While praising Japan’s robust protection of free expression, David Kaye distanced himself from his own report.
The contrast between his personal remarks and written claims exposes a troubling inconsistency.

David Kaye praised Japan’s free expression yet distanced himself from his own report.
His personal remarks sharply contradicted his written claims.
The gap suggests misunderstanding or a deliberate double standard.

2017-07-07

Kaye’s puzzling attitude.
What struck me as deeply strange was Kaye’s demeanor when he visited the Liberal Democratic Party and we observed him firsthand.
His report states that Japan guarantees freedom of expression at a very high level under Article 21 of the Constitution and even evaluates this positively.
Yet he added that he personally had concerns and that he was merely an individual independent from the United Nations.
He emphasized that his remarks carried no legal binding force and were not recommendations but merely proposals.
He also said, “I love Japan.”
He stressed that he was not there to attack us and that the report was not intended as an attack, to the extent that the person before us seemed entirely different from the author of the report.
In fact, we exercised care in listening to Kaye directly.
If we had harshly condemned him, it could have been used to claim that Japan’s discourse is impoverished.
If we had listened quietly, it could have been exploited as proof that LDP lawmakers could not rebut him.
We resolved to engage rationally while clarifying our position, which made his attitude all the more unexpected.
I questioned his understanding of the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets.
He recommends legal revisions to avoid chilling effects on journalists, yet the law does not target reporting or newsgathering.
I asked what exactly should be amended when such chilling effects do not exist.
Kaye replied evasively, saying he recognized that journalists are not punished and that the new law should enhance freedom of expression, which the government is striving to do.
During the exchange, Diet member Minoru Kiuchi strongly criticized the report in English, saying claims should be based on objective facts and that the report was biased, relying on distortion, fabrication, or hearsay rather than facts.
Kaye raised his voice slightly and said he was disappointed at being labeled.
However, he continued by saying that Japan has a strong democracy and rule of law, that freedom of expression is protected to one of the highest levels in the world, and that he had no intention of attacking a country he loves and genuinely believes to be good.
After eighty minutes of questioning, he admitted that he had never visited Okinawa and had not directly observed conditions on the ground.
What remained was a strong impression of a bizarre gap between his report and his own statements.