An examination of the so-called “Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal,” its claims, supporters, and critics.
The essay argues that certain Japanese academics and UN figures apply double standards, undermining Japan while ignoring far graver violations elsewhere, despite Japan’s extensive freedom of expression.
A critique of a symbolic “tribunal,” academic double standards, and UN reports that condemn Japan while ignoring far harsher realities elsewhere.

2017-03-22

In China or South Korea, it goes without saying that this man would be sentenced to death or to a severe punishment.
Verdict
On December 12, 2000, the “judges” of this so-called “court” delivered a “verdict and summary of findings,” declaring Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese state guilty of crimes against humanity for rape and a system of sexual slavery.
The evidence cited claimed that “comfort stations were systematically established, constituted part of the military, and, even under the laws applicable at the time, fulfilled the elements of crimes against humanity.”
The “judges” further asserted that “Japan violated various treaties and customary laws relating to crimes against humanity, including slavery, human trafficking, forced labor, and rape, which Japan had ratified at the time.”
Evaluation
Support
Tetsuya Takahashi, a professor at the University of Tokyo, evaluates this “court” as an attempt to judge the crimes of the Japanese military’s sexual slavery system from the perspective of gender justice, to sever continuity with the prewar period, to construct a peace order in East Asia, and to globalize the overcoming of the past.
He also argues that the significance of this “court” lies in its deconstruction of law, claiming that it exposes the violence inherent in law itself.
I have repeatedly pointed out how certain individuals at the University of Tokyo have continued to inflict enormous damage on Japan, and this man is a typical example. In China or South Korea, it goes without saying that he would face the death penalty or a severe sentence.
Despite the fact that Japan is such a great nation of free speech that men like this can openly participate in discourse that demeans their own country, David Kaye—a man for whom the term “scholar” is overly generous and who would more accurately be described as a Chinese government-friendly academic—has, incredibly, submitted a report to the United Nations claiming that Japan is a country without freedom of expression.
This, while he raises not a single voice against China.
Criticism
Criticism of Calling It a “Court”
“There were no defendants or defense counsel.”
“The trial itself was an outrageous mock trial—so flawed that it cannot even be called a mock trial.”
(From Wikipedia)