It is that simple. I am sick and tired of Gaikokujin complaining about how Japan works or what Japan should and should not do or how Japanese should think and behave. This is Japan for Japanese, if you do not like it then leave, stop trying to change the country and peoples thinking to suit yours. Do not like what Japan does or do not like how Japanese behave or do not like Japanese laws, then GO HOME, no one has a gun to your thick skull forcing you to stay in Japan!

So because a few riled up hoodlums are making hate speeches against foreigners. I don’t find it ridiculous that the government hasn’t stepped in, the policy of freedom of speech and of being allowed to demonstrate your beliefs is so hindered by the process of an overbearing government then why bother having this freedom at all we may as well be subject to a life of servitude but it is because we have these freedoms that we may do so in calling a government callous for not acting when clearly the political condition is not only delicate but dangerous. Let us just say for instance. There is a public denouncement of this type of activity are the people who called for this rally any better? they are demonizing people for speech not action.

The demonstration were organised by a laughable number of morons, so, yes, if they would come to my home and incite I would let them do exactly that! Let them show how stupid they’re, I would also call the police and since I live in a residential area in Japan they’ll be forced to leave. The point I tried to make, is that “inciting racial/religious hatred” is a very serious one and will have to be dealt with strongly. I don’t doubt for a minute that Japan would and will protect its minorities in the case of real “inciting racial/religious hatred” – the same in Europe. I follow the news closely, weekly incitements by islamists in European cities are common, they do incite hatred and can get very violent, but a democracy must withstand this. BUT once those people cross the line they’ll be prosecuted, it might take years like with Abu Katada in the UK but it will be done. So think before you fire at Japan! 50 moronic nationalists pushing it far have been a) cordoned off and b) condemned by Japanese media as well as by the Japanese government. Only because we don’t agree with their (idiotic) demands we don’t have to use the sledgehammer and make martyrs out of them….

However, there is a big difference in the degree to which various countries suppress, muzzle and discourage free speech.

A totalitarian and authoritarian country like North Korea or Saudi Arabia has much more restricted freedom of speech, as compared to free democracies like the US or the UK.

Japan has a long way to go before it can be at par with other advanced and developed countries, when it comes to freedom of speech. This is why I find it ironic that some people want to defend hate speech in Japan under the guise of free speech.

so, by your reasoning… it is okay for me to walk around japan screaming hate speech at the Japanese. Including asking, yelling in support of violent acts against them? Because, you know… It is freedom of speech?

I wouldn’t wish to do that by the way. But you think that freedom of expression should extend this far?

Good try, but I think you misunderstood my point.

I’m not saying the actions or threats are “justified”.

Nor did I say that hatred and violence “need” to have a rational basis.

In fact I said the exact opposite when I said “…the alleged grievances…[can be purely]… imagined.” (see my post above)

What I did say is that the grievances have a “basis”. Meaning there is some reason for them.

And just for clarity, let me repeat: that basis can be real or IMAGINED (meaning pure fantasy with nothing rational behind it).

And for good measure let’s say it again, but in a different way…

The reason might be grounded in fact. Or the reason might be grounded in pure fantasy. None the less, there usually is a reason.

My point is, if you merely censor the speech without addressing the underlying “reason”, you become no better than the people you censor…i.e., you exhibit the same inability to understand others and inability to consider another person’s point of view as the people you are trying to censor.

(Note, when I say “you” I do not mean you personally…I mean “a person” in the abstract).

Using your Rape and Nazi examples…

If a woman dresses extremely provocatively, and garners attention, are you saying it is perfectly fine for her to dress however she wants and no one should react to her manner of expression? Or even call attention to her actions and dress as a contributing basis for the attention? Is discussion of her dress totally off limits for consideration?

Her manner of dress does not justify rape. However it could explain her getting sexual attention. Note, I don’t think most rapes are based on how a woman is dressed anyway…I don’t have any statistics or experience on this…just a gut feeling.

The Nazi example is a little more complicated. Threats of anti-semitic charges have made it virtually impossible to discuss intelligently any of the grievances the Nazis had against the Jews so as to totally mute open discussion of the topic.

In grade school, we were bombarded with messages of how the Jews suffered in the Holocaust, etc, etc.

But I never heard any discussion on why exactly Hitler hated the Jews.

I always found that odd.

If we supposedly did not want to repeat history, we should fully examine what were the arguments that led up to the persecution of the Jews in Germany and discredit those core arguments.

But such never occurred in school.

So I decided to read Mein Kampf on my own…just to take a look at what made this Hitler guy tick.

I read his arguments. Some of them seemed perfectly understandable (hold your opprobrium) and some of them were just pure crazy or self-contradictory.

For the understandable arguments, did that justify genocide? Honestly, I don’t know. The point is *something* motivated the Nazis and you need to address the source of that motivation rather than trying to simply cover it up.

When you fail to address the alleged underlying grievances, it makes me think you are trying to hide something.

Note again, when I say “you”, I don’t mean you personally. I mean “people” in the abstract.

(and without saying too much, Hitler would have probably put me in a concentration camp as well…that doesn’t mean that I can’t have the intellectual courage to examine his justifications)

Finally, when you say “… there is no justification or rationale for this type of hatred and incitement of violence.”

There is ALWAYS a justification (i.e., reason) that is exactly why violence and incitement to violence takes place and continues to take place to this very day (See Egypt and Syria August 2013).

Without examining those “justifications” and neutralizing them at their intellectual and psychological root….the violence will continue unabated.

Censoring “hate” speech will not eliminate the sentiments that originally gave birth to the speech.

Censorship only allows the sentiment to hide and fester, uncured and unaddressed, waiting for the right opportunity to manifest itself again…and…again.

I honestly don’t have an issue with Abe’s remarks. Hate speech, although repugnant, is protected. I may be misinterpreting his words, but they essentially say, “While hate speech is certainly not pretty, the populace ultimately decides whether to listen or not.” And this is essentially how it is all over the world, in any democratic society. In the US we have the Westboro picketers, the KKK etc. No one approves of them, but we cannot forcefully silence them. Maybe Abe’s words of condemnation were not strong enough, but I believe his message was meant to reflect the fact that they do indeed have the right to spew their vitriol.