Conservative daily Sankei apologizes for running anti-Semitic ad

AFP-JIJI

A conservative national daily on Saturday apologized for carrying an advertisement for books whose author claims that Jewish people were behind the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The advert ran in a Nov. 26 regional edition of the Sankei Shimbun and promoted the works of Richard Koshimizu, a self-styled journalist and activist who also blames Jews for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States.

The natural disasters of 2011 sparked the man-made Fukushima nuclear disaster and left 18,000 people dead or missing.

A little-known figure in Japan, Koshimizu used the promotional space to market a book claiming the United States is a “Jewish dictatorship state” that detonated an atomic bomb deep underwater to deliberately trigger the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that devastated Japan’s northeast coastline.

In another book featured in the ad, Koshimizu claims the Holocaust was a fabrication designed to establish the state of Israel.

“It is extremely regrettable that an advertisement of this content was carried and delivered to our readers, and we deeply apologize to readers and the people of the Jewish community,” Sankei President Takamitsu Kumasaka said in a statement published in the paper.

“It was obvious there was a fault in our screening of advertisements,” he said.

Kumasaka added that he received a letter of protest over the ad from Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish rights group.

“The Sankei considers the Holocaust by the Nazis as an unforgivable, heinous crime and does not side,” the president said.

The Sankei said the ad was in the Tokai/Hokuriku edition covering central Japan, where it has a circulation of 5,000 copies.

Japan does not have a large Jewish community and the vast majority of the populace practices a mixture of imported Buddhism and indigenous Shintoism.

  • soudeska

    I’m sure Mr. Kumasaka is soooo sorry. Because Sankei Shimbun is not at all racist and would never justify any atrocities committed in WWII, or promote any ridiculous conspiracy theories.

    • AtomicMetroid

      For one, you cannot be “racist” towards a religion or political position. Two, 33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. You should read it.

      • soudeska

        Have you ever heard of the “Jewish race”?

        The irony is that this apology could be used to prove exactly what the advertised book claims. But it also proves Sankei’s hypocrisy.

  • Osaka Ali

    The missionaries of holocaustianity eye the conversion of the Japanese multitudes to their religion. Expect ‘holocaust-denial’ criminal laws in Japan soon.

    • AtomicMetroid

      Oh yeah! There will be. Nobody is allowed to ask questions about the so-called “holocaust”. They will probably also make it illegal to call them “jews”.

  • Jeremy West

    Sankei HAS to apologize or risk the country being struck by another mega earthquake and tsunami.

  • Doc Lemm

    Why apologize for free speech?

    • AtomicMetroid

      There is free speech until you question the jews. I live in America and a jewish person is over-seer of almost everything. Don’t believe me? Check for yourself. Many of them change their last names so that they can blend in. But many are talking about them. The jig is up. There is an awakening happening. Too many are questioning them.

      • Hp B

        The Hollowco$t baloney is like the USA’s phony Bill of Rights.

        1st amendment – BUT
        2nd amendment – BUT
        3rd amendment – BUT

        And on and on and on. The natural born usurpers have always been with us and despite previous heroic efforts, they always will be.

    • lordpeckerwoodfive

      The ‘Anti-Semite’ card

      second only to the AA ‘Race’ card

      • musimann

        Jews created the NAACP to teach blacks how to whine like they do.

    • Aaron

      Because free speech does not mean that you are free from criticism. You can say anything you want, and the government cannot stop you…and then anyone else can say anything they want back. In this case, a knowledgable party told Sankei that what they’d published was offensive and harmful, and Sankei then apologised. Koshizumi’s right to free speech does not mean he has a right to be published by a private company.

      • farang

        Aaron, tell the readers about the Jewish instigated Armenian genocide, and the Red Cross records documenting 328,000 Jewish victims

      • Aaron

        You are welcome to do so–I know nothing about it. After you do, people are then free to examine your claims, review your facts, and then either support or criticise them. _That_ is what free speech means.

      • Osaka Ali

        ‘…people are then free to examine your claims, review your facts, and then either support or criticise them.’

        Right, that is what should have happened. But we have no way of knowing the contours of the debate (if there even was one), because it all happened behind closed doors. For all we know, the only discussion was a kind of blackmail against the paper. We, the general readership, are left only to speculate as there has been no public debate of Koshizumi’s claims.

        The question is, why not? Why have a secret meeting with the editors of Sankei rather than run an advertisement with counter-claims in the following issue? That would be more faithful to the spirit of ‘free speech’, would it not?

      • Aaron

        You, like others, are failing to understand what “free speech” is. It means that the government (not private individuals, not corporations, etc.) cannot infringe on your ability to speak (and even that has limits, as the government can stop you from speaking in some cases). Under neither legal free speech nor even a common definition is there any requirement, obligation, or even suggestion that a private company is obliged to explain its actions. In this case, though, they did explain: another company that contracted with them advertised materials that are patently and obviously false, and, furthermore, offensive and potentially harmful to a particular religious/ethnic group. After being informed of this, Sankei said “Well, that’s not something we want to be mixed up in” and then severed their relationship with the advertiser. Are you or others implying that the newspaper should be required to let anyone who wants to advertise there? Should I be allowed, say, to drop a hundred million yen and say “You must publish my FSM manifesto! You must, or you’re taking away my free speech!” No, of course not. As I said above, the right to free speech does not mean the right to be published (nor the right to be free of the consequences of what you do say).

      • Osaka Ali

        ‘You, like others, are failing to understand what “free speech”is.’

        Save us the lecture on liberalism and so-called ‘free speech’, concepts that you don’t really believe in.
        Of course, you are bending the concepts to fit your needs as they suit you.

        No one said that the paper should be forced to do anything; if they don’t want to run the ad, no one should force them to; if they do, no one should stop them. If they are publishing information of a low quality, the Japanese people, among the most literate in the world, can be trusted to figure out the value of such information and to treat it accordingly. That’s how free-speech works in a free-market, no? Or maybe you doubt the capacity of the readership of the Sankei Shimbun to ‘understand’ as you doubt the readership of the JapanTimes.

        In fact it is the activist ‘human rights’ organization (not a company, but that is a practically Freudian misstatement) that applied pressure, claiming some kind of harm or damages similar to the ones that you allude to. So, now that we’re all informed of the conventions of free markets, please consider my actual points and not your completely inaccurate reconstructions of them.

        You speak of ‘patently and obviously false’ claims made by Mr. Richard Koshimizu. Not everyone agrees
        that all or even some of his claims are false. If his book is based on faulty information, anyone is free to publish their own book with opposing claims, refutations, or in essence better counter-arguments. Then the public can decide. I, unlike you and the center for ‘Human Rights’, trust the public to be able to make their own decisions. And if the Sankei Shimbun doesn’t want to run your letter, editorial or advertisement for a book opposing Richard Koshimizu’s work, you are ‘free’ to advertise in a competing newspaper or journal. This form of debate is not just a component of market principles, it is the essence of the progress of all of the sciences. You’re a man of ‘science’, aren’t you?

        You and the plaintiff make a more serious allegation. Richard Koshimizu’s work is “offensive” to a particular religious/ethnic group. Since when has ‘free speech’ been limited by the requirement that it not be offensive? Tell me, does every religious/ethnic group receive the privilege of silencing speech that they find offensive? If this is your idea of a free exchange of ideas, I doubt your capacity to engage in it.

      • Guest

        Lastly you make the most outrageous claim of all by saying that Richard Koshimizu’s ideas are ‘potentially harmful’. If that is the case, you are saying that his speech is a form of violence. Demonstrate how his claims are violations of someone’s person or property. If you or a ‘human rights’ organization are really committed to your purported ideals, then your claims should be brought before a just and a fair court. Unfortunately, it is easier to bully the supporters and publishers of purveyors of supposedly ‘potentially harmful’ works, such as Koshimizu’s, than it is to directly and transparently pursue justice. But I suspect that you don’t really want justice, though, do you?

        What is most troublesome in your reply to my comment is the way that you can seamlessly champion free speech and deliver a lesson on it like a patronizing demagogue (except for the disclaimer that free-speech is valid unless the government says it isn’t), and then about-face in practically the next sentence with thinly veiled whines of being victimized by hate-speech. What I find completely offensive is how shamelessly you browbeat and sermonize on victimization to a people, the Japanese, who experienced a completely verifiable and undeniable holocaust in contrast to one that is being vigorously debated by serious scholarship, not the kind strait-jacketed by political correctness. What I (and others) are ‘failing to understand’ is where you get the chutzpah. We’re figuring it out, though.

        I and ‘others’ are becoming more aware of the nature and purposes of the tactics employed against Sankei Shimbun’s editorial independence. They are the pressure tactics not of a genuine human rights organization, but more in keeping with an organized crime syndicate. The day is coming when speech in this country will not only be silenced subtly, but in the criminal code, as it is in many countries today. When that dreadful milestone is reached, FSM forbid, you can count it as one of your accomplishments. You’ll probably still call it a ‘free market’, though. Free as in ‘free for me, but not for thee’.

      • Doc Lemm

        That’s right… If necessary, say it and prepare for the consequences!

  • thepoisonousmushroom2

    This is all true

  • Aripho

    Truth hurts . . .

  • AtomicMetroid

    haha more and more people are calling the Zionist evil out. good. Until the world calls them by name and exposes them, they will continue on. Call them by name.

  • AtomicMetroid

    Find who you cannot criticize and you find who rules over you.

  • Billo

    Check out Jim Stone freelance for his coverage and analysis of what happened at Fukushima. If he is correct, this was a despicable act of war by Israel.

    • Satan Baalzvoov

      Yeah, and don’t forget the missing Malaysian Airlines jet — somebody saw it parked in a hangar at Ben Gurion Airport. Thank heaven for those evil Jews, or you wouldn’t have anyone to blame for all the world’s troubles.

  • Elba

    Japan is Israel’s last bastion. They can’t break it! Little known fact: Israelis are looked upon with great suspicion by immigration authorities in Japan- all Israelis are considered “potential spies” (and with good reason). Japan currently is not suffering from rampant out of control immigration, “gender” troubles, or race protests. The homeless there are orderly, polite and actually hard working (collecting cans etc). Jews HATE that. They want every nation to be under Talmudic law: confused, Marxist, and destructive.

  • Hp B

    Hahahahaha! Yeah, the truth really does suck, doesn’t it?
    It’s deja vu’ all over again. (duh)

  • gordonehil

    The comments here are a breath of fresh air. Many readers have clearly ‘smelt the coffee’.

  • musimann

    so telling the trurh is anti-semetic? odd the jews are not even semites – they are Khazars……. Israel is the dirtiest player on the international scene – but if you say anything about it – they accuse you of being anti-semite.

  • musimann

    The Jews hate the Japanese because they are real race and a real culture and they have a real history and a real religion – something the Jews do not have. It was the Jews in America that wanted to drop the bomb on Japan – they got the sucker Truman to do it. The also financed the Russo/Jap wars in the early 1900’s.

  • Muhammad Abbass

    Another own goal by the Jewish lobby.

  • wombleranger

    Well this makes sense considering that Japan is still an occupied nation and is directly influenced by the U.S. and there zionist regime.

  • Ritchard

    OH,Oh the cat’s out of the bag. Can you say under sea drones. Quickly now media damage control and disinfo.

  • Cuchulain

    The next thing you know, they’ll be saying that Israel has nuclear weapons. They do? So sorry.

  • Truman Golden

    No apologies required.

  • Augustus3709

    Give the Jews credit (no pun intended), they are fanatical about their PR and they spend incredible amounts of money to promote a favorable image.

    It’s up to you whether or not you believe them.