Documents　for international action　(English version)

Documents for CEDAW

１．Information sheet distributed at the 29th session of CEDAW (2003/7)

*Download the Leaflet. (PDF 1,676KB)

2-1.Summary Report for CEDAW Pre-sessional Working Group (2008/11)

Article 2

Issues　　Discriminatory Remarks by Public Official Questions and Backgrounds

Questions ：

Does the government of Japan intend to take concrete measures to prevent discriminatory remarks by public officials? The Governor of Tokyo, ISHIHARA Shintaro, stated in November 2001 that “it’s both useless and sinful for women to live beyond menopause”. The claim of the women who filed a lawsuit against this statement was dismissed even though the court ruled the remark was against CEDAW. Governor ISHIHARA has made further discriminatory remarks towards women even after this judgment was rendered.

Backgrounds：

Public officials continue to make discriminatory remarks that devalue women’s existence to nothing more than reproductive function. The Minister of Welfare and Labor stated that “women are machines for bearing children”.
Even though the Japanese constitution prohibits discrimination it does not abide by it’s own standards. There are no mechanisms in place to reprimand such discriminatory statements. In 2001, the final comments of ICERD urged the Government of Japan to take appropriate measures to prevent discriminatory statements. The violent and criminal nature of these discriminatory remarks go unnoticed in Japan. It is vital for the government to take make efforts to eradicate discriminatory statements, which fosters discrimination.

2-2. Information distributed at the CEDAW Pre-sessional Working Group (2008/11)

Article2(d)(e)[Obligation of the States Parties: Discriminatory Statement by Public Officers]

Women against Sexist-Ageist Remarks by Governor Ishihara

Information １: The Contents of Governor Ishihara’s Discriminatory Statements

1. What are the Governor Ishihara’s Statements?

– “This is what Matsui Takahumi has said, not me, but according to him ‘it is wasteful and sinful that menopausal women remain alive any longer.’ He said that while men remain procreative even at 80 or 90, women lose ability of giving birth once become menopause. It is evil for the globe that such women continue to live until the ages of Kin-san and Gin-san (Translator’s Note: Kin-san and Gin-san are Japanese famous twin sisters who lived over 100 years old). I was convinced with this thought, but can not utter so as a politician (laugh).” (The magazine, Shukan Josei dated on November 6, 2001)
– “The other day, Mr. Matsui told me an overwhelming story, which I totally agreed with, but I’d rather not to mention here in front of women— But, even redundant beings in principle, in other words those who have lost missions of existence, are allowed to consume and deprive various things as survivors, particularly as human beings. It is more so in advanced countries. And as a result— no, I’d stop here (laugh). But anyway, I’m sure that is an example of symbolizing basic contradiction of so called civilization on the globe.”
(The Journal Tosei Shinpo dated on October 26, 2001)

2. What are the Governor Ishihara’s Statements about Salmons and Women?

(February 25, 2005, at a regular press conference, when he was asked his opinion about the judgment of the Tokyo district court.)

– “Bringing this case to the court is more strange than the judgment itself.” “It is a lawsuit for a lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought only as plaintiffs’ performance ”
– “All animals make effort at their best and have a hard time in order to preserve their species. Salmons also come back to their river desperately and die after laying eggs. It becomes horrible figure of which even crows eat only eyeballs. (I made the statement) because human being is different from these animals”.
(The Problem: In its context, the Governor Ishihara’s statement is equal to “It is natural that animals die after laying eggs, like salmons do. Women ofhuman being are against the nature because they do not die after their menopause.”)

3. A Resent Discriminatory Statement Against Women by a Public Officer
(January
1, 2007, at the meeting on the issue of declining birth rate, in Matsue city)
– Then Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, Yanagisawa said “The number of females at the age between fifteen to fifty is fixed. The number of the machines, devices, which can deliver babies is limited. I would like to askindividual females to make effort (to have many babies).”

Information ２: The Process of Court Cases and Judgments
1. The First Court Case (From December 20, 2002 to September 28, 2005)
The plaintiff women had called for apology and revocation of the statement and claimed compensation for defamation. The plaintiffs were 131 women, either who worked in Tokyo or who lived in Tokyo and a defendant was the Governor Ishihara.
Tokyo District Court said “ The statement of the Governor Ishihara should be recognized as reveal of his individual view and opinion.” “The view, which evaluated women only by the ability of reproduction, is not incompatible with the Constitution, laws such as Basic Act for Gender-Equal Society and the basic idea of the effort in the international society, such as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which rules respect for an individual person and the equality under the law…” However, the Court dismissed the case. TheTokyo high court sustained the decision of the Tokyo district court.

(The Problem: The court explained that the statement aimed at females as a whole (not only at the plaintiffs as specific people), so the effect on the individual women’s rights and interest is reduced, although the court admitted that the statement was discriminatory.)

2. The second court case (From April 20, 2006 to present. It is now before the Supreme Court)

The second case’s defendants are the Tokyo metropolitan city and the Governor Ishihara. The plaintiffs have sought compensation and apology on the reason that the Governor had slandered the plaintiffs who had been the plaintiffs in the first case, that he had broadcasted his false and discriminatory opinion in a press conference on the first court case, and that the Tokyo metropolitan city has kept having the contents of his press conference on its official website.
The claim against the Governor Ishihara was dismissed because of the case law, in which the court ruled public officers should not be called his responsibility of statements made during his job, by the victims (They could be called by the government body in stead of by individual victims). About the claim against the Tokyo metropolitan city, the judgment by the Tokyo district court showed a sympathetic statement to the Governor without reasonable explanation. It was worse than the judgment of the first case, which recognized his statement as to be discriminatory and problematic. The Tokyo high court sustained the decision of the district court by misquotation from the judgment of the Supreme Court on the first case.
The number of the plaintiff is 92 at the time of the district court and 60at the time of Supreme Court.)

Information ３: What the Government of Japan has done and what it has not done

1. The Review of CEDAW on the Fourth and Fifth Report of the Government of Japan (July 8, 2003)

Expert Ms. Khan (from Bangladesh) mentioned that some politicians had appeared to have made sarcastic comments about that subject, and asked the government of Japan what steps had been taken to raise policy makers’ awareness of the Basic Plan for Gender Equality.
In response to this question, the representative of Japanese government said that it was true that the publicizing of gender-equality measures had drawn dismissive remarks from some political figures, but those remarks had been noticed by the media and by NGOs and had not been ignored. It also said that Gender-awareness training courses had also been given to members of the judiciary and the police (especially those dealing with victims of exploitation or violence).
(The Problem: The government did not have the view that the government should take action by itself.
Training can not have any effect on public officers who are in high, leadingpositions.)

2. The Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (July 18, 2003)

Para 358) …It (The Committee) also recommends campaigns to raise awareness about the Convention, in particular the meaning and scope of indirect discrimination, aimed, inter alia, at parliamentarians, the judiciary and the legal professionin general.

(The problem: The campaigns and the trainings by Japanese government are not targeted on the people mentioned in the concluding comments)

3．The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination provided its concerns and recommendations about the Governor Ishihara’s racially discriminatory statement made in April 2000.
Five experts referred statements of the Governor Ishihara in the review onthe government of Japan (March 2001).

para13) The Committee notes with concern statements of a discriminatory character made by high-level public officials and, in particular, the lack of administrative or legal action taken by the authorities as a consequence, in violation of article 4 (c) of the Convention, and the interpretation that such acts can be punishable only if there is an intention to incite and promote racial discrimination. The State party is urged to take appropriate measures, in compliance with article 7 of the Convention, to prevent such incidents in the future and to provide appropriate training of, in particular, public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination.

The government of Japan has done neither any investigations nor any action, saying “The view of Japanese government is different from CERD. ” and “ it is what had already finished in the past ”
(The Problem: 1. The government of Japan has not made any effort to eliminate discriminations by making it own interpretation of the international standards, which is different from the interpretation by the international community. 2. The government of Japan does not understand that discriminatory actions by public officers in leading position would keep, promote and expand discrimination in the society.)

4.What should the government of Japan do?

1. The government should alter its superficial and unconcerned attitude on the discrimination issue.
2. The government should evaluate the effectiveness of its policy and embody the concept of the Convention in its policy thoroughly.
3. The government should show not only what it has done, but also what it could not do. It also should evaluate obstacles to implementation and show solutions.
4. The government should adopt a law which promotes elimination of discrimination against women.

5.What should the court do?

1. The court should fill the role of securing human rights under the Constitution.
2. The court should promote the separation of power thoroughly.

3. List of Issues from CEDAW to Japan[excerpts on the discriminatory remarks by public officials] (2008.1120)

List of Issues No.17

17. During the constructive dialogue where the Committee considered the fourthand fifth periodic reports of Japan, one of the members of the Committee raisedthe issue of the Discriminatory Statement Against Women by a Public Officer.(See CEDAW/C/SR.617 Para. 59). What kind of steps have been taken by the governmentafter the dialogue, in order to ensure that public officers do not make any gender-discriminatoryinsults, which degrade women and symbolize discriminatory, unfair machismo?

4-1 NGO’s Response to the List of Issues No.17 (2009.7)
. No steps have been taken. At the constructive dialog in 2003, the chief representative of the Japanese government claimed, “The strongest sanction and prevention against public officers’ problematic statements is exposure of the statements by mass media.” This is a regrettable response that shows the Japanese government is not aware of the responsibility of the state party under CEDAW. Furthermore, discriminatory insults have been made repeatedly because the mass media gives only temporary coverage to such discriminatory statements,and this minor exposure fades in public memory within a very short time.

2. Some court case examples: In the first case against Ishihara, December 2002 to September 2005, the female plaintiffs called for an apology and restoration of their honor against the Governor of Tokyo Metropolitan City, Shintaro Ishihara, who said, “It is wasteful and sinful that menopausal women remain alive any longer.” The petition was dismissed by the Tokyo District Court and Tokyo High Court. In the second case against Ishihara, April 2006 to November 2008, the female plaintiffs called for an apology from the Governor, who repeated his discriminatory statement against the plaintiffs at the press conference just after the first case decision was issued. The petition was dismissed by the Tokyo District Court and Tokyo High Court without even touching upon the issue of women’s rights, the physical and mental damage and the defamed feeling caused by the verbal attack. The Supreme Court also dismissed the women’s appeal on November 11, 2008. The lawsuit was brought to court by the plaintiffs, who intended to fight for women’s rights by seeking restitution for their damages through proper legal mechanisms, and to incite discriminatory verbal attacks against women by those in public office as criminal acts, but it was dismissed without judging whether there was violation of obligations under the Constitution and CEDAW.

3. Issue: 1) The judicial division does not try to adjudicate Constitutional issues of gender-discriminatory statements by public officers. 2) The administrative division is supposed to make it known to everyone that oral discrimination is also an abuse of human rights and an act of violence against women. However, the administrative division has been failing to enact laws per the definition of the Article 1 of CEDAW and to criminalize oral violence and discrimination. Due to its neglect of the situations where machismo and gender-discriminatory values of public officials have been cultivated, the government of Japan has failed, both in upholding its responsibility as a state party of CEDAW, and in its obligation to the Constitution.

4-2 NGO Joint Report for CEDAW (2009.7)

Explanation: In Japan, gender discriminatory statements have been made repeatedly by politicians and people in positions of power. The gender role has been emphasized since patriarchic practices of the pre-war era have not been sufficiently abolished. Although 62 years have passed since the Constitution protecting gender equality was adopted and 24 years have passed since the CEDAW was ratified, the spirit of Article One of the CEDAW has not been properly disseminated and the government has not fulfilled its obligation as a state party under Article Two of the CEDAW.
(1) The statement by the Governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, “Old women who live after they have lost their reproductive function are wasteful and sinful,” limited a woman’s value to the reproductive function, defamed women’s honor and violated their right to enjoy diverse lives.
The statement should not be allowed, as he is a public figure. However, he has never publicly regretted his comments and he has never apologized. The lawsuit brought by women to call for revocation of the statement and apology continued from 2005 to 2008. But the court did not penalize the Governor of Tokyo, although it ruled that his view was incompatible with the basic idea of the Constitution and the CEDAW. The Supreme Court, which is the highest court in Japanese judiciary, dismissed the lawsuit in November 2008. How can we protect women’s rights if the judiciary does not abide by the Constitution and adjudicate violations against obligation under treaties?
(2) Through the lawsuit, we have learned many things about the Japanese legal system. There is no concept to criminalize and adjudicate verbal violence. There is a lack of understanding that words could cause mental and physical damage. There is no viewpoint to adjudicate a verbal attack as a violent act abusing individual human rights.A legal system to adjudicate verbal violence is needed and the Japanese government must take steps to adopt laws and institution to prevent these damages, which is the obligation of a state party of the CEDAW.
(3) Through the experience of three years of lawsuits, a lack of sensitive viewpoints to consider women’s rights in the judiciary was revealed. Education of the people in the judicial system is in need immediately in order to implement the CEDAW. It is the mandate of the judiciary to adjudicate if the Constitutional obligation of public officers is violated and if the government violates the obligation of the CEDAW. The Judiciary must not avoid the mandate.

4-3 Presentation at the lunch-time briefing for CEDAW members (organized by JNNC, 2009.7.22)

Statement of The Women against Sexist-Ageist Remarks by Governor Ishihara for NGO briefing

July 22, 2009

Regarding the List of Issues No.17, we, The Women against Sexist-Ageist Remarksby Governor Ishihara, would like to discuss gender discriminatory statementsby public officers.

Gender discriminatory statements by politicians and people in positions of power are violence against women. We started our activities to make it recognized in the society by referring to many women’s damage, pain and feelings of defamation.

Specifically, we filed a lawsuit against Governor Ishihara. He has said, “Old women who live after they have lost their reproductive function are wasteful and sinful.” Through the lawsuits, we called for apology, revocation of the statement and restoration of women’s honor from it. The lawsuit lasted for six years.
He limited a woman’s value to the reproductive function, defamed women’s honor by dirty insults and has not withdrawn them. He has justified his statements by misquoting statements of scholars and novelists. He has never publicly regretted his comments.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Japan dismissed our lawsuit last November. It avoided adjudicating verbal violence in question. The Governor made a public gender discriminatory statement publicly again last month. We submit an attachment about his new discriminatory statement here.

In Japan, politicians’ gender discriminatory statements from gender stereotyping have not been eliminated. The judiciary also uses gender stereotypes in its adjudication. The idea that discriminatory statements against women are human rights violations has not been widespread. The government, politicians and judicial division don’t try to actualize the concept of the Constitution and CEDAW, which prohibit gender discrimination. They have not fulfilled theirobligation.

The Japanese government should make it clear that verbal violence is discrimination, and take steps to eliminate gender discriminatory statements of public officers promptly.

4-4 Information distributed in the 44th session of CEDAW (2009.7)

[ Stereotypes, cultural practices ]

(Article 2 (d)(e)　and No.17 on the List of Issues)

Discriminatory Statement by Public Officers

Women against Sexist-Ageist Remarks by Governor Ishihara

Information 1
The list of discriminatory statements against women by public officers

●March 6, 2009 Member of the House of Representatives, Takashi Sasagawa, General　Council of Liberal Democratic Party：
At his lecture in Kurashiki city, Okayama, after he flattered the female Mayor of Kurashiki city, Kaori Ito, saying, “she is a great female mayor,” he said, “More females should become members of the Parliament. That is okay. But I think these women are not decent.”
●December 6, 2008 Member of the House of Representatives, Takashi Sasagawa, General Council of Liberal Democratic Party：
At a party in Matsue city, Shimane, he mentioned the Minister of the Issueof the Declining Birth Rate, Yuko Obuchi, saying, “She got the positionbecause she had a baby. If the Minister had not had a baby, she would be toldthat she does not know how to solve the issue.” He meant that the positionmay be assigned only after having the experience of delivering a baby.
●September 30, 2008 Member of the House of Representative, Takashi Sasagawa, General Council of Liberal Democratic Party：
He said to journalists about the rejection of the bill for economic stabilizationin the House of Representatives of the United States, “the Chair of theHouse of Representatives is a woman and her initiative seems different from aman’s. That’s why the bill was stopped.”
●January, 2007 Then Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, Hakuo Yanagisawa：
“Recently, women don’t give birth to many children in their lives. Demographyshows that 15 to 50 years old is the age for having babies for women and we canroughly count how many babies can be born (in this country). Babies can not bedelivered by somebody else. Sorry to call them delivery machines. But, when thenumber of the machine is set, the people (the machine) who have the role to deliverbabies have to do their best (to have babies as many as possible).”
●September, 2006 Member of the House of Representative, Taro Aso, (the current Prime Minister)：
Statement by a journalist: In the context of Japan’s image by foreigners,I heard
Mr. Aso　saying “A woman walks in Hibiya Park (a big park in the center of Tokyo metro
politan city) by herself during night. It is incredible. Furthermore, even someone who has a decent face is not attacked. How safe this country is…
” I am a man, but I still felt very unpleasant. If there had been female journalists around him at that time, many media would have covered Mr. Aso’s statement.
●February, 2005 The Governor of Tokyo Metropolitan city, Shintaro Ishihara：
At a press conference about the first judgment of the suit against his genderdiscriminatory statements, he said, “Bringing this case to the court is strangerthan the judgment itself.” “It is a lawsuit for a lawsuit. The lawsuit was broughtonly as plaintiffs’ performance.” And he insulted the plaintiffs of the case.In addition, he stressed only reproduction in a woman’s whole life, saying, “Allanimals make their best effort and have a hard time in order to preserve theirspecies. A salmon also comes back to their river desperately and dies after layingeggs. It becomes a horrible figure of which even crows eat only eyeballs.”
● June,2003 Discriminatory remarks affirming gang rape made by Former Prime Minister, Yoshiro Mori：
The former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori made the following statement： “The real
(purpose of our) welfare system is such that the State will look after women who had many children in the future to show our gratitude to those women. Women who did not have any children at all, who enjoyed her life as she wished, and did whatever she wanted to do, so to speak, and then when she turned older, would be asking o support her by tax, I would say it is utterly unacceptable.” (At the same seminar as above. June 26, 2003)
●June,2003. Discriminatory remarks justifying gang rape made by the Lower House member, Seiichi Ota：
Ota, former head of the Management and Coordination Agency, made the statement on the arrest of five university students for allegedly gang raping a 20-year-old female student after a party. “Those who gang rape are better off because they have virility. They are closer to normal.” It was learned he repeatedly told that young men are becoming weak and lack the　courage to propose marriage. ( At the seminar of the National Association of Privately-run Kindergarten dealing with the nation’s declining birthrate in Kagoshima City. June 26, 2003)
According to press coverage, at an off-the-record press meeting, then Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yasuo Fukuda (the Prime Minister from 2007 to 2008), said, “Mr. Ota might have not known that a group rape is a crime. However, there are women who apparently seem to want to have sex.” “Since a man is like a black leopard, leniency should be granted sometimes, should it not?”
●June, November,2001　　Discriminatory statements disparaging women made by
Governor　of Tokyo, Shintaro　Ishihara：
①(The Governor Ishihara answering the Interviewer, referring to a theory he had read), “It is said that the ‘Old women is the worst evil and malignant being that the civilization have produced.’ It says that the ‘old women who lives after they have lost their reproductive function are useless and are committing a sin.’ Men have reproductive functions even in their 80s and their 90s, however, women can not bear children after they reach their menopause. It says that it is evil and malicious for the world that these people live until the age of Kinsan and Ginsan (famous twin sisters over 100 years of age) … I agree with the idea, but can not say it as a politician (laughter).” (From the Interview article of “Shukan- Josei=Weekly Women’s Magazine, November 11,2001 issue)
②The Governor admitted the charge that he had made those remarks, but counter-reacted to the pursuit from the Metropolitan parliament by saying that the old women are tyrant beings. (December 11,2001)
●February,2001 Slanderous leaflets：
During the session of the Lower House Budgetary Committee on February 9,2001, a male member distributed slanderous leaflets to several other members of the House of Representatives. The leaflet insulted one of the female members by calling her a “manager of the disorderly house.” The male member was not penalized for this remarks except for a Verbal warning made by the Chairperson of the Committee.
●September,1999：
Senator Shingo Nishimura, vice minister of the Japan Defense Agency at thetime, made following comments in his interview with Weekly Playboy Magazine (November 2,1999　Issue);
“If act of rape was not punishable, we’ll all be a rapist. But the sentence on rape works as a deterrent, preventing it from happening.” Also, referring to several female congress persons belonging to a particular party, “ I sould never save you even if you were being raped!”

Information2

Women against Sexist-Ageist Remarks by Governor Ishihara

・ The group consists of the female plaintiffs who had filed a lawsuit against Governor Ishihara and called for apology, revocation of the statement, and restoration of their honor from his gender discriminatory statement and supporters.

・The court procedure continued from December 2002 to November 2008. However, the verbal violence, the statement by the public officer, was not even judged as the court has avoided deciding the issue directly. Accountability of abuses against women’s rights protected by the Constitution and the CEDAW has not held at all. Japan has not fulfilled its obligation as a law-governing state and a party of the treaty.

・Through the court case, the plaintiffs and the supporters came to understand the new concept of human rights. However, since there is no legal concept to adjudge verbal violence or criminality of oral statements, discriminatory statements have not been judged and would be repeated in the future. The group keeps up its activities to ensure a legal structure that realizes substantive gender equality, and it pursues a society where no discrimination by the public officers is allowed.

Information 3
The Contents of Governor Ishihara’s Discriminatory Statements

1. What are the Governor Ishihara’s Statements?
– “This is what Matsui Takahumi has said, not me, but according to him ‘it is wasteful and sinful that menopausal women remain alive any longer.’ He said that while men remain procreative even at 80 or 90, women lose ability of giving birth once become menopause. It is evil for the globe that such women continue to live until the ages of Kin-san and Gin-san (Translator’s Note: Kin-san and Gin-san are Japanese famous twin sisters who lived over 100 years old). I was convinced with this thought, but can not utter so as a politician (laugh).” (The magazine, Shukan Josei dated on November 6, 2001)
– “The other day, Mr. Matsui told me an overwhelming story, which I totally agreed with, but I’d rather not to mention here in front of women— But, even redundant beings in principle, in other words those who have lost missions of existence, are allowed to consume and deprive various things as survivors, particularly as human beings. It is more so in advanced countries. And as a result— no, I’d stop here (laugh). But anyway, I’m sure that is an example of symbolizing basic contradiction of so called civilization on the globe.” (The Journal Tosei Shinpo dated on October 26, 2001)

2. What are the Governor Ishihara’s Statements about Salmons and Women?
(February 25, 2005, at a regular press conference, when he was asked his opinion about the judgment of the Tokyo district court.)
– “Bringing this case to the court is more strange than the judgment itself.” “It is a lawsuit for a lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought only as plaintiffs’ performance ”
– “All animals make effort at their best and have a hard time in order to preserve their species. Salmons also come back to their river desperately and die after laying eggs. It becomes horrible figure of which even crows eat only eyeballs. (I made the statement) because human being is different from these animals”.
(The Problem: In its context, the Governor Ishihara’s statement is equal to “It is natural that animals die after laying eggs, like salmons do. Women of human being are against the nature because they do not die after their menopause.”)

Information 4
The Process of Court Cases and Judgments

1. The First Court Case (From December 20, 2002 to September 28, 2005)
The plaintiff women had called for apology and revocation of the statement and claimed compensation for defamation. The plaintiffs were 131 women, either who worked in Tokyo or who lived in Tokyo and a defendant was the Governor Ishihara.
Tokyo District Court said “ The statement of the Governor Ishihara should be recognized as reveal of his individual view and opinion.” “The view, which evaluated women only by the ability of reproduction, is not incompatible with the Constitution, laws such as Basic Act for Gender-Equal Society and the basic idea of the effort in the international society, such as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which rules respect for an individual person and the equality under the law…” However, the Court dismissed the case. The Tokyo high court sustained the decision of the Tokyo district court.

(The Problem: The court explained that the statement aimed at females as a whole (not only at the plaintiffs as specific people), so the effect on the individual women’s rights and interest is reduced, although the court admitted that the statement was discriminatory.)

2. The second court case (From April 20, 2006 to present. It is now before the Supreme Court)
The second case’s defendants are the Tokyo metropolitan city and the Governor Ishihara. The plaintiffs have sought compensation and apology on the reason that the Governor had slandered the plaintiffs who had been the plaintiffs in the first case, that he had broadcasted his false and discriminatory opinion in a press conference on the first court case, and that the Tokyo metropolitan city has kept having the contents of his press conference on its official website.
The claim against the Governor Ishihara was dismissed because of the case law, in which the court ruled public officers should not be called his responsibility of statements made during his job, by the victims (They could be called by the government body in stead of by individual victims). About the claim against the Tokyo metropolitan city, the judgment by the Tokyo district court showed a sympathetic statement to the Governor without reasonable explanation. It was worse than the judgment of the first case, which recognized his statement as to be discriminatory and problematic. The Tokyo high court sustained the decision of the district court by misquotation from the judgment of the Supreme Court on the first case.
Then, in November 2008, when the NGO hearing of the CEDAW working committee in Geneva was being held, the Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the Governor Ishihara case without mentioning the issue in question. (The number of the plaintiff is 92 at the time of the district court and 60 at the time of Supreme Court.)
（The Problem: 1. The decision without explanation.
2. Misquotation from the decision of the Supreme Court.
3. The lack of the thought on the issue of discrimination. )

Information 5
What the Government of Japan has done and what it has not done

1. The Review of CEDAW on the Fourth and Fifth Report of the Government of Japan (July 8, 2003)
Expert Ms. Khan (from Bangladesh) mentioned that some politicians had appeared to have made sarcastic comments about that subject, and asked the government of Japan what steps had been taken to raise policy makers’ awareness of the Basic Plan for Gender Equality.
In response to this question, the representative of Japanese government said that it was true that the publicizing of gender-equality measures had drawn dismissive remarks from some political figures, but those remarks had been noticed by the media and by NGOs and had not been ignored. It also said that Gender-awareness training courses had also been given to members of the judiciary and the police (especially those dealing with victims of exploitation or violence).
(The Problem: The government did not have the view that the government should take action by itself.
Training can not have any effect on public officers who are in high, leading positions.)

2. The Concluding Comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (July 18, 2003)
Para 358) …It (The Committee) also recommends campaigns to raise awareness about the Convention, in particular the meaning and scope of indirect discrimination, aimed, inter alia, at parliamentarians, the judiciary and the legal profession in general.

(The problem: The campaigns and the trainings by Japanese government are not targeted on the people mentioned in the concluding comments)

3. The Sixth Report of the Government of Japan did not refer to verbal attacks and gender discriminatory statements (April, 2008).

4. The Japanese government’s answer to the List of Issues No.17 issued by the Committee is not the proper reaction for the specific discrimination mentioned there at all. Furthermore, the concept of “discrimination” in the government answer to the List of Issues No.3, which is relating to this issue, is too narrow an interpretation.

Information 6
Recommendations relating to this issue
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination provided its concerns and recommendations about the Governor Ishihara’s racially discriminatory statement made in April 2000.
Five experts referred statements of the Governor Ishihara in the review on the government of Japan (March 2001).

para13) The Committee notes with concern statements of a discriminatory character made by high-level public officials and, in particular, the lack of administrative or legal action taken by the authorities as a consequence, in violation of article 4 (c) of the Convention, and the interpretation that such acts can be punishable only if there is an intention to incite and promote racial discrimination. The State party is urged to take appropriate measures, in compliance with article 7 of the Convention, to prevent such incidents in the future and to provide appropriate training of, in particular, public officials, law enforcement officers and administrators with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination.

The government of Japan has done neither any investigations nor any action, saying “The view of Japanese government is different from CERD. ” and “ it is what had already finished in the past ”
(The Problem: 1. The government of Japan has not made any effort to eliminate discriminations by making it own interpretation of the international standards, which is different from the interpretation by the international community. 2. The government of Japan does not understand that discriminatory actions by public officers in leading position would keep, promote and expand discrimination in the society.)

What should the government of Japan do?
1)The government should alter its superficial and unconcerned attitude on the discrimination issue.
2)The government should evaluate the effectiveness of its policy and embody the concept of the Convention in its policy thoroughly.
3)The government should show not only what it has done, but also what it could not do. It also should evaluate obstacles to implementation and show solutions.
4)The government should adopt a law which promotes elimination of discrimination against women.

What should the court do?

Since the judgment by the judicial division is gender-biased, the CEDAW has not been implemented enough. Clear intent to abolish discrimination should be taught in the education system for judges, prosecutors and lawyers.

5. The Concluding Observations of the CEDAW [excerpts of the relevant clauses on discriminatory remarks by public officers](2009.8.7)
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Japan

Stereotypes
29. The Committee is concerned at the reported “backlash”against the recognition and promotion of women’s human right in the State party, despite the persistence of inequality between women and men.
It continues to be concerned at the persistence of patriarchal attitudes and deep-rooted stereotypes regarding the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and in society in Japan, which
threaten to undermine women’s exercise and enjoyment of their human right. The committee notes that this persistence is, inter alia, reflected in the media and in educational textbooks and curricular materials, all of which influence women’s traditional educational choices and contribute to the unequal sharing of family and domestic responsibilities, resulting in their disadvantaged situation in the labor market and their underrepresentation in political and public life and decision-making positions. The Committee is further concerned that stereotypical attitudes are particularly prevalent in the media, where women and men are often depicted in a stereotyped manner and that the media are becoming increasingly pornographic. The over-sexualized depiction of women strengthens the existing stereotypes of women as sex objects and continues to generate girls’ low self-esteem. The Committee expresses its concern at the high incidence of gender discriminatory statements and sexist remarks made by public officers and the lack of steps taken to prevent and punish verbal violence against women.

30. The Committee calls upon the State party to further enhance its efforts and to take proactive and sustained measures to eliminate stereotypical attitudes about the roles and responsibilities of women and men, through awareness-raising and educational campaigns. The Committee recommends that the State party encourage the mass media to promote cultural change with regard to the roles and tasks considered suitable for women and men, as required by article 5 of the Convention. The Committee requests the State party to enhance the education and in-service training of the teaching and counseling staff of all educational establishments and at all levels with regard to gender equality issues, and to speedily complete a revision of all educational textbooks and materials to eliminate gender stereotypes. The Committee urges the State party to take measures, including the criminalization of verbal violence, to ensure that Government officials do not make disparaging remarks that demean women and contribute to the patriarchal system which discriminates against women. It also urges the State party to strengthen its strategies to combat pornography and sexualization in the the media and advertising and to report the results of the implementation in its next periodic report. It calls on the State party to take proactive steps including through encouraging the adoption and implementation of self-regulatory measures to ensure that media production and coverage are non-discriminatory and promote positive images of girls and women, as well as increase awareness of these issues among media proprietors and other relevant actors in the industry.