Sexual crimes against foreigners in Japan – Part I

In 2002, Australian – Catherine Jane Fisher, was raped by US military serviceman, Bloke Deans, off the navy base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture. Her ordeal was greatly aggravated by an incompetent, prejudiced and dismissive Japanese police that resulted in what is known as ‘secondary victimization’.

Here’s the crux: even if Article 16 dictates obedience to Japanese law, what kind of law is it referencing? If local laws are just and effective in their sanction of sexual crimes, sure! Obey away! However, even with recent reforms to Japan’s rape law, legislature against sexual crimes in Japan is frustratingly vague and has no clear platform of its own that would combat the problem head-on. 

Rather, the laws are embedded in a wider context of power abuse known as パワーハラ (‘pawa hara’). Furthermore, when sexual harassment or セクハラ (‘seku hara’) hasn’t even been clearly recognized as a crime, what law does one obey when there isn’t a law to begin with? 

Revisions to extant laws are also painfully slow to come by, as Fisher’s 16-year-long (and counting) battle clearly reflects. Another example: the

, passed in 1985, only got revised to include definitions of sexual harassment in 1999 – 10 years after

– had filed a lawsuit to challenge its legality. Even so, penalty for employers only extends to publicizing the company’s name and offers no allowance for fines or punitive damages.

Sexual crimes affect and involve Japanese and foreigners alike. Foreign women in particular, are equally if not more prone to being sexually offended by either a Japanese person or another foreigner. And they have at least three additional strikes (if not more) against them that would heighten their reservations to report the crime.

First, there’s the language barrier that would further affect one’s confidence level in being able to effectively communicate their case, on top of the trauma of having suffered a sexual attack. 

Second, there’s the relative lack of awareness regarding accessible options and how to go about the right protocol in a host country. 

And third, there’s the unavoidably ‘foreign’ appearance that would meet its unfortunate match in the prejudiced mindset of ‘Westernized behaviour’, i.e. one that alienates the notion of sexual harassment as equally ‘foreign’, and capable of afflicting only the risqué foreigner. Why, it’s even reflected in the anglicized nature of セクハラ (‘seku hara’)! 

But Fisher’s case as a foreigner isn’t unique. Almost a quarter of the convictions made between 1972 and 2015 that involved the US base in Okinawa, were rapes – of both foreign and Japanese women. There is no question that the US military has long fallen into disrepute for the rotten actions of its members. The issue here however, is the lack of timely and adequate action of a zero-tolerance attitude that holds Japanese law equally complicit in the recurrence of such horror on its soil. 

Why is this so?

The gap in Japan’s legislature against sexual crime is rooted in the normalcy of convention that bows in female servitude to male entitlement. Fisher’s case comes on the heels of hundreds before her and scores follow after – again, both Japanese and foreign. In fact, Fisher’s remarkable resilience in fighting for both her rights and others’ has placed Japan’s abysmal track record under sustained international scrutiny and led to the publication of guidelines that includes support for victims of sex crimes. It isn’t clear though, who this publication is intended for, or how it is being implemented, if at all. 

Stories from the ground suggest that in spite of such measures, police treatment of individuals who report their sexual crimes continues to be incompetent, both in their manner of questioning and management in general. It is equally worrying that the entities involved, such as the cops and employer, and in cases concerning foreigners, the embassy, appear to be working in silos. Their disparate manner reveals a glaring lack of standardized protocol that could improve efficiency and professionalism. It could also provide reassurance to the victim that all parties are capable and synced in their course of action. Employers would learn how to effectively handle a case that involves their employee(s) as either the offender or victim, or both.