It was in 1991 just after the bubble burst that my friend lawyer Nishigakiuchi Kenyu asked me "Do you know a strange law called "Anti-Gangsters Act" is likely to go into effect?"
I met him for the first time before the bubble burst when he was deputizing a real estate related company. He was an iron lawyer a rare species these days. Since his involvement in 1960 in the anti-US-Japanese Security Treaty struggle as a rock hurling high school student, he had been deeply involved in anti-nuclear and war movements as a college student, and spent most of his days taking to the street to protest as a member of the "anti-war lawyers league" when he was a trainee lawyer. Since he started practicing laws, he undertook the job of defendant lawyer to get the verdict of no-guilty for Fukutomi Hiromi and others who were accused of having been involved in the abortive attempt to blow-up the police superintendent official residence which was actually the work of some group that later joined the Arab Red Army. He also had deputized Yamaguchi-gumi-affliated Ichiriki Ikka of Hamamatsu in Shizuoka Prefecture to help get around the police's provocative move to drive them out of the office. So he was also appreciated and depended on by yakuza folks.
He really was frank and had a lot of sense of humor. But when it came to his job as a lawyer, he was the most stubborn of all, a man of principle whether he was confronted with the authority or yakuza man. While many of our generation were intent on joining the greater majority, he was really a unique existence, stubbornly staying on the side of minority.
"Anti-Gangsters Act? What the hell is that?" I asked, having never heard of it before.
Then Nishigakiuchi went on to explain to me by summarizing the law.
The "Anti-Gangsters Act", according to him, was intended to thoroughly control in terms of human resources and money the organizations designated as those of gangsters, thus ultimately destroying them. An organization designated as a gangster organization because more than a certain percent of its members are ex-convicts will not be allowed to engage as a land speculator, mediate in an accident, request for donation or support money, subcontract, or request for delivery of goods. The list of prohibited acts includes recruiting juniors, or making the neighbors feeling insecure.
The existing penal codes and civil codes are more than enough to control the illegal activities of gangster organization members. The "Anti-Gangsters Act" is intended to go beyond such a scope for controlling the entire organization so that otherwise non-criminal activities can be prohibited.
"In other words, they want to eradicate the environment that allows yakuza to survive."
Nishigakiuchi said in the end wryly. Indeed, the authority was clearly making it clear that the law was intended to eradicate the environment in which yakuza can survive."
I was getting increasingly resentful as I listened to him quoting this. What made me more angry was that it was the statement made by a police bureaucrat of my generation. "Eradicating the environment in which yakuza can survive ? Don't be ridiculous. and " Sure enough. I told you so. Here it comes." was the way I felt.
Despite my determination when I left college "I'll never get myself mixed up with anything political." This is how I got unexpectedly involved with politics again, and this time in an issue where my "family" was at odds with the authority.
I asked Nishigakiuchi and other people in legal professions for more details only to find this "Anti-Gangsters Act" quite problematical. First of all, the sentences are so ambiguous. For example, "...or the act to be perceived as the practical purpose of the acceptance of the use of the power of the concerned gangster organization by its member ...." I want to remind those who drew up this law of the "invalid because of ambiguity" theory in the United States which insists that any statement in any legal document concerning the infringement and limitation on human rights should be articulate and clear, a those that are not are against the constitution. So our "Anti-Gangsters Act" would be unquestionably unconstitutional in countries like America. It's so badly written that law specialists can't make it out at all.
The second problem with this law is that it distinguishes yakuza from citizens. One lawyer commented, "This is a modern sophisticated version of the pre-war days "Un-Japanese" concept." I confirmed with this lawyer and asked, "So yakuza are not Japanese citizens according to the law?" The lawyer replied. "No, to put it in a nutshell. No."
Despite the fact this law is problematical from the pure legal point of view, the very judicial world of this country remains silent. Even those known as human rights lawyers, while admitting the law is problematical from legal point of view, chose to overlook the problems it entails, making such an excuse as; "Yakuza are bad anyway."
"As a human rights layer who has been insisting that any human has his human rights, you should object to this law as it is very likely to infringe on human rights. Or what you mean by "any human" is a special group of people? What you have been advocating cannot apply universally, can it? "
But those lawyers try to get around this issue, or try to run away from it, saying "For God's sake, please don't ask such a question."
It's the same with our media people. I don't intend to criticize them for advocating that gangster organization should be done away with. But I asked them "Is this law against the banner of "human rights" you are carrying and go by?" They replied, rather, honestly " We know the law is problematical. But it's directed against gangster organizations. If we objected to it, our general public would all turn on us."
I had been long out of touch with the mainstream intellectuals and civic society leaders. But I was surprised to learn that everything had changed during the past 15 years. Among the most surprising was that everybody identifies with the majority. It's only a generation ago that we had quite a few intellectuals who would never succumb to the majority if they really believed in what they were advocating. What they would have said about this "Anti-Gangsters Act" is "I am absolutely opposed to such an ambiguous law even if it is directed against gangster organizations." Such a minority of people are no more. Everybody has become pathetically sensitive to the public opinions or reactions. The general public's sentiment, overly amplified by the media, turns into a spell-bounding public opinion that nobody can oppose. Everybody is spellbound, unable to stand against the "public".
There seems to be no room for opposition.
Beware of the public, or the public opinion for that matter. It's naively ethical like a little cheeky chairman presiding over a junior high school's classroom "ethics committee". Claiming to be very ethical, they tend to be less embracing and exclusive. Observing the civic society from its marginal area, I find the civic society and the public opinion becoming increasingly exclusive. For example, those involved in the construction industry were looked down upon long before they were referred to as "three -K" people ( Kurai, Kitanai, Kiken or Dull, Dirty, Dangerous). As our citizens were turning their increasingly cold eyes on them, they were regarded by mid-1980s as something "foreign" and something to be excluded. The same process seems to have taken place in the mainstream of the civic society to give rise to an eerie and dismal society where there is no minority. Shouting their "right opinion" to exclude minorities, everybody is now keen on to join the majority. They pick out what few trivial differences are there within the framework of majority and pick on them to their exclusion. Our mass media play up these bashing games. It's what I would like to call "Performance culture". Is that what the post-war democracy is about? What an absurd society it has become! That's the way I felt. "A society in which no minority exists" is a name in contradiction.
Put in this context, it is quite understandable that nobody opposes this "Anti-Gangsters Act" intended to eradicate the "foreign elements" For all I said, there were not many but some intellectuals concerned about the "Anti-Gangsters Act", most of them being journalists, and out of some curiosity typical of by-standers. Quite a few of them were interested in the background against which the law was to be implemented. Sensing the impending danger, I set up a forum with my old acquaintances, writers, journalists, and lawyers, and begun examination of the law. As well as law specialists and jurisdiction journalists, the people concerned, that is, some top brasses of Yamaguchi-gumi and Yaizukotetsu of Kyoto were invited to express their frank views in order to put this issue in a broader perspective."
What it boils down to is that the Anti-Gangsters Act is a recap of the "Anti-subversive Activities Act", rendered more convenient to the authority. The Anti-subversive Activities Law", which is currently talked about with a view to applying it to the AUM religious cult organization, raised the hell when it was first introduced as it might infringe on the basic human rights such as rights to freedom of expression, or freedom of association, thus violate the constitution of Japan, forcing the government, already admitting this view, to reach a secret agreement with the Japan Socialist Party that the law would never be implemented. The Anti-subversive Activities Act is such a law with such a history behind it.
Recapping the Anti-subversive Activities Act is the Anti-Gangsters Act with its procedure for implementation made easier than the Anti-subversive Activities Act. For instance, the Anti-Gangsters Act requires only questioning the accused and does without a procedure for allowing the accused to defend himself in the court. While the Anti-Subversive Act designates the "Public Security Examination Committee" as the examining body, the Anti-Gangsters Act designates a local government public security committee which exists only in name. "It's only gangesters. A little formality will do." is the way they see this problem.
Sure enough, in April 1991, almost undebated, the law was passed unanimously only two weeks after the Metropolitan Police had made it public. According to some journalists, only a handful of members of parliament were conversant with the law. Everybody must have said "aye" without knowing much about it as since it was directed against gangsters.
On the other hand, the yakuza side reacted violently to the "Anti-Gangsters Act". In 1992 to 1993, Yamaguchi-gumi, Yaizukotetsu, Kusanoikka, designated as applicable organizations as the law went into effect, decided to file a suit claiming that the law was against the Constitution of Japan. Nishigakiuchi joined the defendant for Yamaguchi-gumi. His logic and stance was articulate. In his book entitled "Constitution", he preaches that the Constitution should be observed. So he is just practicing what he is preaching. Of course he must have made this decision based on his highly professional theories and his perception of the realities of yakuza world and the discrimination it is subjected to. The realism he had acquired as a practitioner of laws who had been witnessing the facts of life of those living in the shadow world.
Nishigakiuchi said to me, "I am not defending yakuza. But if yakuza were wrong. The today's corporate society would be more to blame. What is worse about this corporate society is that they don't realize that they are doing harm. You see those "Anti-violence Centers" that cropped up all over the country to promote and back up the Anti-Gangsters Act". Financed handsomely by local governments, they make a good landing site for parachuting police bureaucrats.
Urged by Nishigakiuchi and lawyer Endo Makoto, those lawyers remaining shut up were beginning to response and finally as many as 200 lawyers joined the defendant team for Yamaguchi-gumi.
This also surprised me. The traditional attitude of yakuza toward the authority had been "After all, we are living in the shadow of the world. We shouldn't come up against the authority." Indeed, there were a number of old yakuza bosses who were saying, "Lawsuit is the last thing we, outlaws should do."
Against such advice, they went ahead with the lawsuit. Some pleasant sensation came over me as I was witnessing what would have been unimagined not so long time ago. "The relationship between yakuza and authority came a long way." I was thrilled. Koreans living in Japan, or those buraku folks, making up quite a large portion of those yakuza organizations, know only too well from their day-to-day facing off with the authority that confrontation with the authority is inevitable. What is more, they believe that what they belong to is a traditional yakuza organization not a bunch of criminals. These are some important factors that made them decide to file a suit against the authority, a lawsuit no different from a war against the state.
They accused the government of Japan of being unconstitutional as its attempt to practically ban their organization infringes on the freedom of association as provided for by the Constitution, and this will result in the infringement on the freedom of choice of occupation for those actually living legally under these organizations, which in turn, will infringe on the equality under the law. They also accused the government of Japan of being unconstitutional as its attempt to ban their use of their office place infringes on the right to property.
Endo Makoto led the campaign and played a central role for the defendants in this lawsuit, sometimes arranging for the new left and new right to fight together, or collecting signatures. He was engaged in the campaign from such a standpoint. But I was not interested at all in such campaigns aiming at the protection of civic freedom. I was very straightforward. What the establishment was trying to do was to get "yakuza", and to crush the "environment" in which yakuza can survive. In other words, it's my father, my mother, and ex-members of Terramura-gumi, those bosses and their young men, and those people I used to play with in the discriminated area, and the angry-eyed boy with blood all over his face at a "dog hunt" house in Kyoto's Hichijo, and me, that they are now trying to get rid of. It was a matter of how the establishment and the civic society are going to treat my "home" and "family" 50 years after the war.
Those who violated a law should be duly punished. There is no question about it. If a yakuza breaks the law, he should be punished. I don't want to talk about here the punishment a yakuza man gets being about 5 times as heavy as non-yakuza man gets. But the "Anti-Gangsters Act" is not intended to punish those for the crime they have committed. It is a law intended to remove us as "foreign elements", to exclude us without giving us any chance to state our case.
Every human is carrying his own history or background on his shoulders, some too heavy to carry. Most of those who came around me were with big chips on their shoulder. I can hardly accept the notion that refutes the environment that gives rise to yakuza should be eradicated without ever giving thought to it. Considering the way those bureaucrats in power behave these days, how dare they could do what they are trying to do!
I still believe the bureaucrats before the War concerned themselves about the country, "What should we do for this country?" But their post-war counterparts seem to be concerned only for themselves, "How do I get around all this?" They have only their own interest or their office's interest in mind. This is how the bureaucrats or bureaucrats-to-be look in the eyes of the one who worked behind the scene doing the dirty work, who worked as a weekly magazine journalist, and who worked as a land speculator during the bubble economy. For this reason, I cannot allow myself to be removed by such lowly creatures.
It's interesting to see how "my homeland" and "my family" epitomized in the form of yakuza would be discarded by the state or how "my family" would stand up against it, and if they fight, how they differ from the leftwing in the way they fight against the authority. I wanted to see it all through right to the end.
With such a thought, I have attended every Yaizukotetsu trial in Kyoto as an observer to see how the Anti-Gangsters Act trial goes. But before I tell you how the trial went, let me give my own account of how the Anti-Gangsters Act came into being, and what brought it into being, to find out what the authority was getting up to.
First, what was it that brought it into being? As can be clearly seen from the time the law was presented, which was when the bubble economy was collapsing, the law was to defend the corporate society of Japan. As mentioned before about the bubble economy, the bubble economy saw many yakuza and underground people engaged in hell-raising activities, many of them finding their way into the heart of the corporate society or authority as the corporate society made use of them. Although I think the corporate society made more use of them than they made use of the corporate society. Anyway, the corporate society felt endangered or scared.
What scared them most was the enormous amount of underground money created during the bubble economy to the extent that one nationwide yakuza syndicate could buy up more than 5% of the shares in Kurabo or Tokyu. What they had to deal with was not those small corporate racketeers or Sokaiya but something on far greater scale. The situation has gotten so bad for the corporate society that the management of big businesses in Japan would fall into the bad hand of yakuza anytime. Their fear of the underground money available from the enormous underground source was no doubt a strong driving force behind the Anti-Gangsters Act. You should be reminded that what the authority regards as the most important of all that it holds dear is the corporate society, not the civic society with its priority far below that given to the preservation of the corporate society. This has always been the basic stance of the authority since Meji Restoration, so is it now, and so will it be. The Japanese society is predominantly a corporate society with its bureaucracy lying over it like a laminated plate. But what happened during the bubble was that those bubble gents got on the central nerve of the laminated plate. Such a hasty passage of the law was a violent rejection response to these intruders. At the same time, they found it necessary to comflouge the real major players in the bubble economy. Remember the year 1991 was when the scandals involving the four major security broker houses and banks were being reported day in day out, the former suspected of having been engaged in the illegal activity of making up for the losses, the latter suspected of having engaged in illegal financing. And to preserve the laminated plate of the corporate society, the authority found it necessary to make it look like that the bubble economy was brought on by the reckless and uncontrolled land speculating operations by gangster organizations.
It's the same technique used in the case of the Jusen issue to divert the nation's attention to Suenokosan or Togensha riddled with bad loans or the arrests of the presidents of both the companies when the nation was just about to focus on the MOF and our banks as the major perpetrators. Nothing came out of all the fuss about Jusen, leaving everything unsolved or even unaddressed and unclear as ever as they made it look like that the problem was already behind them. Nothing was explained or solved about who was to take responsibility or the proposed injection of tax payers' money to bail out the banks.
Actually, the law was intended not only to protect the corporate society. It was also intended to complete some policies that the police bureaucracy has long been pursuing.
One is for the authority to cut off the long and corruptive relationship with yakuza once for all. The other is for the police to replace yakuza as the ruler of the entertainment business world, including the pachinko industry. There has long existed a corruptive relationship between the police and yakuza as I have experienced myself so many times. For example, the report the police had hard time preparing when I got arrested for my alleged corporate extortion was shown to some people of the yakuza syndicate concerned before it was submitted to the prosecutor. Such a corruption is the order of the day. The police were now trying to get such a corruptive relationship all behind in their effort to reorganize themselves. They wanted some to be disposed of after their usefulness is over, but they wanted some of them more thoroughly integrated into their new system than before. The Anti-Gangsters Act would prove very useful in this reorganization process. The law, while intended to destroy gangs of racketeers, was also intended to control them. Like all the other special legislations, who would be subject to this law will be determined by those who enforce it. By so doing, they can crack down on those who stand up to them, or can control those who follow them wagging their tail.
To show you an example, suppose a gangster demands some fee from a "soap land" (bath house provided with a prostituting woman). The owner of the bath house may refuse to pay. Before the Anti-Gangsters Act, the police were not allowed to interfere unless the yakuza does some extortion or violence. But the law allows the police to come in if the bath house after refusing to pay, reports to the police. The police can use their own discretion to decide whether to issue an order to halt or not. It's entirely at the discretion of the police to decide whether to implement the law or not. That means it can adjust how vigorously the law will be implemented, thus controlling the gangster organizations. Indeed, they went all out to crack down on yakuza organizations in Kansai, formed around Yamaguchi-gumi. It was this that the law is referred to as "Law intended to destroy Yamaguchi-gumi". While reorganizing themselves with respect to their relationship with yakuza, they are trying to put the pachinko/entertainment industries under their control and secure all the rights that come with it. It may be that this is the main objective of the law.
To see this series of moves in a proper perspective, it is necessary to go back to the revision of the Commercial Code in 1982. The revision, made under the pretext that it would exclude sokaiya racketeers from the shareholders' meeting so that it will be open to the common shareholders, was intended to allow the police to arrest not only the sokaiya but also the corporate that has dealt with a sokaiya. This put all the business corporations under pressure from the police. To relieve themselves of this pressure, the corporations had to offer to put police OBs on their payroll so that they could establish a good relationship with the police making it difficult for the police to charge them.
It's only that the police was trying to interfere with civil affairs to prevent yakuza from interfering with civil affairs. As if to prove my point, such business corporations as Itoyokado and Isetan were charged with violation of the Commercial Act while others with police OBs on their payroll have never been charged. The difference it has made to business community is that yakuza has been replaced by the police as the protect racket.
The revision of the Road Traffic Act was also intended to expand their profit base and to impose tighter control on the life of citizens. Not a year has passed without a revision of the Road Traffic Act with each revision resulting in an additional organization associated with the police, such as "Safety Drive Control Center", "Traffic Accident Analysis Center", etc amidst the nationwide call for the reduction of such external organizations to government agencies. While many government external agencies are being abolished or restructured under the policy of "Reforming Administration" and "Deregulation", only the police was adding its external agencies. One reason for this is that the police, compared to other government agencies, does not have many agencies or organizations to "descend from heaven" to. The other is that "Safety Drive Association", laying a golden egg of 10 billion yen revenue annually, has sustained a great loss as a result of the driver's license's valid period lengthened from 3 years to 5 years under the pressure of the public opinion. The revision of the Road Traffic Act was intended to make up for the loss and expand its profit base. This reorganization efforts include an attempt to take away the data on the expressway traffic from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Construction in order to have centralized control on the data. The new traffic law was also intended to get the right to issue pay stickers to cyclists who park their bikes in a bicycle parking lot near a railway station.
This was true of the New Entertainment Business Act implemented in 1985. By far the biggest target for this law was a \ 20 trillion industry of pachinko industry. Preventing yakuza from purchasing prize goods, and introducing a pre-paid card system into the pachinko industry under the pretext that the proper tax can be exacted from the pachinko industry known as one of the three biggest tax evaders, the other two being religious organizations, and hospitals. What's more, they worked behind the scene so that right to the prepaid card profits would be in the hand of a certain external organization associated with the Public Security Committee. This is also where we can see the police removing yakuza and replacing it as a recipient of the profits. To prove my point, just look at the major pre-paid card companies. You will find many ex-cops descended from heaven. Or look into an association of money changers for pachinko parlors, you will surely find some ex-cops. The campaign to exclude yakuza from the pachinko industry was systematically executed. At some hotel in Kyoto, they addressed an assembly of pachinko parlor owners across the country saying, "We have now a new law, the "Anti-Gangsters Act" with us. Call us anytime you see a gangster come into your parlor. We will be there right away to kick them out" meaning that yakuza will be kicked out even if they are in the parlor enjoying the game of pachinko. This is nothing but the police interpreting the law the way that suits them. But that's what they do everyday.
Today, the pachinko industry and the entertainment industry are completely under the thumb of the police. Before the Anti-Gangsters Act trial, one old yakuza boss in Kansai I talked with was saying "There's nothing left of the entertainment and pachinko. Everything is now in the hand of the police. So it actually does not make sense to us to fight against the police in the court." He was admitting that the police have a complete control over the pachinko and entertainment industries. When the pachinko and "soap land" industries were under control of yakuza, the police regarded the pachinko parlors allowing gambling and the soap lands that providing prostitutes as the most criminal activities. But once they are in their hand, they have stopped shrieking about them, and remain silent about them, sometimes helping them organize what used to be criminal activities. Referring to this fact, the 4th president of Yaizukotetsu, Takayama Tokutaro said before the audience in the hearing session at the Public Security Committee, "The Public Security Committees and the Police are the Japan's largest gangs of racketeers." He can say that again.
Putting the pachinko industry under control of the police was also intended secretly to control the greater majority of the pachinko parlors, Koreans associated with either South or North Korea. The idea is typical of the establishment in that the introduction of this law is intended to kill two birds, one being to expand their profit base, and the other to impose tighter control on the Koreans both of south and north origin living in Japan the establishment regards as potentially dangerous elements.
As expected, the pachinko industry has expanded enormously since it came under the total control of the police. What used to be called a \2 trillion industry is now a \3 trillion industry, the size of the GNP of South Korea. As it goes on expanding, it is now becoming more and more gamble-like engulfing a rapidly increasing number of housewives now playing this game of chance that used to be almost exclusively a man's game. It is ironic that pachinko has been fast becoming more and more gamble-like since professional gamblers, that is, yakuza were expelled.
But it's not something you should be surprised at. It's just that the things have taken their natural course. You should be reminded that the police are no different from other bureaucrats, especially those on the top. It's their inherent nature that they seek to expand their organizations and have an insatiable lust for power and interest. They are no different from MOF officials in anything they do. Spurred on by this nature inherent in government agencies and bureaucrats, the police are now trying to impose tighter control here and there across the country, trying to turn this country into a "police state". It might be a long roundabout journey if turning Japan into a "police state" is what the 50 years of post-war Japan was about.
Now let's look at how the yakuza side is fighting against this.
In the case of the Kyoto's lawsuit against the Anti-Gangsters Act, the pleintiff is Takayama Tokutaro, the 4th chairman of Yaizukotetsu, deputizing the plaintiff are three lawyers, Minamide Kikuji, Wakamatsu Yoshiya, and Lee Ukai. The three deputizing lawyers are all competent and marvelous, all committed to this trial as their own problem. Minamide was a right wing legal expert studying Motoori Norinaga, trying to see the issue of yakuza as an issue of diversification of Japan. Wakamatsu is a noted lawyer affiliated with "Miranda-no-kai", an authority on the right of prisoners, and regarding this trial as the extension of his theory and practice. The young, Lee is committed to this lawsuit as an ethnic problem from the view point of a Korean living in Japan.
The testimonials at the trial were all fantastic, identifying the structured discrimination as the root cause of the crimes committed by gangsters and making it clear that this problem should be debated on this trial. The defendant cited the discrimination against buraku people, the discrimination against Korean and Taiwanese residents in Japan, and the discrimination against socially handicapped (according to their family background, criminal record, physical or mental inability, wealth, and educational background) the three major discriminations), and claims that the members of Yaizukotetsu are subjected to the third one. And they go on to say "Nothing about the discriminatory structure of the society had been identified, mentioned, or addressed before the Anti-Gangsters Act came into being. How could you possibly expect to prevent and fight crimes by gangsters effectively without realization, and identification of the discriminatory structure?" The accused, the Public Security Committee, will not admit or deny this as the deputies go on arguing. The articulate and consistent logic of the argument is keeping the accused on defensive and cornered.
And if you look around the courtroom, it strikes you as strange indeed. The Kyoto District Court, built way back in Meiji era, has an elevated floor on which the judge, the plaintiff and the accused are seated face to face. So we have the plaintiff, Takayama seated on the elevated floor. But down below his seat is observers' seat to his right and left. Seated on one side are the detectives from the Gangster Section of Kyoto Prefecture Police, all lined up. And seated across from them are the members of Yaizukotetsu, all line up.
When the trial is just about to begin, they start roaring at each other, "Hey, ..., we gonna nick you soon." "Watch your fucking mouth. Come get me anytime if you got any guts..." One cop provoked me in a observer seat shouting at me, "Hey Miyazaki, what the hell are you getting up to this time back in Kyoto? You got no place in Kyoto." So every time they try to provoke, I have to holler back at them.
In the course of the trial, Takayama of Yaizukotetsu told me a lot and had many discussions. He said to me about the trial as follows:
"The trial is not about winning or losing the case. We are sure to lose. I don't care. But what I do care about is whether I can do what I should do before I give up. I can't allow myself to die before I state our case. I can't get myself to compromise when my emotional side refuses to compromise. And when I think of those people, although small in number, who are giving us a moral support saying "You are right. It's quite natural", I can't retreat."
Indeed, Takayama is persistently calling upon the authority to clarify their views. He asks, "Now you are talking about the ratio of the ex-convicts to the organization's people on the top. The Anti-Gangsters Act says that the criminal record of those discharged from prison will remain for another 10 years. Does that mean serving the sentence in prison does not clear them? Serving the sentence in prison is all it takes to be clean, is it not? You know what the prison's education section manager says to those who have served their sentence? He says, "You are now as clean as the blue sky. I hope you will live an honest life this time." It doesn't make sense to me such people should continue to be treated as if they haven't finished their prison term. Don't you think it's not right?
This is no doubt a case of discrimination. This is beyond the matter of whether the existence of yakuza is good or bad. It's a matter that concerns the way you treat humans. I call upon you to clarify the spirit in which you came up with this law."
"Have you forgotten all the things we helped you with all through these years after the war? Is this the way you repay for all we have done for you? Why don't you say "You have no human rights if you believe so." We could manage. But what you are now saying is "You have human rights so you must carry out your duties. But we won't give you the right to live." This is the reason I am saying you are in the wrong."
Takayama is consistent in asking, "Are we a human being or not? If not, say so" This is completely different from what our human rights activists are saying. What they are saying is "We have human right. So we must protect them." On the other hand, Takawama is confronting them with the question, "Do we have human rights or not? " He never says, "Protect our human rights".
What's more, what he means by "human rights" is completely different from what our human rights activists mean. What Takayama means by that is the right to live or to be living itself. He is asking, "Are you going to kill us? We are now living. Why do you want us to stop being alive?" That's all he is saying. He is persistently and consistently asking this simple question to be answered by the prosecutor or the members of the Public Security Committee.
The Takayama in the court asking this question reminded me of the interview I had with the Doro's Chairman Matsuzaki when I was a journalist. Matsuzaki was said to be the most radical in the labor movement. That was around the time when civil servants went on strike all across the nation calling for the right to strike. That was the biggest issue at that time known as "Strike for the right to strike". Spearheading this struggle was Doro. When the conversation got around to this particular topic of "Right to strike", Matsuzaki said , "We don't want to discuss any more whether civil servants have the right to strike or not. We do when we say we do. Because we are determined to go on a strike no matter how they crack down on us." In other words, he was saying, "Come on. When we go on strike, the right to strike is there. And when the workers go off strike, the right to strike is no more. As simple as that".
The right is not something that is there from the beginning like a truth. It's something that we struggle to get. If we cease to struggle for it, it automatically ceases to exist. That's because there is always a counteracting force at work between those who are trying not to give the right, and those who are trying to get it. I have had a similar perception but I found Matsuzaki's argument steadfastly articulate and clear. And that's exactly what Takayama is saying about human rights. "No matter what they say, we have the right to live. We have been living as yakuza no matter how the police have tried to break us. And we will go on living just as we have been living." In other words, "We will win the right to live. We won't turn to you for help." But at the same time, he is telling them to answer his question now that they have gone as far as to say they will not allow us to live."
In response to to this, the authority admits, "Even yakuza have human rights" as they are supposed to uphold universal human rights. Then Takayama points out the hypocritical nature of the authority saying, "Don't tell a lie. How can you reconcile what you have just said with this law?"
Well, after all we shouldn't expect the Public Security Committee to have the authority or their own view as they are nothing more than a puppet for the police. Referring to this fact, Takayama is saying wryly, "Exchanging the prize for money at pachinko parlor is no different from gambling. Running "a soap land" is no different from running a prostituting house as prosecutors from the Kyoto Prosecutors Office admit this, saying it's a " publicly recognized fact" on this trial. Then I asked them "Do you know that? " And they replied, "I have never been to such a place or seen such a place." How should they be capable of checking or decision-making? It's such people who say OK to soap lands or pachinko parlors. That's why I keep calling them a just puppet for the police."
Frustrated that he was getting nowhere with those Public Security Committee puppets, he went all the way to Tokyo to argue with those in power at the Metropolitan Police Department.
"I beat them at the Metropolitan Police. I said, "What the hell are you talking about? You, an executive sitting around here, don't know nothing about what's going on where I come from. Data? What does it tell you? Does it tell you how we feel? You can't tell how we feel by playing with numbers and figures. What do you think we are? Is this the way we should treat us? I had a hell of argument with them. The one executive I argued with resigned because of some neutral statement he had made. Ya, there are some who understand this. They know up here logically, but they can't behave accordingly for lack of physical strength."
Since the Anti-Gangsters Act was presented, Takayama has been fighting energetically but alone against the authority. It seems to me that what is driving him on is his apprehension about the future of yakuza, which I will discuss later on, and something traceable to his own history, or his self-awareness as the senior member of this world of yakuza.
Born as a Korean in Japan, he was brought up on the Japanese culture, schooled in Japan, and living in Japan. His encounter with the world of yakuza came immediately after the end of the war. For a young lad deprived of even the freedom to become yakuza, his step into the world of yakuza was one step toward his self-liberation. At the same time, the world of yakuza was what he had been aspiring to. "Korea and Japan are very similar except for one thing. The world of chivalry is non-existent in Korea. I have been cherishing for the world of chivalry since I was very young." To Takayama, the world of yakuza was where he is liberated and at the same time he has been cherishing for. This sentiment is shared with people rallied around the first head of Teramura-gumi, too. Takayama never departs from this basic stance as one yakuza man.
That's why he never departs from his stance as yakuza on the trial and in hearing. He sticks to his position as one parent of one head family and as the only one exposing himself as a target for enemy's attack. It seems to me that fighting against the state is his own proof of his raison d'etre as one yakuza man. I don't remember well whether it was before or after this trial began, but he told me about his first fight in his life. It was when he was a primary school kid. His opponent was a bullyboy 2 to 3 years older than Takayama was. This bullyboy would push around, and beat up the weak, including Takayama. Takayama wanted to fight back. But the bullyboy was so tough that he would stand no chance. He was patiently holding back but the patience ran out at last when he had his mind made up to get even with him. Although he had his mind made up, he was still shaking inside, fearing that he might be beaten up to death. But when he actually faced him, the bullyboy turned out to be not much of an enemy. He could beat him much more easily than he had expected. It seems to me that Takayama sees this fight of his against the state the same way he sees his fight against that bullyboy. His conviction "The enemy is not as formidable as they think." is what is driving him as well as his belief "It's fighting on that matters. The outcome is what comes out of this as the word seems to suggest. The manhood lies in the act of determining to fight." He seems to see what yakuza is all about in what his soul experiences in the process leading up to the moment when he has his mind made up. His unflinching stance throughout the trial is "I stand no chance. But I am determined to fight on right to the end even if I am the only one."
This is purely the logic of yakuza, not shared with the leftwing. You can be "lovable left" but you cannot be "lovable yakuza". This is the logic of a man who knows this only too well. Thus, there is no lie just to be told for him to be lovable. Takawama is fighting on so straightforward against the state
Through my first involvement in something political for the first time in many years, I found the mainstream of those in power completely transformed. Taking the initiative in drawing up and implementing the Anti-Gangsters Act were young bureaucrats my senior, the next generation establishment. It was those young bureaucrats who came up with the idea. Their vision was that by disposing of the conventional "unclean" and "irrational" method of government that depends on something dirty, they will realize a "clean" and "rational" government. "I don't want anything dirty. I don't want anything foreign. What I want to see is a society completely purged of such elements." This is their philosophy that suits the contemporary Japan typified by those young who cannot start the day without taking a morning shower, and who cannot mingle with people without wearing deodorant perfume.
I was really upset to read articles written by those young bureaucrats. They really believe that such system of government is possible, and must be realized. They are serious about the way to eradicate the environment in which gangsters can survive. It takes the plausible form of a campaign against gangsters. But this comes across to me as uncanny. Where else do they think they are heading but a "clean fascism" based on the total rejection of things foreign? In their perception of things as a ruler, I see no realism of admitting such human foibles as evilness, madness, and violence as something that they have to resign themselves to embrace or integrate into the society they envision. All I see there is a simplistic, barren and desolate outlook on humans and society and the perception of government based on such thought or thoughtlessness, like a family computer game.
This type of humans does not understand that every human being has his own pride, integrity, or even a worm turns. He doesn't understand that the more you tell them to be clean, the more will fail to be clean. He doesn't understand that cleanliness is next to stifle-ness. It is true from the viewpoint of a ordinary citizen that yakuza are bad people. But it is undeniably true that there exist such people with no choice but to live that way. The problem of yakuza does not have a simple solution. As well as the problems of discrimination and poverty, violent, pleasure-seeking, and deviating nature of humans, and the traditional concept they have of manhood are intricately interwoven into the fabric of this problem. In other words, any society has extremes or those who cannot be be extreme. This is the reality of the human society that has repeated itself over and over again.
In addition, the world of yakuza is one of the few left in Japan where you can have your big dream come true while the entire Japanese society is stifled under the ever-tightening control. There always come out people, young and aspiring, who would take a change against heavy odds to make it big, even at the risk of their life as long as their chances of success are not nil. This is what has been repeated over the thousands of years of history of humanity.
So I don't think they will be able to get around the problem of yakuza just by eradicating the environment in which yakuza can survive. No society or environment can exist without giving rise to the deviants from it. Take Shinjuku for example, yakuza don't make their presence felt anymore there after the Anti-Gangsters Act came into effect. Although some say that yakuza seem to be fighting their way back in recently, what you see dominating there is Chinese Mafias, doing exactly the same thing as yakuza were doing before. It's like watching a billiard ball, one moment your eyes following one ball, and the next moment, watching another ball getting bounced off and hit by another just like the one you have just gotten your eyes off.
Yakuza, oulaws, and people at the bottom of the society are not as intelligent or knowledgeable. But their resourcefulness is amazing, making them by far the fittest for survival compared to our intellectuals. Tapping as much as these resources they could command, they have managed their tough life, surviving the authority's repeated attempt to crash them out of existence. Takayama Tokutaro says, "Admittedly, it is true that the modern yakuza are not living up to the way of chivalry. They have much to be desired. But why they are unable to live up to it is because the authority took away gambling from yakuza. Yakuza wouldn't have been as big as they are today had they been allowed to gamble to earn their living. That's 100% for sure. Left free to do gambling, they would be able to survive on that without having to become as big as they actually did. It was that way at least until early 1960s. Feeding the mouths used to be synonymous with gambling. Deprived of gambling, they had no alternative but to getting bigger and bigger through mergers just like a corporate. They stopped their economic activities. You see the nationwide yakuza organizations now have tens of thousands of members. There is no stopping them from growing bigger and bigger. ....."
It's ironical the "rational" governing helped to give a birth to a changeling called colossal economic yakuza.
So let's see where yakuza are heading after the Anti-Gangsters Act? The Anti-Gangsters Act trial is a battle between the state and yakuza on the public front, a fierce fighting has been going on between the police and yakuza on the other front behind the scene. The harassment by the police are such that they have their traffic cops stationed all day in front of the restaurant run by Takayama's son who is not yakuza, stopping cars and questioning the drivers, in order to obstruct his business. Or non-yakuza houses in the Takayama's neighborhood get raided for no reason. The police are thus imposing all sorts of rules to keep yakuza under their ever-tightening thumbs. The result is that yakuza are becoming more Mafia-like.
Have you seen some name plates put up at the entrance of a yakuza office? They are for its members. In the past, all the members used to have their name plates carefree put up there. From the way they are put up, you could easily tell each and every member's rank and position in the organization's hierarchy, and the identities of those imprisoned now serving their sentence. But with the Anti-Gangsters Act in place, most of them have only their boss's plate put up. Under the increasing pressure, they are going underground. Nobody directly involved in the criminal act in connection with the battle between Yamaguchi-gumi and Yaizukotetsu of the recent years has ever turned himself in to the police. Those involved in the criminal act used to surrender themselves to the police, offer to allow themselves to be tried by the authority, and accept the verdict without objecting. Now, no yakuza will offer to cooperate with the police, so that far more can get away from the police than before. Since the implementation of the Anti-Gangsters Act, the outlaws in Kansai are becoming more international, and Mafia-like as the police and outlaws are now in direct confrontation with each other.
"The police are boasting "The number of gangesters has decreased by 16,000' But they are not keeping track of these 16,000 who quit they say have quit being yakuza. I can hardly imagine these working in any honest business. They may end up forming a group of thieves, committing murder, trafficking drugs. To prove that, drug trafficking is increasing. They have now more freedom to do anything, free from all the rules that used to be imposed upon them from their organization which is no more. Getting rid of yakuza to invite gangs of people far worse than yakuza is what the police are doing. This perception does not dawn upon the police. By the time I get old enough to die, fully fledged criminal organizations paralleled by none preceding them would surely emerge, a kind of people who have no honor to shoot behind your back without remorse. Fighting yakuza with the Anti-Gangsters Act or something like that would surely drive them underground to become Mafia-like Having lived in this world. I know a lot of good things about this world. I just don't want to see them all gone. It's regrettable there is no holding back this trend. It's too late."
Just as government taking away from yakuza such lucrative jobs as gambling, show business, and dockyard work has resulted in a changeling called "economic yakuza", the Anti-Gangsters Act will give birth to a changeling like pure criminal organizations American style. It doesn't seem to be so far away. That's why I insist that the only way to solve this problem of the post-war Japan is to change the society that allows the autonomy of its citizens including yakuza, rather than the one deprived of autonomy and controlled from the central government that will leave no breathing space. By "Autonomy of the citizens", we mean something like the reviving the tradition of self-defense system that existed among citizens in the middle age Kyoto or Sakai, not such fragile and rootless one as advocated by the post-war democracy in Japan. It's not living under the protection bestowed patronizingly by the authority. It's a self-defense, self/mutual support, and self-government system they should struggle to get and keep that enables them to seek co-existence with the government.
As long as it's a community of human beings, it would be too idealistic to do away with any machinery authorized to use violent means of security keeping. But I think it is the wisdom of human beings to seek as much autonomy as possible by relieving the central authority of such a burden. It is true that this kind of autonomy by town folks existed in the medieval cities like Kyoto and Sakai. I think it's time that we began to seek ways to revive this tradition. This way, structural transformation of the "bureaucratic" Japan would be a realistic proposition. And this would put the Japanese for the first time in the history on par with other Eurasian counterparts having their own tradition of civic autonomy. Put in such an environment, yakuza would be able to come back to their old role as a man of influence. Returning to the old job may reduce their revenues but they will pay their due penalty. Thus yakuza will be "decentralized" or reduced to a mere bunch of locally operating people not nationwide as they are operating today. I am convinced that this will be the solution to the problem of today's yakuza.
I think yakuza in Japan has its origin in Sengoku Era about 500 years ago when the nation was divided into many warring lords, each trying to rule the entire country. Those who couldn't survive just doing the farming in the confusion of war-torn country formed groups of mercenaries like "ashigaru-tai" One day they worked for one lord, and next day for another lord, to undertake the most dangerous jobs. This gave rise to a need for some kind of a boss figure who could bargain with lords, to negotiate the most beneficial employment term, thus securing the source of income from lords. The negotiator bosses must have been loyal or holding on to the powerful, but showed their broadmindedness by being protective for the weak, and capable of disciplined themselves to preside over a group of mercenaries. Had they not been as described above, men as rough as a hungry wolf would not have obeyed them. This relationship gave rise to its spiritual counterpart, "kyo" an ethical system that reflected and justified this relationship
I think this is how yakuza came into being. When the nation regained its peace, they continued to be inseparable part of the self-defense and autonomy of the region as lord's fire-fighters, and street entertainers while enjoying the lenient attitude of their lord overlooking their gambling. While allowing themselves to be used by the authority, they kept a certain distance from it, acting as a counter-balance. And with their own code of conduct to discipline themselves, they were living with and as ordinary folks. This is a dream I am dreaming. Some day when we win the civic autonomy, we will be able to recapture the spirit of that past era and return to such a relationship.
It seems I have allowed myself to be carried away by my own singing of my view on this particular problem, particular because it concerns own my identity.
But let us return to the Anti-Gangsters Act trial and see how it went on.
It was Yaizukotetsu, Yamaguchi-gumi and Kusanoikka that went ahead with their lawsuit accusing the Government of Japan of violating the Constitution. But a turning point came for Yamaguchi-gumi when the Great Hanshin Earthquake hit the area where the nation's largest yakuza organization was headquartered. Located where the quake hit the hardest, Yamaguchi-gumi was actively involved in the relief efforts for the victims of the calamity. It was such an unprecedented and unexpected outbreak of disaster that the executive meeting held on January 29 decided to drop the charge, and notify the District Court of Kobe in writing under the name of the chairman to this effect, the reason probably being that they couldn't afford to indulge themselves in fighting in a court, turning away from the effects of the great disaster. I was told that there was a growing negative attitude toward the lawsuit, which I think was quite natural and understandable. But I sent faxes many times to Takayama expressing my feeling; " Going out to see the hell, or remain here to see the hell? Then why not go out and find the reason why you have to see the hell? Dropping out now cannot prevent the government from what it has set out to do, or crushing us."
He replied, "It doesn't matter at all whether we win or lose. I would be surprised if we win. We stand no chance. What keeps me going on this that this whole thing just doesn't make sense. I can't allow myself to die if I drop out without understanding why they do what they do against us. No, I won't drop the charge. And I won't drop out."
On September 29, 1995, the District of Court of Kyoto gave the judgment on the case of charge of unconstitutionality brought by Yaizukotetsu against the government of Japan. The District of Kyoto presented a usual weird picture of yakuza members all lined up on the plaintiff's side and Anti-gangster cops on the side of the accused. As expected, the appeal was dismissed, meaning that Yaizukotetsu lost the case. When the courts was just about to be closed after the decision had been read, Takayama Tokutaro staggered to his feet from the plaintiff's seat, and stared the judge sternly in the face. The judge, never to meet his staring eyes, left hurriedly.
I read the court decision to my disgust, or despair. Why should the jurisdiction go to such an extent to go along with the public opinion, to defend the administrative power? In his decision, he goes on, "The Anti-Gangsters Act is intended to issue an administrative order to prevent members of gangster organization from engaging in non-criminal socially unjust activities. It is certainly true that such an intention will eventually result in a limited freedom in the gangster's private life. But it should be remembered that the freedom of gangsters is built upon the infringement on ordinary citizen's human rights. It is for this reason that we cannot but conclude that they have anti-social and unjust rights and freedom. The Article 14 of the Constitution (that lays down the equality under the law) should not to be interpreted as something that guarantees absolute equality for citizens. Selective application of this article is no way inconsistent with the intention of this article if such application is considered rational in the light of the nature of the matter concerned." Underlying such a concept is an extremely dangerous thought that one should be judged by what group or organization he belongs, not by what he has done. Among the arguments long debated among scholars of jurisprudence is the argument "Is it the act or the doer of the act that should be tried?" But the overwhelmingly majority of scholars in the Western world were insisting that it was the act that should be triad. But the NAZIS Germany saw many scholars coming out to say, "It's the doer of the act that should be punished", paving the way, although indirectly, for the Holocaust.
The verdict on Yaitsukotetsu's case is an unabashed endorsement of the concept that it is the doer of the act that should be tried. It is on the basis of this concept that they are trying to justify the restricted freedom and human rights and discrimination. This concept is also evident in the AUM trials in later years. In this sense, the Anti-Gangsters Act touched off the series of troubles that are confronting us today. In other words, anybody affiliated with a group or organization regarded as "bad" by the authority can be punished by an administrative order, their reasoning being the freedom or rights enjoyed by those belonging to such a group or organization is unjust, therefore, can be infringed upon.
Using cunningly the existence of something regarded by the civic society as "absolute evil" to stretch the interpretation of a law, or resorting to controversial laws is what has been so commonly practiced by the power-that-be. The application of the Anti-subversive Activities Act to AUM is a typical example. It doesn't seem to present any problem as this is backed by the overwhelming majority of the citizens. But the problem is our principle of law that any subsequent decision is bound by its preceding decisions. That means once the court decision is made, it will bind all the individuals and organizations. This is often aggravated by our bureaucrats' tendency to implement all the laws once they are in place. I am going to see in what way the decision on the Yaizukotetsu's case will bind and restrict our civic society. The battlefield is now in a high court. How is the authority going to get rid of yakuza, and how will fight it off? I am going to see it through right to the end.