Editorial
Monk's trespassing conviction for distributing fliers defies common sense
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a monk convicted of trespassing at an apartment complex as he distributed Japanese Communist Party fliers door-to-door, ruling him guilty. The decision is one that weighed residents' right to live peacefully against freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. But should people face criminal responsibility for such actions?
The monk entered the seven-story apartment complex to distribute the fliers five years ago. At the time there was a notice from the apartment management association in the entrance hall of the apartment block banning people from distributing fliers. He entered the complex at about 2 p.m. and inserted fliers in door mail slots from the top floor down to the third floor before police who had been alerted about his actions arrived and arrested him. Altogether he was detained for 23 days, including the period after he was indicted.
In making its judgment, the Supreme Court declared, "It must be said that the defendant violated the peaceful lifestyles of people."
But isn't such a ruling disconcerting?
Of course, it is natural for residents to be sensitive about suspicious people trespassing in an apartment complex where unfamiliar people come and go on a daily basis. And as the Supreme Court pointed out, "freedom of expression" is not something that should be guaranteed in all circumstances without limitation. The person distributing the fliers should show a degree of consideration, and as far as possible, obtain understanding from residents.
But when people live together, their various rights can collide and there are times when they must put up with a certain level of discomfort. Surely this includes the regular distribution of fliers. The monk was not distributing the fliers at an unreasonable hour, and it was apparently at the time of his arrest that he first came into conflict with residents. Did the illegality of his actions warrant holding him in detention for an extended period of time or indicting him? The handling of the case, including the response by police, raises questions.
In April last year, the Supreme Court also found three members of a citizens group guilty of trespassing after they entered a Defense Agency complex in the Tokyo Prefecture city of Tachikawa to distribute fliers opposing the dispatch of Self-Defense Forces to Iraq. The latest decision was probably made in line with this ruling.
However, if such a line of reasoning is adopted, a person could be arrested anytime for simply entering a housing complex where distributing fliers is prohibited. How far do residents who refuse fliers need to go in stating their case? Furthermore, is it illegal to distribute fliers in grouped mail boxes at housing complexes instead of door-to-door? Surely a standard should have been carefully set out or some sort of decision reached.
While fliers from businesses are distributed on a daily basis, it is the political fliers that have been singled out. It is the line of the Constitution to give freedom of political activities high precedence among all the rights that are guaranteed by the nation's charter. But the guardian of the Constitution failed to provide a judgment on this point.
The distribution of fliers, including those distributed for commercial purposes, is quite an ordinary form of expression. It is a disadvantage for society as a whole if this form of expression shrinks due to formal and rigid action. Is it not more desirable for the parties involved to peaceably settle the issue?
(Mainichi Japan) December 3, 2009