In March 25 1997, the Ministry of Justice launched the Council for Human Rights Promotion under the Law of Promotion of Measures for Human Rights Protection. The objective of the council was to consider (1) the policy for the promotion of human rights education and (2) the policy on the remedies for the victims of human rights infringement. JCLU had watched the activity of the council and as its result released some comments to the council. On July 1999, the council released the report on the objective (1). The following is the JCLU comment to it.
To: Council for Human Rights Promotion
The report emphasizes peoples' conventional way of thinking, social trends and gender based allotment of roles as the causes of human right problems in Japan and recognizes that problems remain among individual citizens. It is true that we cannot ignore the problem of people social conscious, but the report lacked the viewpoint that discrimination and human rights violations exist within the public system including the law.
The JCLU has been sending representative to the United Nations Human Rights Committee since 1988 and has been observing the considerations of the reports submitted by the Japanese government and as an NGO we have been submitting independent reports on that subject. In the consideration of the fourth Japanese government report which took place last year, the concluding observation presented by the United Nations Human Rights Committee pointed out a number of various human right problems such as the immigration system, human rights of prisoners, the death penalty system, human rights of women and children and the necessity of an independent human rights commission. There are many important comments within this opinion that deserves attention when reflecting on the human rights condition in Japan, but nevertheless these are not given much importance in the report made by the Ministry of Justice's Council for the Discussion of the Methods for Forwarding the Defence of Human Rights (MJ Report).
The MJ Report names the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights Education and Enlightenment Foundation, public welfare corporations, and non-profit corporations, as examples of the organizations which the MJ should cooperate with in regards to human rights education. But traditionally in Japan, when a human rights violation occurred, the victims raised a cry and the supporters gathered demanding the amendment of laws or regulations to the national and regional government, and most of the human rights groups working on the front line are not corporations. The MJ should recognize that the fact the common citizens being involved in human rights NGOs itself is the best human rights education and enlightenment.
Finally, the deadline for the public comment which was set on July 16 was too early and in appropriate considering the fact that the MJ report was made public on June 18. Most NGO group members are volunteers and the MJ should consider the fact that it takes much time to collect opinions.