Woman 'crushed' by Japan town vote after alleged sex assault by mayor

A former local councillor in Japan has spoken out against perceived sexism, after she was voted out of office in a town referendum after making sexual assault allegations against the mayor.
Shoko Arai was the only female councillor on the 12-member assembly in Kusatsu, a town northwest of Tokyo.
Last year she accused the mayor, Nobutada Kuroiwa, of sexually assaulting her in 2015.
He denied the allegations, branding them a political smear.
Ms Arai, 51, was expelled from the assembly last week. Her ejection was prompted by a public referendum over whether she had damaged the reputation of Kusatsu, home to about 6,200 people.
But in a news conference on Friday, Ms Arai said she stood by her allegations and would continue to fight for women's rights in Japan.
"We often in Japan hear the question of why the #Metoo movement has not gained further momentum," she said, referencing the campaign against sexual harassment and abuse.
"But this is because we know that, in such a male-dominated society, an atmosphere is created in which it is difficult for women in weaker positions to speak up.
"They are instead crushed. This is what was indeed the case for me."

The result of last week's referendum has attracted international media attention and drawn criticism from women's rights groups, which have described Ms Arai's removal as a setback for the #MeToo movement in Japan.
It is rare for women to go public with sexual assault and misconduct allegations in Japan.
A 2017 government survey showed that fewer than 4% of alleged sexual assault victims come forward, according to Spring, a sexual assault survivors' organisation in Japan.
How has the mayor responded?




















The 73-year-old mayor responded to the allegations in a news conference of his own on Monday.
"I can declare that I have never laid a finger on Shoko Arai," Mr Kuroiwa said at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan (FCCJ) in Tokyo on 14 December.
Mr Kuroiwa has filed a criminal complaint against Ms Arai and is seeking defamation damages in a civil suit.
The mayor said the fact that Ms Arai had not filed a complaint with police or launched a lawsuit proved her allegations were baseless.
Ms Arai has previously said she did not go to the police at the time of the alleged assault because she feared a backlash.

This actually seems quite an interesting story in the issues it raises. Was she voted out simply for being a woman standing up to an alleged attacker or was this more about removing a trouble maker who, allegedly, libeled the mayor for political gain?

It's interesting to see which way people tend to perceive this though, although not knowing the details of the case its hard to make a definitive judgement one way or the other, what do you all think about this? Is this an example of a brave woman being ground under the boot of 'toxic masculinity' (as activists like to call such things) or is this a relatively benal case of political mud slinging which has just happens to have caught the medias attention this time round?

These cases are rather tricky to pass judgement on though as they tend to rely solely on 'he said, she said'. If you side with the lady you're by definition backing a position that has no evidence behind it and rests solely on someones word. If you back the mayor in this instance you're liable to be branded a sexist, misogynist gammon (or some variation thereupon) for not believing a womans, notional, lived experience.

Interesting times where supposed progressive's activism meets workplace/legal arguments. As we can see from the BBC article where it immediately launches into an analysis of "me too" straight after explaining what the case is. Is sexism a factor here do you think? Or is this just an inane case that people have decided to view through the lens of sexism?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55370096

If she was indeed assaulted then this is really bad for female rights in Japan.

Indeed. Although it does raise the eternal problem of whom do you believe in a case with no evidence but someones word? After all, the legal system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty but we generally also shouldnt immediately discount someones claim as a lie if theres no proof - alas these two positions are mutually exclusive hence the interesting conundrum.

I agree. I personally try not to believe any party because both parties can make false claims. She should have brought charges

Mmm although thats where you tend to run afoul of the 'metoo' lot with answers such as this .
Alas, the justice system is an imperfect creation. It's just doubly unfortunate that people try to 'fix' it by making it worse.

Yeah, i wouldn't say that but I respectfully don't agree with “believe first, question later”.

This actually seems quite an interesting story in the issues it raises. Was she voted out simply for being a woman standing up to an alleged attacker or was this more about removing a trouble maker who, allegedly, libeled the mayor for political gain?

It's interesting to see which way people tend to perceive this though, although not knowing the details of the case its hard to make a definitive judgement one way or the other, what do you all think about this? Is this an example of a brave woman being ground under the boot of 'toxic masculinity' (as activists like to call such things) or is this a relatively benal case of political mud slinging which has just happens to have caught the medias attention this time round?

These cases are rather tricky to pass judgement on though as they tend to rely solely on 'he said, she said'. If you side with the lady you're by definition backing a position that has no evidence behind it and rests solely on someones word. If you back the mayor in this instance you're liable to be branded a sexist, misogynist gammon (or some variation thereupon) for not believing a womans, notional, lived experience.

Interesting times where supposed progressive's activism meets workplace/legal arguments. As we can see from the BBC article where it immediately launches into an analysis of "me too" straight after explaining what the case is. Is sexism a factor here do you think? Or is this just an inane case that people have decided to view through the lens of sexism?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55370096

I say whatever happened, let Japan to solve their issues on their own.

Culturally blind Westerners are not any good to solve issues of a country that has very different culture and completely different language. You can't even solve your own problems, let alone problems of other countries.

is there any particular reason for this little diatribe against "culturally blind westerners"?

Yes. 5 years of political science studies, reading literature on the West's interference in the Middle East, particularly the revolution in Iran, where the term 'cultural blindness' is actually used by several authors. Also seriously learning 4 foreign languages and reading about grammar structure of several others.

You can either insult me by accusing me of lying to you, or take that with a little bit respect. I expect the first, since the last time you didn't take my advice seriously and did not pick 'any book on Averroes'.
I've explained you why I couldn't give you any particular title, and that even if I did, it wouldn't have worked for you.
I might add that one particular book can well be questioned and we can't be sure if it claims something verified unless we do a lot of additional reading, so have you picked a random one, it would have actually been a better warranty of my claims if it happened to confirm them.

I would like to say "Why on earth would a woman lie about it?" but unfortunately case history has shown that the women that do lie, do so for some of the most ludicrously trivial reasons, especially when you consider the seriousness of the accusation and the consequences for an innocent man.

But more men rape women than women lie about being raped, so where does that leave us?.

As do I, albeit not with a specific focus on the ME. How is this relevant to either Japan, or the article for that matter?

Out of the two of us you are the only one who has resorted to insults.

No prejudgement that either party is lying or telling the truth and a trial based on all the evidence available.

So why bring up some women lying about being raped, when it is both statistically and procedurally irrelevant?