今 言論･表現の自由があぶない！

言論・表現の自由の実現をめざす ２００９年７月２９日 声明 （再掲）

―――　２００９年７月２９日　会創立５周年にあたって　―――
　　　　全てのビラ配布弾圧事件の逆転無罪判決を勝ち取り
“政治的ビラ配布と政治・選挙活動”における言論・表現の自由の実現をめざす声明

　　　　　　　　　　　　　ＮＧＯ　言論・表現の自由を守る会

　憲法前文の冒頭には「われわれ日本国民は公正に選挙された国の代表を通じて行動し」と謳われています。
　日本は、民主主義国家であり、「公正な選挙」によって国民の代表者を選ぶことが議会制民主主義の基本です。そのためには、知る権利、知らせる権利が確保され、国民が活発に政治や選挙活動にかかわることが必要です。
　しかし、この日本国憲法ができた時から日本の選挙制度は、国民の正当な政治・選挙活動を妨げる不当な規制に縛られています。憲法違反の公職選挙法によって、国民の参政権に関わる『戸別訪問』や『ビラの配布』が禁止され、国家公務員法によって公務員の政治活動に縛りをかけられ、住居侵入罪でなどで逮捕されています。公選法だけでもこれまでに９万１０００人以上の人々が検挙、処罰されています。

■　会の創設

　私たち、言論・表現の自由を守る会会員は、２００４年３月３日に逮捕された堀越明男さんの事件（国公法弾圧堀越事件）直後から、この事件の支援を開始し準備会を重ね、同年７月２９日に結成総会を開き当会を創設しました。

■　会の活動と目的
　結成当時は、逮捕された翌日に起訴された堀越明男さんの無罪判決を勝ち取るため、千葉県船橋・習志野・八千代各市在住の会員による市民運動として学習会や駅頭宣伝・裁判傍聴や署名活動を通じて裁判支援を行いました。

　会員は、一市民・国民として、政治的な言論・表現の自由を守るために、
　事件当事者の地元や所属団体の『守る会』としてではなく、ビラ配布弾圧に抗議し無罪を勝ち取り、民主主義の実現をめざす個々の市民による自発的な市民運動として裁判支援活動を行っています。


○　言論弾圧の根はひとつ！　これは戦争する国づくりのための弾圧です。

■　この５年間のビラ弾圧６事件支援の活動と、会の果たした役割

　党派を超えた真の議会制民主主義を願う市民の連帯の力を発揮し、国連への訴えにも参加しました。その結果、国連規約人権委員会からは、参政権である選挙活動に対する日本政府に対する厳しい是正を求める画期的な勧告が出されました。（※）


■　言論・表現の自由に関する、国連の歴史的勧告を手に入れた活動について
　当会は、０７年３月から福岡高裁で結審・判決を目前にした大石市議事件の支援を開始しました。この事件は地裁段階から“公選法こそ国際人権規約違反だ”ということが支援運動の中に位置づけられており、当時、関西方面までは大きな支援運動が広がっていました。

　会結成当時には、すでに公選法弾圧大石市議事件（２００３年５月）、立川自衛隊官舎ビラまき弾圧事件（２００４年２月）が起きており、直後に板橋高校君が代弾圧事件（２００４年３月）さらにその年の１２月には、葛飾マンションビラ配布弾圧事件が、翌０５年９月の前回総選挙投票日前日には世田谷国公法弾圧事件が起きました。

　葛飾事件発生直後、関係者から支援要請を受け学習会を開催して０５年１月から支援を開始し、その年９月の世田谷事件も国家公務員をターゲットにした公安警察寺田警部の指揮下での事件であり支援を決定しました。

　０６年６月、国公法弾圧堀越事件は、東京地裁で不当有罪判決とされ即控訴し、当会は、「弾圧の流れをせき止めよう！」と支援運動・駅頭宣伝を強化しました。
　その直後の葛飾事件地裁判決は、当然の完全無罪を勝ち取ったものの検察が控訴し不当判決を経て現在最高裁です。

　弁護団レベルでは６事件が連帯しており、０８年４・７集会は６事件の弁護団によって開催されました。当会は、その年の３月に国連人権理事会に６事件のレポートを提出し、この集会への参加を機に、正式に立川自衛隊官舎ビラまき弾圧事件と板橋高校君が代弾圧事件の支援を決め、６事件全ての支援を開始し、事件関係者の民の声レポートや国連規約人権委員会での日本政府審査のロビー活動などを組織し成功させました。

■　今年は世界人権宣言６０周年・国際人権規約批准３０周年です。
　　憲法と国際人権規約に違反している悪法を撤回させて選挙の自由と言論・表現の自由を手
　に入れることは時代の要請です。人権鎖国状態・人権後進国日本のこの深刻な事態を打開す
　るために、憲法と国際人権規約を裁判に活用させ必ず無罪判決を勝ち取りましょう。

■　憲法と国際人権規約違反の言論弾圧事件全て逆転無罪判決を勝ち取るために“４つの署
　名”と国際人権規約の“個人通報制度早期批准を求める署名”への協力を訴えます。

　　歴史の転換点に立ち、戦争の過ちを繰り返さないため、９条改悪を許さない運動との幅広
　い連帯を呼びかけます。


（※）自由権規約委員会による日本政府に対する最終見解（勧告）

　　パラグラフ２６．委員会は、公職選挙法の下、事前選挙運動期間中に配布される文書の枚数や形式に対する制限と同じく、戸別配布の禁止のような、表現の自由や公的な活動に参加する権利に対しての不合理な制限に、懸念を有している。また、政治活動を行った者や公務員が、政府を批判する内容のビラを個人の郵便受けに配布したことにより、住居侵入罪あるいは国家公務員法で逮捕され、起訴される報告に関して懸念を抱く。（第１９条、２５条）

　　　締約国は、規約第１９条及び２５条で保証されている政治運動や活動を、警察や検察官、そして裁判所か不当に制限することを防ぐために、表現の自由や公的な活動に参加する権利を不合理に制限している法律を撤回すべきである。

JRFS’ｓ ｒｅｐｏｒｔ UN Human Rights Committee 94th Session No１

We Demand the Early Ratification
of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a Recommendation for the Prohibition of Propaganda for War

13 October 2008
Japanese Association for the Rights to Freedom of Speech

In Japan of the 21st century, a case similar to “the White Rose” that young men were arrested and beheaded by reason of distributing leaflets that appealed against war at the University of Munich during the Second World War, is taking place in succession.
Although being not beheaded, people who distributed political leaflets are charged and convicted by a law of the violation of the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in sequence in district courts, high courts and Supreme Court.

The act that in the back six cases were regarded as “criminal” is an act on politics and the election, which is the principle of democracy in democratic countries. And this act should be constantly and positively performed by the effort of the nation and admired in democratic society. But in postwar Japan, 90,000 people were convicted by the violation of the Public Offices Election Law, which restricts canvassing door to door and distributing leaflets.
The Japanese court of law should make a judgment based on the Constitution that clearly guarantees “freedom of speech.” And, trials in Japan do not make full use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and there often happens suppression cases that seriously violate human rights.
When the Japanese government ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1979, the government said it would “ratify the optional protocol as early as possible,” but it is not yet ratified, and it is not utilized in judgment.
The human rights of victims must be restored and relieved soon.

As the background of these suppression cases, a group of the ruling political party which plans to make of Japan a country that can dispatch troops overseas, by revising Article 9 of the Constitution for the worse, seems to assault on the movement of expression by leaflets, which is handy and low-priced means of communication for citizens. While violating such important and fundamental human rights, they are just going to abolish Article 9 of the Constitution, which declares the renunciation of war, by depending on the number of members of the Diet. This is “propaganda for war” that violates Article 20 of the ICCPR.
What the Japanese government prepares to become a country that can again dispatch troops overseas is a serious problem for international peace, and also an important problem as its qualification of a member of the Human Rights Council.

At the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we call for the Human Rights Committee to investigate the problem of a serious violation of human rights in Japan, which is contrary to the current of international peace and the respect of human rights, and to take recommendation measures for the government immediately.

The Oishi Case and the Cases of Horikoshi and Arakawa 2

Despite Ms. Evatt's testimony and the doubts cast upon the testimony of the police, in January 13, 2006, the District Court of Oita demanded a 150,000 yen fine and that Mr. Oishi's electoral rights be suspended for three years. He appealed the decision of the District Court.

In February 19, 2007, there was a city council election in Bungo-Takada City. In spite of the actions taken by the police against Mr. Oishi, he was elected with more votes than any other city council members, as he had been in the last election. In fact, he received 30% more votes than he had in the last election. The residents of Bungo-Takada obviously consider him an effective and indispensable member of the city council.

In September 7, 2007, the High Court of Fukuoka upheld his conviction but decided to lessen his penalty to simply a 150,000 yen fine and no suspension of electoral rights. The High Court's judgement included the following: "Ms. Elizabeth Evatt's opinion is one of insights about what an election system should be, and isn't able to be equated with the formal view of the UN Human Rights Committee". And, "the Japanese Public Offices Election Law is compatible with articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenants on Human Rights".

Mr. Oishi appealed once more and his case was considered by the Supreme Court of Japan. In January 28, 2008, the Supreme Court of Japan dismissed Mr. Oishi's appeal. The judgment said that "the Japanese Public Offices Election Law is compatible with articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenants on Human Rights". As a result, the 150,000 yen fine against Mr. Oishi was upheld.

We call for an immediate recommendation for the grave violation of human rights occurred successively by the suppression of distributing leaflets in Japan, which is a member of the Human Rights Council.

In Japan entering 21st centuries, the suppression of distributing leaflets like the case of “The White Rose”, which occurred at the Munich University during the Second World War where, by reason of distributing antiwar leaflets, young people were executed by beheading five days after their arrest, takes place successively.
Of course, there exists no such execution in Japan but distributing political leaflets becomes subject to guilty by district courts, high courts and even the Supreme Court.

The Oishi Case and the Cases of Horikoshi and Arakawa Suppression of Freedom of Expression in Elec 1

Language : ENGLISH ONLY

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Seventh session


Written statement submitted by THE JAPANESE WORKERS’ COMMTTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (JWCHR), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status

The Oishi Case and the Cases of Horikoshi and Arakawa
Suppression of Freedom of Expression in Elections
Is it a crime to distribute leaflets!?

Mr. Tadaaki Oishi is a city councilman in Bungo-Takada City, Oita Prefecture in Japan. He has published a weekly district newsletter called Minnano Takada (Everyone's Takada) in which he has written articles about his policies and reports about the business of the city council. To date, 1813 issues of Minnano Takada have been published. He started this work at the age of 29 when he first ran for the Takada City Council. The residents of Takada have always welcomed his newsletters and have found him to be a positive force on the city council. So far he has required the mayor to spend taxes justly, and has investigated corruption cases many times. In his city as well as in the whole of Japan, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened in recent years. Mr. Oishi has acted to shrink this gap and eliminate poverty. In addition, he has spoken out against the war in Iraq. It seemed that the police have inspected Mr. Oishi's political ideas and actions in detail in an apparent attempt to deprive him of his seat on the city council.

In April 2003, in preparation for the upcoming city council elections, he distributed newsletters to his supporters. In May 3, 2003, he was arrested and detained for 21 days for distributing 18 copies of a one-page document which included the following: "Please ask your family members, acquaintances and friends right away to vote for Oishi." "Please let me continue to serve." "We are running late in our efforts for this election. I ask for your support." After that he was prosecuted for three violations of the Public Offices Election Law (door-to-door canvassing, distribution of illegal documents, and pre-election campaigning).

In Mr. Oishi's trial in the District Court of Oita, he pleaded not guilty because the Public Offices Election Law of Japan violates the Constitution of Japan as well as the International Covenants on Human Rights by prohibiting pre-election campaigning and door-to-door campaigning as well as by restrictions on the distribution of campaign literature. In June 27, 2005, Ms. Elizabeth Evatt, a former member of the UN Human Rights Committee, testified at the court. She stated unequivocally, "The Japanese Public Offices Election Law restricting freedom of expression is incompatible with either article 19 or 25 of the International Covenant on Human Rights. The application of this penalty does not conform to either article 19 or article 25 of the Covenant."