An examination of how a so-called racism database indiscriminately labels mainstream political statements as hate speech, revealing a fundamentally unserious approach to truth and discourse.

Labeling mainstream political statements as “hate” simply because they challenge China, Korea, or North Korea is not analysis but ideological sorting.

2017-07-13

This is a continuation of the previous chapter.

When I examined the statements listed in the database, I was left speechless.

“To praise the kamikaze pilots is to affirm war, some say smugly, and that is astonishing.
Is it wrong to honor men who, facing unavoidable death, went to their end with smiles while thinking of their families, their homeland, and those who saw them off.
Must one call them fools in order to deny war.
I cannot do such a thing.”
(Twitter, 2013)

“For members of the National Diet, nationality is a critically important issue.
If Renho held dual nationality, that would be a serious problem.
The circumstances or reasons are irrelevant.
It is unacceptable for a person holding another country’s nationality to have served as a cabinet minister.”
(Twitter, 2016)

Both statements fall well within the bounds of common sense.
Which part of them constitutes discrimination or hatred, and against whom.

Hyakuta
It makes absolutely no sense.

This so-called political racism database contains numerous statements by Diet members, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

For example, the following.

Prime Minister Abe stated on an NHK program that, regarding the Asahi Shimbun’s retraction of articles based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida concerning comfort women,
the newspaper itself needed to make greater efforts.

He pointed out that articles claiming Japanese soldiers abducted children like kidnappers and forced them into sexual slavery
had been believed as fact around the world, resulting in numerous monuments condemning Japan.

He emphasized the need to clearly retract these claims internationally,
and noted that overturning entrenched perceptions is extremely difficult when diplomacy is involved.

To treat such remarks as racism.

At a moment when Japan must explain to the world the falsehoods of the Yoshida testimony spread by the Asahi Shimbun,
to lump the Prime Minister’s remarks together with hate speech
demonstrates astonishing carelessness and insensitivity.

Any statement that carries even the slightest anti-China, anti-Korea, or anti-North Korea tone
is indiscriminately collected and thrown into a database labeled hate speech or racism.

This can hardly be described as a sincere engagement with facts or responsible discourse.