Published on December 6, 2019.
This chapter introduces Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura’s essay “An Open Letter of Questions to Asahi and Chunichi,” published in the monthly magazine Hanada.
It criticizes the use of public funds for the Aichi Triennale 2019 exhibition “After ‘Freedom of Expression?’,” which included a video of Emperor Shōwa’s portrait being burned and the statue of a girl, as well as editorials and columns by Chunichi Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun, the issue of restoring Nagoya Castle’s keep in wood, and the irresponsible reporting posture of newspapers.

December 6, 2019.
It is clearly wrong, no matter how one thinks about it, to use tax money for an event that includes exhibits such as a video showing the portrait of Emperor Shōwa being burned with a burner and trampled underfoot, and the statue of a girl.
The following is from an essay by Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura, published in this month’s issue of the monthly magazine Hanada under the title “An Open Letter of Questions to Asahi and Chunichi.”
An unfocused editorial.
On October 24, I made public on Twitter the “Protest Request” I had sent to Chunichi Shimbun and the “Statement of Views” I had sent to Asahi Shimbun.
My protest concerned the issue surrounding “After ‘Freedom of Expression?’” and articles that attacked me by name.
Although I had sent them on September 12, I had received no response from either company as of now, November 15, and so I decided to make them public.
Let me introduce the articles in question that I protested against.
One is Chunichi’s editorial, “A Threat to the Freedom of Society,” dated August 7, which criticized me as follows.
〈Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura requested the removal of the statue of a girl and other works, saying that they “trample on the hearts of the Japanese people.”
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga also indicated that he would carefully consider the granting of national subsidies.
As the Japan P.E.N. Club strongly criticized in its statement, saying that this could also lead to “censorship” forbidden by the Constitution, this is clearly political pressure.〉
I must say that this completely misses the point.
I am not saying that the exhibits are outrageous and therefore should be removed.
As I also said in my dialogue with Kadota Ryusho in the December issue of this magazine, I am only saying that it is wrong because it is a public project hosted by the City of Nagoya.
I have never once told artists, “Do not create works that insult the Japanese people.”
For the time being, I serve as mayor after receiving the trust of the citizens of Nagoya.
The mayor’s job is to use properly the tax money entrusted to him by the citizens.
For that reason, when tax money is used, it is at least necessary to check its public nature.
The Aichi Triennale is hosted by the City of Nagoya.
It is clearly wrong, no matter how one thinks about it, to use tax money for an event that includes exhibits such as a video showing the portrait of Emperor Shōwa being burned with a burner and trampled underfoot, and the statue of a girl.
That is why I said those exhibits should be removed.
If that is called “censorship,” then all prefectural and city assembly members and officials who check public nature would become censors.
Does Chunichi intend to reject prefectural and city assemblies by calling them “censorship”?
Junko Takahashi’s thin writing.
From my point of view, it is the mass media, including Chunichi, that are doing the “censoring.”
Since I made the protest documents public, I have repeatedly spoken at press conferences about my protests against the reporting by Chunichi and Asahi, but the mass media “censor” this, and no one reports it.
The Asahi article is a column by editorial writer Junko Takahashi in her column “Taji Sōron,” titled “Freedom of Expression: Trembling at ‘There Is No Power, Ha-ha,’” dated August 21.
〈Unconscious and casual exercise of power is, in a certain sense, more frightening than conscious exercise of power…… yes.
The same thing can be seen in Nagoya.
No one has probably written that he was a man as thin as kishimen noodles, but Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura reportedly demanded the removal of the statue of a girl exhibited in “After ‘Freedom of Expression?’,” a special exhibition of the international art festival “Aichi Triennale 2019,” saying such things as “it tramples on the hearts of the Japanese people” and “freedom of expression absolutely requires that one not hurt the other party.”
Since it has already been pointed out at length how shallow this understanding is, I will not repeat it, but…〉
To be honest, it was a roundabout column, and I could not really understand what she wanted to say, but I cannot remain silent after being slandered as a thin man.
The thin one is surely Ms. Takahashi’s writing.
In the column, she writes that it has been pointed out at length “how shallow” my understanding is, but is that really so?
I have read various criticisms of me, but not a single one has been painful to hear.
Moreover, Ms. Takahashi uses Nagoya’s specialty, kishimen, as something negative.
Kishimen may be thin, but when you chew it, it has flavor, and it is a local dish loved not only by the citizens of Nagoya but throughout the country.
At the end of the “Statement of Views” I sent to Asahi, I wrote the following.
〈As for the expression “a man as thin as kishimen,” I am very honored that you have advertised kishimen, a Nagoya specialty, but kishimen is thin, has width, and tastes good, so I would like you to use it as a positive expression.〉
An impossible refusal of an opinion advertisement.
When I saw the reporting by Chunichi and Asahi, I thought, “Ah, again,” but compared with other reports, it was so terrible that I decided to protest.
It was the first time I had protested against Asahi, but I had clashed with Chunichi twice in the past.
The first time was in 2012, when I was criticized for saying, “Was there really a Nanjing Incident?”
Intellectuals who had doubts about the bashing of my statement denying the “Nanjing Incident” tried to place an opinion advertisement in Chunichi calling for free debate on the Nanjing Incident.
Chunichi once approved it, but later began saying that it “did not fit the newspaper’s editorial line” and refused to publish it.
We fought the matter in court, but the Tokyo District Court dismissed the petition by the group of intellectuals.
The reason was that it was “within the scope of editorial rights.”
Of course, newspapers should have editorial rights.
If an advertisement is clearly malicious and worthless, I think it is natural to refuse it.
However, in the case of the Nanjing Incident, it was an opinion advertisement saying, “Shall we not discuss this?”
It was not such a terrible piece of content.
Does Chunichi, which boasts the largest circulation in the Tokai region, not have a responsibility to publish such an advertisement?
When I told an American journalist friend about the refusal to publish it, he said, “If it is a medium with that much influence, normally it has to publish it.
That would be unthinkable in America.”
The other time I clashed with Chunichi was in 2018, over the wooden restoration of Nagoya Castle’s keep.
The castle keep was destroyed in the air raid of 1945.
After that, through great donations from citizens, a steel-frame reinforced-concrete keep was rebuilt in 1959.
However, about sixty years had passed since its reconstruction, and it had become necessary to respond to the aging of equipment and to secure earthquake resistance.
So, along with the renovation, I decided to restore the original main keep, which had been wooden.
Chunichi’s editorial contrary to the facts.
There was a reason why I was particular about wood.
Restoration requires the traditional techniques of wooden architecture.
As the construction of large-scale wooden buildings decreases and the disappearance of craftsmanship is feared, the wooden restoration of the castle keep will become a good opportunity to pass traditional techniques on to the next generation.
Human beings have an obligation to pass on to the next generation what our predecessors created.
Preserving Nagoya Castle, the fruit of wisdom from four hundred years ago, for a thousand years into the future is surely the social mission of those of us living today.
However, this received fierce bashing from Chunichi.
In an editorial titled “Wooden Reconstruction of Nagoya Castle: Can It Become a Symbol?” dated July 4, 2018, Chunichi criticized the wooden restoration as follows.
〈The current concrete keep, filled with the citizens’ hopes for no war and peace, has the value of “authenticity,” as the Agency for Cultural Affairs also says.
To deliberately destroy the “authentic” and build anew—
We should once again fully consider the meaning of that.〉
Chunichi writes that it is “filled with the citizens’ hopes for no war and peace,” as if the concrete reconstruction had been the will of the people, but is that really true?
Because I have a persistent nature, I looked into past reports on the reconstruction of Nagoya Castle.
In 1948, the year I was born, Chunichi conducted a survey of local citizens about the reconstruction of Nagoya Castle, and when I looked at the results, to my surprise, those favoring wood outnumbered those favoring concrete by twenty percent.
Given that, one cannot say that it is “filled with the citizens’ hopes.”
I do not know whether Chunichi was unaware of its own past survey, but the editorial above is clearly contrary to the facts and misleading.
Newspapers soaking in lukewarm water.
Let me return to my protest against Chunichi and Asahi.
There are three points I would like to ask Chunichi and Asahi.

1. Before writing, did you know the fact that a video showing the photograph of His Majesty being burned with a burner and trampled underfoot was being exhibited?
2. Did you know that the contents of the exhibit described in 1 were hidden until the exhibition opened?
3. Did you know that this Aichi Triennale not only used public facilities, but was a public project using public money, in other words tax money, hosted by Aichi Prefecture and the City of Nagoya, and was not a private exhibition?
   If you knew these things, then you should openly rebut by saying, “There is nothing wrong with the work concerning Emperor Shōwa, nor is there any problem with exhibiting it while hiding it beforehand, nor with the fact that it was hosted by the city.”
   What is terrible is that after treating me like a threat-maker and calling me a thin man, they decide to ignore me even when I send letters of protest.
   I sent them in September, and three months have now passed, but there has been no response at all.
   To make personal attacks and then ignore a protest is extremely irresponsible.
   If there continues to be no response, I cannot sit in this time, ha-ha, but I am thinking of taking some kind of measure.
   The foundation of journalism is to convey facts as facts, but today’s newspapers are completely unable to do that.
   Newspapers do not criticize one another, and they are not subjected to boycott campaigns.
   In short, they are soaking in lukewarm water.
   That is why, no matter how much I criticize Chunichi and Asahi at press conferences or on Twitter, newspapers do not report it.
   I can only think that they are taking their readers lightly.
   It is unforgivable that such newspapers are subject to the reduced tax rate.
   The freedom of society and freedom of expression are guaranteed only when the mass media convey facts.
   I would like Chunichi and Asahi to ask themselves properly which side is in fact committing a “threat to the freedom of society.”