Saturday, July 14, 2007


see also Nationality clause
First, excellent video by Eric Kalmus on the irony of Japan’s child abductions (in the face of all the international rules against this, not to mention the political capital gained by the GOJ over the DPRK abductions of Japanese) after the breakdown of international marriages.

This is the way Debito pisses people off.
The basic idea is good, or even for those opposing the idea, the basic contention would deserve reasonable debates. But when put in Debito's way, it just pisses people off--- make some Japanese angry; How can you equal abduction by DPRK with that by one of the parents?
Who abducted a kid? government?
How did agent kidnapped them? by blindfolding and by putting a gag in their mouth?
Does government cover it up?
Does government prevent the parent from meeting kids?
(I even feel some oddity to use "abduction" for the case of a child who are living with one of the parents. To abduct means "to force someone to go somewhere with you, often using threats or violence". But I guess no force was used to take the child away. Traditionally when the child is taken away without a consent of the parents, it is abduction, but the case is not abduction in a sense that she/he is with one of their parent, but it is abduction in a sense that it is against one of the parents' will.I guess Hague conference used it in the latter sense.)



"In applying paragraph (c) of article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Japan reserves the right not to be bound by the provision in its second sentence, that is, `every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so', considering the fact that in Japan as regards persons deprived of liberty, those who are below twenty years of age are to be generally separated from those who are of twenty years of age and over under its national law."


1. The Government of Japan declares that paragraph 1 of article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child be interpreted not to apply to a case where a child is separated from his or her parents as a result of deportation in accordance with its immigration law.

2. The Government of Japan declares further that the obligation to deal with applications to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family re-unification `in a positive, humane and expeditious manner' provided for in paragraph 1 of article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child be interpreted not to affect the outcome of such applications."Declarations and Reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child

第一回報告書審査 児童の権利委員会からの質問に対する回答

As the State Department of the US points out, the basic problem, it seems to me, is that "compliance with Family Court rulings is essentially voluntary, which renders any ruling unenforceable unless both parents agree"
(Family court decides, but the there is no law to enforce it when one of the parents disagree. So the only way is through habeas corpus proceedings in the court. And in Japanese court, Basically and very roughly as far as I read the wiki article(Japanese) if you hold custody and it is not evident that the child's living condition is not against his/her best interest as compared with that under the other party, you can keep the child.If you don't hold custody, you can not keep him/her unless it is evident the guardian will be abusing him/her.

As fas as people relate this issue with abduction by DPRK, there is no way to win the heart of Japanese on this issue.

I am getting to see Debito method. He finds some articles in English that blame Japan for abusing human rights. Without checking facts, and giving no considerations to pros and cons, He picks them up and says "Hi blog, this is the issue Japan is facing. See, I am working hard for human right. " "I am Japanese but I am writing only in English because I want English speaking people to know it. " (Is that because Gaijin smash work here? ---few Japanese are aware of what he is doing. And when he is quoting Japanese articles, Japanese have already known it.) "See, I have made family mart stop selling offensive magazine. (Wasn't that Japan Probe that actually worked hard for it?) "I don't like the way Tony", who in Debito's words, earn "a millionaire’s income from the manga", " works for civil rights."

Now I appreciate Tony or Debit who works for human rights. But I would appreciate more if he worked a bit harder trying to give balanced articles in a way that does not sensationalize the issue, so that the ultimate purpose of his project is much easier for Japanese to accept.

the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference/The Child Abduction Section
Parental Abduction in Japan
International Parental Child Abduction
米国務省が証明する日本家族法の問題US State Department evidence about family law problems in Japan

No comments: