South Korea court orders Japan to compensate 'comfort women', reverses earlier ruling
reuters.com
SEOUL, Nov 23 (Reuters) - A South Korean appellate court on Thursday ordered Japan to compensate a group of 16 women who were forced to work in Japanese wartime brothels, overturning a lower court ruling that dismissed the case and prompting a stern protest from Tokyo.
Wait, so this long simmering international dispute can be settled for just $2.48 million? Sheesh, just pay it.
That would mean admitting Koreans are people too.
The thing is, this doesn't end by paying that amount. If you have a historical dispute of this complexity, no amount of payment is enough to stop the court cases and national sentiment.
I don’t think it’s the money, it’s the apology. It’s a real “sex slaves learned skills, some of which were to their benefit” Florida education system vibe.
That's true, but if you get enough people involved, you can't exclude those who are greedy. You'll learn it in your life if you haven't yet.
I think the more commonly used vocabulary refers to these woman as "sex slaves".
This kind of pedantry doesn't add to the conversation, it takes away from it. "South Korea orders Japan to compensate sex slaves" is a genuinely worse article title than the given one, and contains far less information than referring to them as "comfort women."
Yes, these people were sex slaves. The reason the term "comfort women" is helpful is because these are very specific sex slaves from a specific time, a specific place, and under specific circumstances. South Korea doesn't want Japan to compensate sex slaves, South Korea wants Japan to compensate these sex slaves.
AFAIU Japan uses this term for a different reason. The government (at least domestically) does not recognize these people as slaves. When they reported on their investigation on whether the sex labor was forced, they purposefully used a language that can be taken both ways. I don't know if Abe's cabinet changed the stance, but the word comfort women is still in use because Tokyo can refer to them without classifying them slaves.
If you have a source for that alternative fact you argue, you are welcome to share it here.
Here in Japan, the term comfort women is used for the exact same reason it is used in English and around the world: it clearly and unequivocally describes the people being it is used to describe.
It's not a weasel word used to avoid talking about the truth. It's just the word that people use to talk about a specific group of victims. It's a useful term that quickly gets us to the core issue, rather than starting at an extremely vague term and requiring clarifying language every time we talk about it. It's just basic communication.
Is this case being talked about in Japan? Has japanese news media reported on it at all?
Yes.
So what have you been hearing? Are people supportive? In denial? Angry?
Caveat: I said yes because in the past they have reported, and I don't see a reason not to. If I check the internet, though, I don't see an article. Yet.
Now. The atmosphere here is somewhat complicated. The Japanese internet space is a solid ultraconservative shit hole. They are openly racists who spew hate speech. Even Yahoo Comments, the biggest news website here with user comments, have absolutely no moderation.
Accordingly, 99.9% of the net space is full of denialism. They also point at the JPN-SK agreement Abe made, which declared that SK will not demand money from Japan for the comfort women problem.
In reality, the agreement apparently had flaws in wording etc., and we also need to take into account that SK Supreme Court is sometimes criticized by news media for being influenced by national sentiments. Don't get me wrong – I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing given that the Japanese tactics on this issue has been insincere.
Outside the internet space, it's even more complex. Ultraconservatives say media are pro-South Korea. But they'll say that unless they get their racist way, so it's not credible. It's so sensitive it's hard to find a balanced analysis on this one. My feeling is that they are rather neutral. They just report and silently move on without taking sides, in my eyes.
The LDP... they are a mess. A mixture of right-leaning centrists and, again, ultraconservatives.
If I look at the general public, I don't see any group or person siding with south korea. It's kind of understandable. Most people here distance themselves from politics. Ask them what they think, and they'll just say "it's too difficult to me", and they're just being honest. They don't think comfort women were sex slaves. They also don't think they were voluntarily cooperating. These people just don't have an opinion. They never read up on anything political. Just watch TV, work and sleep.
Thanks for providing an insightful comment. Seems like politics follows a pattern everywhere. Sounds like it must be very difficult to go against the political grain in Japan
I wish Japanese people would realize that "not having an opinion" is the same as being rather strongly in favor of whoever is currently in power.
Yes. Couldn't have said that better myself.
Woman selling or giving themselves for comfort or sex isn't an issue.
Being enslaved to do so is.
Sex workers are not comfort women. What's the confusion?
I'm a Japanese. Can you point me to your source now?
Edit:
Here are mine. I should've put these before all this nonsensical nightmare with this person that follows after.
A scholarly article
explaining how Shinzo Abe's government denied coercion in 2007.
Here's the formal Japanese record from the congress.
What source are you looking for? That comfort women refers to women forced into sexual slavery for the Japanese military during the first half of the 20th century? That's just the definition of the word. I'm not sure what you're asking for.
That Japanese people recognize them as sex slaves. The government, media and commoners.
This means that I want a FORMAL source from the government. And news articles explicitly stating this. And some scholarly articles that analyze the perception among the commoners.
No god-damn Wikipedia.
If I don't reply the next time, regard it a failure on your side.
Jesus Christ what a level of pedantry is this... I'm not engaging with this kind of bullshit, so go ahead and regard it as "a failure on my side."
Fucking trolls wasting everyone's time and poisoning every discussion...
So, no, you don't show your source. I treat your argument as such.
I made no argument. There's nothing to source.
You're trying to start a kindergarten-level fight and I'm not interested in engaging in that kind of behavior. I'm here for discussion, not pedantry.
Go waste someone else's time with your trolling.
You made an argument. I'm demanding the source of your argument.
Keep on going like I didn't twice already say I'm not interested in engaging in trollish pedantry.
Kishida has been pm since 2021, sure you’re Japanese?
I raised Abe's name because Abe's conservative voter base who demanded such a change.
Get rid of that "this person is not Japanese" attitude. It only humiliates you. Are you a proud nationalist or something?
If someone references the last well known leader to ask about a country, that’s a giant red flag that they’re lying about being from the country. Same for saying “as far as I understand” to describe the situation in that country. I’m not at all humiliated by not automatically believing someone I don’t know online behaving suspiciously, nor does it imply I’m a nationalist.
And you were wrong. Nice try.
I asked a question. You answered. How is that wrong?
A giant red flag that was wrong. Again, nice try.
Red flags are warnings that you should look into further, which I did. They’re not absolute predictors, but signs to probe. I stand by my question.
You asked someone else in this thread to produce a type of document that has never existed for anything (a government agreement that a word means a certain thing), then when they couldn’t, explained that an argument made without evidence is meaningless. How is due diligence about the claims people make a surprise to you?
Even better that they use the specific term, it brings awareness. I bet you the thread op learned something from your comment specifically because the title used this language.
How about both: "'comfort women' sex slaves"?
Sure, as long as you're not concerned about using 4 words where 2 will do.
Yeah, fuck no, not calling things what they are called is a very long standing way of obfuscating the severity of a wrong.
I literally explained how using your term actually obfuscates the facts more than using the term comfort women. Also, the article describes what the term means, so the claim that obfuscation is going on is really bizarre.
"Comfort women" is an internationally recognized way of clearly referring to these exact women. It is definitely euphemistic but it uses the least amount of words to express the concept, which is the goal of a headline.
I try to post interesting articles here on lemmy and the only constant comment I get is how bad the headlines are. Headline writing is largely garbage unfortunately. As long as the article is accurate then sometimes that's all you're going to get.
Sorry to hijack your comment, but I'm tired of these people who can't be reasoned with. They have poor reading comprehension. They criticize people for wrong reasons. And when cornered, they make up word definitions to pretend they've said nothing wrong. They call people trolls.
Be careful,.you might get an even sterner response from Tokyo. they seem rather cranky since their comfort women are gone...
What's stopping japan from just saying no to the courts request ?
Courts don't have any jurisdiction on another country unless they are in some sort of legal agreement between two countries
S Korea could freeze Japanese assets. S Korea and Japan are both members of the international criminal court so maybe that could be a factor. I'm honestly just guessing though. It could end up being a symbolic victory for these women though.
Actually, businessmen of South Korea and Japan do have good relations. There's thus enough lobbying in Japan to make a deal with South Korea.
That's also my question, but in my case it's technically why the court can make this decision. I mean, I believe they're right but, as you say, it's outside the courts, jurisdiction as far as I thought how they work.
I believe Japan has said no in the past, yet it makes sense for them to pay money in order to maintain the relationship with South Korea.
It was systematic rape, not "work"