渋谷軽トラ横転事件

10月27日夜から28日未明にかけて、東京 渋谷の繁華街ではハロウィーンで
仮装した大勢の人が集まり、トラブルが相次ぎました。
軽トラックが取り囲まれて横転させられるといった被害も出ていて、
警視庁は器物損壊の疑いで捜査しています。

「乗れ！乗れ！」と煽ったのが悪いのか？
荷台に乗ったついでに「調子」に乗ったのが悪いのか？
それらには、一切、触れずに若者の暴走として
報道してしまう、報道しない自由を主張するマスコミが悪いのか？
本筋から、外れて

ハロウィーンとは

を金のなる木にしてしまったのが悪いのか？

それとも、どうでもええのか。。。

新潮45出版停止（休刊）

　人権ビジネス　国連解体　ヘイト　「言論の自由」が大きく曲解され
論じ合うこと、解り合うことを拒絶し、ブロックし、落書き、デモへと発展する。
同じ土俵では論じ合わないピンポンダッシュである。マスコミも報道しない言論テロ。
　よって、当事者らは、戸惑うばかりである。

新潮45 2018年 09月号

新潮45 2018年10月号

* *

The man's name was Seiji Yoshida. In his books and on other occasions, he said that he headed the mobilization section at the Shimonoseki branch of the Yamaguchi Prefectural Romu Hokokukai labor organization that was in control of day laborers.

The Asahi Shimbun has run, as far as it can confirm, at least 16 articles about Yoshida. The first appeared in the Sept. 2, 1982, morning edition in the city news page published by the Osaka head office. The article was about a speech that he gave in Osaka in which he said, "I 'hunted up' 200 young Korean women on Jeju Island."

The reporter, 66, who wrote the article, was in the City News Section at the Osaka head office at that time.

The reporter said, "I had absolutely no doubts about the contents of his talk because it was very specific and detailed."

In the early 1990s, other newspapers also ran articles about what Yoshida said at meetings and on other occasions.

In the April 30, 1992, morning edition of the Sankei Shimbun, an article raised doubts about Yoshida's testimony based on the results of an investigation conducted by Ikuhiko Hata on Jeju. Weekly magazines also began publishing articles pointing to "Suspicion of 'fabrication.'"

A reporter, 53, in the City News Section at the Tokyo head office was instructed by his editor to meet with Yoshida immediately after the Sankei article ran. The reporter asked Yoshida to introduce relevant individuals and submit data to corroborate his testimony, but the reporter said Yoshida rejected the request.

During news gathering to prepare for the March 31, 1997, special coverage, Yoshida refused to meet with a reporter, 57, in the City News Section at the Tokyo head office. When the reporter asked over the phone about reports that suspected the testimony was a fabrication, Yoshida responded, "I wrote about my experiences as they were."

Although news gathering was also conducted on Jeju and no corroborating evidence could be obtained, the special coverage said "no confirmation has been made about the authenticity" because there was no conclusive proof that Yoshida's testimony was false. The Asahi has not written about Yoshida since.

However, in November 2012, Shinzo Abe, who was then president of the Liberal Democratic Party, said at a debate among party leaders hosted by the Japan National Press Club, "The problem has become much bigger because false reporting by The Asahi Shimbun has led to the spreading of a book throughout Japan, which has been taken as fact, even though it was created by a man named Seiji Yoshida who is like a con man."

Some newspapers and magazines have repeated criticism of The Asahi Shimbun.

In April and May 2014, The Asahi Shimbun interviewed a total of about 40 people in their late 70s to 90s living on Jeju. However, no evidence was obtained that supported the writings by Yoshida about forcible taking away.

In a town on the northwestern part of the island where Yoshida claimed to have taken away several dozens of women working at a plant making dried fish, there was only one factory in the village that handled fish. The son of the local man who was involved in factory management, now deceased, said, "Only canned products were made there. I never heard from my father about women workers being taken away."

Yoshida wrote that the factory roof was "thatched." Video images that captured conditions at that time were obtained by Norifumi Kawahara, a professor of historical geography at Ritsumeikan University who has conducted research on the fishing industry in South Korea at that time. The images showed the roof to be made of tin and tile.

In June 1993, Kang Jeong-suk, a former researcher at the Korean Research Institute for Chongshindae, conducted research on Jeju based on the writings of Yoshida. "I heard from several elderly people at each of the locations I visited, but I did not come across any testimony that matched the writings," Kang said.

Yoshida wrote in his book he went to Jeju in May 1943 based on a mobilization order from the Western District Army. He also wrote that the contents of the order were left in the diary of his wife (now deceased). However, Yoshida's oldest son, 64, was interviewed for this special coverage, and it was learned that the wife never kept a diary. The son said Yoshida died in July 2000.

When Yoshida met in May 1993 with Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a Chuo University professor, and others, Yoshida explained that "there were occasions when I changed the dates and locations (where he forcibly took the women)." Moreover, Yoshida refused to present the diary in which the contents of the mobilization order were contained. That led Yoshimi to point out, "I had no choice but to confirm that we could not use his testimony." (Note 1)

Masaru Tonomura, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo who is knowledgeable about mobilization matters on the Korean Peninsula during the war, said the Romu Hokokukai that Yoshida claimed he worked for was created through instructions given by the Health and Welfare Ministry as well as the Home Ministry.

"Given the chain of command, it is inconceivable for the military to issue the mobilization order, and for employees to go directly to the Korean Peninsula," Tonomura said.

Yoshida also explained that in May 1943, when he claimed to have forcibly taken away the women, the "Army unit headquarters" "maintained military rule" on Jeju. Regarding that point, Kazu Nagai, a professor of modern and contemporary Japanese history at Kyoto University, pointed out that documents of the former Army showed that a large Army force only gathered on Jeju after April 1945.

"The contents of his writing cannot be considered to be true," Nagai said.

Note 1: Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Fumiko Kawata, compilers, " 'Jugun Ianfu' wo Meguru 30 no Uso to Shinjutsu" (30 lies and truths surrounding 'military comfort women') (Otsuki Shoten 1997)

To our readers

We have made the judgment that the testimony that Yoshida forcibly took away comfort women on Jeju was a fabrication. We retract our articles on him. We were unable to uncover the falseness of his testimony at the time the articles were published. Although additional research was conducted on Jeju, we were unable to obtain any information that corroborated his testimony. Interviews with researchers have also turned up a number of contradictions regarding the core elements of his testimony.

Testimony about 'forcible taking away of women on Jeju Island': Judged to be fabrication because supporting evidence not found

2014年8月22日10時00分
Question: There was a man who testified in books and meetings that he had used violence to forcibly take away women on the Korean Peninsula, which was Japan's colony, to make them serve as comfort women during the war. The Asahi Shimbun ran articles about the man from the 1980s until the early 1990s. However, some people have pointed out that his testimony was a fabrication.

チャイナリスクを隠匿するメディアと知らないフリをする人々

中国に喰い潰される日本チャイナリスクの現場から【電子書籍】[ 青木直人 ]

もうひとつのチャイナリスク知財大国中国の恐るべき国家戦略【電子書籍】[ 依久井 祐 ]

チャイナリスクを隠匿するメディアと知らないフリをする人々

「移民」とは？「難民」とどう違うのか？

　残念ながら国際的に合意された「移民」の定義は無いらしいが、そんな中、頻繁に引用されるのが、1997年に当時の国連事務総長が国連統計委員会に提案した（長期の）移民とは、「通常の居住地以外の国に移動し、少なくとも１年間、その国に居住する人のこと」となっている。
　入国する目的や原因には一切触れていないので、海外赴任、転勤、留学、研修、海外旅行なども１年以上であれば、その目的はどうでもいいことになる。
　但し、この定義の採用は限定的で、例えば欧州連合（EU）では「EU加盟国以外の国の国籍を持ち、EU諸国内に３か月以上滞在する外国人のこと」と、滞在期間が３か月とずっと短く設定されています。
　また日本の国内法には「移民」の定義はありませんが、入管法上の「中長期在留者」と「特別永住者」が「移民」に該当すると、国際機関では解釈しています。これによると、2015年末の時点で既に223万人の「移民」が日本に居住している。世界全体の移民数は、各国政府が採用している定義がバラバラなので正確な把握は難しい。だいたい２億4400万人くらい。

　「難民」の定義は国際法において明確かつ厳格に決まっています。1951年に締結された「難民の地位に関する条約」の第一条にその定義で、以下の条件全てを満足する人だけが「難民」であるとします。まぁ、よく目にするアノ４条件です。
（１）自国において「迫害をうけるおそれ」がある
（２）「迫害のおそれ」が、人種、宗教、国籍、特定の社会的集団の構成員であること、または政治的意見に基づく
（３） 既に自国外に逃れている
（４） 自国政府の保護を受けることができない（あるいは迫害のおそれがあるから保護を望まない）

　これに加えて更に、「平和に対する犯罪、戦争犯罪、人道に対する犯罪、避難国外での重大な犯罪（但し政治犯罪ならOK）、あるいは国連の目的や原則に反する行為を行ったことがない」、という条件もクリアする必要があります。このように、国際法上に言う「難民」の正式な定義は、非常に限定的なものである。

外国人労働者受け入れを問う (岩波ブックレット)

外国人単純技能労働者の受け入れと実態―技能実習生を中心に

　現政権は、国際移住学的に全く通用しない「移民の定義」を提唱し、「移民政策ではない」と言う詭弁の下で外国人受け入れを拡大し続けていますが、実は同じような政策を採ったのは日本政府が初めてではありません。西欧諸国の多くも、第二次大戦後かなり長期にわたって「我々は移民国家ではない」という建前の下、「数年で帰る一時的出稼ぎ労働者」を大量に受け入れてきました。

　つまり同じ失敗を繰り返す事を承知で、行おうとしている訳で、「失敗することに意味がある」訳だ。横並びしておかない理由でもあるのあろうか。労働者不足や人口減少だけを大儀にするには軽薄過ぎる。そして、犠牲になるのは自国民である。