Dismissal of Uemura Takashi’s appeal by Sapporo High Court
February 7, 2020
Defense Council for Yoshiko Sakurai

On February 6, 2020, the Sapporo High Court issued aCourt's decision that Sakurai’s opinions andruling dismissing all of Takashi Uemura’s appeal in acommentaries were within the boundaries of adefamation case he brought against journalist Yoshiko

journalist’s work and could not be considered a

Sakurai in 2015.

personal attack as such. The decision furtheracknowledged that Sakurai’s writings were related toI. Former Asahi Shimbun reporter Takashi

facts of public interest and were published solely for

Uemura appealed to the Sapporo High
Court to reinstate his case following theSapporo District Court ruling ofNovember 9, 2018, which dismissed allclaims of defamation against journalist
Yoshiko Sakurai. The Sapporo High
Court issued its own ruling on February 6,
2020, dismissing all of Takashi Uemura’s

the purpose of the public interest.

appeal.

mobilized 200,000 Korean women as sex slaves andII. Seeking the Truth about the Comfort

Women Issue: Answers to Frequently
Asked QuestionsThe misconception has been spread widely in theinternational community that the Japanese army

massacred many of them after the war. The truth is thatDetails

there has been no case where Japanese public

The appeal decision ruled that there were no grounds

authorities forcibly mobilized Korean women tofor any of the various reasons raised in the appeal. For

become comfort women.

example, Uemura asserted that Sakurai’s datacollection was insufficient. The court ruled that

Q1: How did it happen that the view that “comfort

Sakurai made enough efforts to conclude that at least

women were forcibly taken away” disseminated sothe article signed by Uemura in the Asahi Shimbun onwidely?

August 11, 1991, with a lead sentence saying that one
A: The reason this happened was that in 1983, Seiji

of “Korean comfort women” who was taken andYoshida (pseudonym, deceased) fabricated a false

forced into prostitution for Japanese soldiers was foundstory and published a book saying that he himself

alive in the city of Seoul, was contrary to the truth, and“received an order from the Japanese military to

her decision to call it a “fabrication” was rational.

collect women for the Women’s Volunteer Corps.
So, he said, he conducted a “forcible mobilization ofIn addition, the 1991 article in question was signed by

comfort women like slave hunting” on Jeju Island inUemura, who was a reporter for a giant media

Korea.

company with millions of readers, the Asahi Shimbun.
The appellate decision followed the Sapporo District1

Detailswomen) whose experiences would match Yoshida’s

The Women’s Volunteer Corps system was a labor

fabricated story, but of course, could not find any.

mobilization program based on the National
Mobilization Law. It was a mobilization by public

In the meantime, Takashi Uemura, a former Asahi

authority, which was completely different from whatShimbun reporter, wrote his signature article in theYoshida described. However, at that time, the contents

Asahi Shimbun on August 11, 1991, saying Ms Kimof Yoshida’s book were repeatedly reported as if hisHak-sun, a surviving comfort woman who was “takenstories were true by the leading Japanese newspaper

to the battlefield in the name of a women’s corps” hadcompany, Asahi Shimbun, and widely affected public

been found.

opinion not only in Japan and South Korea, but also
throughout the international community.

The article about finding a victim in line with thefabricated story of the perpetrator Yoshida was aHowever, Yoshida’s testimony had no supporting

significant factor in convincing people to believe in thetestimony or other evidence. Rather, many residents on

fiction of forcible mobilization by the Japanese

Jeju Island argued that his allegations were not the case.

Imperial army.

Later, the contents of Yoshida’s book were proven to
be a creation of his imagination and totally untrue byIn December of the same year, three former comfort

multiple researchers. It has also been confirmed thatwomen, including Kim Hak-sun, along with former

the Women’s Volunteer Corps System under theKorean workers during the war (so-called former

General Mobilization Act had nothing to do withmobilized workers) and their bereaved families, filed acomfort women.

lawsuit seeking to hold the Japanese government liable.
Both the Japanese and Korean media reported on theQ2: Why is Uemura’s signature article, dated August

issue of “comfort women,” and it was advanced as a11, 1991 in the Asahi Shimbun, considereddiplomatic issue between Japan and South Korea.

“fabricated”?
2. Twenty-three years after Uemura’s article, on

A: Uemura knew that the Women’s Volunteer Corps

August 5 and 6, 2014, and again in September 2014,

and the comfort women are unrelated. Nonethelessthe Asahi Shimbun published articles acknowledged in

he wrote that Ms. Kim Hak-sun was a surviving

writing for the first time the factual errors of its earlier

comfort women who was recruited through thereports. All articles related to Yoshida’s story wereWomen’s Volunteer Corp according to the act, andretracted. However, the articles that had forged theforcibly taken to the battlefield by the authorities.

fiction of forced mobilization of women by theDetails

Japanese Imperial army had gone uncorrected by the1. In the first place, the Asahi Shimbun repeatedly

Asahi Shimbun for 23 years.

reported on Yoshida’s fabricated story of forcible
mobilization of women by the Japanese army as if it

Mr. Uemura, when deposed in this case, acknowledged

were a confession of the perpetrator. The Asahi

for the first time that he had written the article stating

Shimbun also looked for victims (former comfort

that Ms. Kim Hak-sun was taken to the battlefield2

under the name of 'Women’s Volunteer Corps whileknowing that Kim did not actually join the Women's

3. Since 2007, the U.S. Congress, the EU Parliament,

Volunteer Corps. But until that time, he had never toldand some others, have passed resolutions to pursue thethe truth.

Government of Japan for responsibility on the issue ofcomfort women. All of these resolutions are based on

Q3: The 1996 report by Radhika Coomaraswamy,

the Coomaraswamy Report’s erroneous assertations

the former Special Rapporteur on Violence againstthat comfort women were systematically forced into

Women for the UN Human Rights Commission,sexual slavery by Japanese authorities. These

reported that 200,000 Korean women were forcibly

resolutions, based on the fictions perpetuated by theand violently taken by the Japanese Imperial Army

Coomaraswamy Report, must be reviewed.

under the General Mobilization Act as comfort
women who were actually “sex slaves”. Is this4. There is no concrete basis for the commonlywrong?

disseminated number of “200,000” comfort women.
The Asahi Shimbun, which published the glossary

A: Yes, it is wrong. Ms. Coomaraswamy’s Report isbehind the number “200,000” admitted 23 years later

based on a fabrication.

in a correction article dated August 5, 2014, that theDetails

Women’s Volunteer Corps was completely different

1. The Coomaraswamy Report lists 11 grounds, but allfrom comfort women who rendered sexual services tohave been proven to be “fiction”. A) The Nationalsoldiers, and the source of the number of “200,000”

Mobilization Act was not a basis for, and was not usedcomfort women came from the confusion with theto mobilize comfort women. B) The tale of Seiji

Women’s Volunteer Corps members who were notYoshida, which was used by the report as a source ofcomfort women, but who were mobilized for normal

evidence, as well as by other sources cited in thewartime labor. The Asahi Shimbun officially admitted

Coomaraswamy Report, has been proven to be untrue.

that their stories on this point were a complete mistake.

(10 out of 11 points in the report are quotes fromGeorge Hicks, “Sex Slaves: Comfort Women” (Sanichi5. Also, there is a rumor in the international

Shobo, 1995). Another point in the Coomaraswamy

community that the Japanese army slaughtered many

Report is from directly from Yoshida’s own fictitious

Korean comfort women immediately after the war, butbook. George Hicks’s book also cites Yoshida’s

this is completely unfounded. Naturally, such a casefabricated story as “fact”.)

would have been tried by the Allies as a war crime.
However, there is no such case and no evidence of

2. The Government of Japan has recognized thesuch a crime.

involvement of the Japanese military in requesting
private companies to establish comfort stations,6. The expression “sex slave” is also contrary to therecruiting comfort women, managing comfort stations,facts. Comfort women were public prostitutes at a time

and transferring comfort women. However, there wasand in an era when prostitution was not banned.

no other “military involvement”. Further, there is noAccording to an investigation by the Allied Forces

evidence that the Japanese army carried out forcible

after World War II, Japanese soldiers were banned

and/or violent mobilization by any means.
3

from sexual contact with local women by military law

However, as mentioned above, since the 1990s, thein Burma (Rangoon). The soldiers were instead

Asahi Shimbun and others passionately reported theallowed to buy sexual services from comfort woman

fiction of the forced mobilization theory based on

who were paid for their service at an average of 2.55

the fabricated story of Seiji Yoshida as if it were ayen. Comfort women had the right to refuse customers.

fact. As a result, the story ignited the anti-Japanese

They received half of the proceeds of their sales,sentiment of the Korean people. The South Korean

together with free transportation, food and medical

government suggested that if the Japanesechecks. In addition to receiving gifts from soldiers,

Government would express remorse and apologize,

they could go shopping in nearby towns, participate in

the matter would be closed. In response, thesports, picnics, performing arts and dinners withJapanese government acknowledged thesoldiers. It has been reported that women wereinvolvement of the Japanese military in the sanitary

returned to Korea free of charge if advance payments

control of comfort stations and made a moral

to families and interest had been reimbursed.

apology to former comfort women who had to sell
sex because of their poverty.

7. In the book, “Anti-Japanese Tribalism”, one of thebest sellers in Japan and South Korea, which wasDetails

based on empirical research by South Korean scholar

1. In January 1992, Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa

Lee Yong-hoon and his colleagues, it is cited that “Invisited South Korea, and this issue was taken up at a

the long history of prostitution forced onto women ofsummit meeting with President Roh Tae-woo. Shortly

the poor, Koreans separated the comfort women of thebefore, in December 1991, three former comfort

Japanese army for 45 years between 1937 and 1945,

women had filed a lawsuit against the Japaneseand pursued the responsibility of Japan. They weregovernment, including Ms. Kim Hak-sun who wasneither humanitarians nor feminists. They were notdescribed by Uemura as forcibly taken to theeven nationalists. They were violent tribalists.”

battlefield as a member of the Women’s Volunteer(Japanese version, page 288).

Corps, and other people who claimed they were forced
to work in Japan against their will. At that time, theQ4: If the forced mobilization of comfort women

Asahi Shimbun and other media outlets from both

was fictitious, why did Japanese Prime Ministers,

Japan and South Korea extensively reported that Japansuch as Prime Minister Miyazawa, and former Chief

had not acknowledged responsibility for the forced

Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono (1994) through anmobilization of comfort women by public authorities.

official statement, apologize to the former comfort

In response, Prime Minister Miyazawa repeatedlywomen?

apologized eight times.

A: The allegations of forced mobilization of comfort
One year later, President Roh Tae-woo said in an

women are fictitious, and there is no room for theinterview with a Japanese monthly magazine: “In fact,Japanese government to accept legal liability forthe (comfort women) problem was raised by Japanese

comfort women who were engaged in prostitution inmedia outlets. They sparked the anti-Japanese

response to the recruitment of private operators in asentiment among Korean people and exasperated them.”

period when prostitution was not legally prohibited.
4(Bungei Shunju, March 1993).

which was under Japanese governance).

At the time Prime Minister Miyazawa apologized, the4. No matter how many times the Japanese government

Japanese government did not admit that Korean

has apologized, and how many times it has paid andcomfort women were forcibly mobilized by the public

officially agreed to an irreversible and final solution toauthority. Nevertheless, as Miyazawa apologized anresolve the issue with the South Korean government,international misunderstanding emerged, as if there

the comfort women issue has nevertheless been

had been forced mobilization by the public authority.

brought up over and over again. In the end, such easy
apologies have only caused further international

2. In the statement of the Chief Cabinet Secretary

misunderstanding and were clearly a diplomatic

Yohei Kono in August 1994, the Japanese government

failure.

in fact did not admit that “Korean woman were forced
to work as comfort women by the public authority”.

Q5: Why did Yoshiko Sakurai mention the 1991

However, as the South Korean Government expressed

article by Mr. Uemura as a fabrication in her 2014

its willingness to resolve the comfort woman issue if

paper?

the Japanese Government would clearly apologize andA: Ms. Sakura, since 1997, has been warning therecognize responsibility as the Government of Japan,

public about the international misunderstandings

the Japanese Government responded by issuing thedeepened by the Japanese Government’s easy

“Kono Statement”. This statement did not explain theapologies in 1992 and 1994, and the fictitious

facts properly and often used vague and obscureallegations on comfort women and the forcedexpressions.

mobilization theory.

Widespread misunderstandings resulted from theSakurai’s 2014 article pointed out the problem of theapology by Prime Minister Miyazawa, and the Kono

Asahi Shimbun’s August 1991 article, which led to theStatement, which contained ambiguous and confusing

misleading 1996 Coomaraswamy Report, which inexpressions and caused further misunderstanding in theturn was based on the false forced mobilization theory

international community.

promoted by the Asahi Shimbun and the fabricatedstory of Seiji Yoshida, which the 1996 report promoted

3. Immediately before the Kono Statement was issued,

as a fact. The 1996 report caused a cascade ofthe Japanese government conducted interviews with 16

international reactions, including the 2007 resolutions

former comfort women living in South Korea. In 2013,of U.S. House of Representatives and the EUinternal governmental documents were revealed that

Parliament, among others, which sought to pursue theshowed the investigation at that time had been

Japanese government for responsibility on the issue.

extremely sloppy, with no supporting investigation orSakurai, as a journalist, wrote with a sense of mission

effort to verify contradictory testimony. In addition,that these widely circulating international

about 40% of the 16 people said that they had become

misconceptions should be corrected.

comfort women in mainland Japan, which was not abattlefield (2 in Osaka, 1 in Kumamoto, 3 in Taiwan

5Q6: Why are journalists and scholars who havecriticized the fictitious nature of the comfort womenissue being sued for defamation, one after another?
A: It is thought that the reason for this phenomenon
may be to contain the criticism of the fabrications
that have been created around the comfort womenissue. Those who have been campaigning to holdJapan responsible on the comfort women issue, forthe past several years, have filed lawsuits claiming
damages due to defamation against the scholars andcritics who criticized them.
Kenichi Takagi filed a lawsuit against Professor
Tsutomu Nishioka in 2013, but the initial decisiondismissed Takagi’s case. Takagi appealed andre-appealed, but the decision was not overturned.
In 2015, Uemura filed a defamation lawsuit against
Professor Tsutomu Nishioka as an independent scholar,
and Yoshiko Sakurai as an independent journalist,
attempting to curtail and intimidate their freedom ofspeech by alleging they lacked factual and legal
grounds to criticize his reports.
It is suicidal for a media outlet to use a lawsuit todeprive others of freedom of speech. Uemura, aformer Asahi Shimbun reporter and now presidentof the magazine Weekly Friday, cannot be allowed
to use his lawsuit as a tool to further abuse the truth,or as a means to further limit the free speech ofothers under the guise of claiming his own freespeech rights on the comfort women issue.

6