We held a press conference at Japan Press Club in Tokyo on 30th of May 2019 to demand stop publicize the film “Shusenjo.” At the beginning, Professor Fujioka read the joint statement then I and Yumiko Yamamoto followed to explain what the problem is and which parts are violating our agreement and Japanese law.
House of Representatives Mio Sugita has not signed the agreements we issued at the press conference because she, as a public servant, has no Portrait Rights protected.
I received a phone call reporting me that the person in charge of the distributor for this film called “ToFoo” was watching our press-conference. After or during the conference, Mr. Dezaki posted a short video clip to express his excuses or justifications.
Red Letters are what Mr. Dezaki is talking in the short clip which he released during or after our press conference.
After or during watching our press conference on 30th of May, talking about the film “Shusenjo,” Mikine Dezaki posted a video on YouTube channel of “Shusenjo” to justify his outlaw activities. He cowardly disabled the comment section of his video. Why does he need to fear the opposition? If he is the one fearing opposition, he should not be involved in the issue.
While he enjoys the freedom of expression, he suppresses other people’s freedom. This is how this coward always behaves.
Dezaki: “They said all of these things in the film of their volition”
The issue is not whether the things we talked about in the film is from our volition or not but whether the talks are properly used along with the context or intentionally misused.
Dezaki: “If the film is good enough, It had the possibility (of) being shown at the film festivals or publicly released” We have no problem that Mr. Dezaki entry the film festivals or publicize the film. However the issue is, he did not keep his words. Also, none of us have heard that the film is used for commercial purpose. If it is going to be used for commercial, none of us would agree at the beginning. At least, myself, Mr. Kent Gilbert and Prof. Fujioka have agree with this opinion.
Mr. Kent Gilbert and Ms. Yoshiko Sakurai are well known celebrities in Japan. If the distributor wants them to be a face of the film, or ask for advertisement of the film, the contract fee would be tens of millions of Yen, possibly be over hundred million Yen if put together. No one from our group heard it would be for commercial use. “Show at the film festival” or “publicly released” does not mean it is commercial use.
Dezaki: “….and isn’t out of ordinary for a graduate project or thesis to be published commercially as an academic journal or a book.”
Again Dezaki is shifting the core narratives to the unrelated issue, trying to escape from his responsibility as a fully grown man.
Dezaki: ”If the film is good enough I may present it at the film festivals or public showings”
Once again, there is no word “commercial use” anywhere on any of the related documents. The connotation of the word “publicize” does not include to “publicize upon charge.” If it is literally “want to be viewed by more people,” he will get more viewers if he posts it on YouTube and without a fee. What he is saying totally contradicts what he is explained in this video.
Dezaki: “Every person I interviewed signed a film release form that mentioned public release in its stipulations.
Again and again, there is no word that the film will be used ”for commercial purpose.”
Dezaki: “Prior to showing the film at the Busan International film festival in October of 2018, I sent every interviewee an email letting them know that the film would be premiering there”
Dezaki promised us to show finished documentary before presenting it to the public, and if I think he misrepresented me or took my words out of context, he mentioned that he would be willing to put a message at the end of the film expressing my dissatisfaction.
However, the finished documentary was not shown to any of us and all of sudden we received an email stating that the film would be publicized at the Busan film festival which obviously braking one of the condition stipulated in the “Agreement” but not “Film release form” which he mentioned in this selfish justification.
Whatever excuse he makes, the issue is, he is nothing but a liar, he broke a promise.
Dezaki： “I got this nice email from Mr, Fujiki saying; Thank you for your update about your film and Congratulations”
This is a courtesy as an adult because a University student set an objective and archived it, it is quite normal to say “Congratulations” if the person is a civilized adult. So I sent an email to congratulate him for his achievement. However, even at this point, he did not show us the completed film. So I wrote ”Congratulations” without seeing his film just as a courtesy.
I spoke with Mr. Kent and Prof. Fujioka about this part of his excuse who also sent a similar email to Mr. Dezaki, all of them said the same reason why I congratulate him.
Dezaki： “As you can see that they know that the film is publicly released and they are actually enthusiastic about it”
Even at this point, none of us have seen the completed film but did not doubt his words which he said: “the film is first and foremost an academic project that requires a high level of academic integrity and in the middle of the road.”
On August 16 and 17 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter CERD) considered reports submitted by Japan. On August 30 CERD released its concluding observations, as well as recommendations to the Japanese government concerning problems stemming from alleged racial discrimination, e.g., the comfort-women issue.
These recommendations are exceedingly biased, and threaten to destroy the very fabric of our nation, Japan. We find it ironic, and extremely disappointing, that a committee entrusted with protecting human rights is instead fostering racial discrimination against the people of Japan, and infringing upon their human rights.
We urge the government of Japan to indicate to the United Nations, clearly and unsparingly, its objections to the workings of a committee that issues recommendations of this ilk, and to call for the reform of CERD. If no reform is forthcoming, we recommend that Japan withdraw its ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in accordance with Article 21 of that agreement, or resign from the Human Rights Council, under the aegis of which CERD operates. We cannot think of a single justification for Japan’s remaining a member of an organization that infringes upon Japanese human rights, especially given Japan’s enormous financial contribution. It was inappropriate for CERD to address the comfort-women issue for the following reasons: (1) it has absolutely no connection with racial discrimination, and (2) all events connected with it took place prior to 1995, when the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was concluded. Additionally, even if the comfortwomen issue were within the committee’s purview, we could not possibly expect an fair-minded, measured analysis from CERD, comprising as it does members like Gay McDougall, the author of Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices During Armed Conflict, and Chinsung Chung, former co-chairperson of the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan. Moreover, CERD seems to have wholeheartedly embraced positions adopted by certain NGOs in Japan, and thus has arrived at conclusions concerning the Ainu people, Okinawans, and minorities that are totally divorced from reality. It would be foolhardy to comply with these recommendations, which are ridiculous at best; in any case, CERD recommendations are not legally binding. However, because the Japanese public is for the most part unaware of the disappointing truth about UN human-rights committees, an inordinate amount of importance is conferred on CERD recommendations. We can thank one of them for the enactment of the Hate Speech Elimination Act. We feel compelled to issue a warning: Such recommendations are actually impinging on Japanese society. To cite one example, the judgment handed down in litigation involving the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock contained a reference to a CERD recommendation. In February 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles, representatives of Japan introduced the Racial Equality Proposal to the international community; calling for an end to racial discrimination, it was the first of its kind. One hundred years later, rather than being saddled with gratuitous recommendations relating to nonexistent racialdiscrimination problems, Japan should be lauded for its pioneering leadership in the effort to end racial discrimination. To discourage allegations that the comfort women were sex slaves, which have spread all over the world, we must put an end to discussions about the comfort women at the United Nations. To that end, we request in the strongest terms that the Japanese government communicate its positions, explicitly and assertively, to the various UN human-rights committees, and take resolute action on behalf of the Japanese people and our national interests.
Members of the ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH ABOUT COMFORT WOMEN who participated in the 96th Session of CERD, Geneva
ところで、対日審査に関しては、合計12本のNGOレポートが提出され、貴委員会のホーム・ページに掲載されております。これらのレポートを、仮にイデオロギーに基づいて類型化すると、左翼側が7本であったのに対し、保守側は5本でした。また、左翼側の7本のうち2本は、韓国のNGOによるものでした。8月14日のNGOとの「非公式会合」（”Informal Meeting with NGO”）で、われわれNGOによるプレンゼンテーションが全て終了した後、主査のマルク・ボッソートCERD委員は、今回の対日審査のNGOレポートを、「良くオーガナイズされている」、そして「非常に多様」と評していました。NGOレポートの多様性を認めていたにもかかわらず、CERD最終見解書は、われわれ保守側の5本のNGOレポートをほぼ完全に無視しました。さらに、CERD最終見解書は、8月16日の日本政府によるプレゼンテーションも、8月17日に行ったCERD委員からの質問に対する日本政府の回答についても、ほとんど反映していません。控えめに言ったとしても、CERD最終見解書は、思想的に明確に一方に極端に偏っています。
われわれは、人種差別撤廃委員会は、以下の理由により、慰安婦問題を取り扱う資格はないものと考えます。第一に、既に述べたように、自からの誕生の歴史を完全に否定するような委員会に、歴史認識の問題を取り扱う資格は全くありません。第二に、CERD委員の中には、慰安婦問題について、極端に偏った見方をしている人が2人います。ゲイ・マックドｳ―ガル女史は、1998年にいわゆる「マックドｳ―ガル報告」を書きましたが、そのタイトルは、「奴隷の現代的形態：戦闘期間における組織的なレイプ、性奴隷および奴隷のような慣行」で、報告書の本文には、「レイプ・センター」という言葉まで登場します。他方、鄭(チョン)鎮(ジン)星(ソン)教授は、廷対脇（the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan） の元・共同代表だった人です。「マックドｳ―ガル報告」のタイトルにも、鄭陳星が代表を務めていた団体（廷対脇）の英語名にも、いずれも「性奴隷」（”Sex Slave”）という言葉が使われています。これは、これら2人の委員が極端に偏った見方をしており、貴委員会内で慰安婦問題を議論する資格がないことを意味しています。こうした考えを持った人が、客観的判断ができるでしょうか？ これら二人のCERD委員は、誤った固定観念にとらわれています。
全体として、貴委員会は、左翼側NGOが、この約30年間、繰り返し刷り込んできた固定観念とともに過去に生きているかのようです。CERD委員には、歴史の真実を見極める努力をもっとしていただきたいと思います。人種差別撤廃委員会は、今回、対日審査中の8月16日の早朝、左翼側NGOとの間だけの裏口会合（秘密会合）を開催したことが分かっています。この会合については、われわれ保守側NGOは、全く知りませんでした。こうした不透明かつ不公平な会合の開催は、予め広く告知されていたCERD委員とNGOとの間の正規の会合である8月16日午後の「NGOによる昼食時ブリーフィング」（”Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”）の本来の機能を著しく毀損いたしました。われわれには、このことは、貴委員会が、公正性を全く信用していない証拠ではないかと思われます。