Media and the State:Truth, Justice and Democracy

One day, one of my British asked me a question about ethics of Japanese media, mainly NHK (Japanese Broadcasting Corporation). He asked whether NHK is ‘owned’ by the government (?). I answered yes. The annual budget of NHK is proposed in the Diet (the parliament of Japan) and people must pay for TV licence. By definition, thus, NHK is (partly national) public broadcasting cooperation. The government technically does not own NHK. So why I answered yes?

The main reason is that NHK is not critical enough towards the policies and the performance of the government and bureaus and the bureaucracy. The discussions over them are not proposed and triggered by NHK; moreover, the ‘truth’ they report are also questioned. The collusive relationship between NHK (and a couple of major newspapers) and the government, especially the Prime Minister became open, and argued that NHK broadcasts the propaganda. (bib: Katsuaki Hayashi (2015), Business Journal http://biz-journal.jp/2015/08/post_11011_2.html)

  
Photo: Chairman of NHK answers the interview. <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKWwIQlUkAAvJxW.jpg>

He says. “We cannot say ‘left’ to the matter the government says ‘right’”, so which means they cannot argue against the government regardless of the truth.

 Before the Second World War, Japanese people believed in whatever the government (okami: superior authority) said, they clashed into the War; so many innocents people are killed - Japanese or not-Japanese. Japanese people do not repeat the same mistakes. They must aware as democratic citizens and never be ‘the mob’ again. It is controversial that current  government policies, especially towards Article 9. However, the problem I highlight here is not the ‘correctness’ of the policies. The problem is the potential violation of democracy in Japan.

Fortunately, Japanese people are not punished or jailed for protesting the government. Also, they have other media such as internet to know and discuss the issues.

Now is the time to raise the voice! 
Now is the time for recalling democracy!

Politics of Human Rights

Where the concepts of human rights and freedom of individuals are not (at least) legally stated alongside of the regulations of Universal Human Rights, the voice for human rights and freedom, and the voice for change often physically ‘clash’ with dominating government, religions and social norms. Again, here, we must question why and how the ideological clash leads to this physical ‘clash’, by whom and for what purposes. That enables us to analyse the ‘clash’ politically, and further the politics of human rights and freedom.

First of all, think who raises the voice for human rights and freedom? Usually, people who are oppressed, racial, religious, sexual, ethnic minorities. ‘Clash’ to what/whom? To what; Social/ cultural/ religious norms. To whom; the majorities. Those norms might be designed to benefit the the majority (the ruling class), and maintained to retain their power and superiority. Thus, inequality is reproduced and reinforced.

To considering this thought with the case of Rwandan genocide, my initial hypothesis which I proposed in the previous post, the notion of ‘clash’ between the ‘Western’ ideologies and existing ‘local’ ideologies could be totally wrong. That ‘clash’ can be occurred even if there is no ‘Western’ ideologies as a trigger; but it could simply be understood as the clash of two contested powers. One of the keys terms of Rwandan genocide is considered as the power relations between Hutus and Tutsis. During colonisation, numerical majority Hutus had been oppressed by the numerical minority but ruling class Tutsis. The voice for the dignity and the land of Tutsis has raised and it leads to the ‘clash’. They might not use the terms, human rights, freedom, or democracy in Western concepts; however, the mechanism behind/underneath are explained as the clash in the power relations.

That suggests where/when human rights and freedom are oppressed, there are the factors/actors which dare to oppress them with ‘greed’ for the power and benefits. Moreover, the clash with ‘Western’ concepts are used as the legitimacy for not adopting those concepts. <Again, this is only a hypothesis and need more research with case studies. I aim to research the Middle East where the relationship with the ‘West’ are often argued.>

Why Human Rights Not Achieved?

Almost 70 years has past since the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights has issued. However, still, in everywhere around the world, either in the West or in non-West, human rights have been continuously violated. Especially, the rights of political and social vulnerables such as minorities, women and children are often ignored and its violation itself is invisible. the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

After the Second World War, the concept of human rights is introduced to Japan and adopted in the Constitution as well. However, this legal and legislative framework do not guarantee the protection of universal human rights. Through my dissertation, ‘Beyond Complementarity: Understanding Gender Inequality in Japan’, I discussed the reason why the concept of human rights can hardly be accepted in the Japanese society and implicated in the policies is the ‘clash’ between those, so-called, ‘Western’ concepts (which are imported and introduced by the West) and Japanese traditional cultures and social systems.‘Beyond Complementarity: Understanding Gender Inequality in Japan’

It does not mean that human rights cannot exist  or have not been existed in non-Western societies; however it means that is understandable if there are controversies over the merge of those concepts and existing ideologies. I understand this fact that the ‘clash’ may happen; however, I do not believe this is the simple, innocent reaction of ‘uncivilised’ countries and people. There must be some social/political intentions behind.  

MA Year is the Blog Year

I always wanted to say something about politics, human rights, freedom, and justice. Why I haven’t? Because I was afraid to state something with my poor knowledge and thoughts as an undergraduate student. Now, I have awarded BA Politics and International Relations, and moved to the next stage, postgraduate. This progress gives me some confidence and also the obligations to be involved in politics more spontaneously. Moreover, through my first degree, slowly I have learned that politics is not only the studies for the intellectuals; but also the thoughts and practices for everybody.

Aims: 1) Become an active actor of politics and international relations. 2) Helps to digest new knowledge and thoughts.


Methods: I will post weekly blogs. Each blog post would be very short, 200-400 words; however it aims to show the interconnection of each other as the political practices are interconnected. I often use the case of Japan to start my argument because my thoughts start from there. Then I evaluate  my thoughts around Japan and refer to international issues or issues in totally different regions such as Africa and Middle East. Indeed, I need to pay attention to consider cultural/religious/historical contexts behind/underneath to compare two or more different regions or countries; however, comparative approach does help to understand the mechanism of power, oppression or conflicts.

「○○ハラスメント」 について

日本では今、たくさんの「○○ハラスメント」「○○ハラ」という言葉があります。

「セクハラ（セクシャルハラスメント）」や、「パワハラ（パワーハラスメント）」など、すでによく知られているハラスメントもありますが、いくつか、「こんなことまで、ハラスメントっていうの？！」というものもありました。

例えば・・・

「ジェンダーハラスメント」

ジェンダーハラスメントとは、「女らしさ・男らしさの物差しから外れた行動や態度に対し非難すること」　（明智,2014）。

「レイハラ＝レイシャルハラスメント」

コトバンクによれば、「人種的偏見に基づく嫌がらせ」という意味だそう。

ここで私は少し疑問に思いました。

え？！「ジェンダーハラスメント」は「性差別＝セクシズム（sexism）」じゃないの？！

「レイハラ」は「人種差別＝レイシズム（racism）」じゃないの？！


「この行動は差別だ」と認識されるのと(例えば）\「レイハラだ」と認識されるのでは、行動は同じでも、その社会的な、政治的な重みは違ってくるのではないでしょうか。

パワハラやセクハラ、そして特筆したレイハラやジェンダーハラスメントを、ただ単に「ハラスメント（＝いやがらせ）」と認識していいのでしょうか？

本当は、個人と個人の問題を超えた、政治的、観念的（ideological）な問題として捉えられるべきではないでしょうか。