemed harmful to the value of social harmony.

Paper Download (268 KB)