March 27, 2010
It has been 60 years since the “red purge,” involving major dismissals of Japanese Communist Party members and its supporters. In March last year three “red purge” victims living in Kobe City, Ohashi Yutaka (80), Kawasaki Yoshihiro (93), and Yasuhara Seijiro (89), filed a lawsuit with the Kobe District Court. The following is an interview with Saeki Yuzo, heading the group of the plaintiffs’ lawyers:
Although it took place during the U.S. occupation of Japan, this major sweep of communists has left a major blemish on Japanese post-war history. It has been left unresolved even after Japan was restored its “independence” 60 years ago. As many as 40,000 people were ousted from their places of employment. Many victims have made efforts over the years to publicly reveal the extent of their illegal dismissals.
The “red purge” incident has also left a stain on Japan’s judiciary. The Grand Bench of the Supreme Court has twice judged in support of the illegal dismissals.
The latest lawsuit is an epoch-making event as a way to erase those blemishes. I would like to express my respect for the three plaintiffs who have courageously decided to conduct this legal battle.
State’s failure to rescue victims
Although past lawsuits focused on questioning the legality of plaintiffs’ dismissals, the latest one seeks state responsibility over the “red purge” incident. We are claiming that the government had promoted the sacking of communists by relying on the GHQ’s authority: it had not been compelled to follow the GHQ’s order to carry out the mass dismissals. We are also trying to reveal the government’s failure to redress victims even after the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored Japan’s sovereignty.
Citing the past decisions made by the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court, the government insists that “red purge” was based on GHQ’s order and thus valid even after the Peace Treaty came into force.
The plaintiffs maintain that after the Peace Treaty was signed, the government had the responsibility to apologize for the illegal action.
Public support is the key
In response to the three plaintiffs’ charges, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has published recommendations to the government.
It states that their dismissals are a form of discrimination based on their thoughts and beliefs as well as violation of freedom of conscience, equality for all, and freedom of association. It said, “They were forced to endure hardships since their honor was undermined and their bread and butter was taken away. Such human rights violations cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The state has to face up to its grave responsibility for leaving the situation untouched until today, although it could easily have taken measures to correct it after the Peace Treaty came into force in 1952.”
As the recommendations point out, the “red purge” clearly was a state violation of human rights based on the principles of the Constitution. In order to have the court make a reasonable decision, public voices and movements in support of the plaintiffs need to be strengthened further.
- Akahata, March 27, 2010
The “red purge” incident has also left a stain on Japan’s judiciary. The Grand Bench of the Supreme Court has twice judged in support of the illegal dismissals.
The latest lawsuit is an epoch-making event as a way to erase those blemishes. I would like to express my respect for the three plaintiffs who have courageously decided to conduct this legal battle.
State’s failure to rescue victims
Although past lawsuits focused on questioning the legality of plaintiffs’ dismissals, the latest one seeks state responsibility over the “red purge” incident. We are claiming that the government had promoted the sacking of communists by relying on the GHQ’s authority: it had not been compelled to follow the GHQ’s order to carry out the mass dismissals. We are also trying to reveal the government’s failure to redress victims even after the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that restored Japan’s sovereignty.
Citing the past decisions made by the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court, the government insists that “red purge” was based on GHQ’s order and thus valid even after the Peace Treaty came into force.
The plaintiffs maintain that after the Peace Treaty was signed, the government had the responsibility to apologize for the illegal action.
Public support is the key
In response to the three plaintiffs’ charges, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has published recommendations to the government.
It states that their dismissals are a form of discrimination based on their thoughts and beliefs as well as violation of freedom of conscience, equality for all, and freedom of association. It said, “They were forced to endure hardships since their honor was undermined and their bread and butter was taken away. Such human rights violations cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The state has to face up to its grave responsibility for leaving the situation untouched until today, although it could easily have taken measures to correct it after the Peace Treaty came into force in 1952.”
As the recommendations point out, the “red purge” clearly was a state violation of human rights based on the principles of the Constitution. In order to have the court make a reasonable decision, public voices and movements in support of the plaintiffs need to be strengthened further.
- Akahata, March 27, 2010
