Greenpeace

Yesterday, expert witness Prof. Voorhoof in the Tokyo Two case spoke on a panel hosted by Aoyama University Society for the Study of Human Rights.  He sat with lawyers helping to advance freedom of expression in Japanese society, a defendant from the Tachikawa leafletting case, as well as with co defendant Junichi Sato.  Voorhoof spoke about the ‘chilling effect’ that can happen when journalists and citizens no longer puruse information inportant to society for the fear of consequences.  Others spoke about the value of freedom of expression in Japan as a democracy and the need to encourage whistleblowers to come forward.

Read the full statement submitted to the District Court by expert witness Prof. Dirk Voorhoof. 

This university event was important for the T2, because while they are helping to put whaling on trial, they also see their case as a vanguard for civil rights in Japanese society.  The general asessment by both European and Japanese experts is that in most developed democracies, the T2 would not be standing trial for actions done during their investigation into whale meat embezzlement.  Voorhoof and others have outlined the reasons why, and why according to the Japan’s international commitments, it is undermining its own professed values.  

The work of Greenpeace surrounding the Tokyo Two case is an effort to guarantee that whaling be put on trial, that the evidence gathered meticulously to expose whale meat embezzlement be heard.  It is an effort to exonerate those who in the spirit of democracy pursued information for the public good.  This is not an indictment of Japan, it is an indictment of a corrupt whaling industry hiding behind a shadowy government body.  This is a test of a government to uphold democratic principles at home that give it positive standing abroad.  Freedom of expression can be interpreted differently in different situations, but Article 19 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and relevant international case law show that in the case of the Tokyo Two, Japan is in violation.  

Everyone at one time or another has faced some unpleasant reality about their home country.  At the moment, for the T2 team in Japan, that probably includes the 99+% conviction rate, or the fact that the judges who hear the opening of the trial, won’t be the ones who reach a final verdict.  Most likely, it includes a national media failing to report the trial as a landmark freedom of expression case because of a pro-whaling public, or a government so afraid of the truth, it sends 75 policemen to arrest two people who took then returned a box worth around $500 USD.

Panelists from the university discussion yesterday made some compelling points.  Voorhoof noticed the increased interest in the topic of freedom of expression in Japan from his last visit in June.  Another panelist said that Japanese laws should not be designed to protect those who do not engage in free speech, for those who wish only to be sheltered from unpleasantness.  Taking this idea further, without the engagement of civil society, freedom of expression is just an abstract concept written in a document.  We must act to guarantee the realization of this idea for ourselves and for the Tokyo Two.  Take action before the next trial phase in May and verdict in June.  

"Every action of our lives touches on some chord that will vibrate in eternity."
- Sean O'Casey

Today was the final day for this phase of the trial of the Tokyo Two.  Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki are facing trial for exposing a whale meat embezzlment scandal within lethal research whaling in Japan.  Having deconstructed the cover-up of the embezzlement scandal during the first part of the week, the defense now had to establish that Junichi and Toru were not only morally, but also legally justified in their actions. So today, the defense called Professor Dirk Voorhoof, an international expert on the right to freedom of expression, to explain the significance of international treaties Japan has ratified.

Read the full statement of Prof. Dirk Voorhoof.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human regarding freedom of expression has been interpreted in nearly 600 cases over the past 30 years.  This body of case law is often applied when making judgments on the application of other international conventions like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees freedoms of expression and freedom of information.  

There is less case law on Article 19, so countries that are parties to the ICCPR have used examples from the European Court of Human Rights to pass down opinions.  According to Voorhoof and even prominent Japanese legal authorities like Yuji Iwasawa, the current chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, Article 19 should be taken into account in criminal cases in Japan. The ICCPR is binding and has a place within the legal order of Japan.

Case after case was brought to the court showing both Article 19 of ICCPR and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights being applied to journalists, NGOs, and citizens who had acted within their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of information.  According to Voorhoof, these numerous cases help to establish criteria for the European Court of Human Rights and UN Court of Human Rights to decide whether a person who had violated a criminal code in pursuit of information, was still acting in accordance with their rights of freedom of expression.  Below are summarized points Voorhoof made about these criteria and the application of them to the case of the T2.

Voorhoof pointed out to the court  that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has already handed down an opinion that the arrest of Junichi and Toru, and the seizure of Greenpeace office computers and documents violated Article 19 of the ICCPR.  This is an authoritative opinion reached by international experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.  A conviction of Junichi and Toru would only increase the chilling effect in society.  Voorhoof also stated that the T2 case shows how important transparency in a democracy is.  Media, NGOs, and citizens have a right to contribute to this process: "If Japan wants to develop more as an open and pluralistic society, it should value the voices of NGOs and their contribution to the public interest."

Latest Press Release on the T2

GOYODA! /JUSTICE! Take Action

The above images are ©Greenpeace/ Sutton-Hibbert

Today, T2 co-defendants Junichi and Toru finished their testimony to the Aomori District Court. When questioned, they demonstrated their commitment to openness and transparency — a commitment the whaling company Kyodo Senpaku, the prosecution, and the Fisheries Agency of Japan do not share. 

Step by step, the T2 outlined the process of uncovering the whale meat embezzlement scandal. During their investigation, which took place in 2008, informants' statements were confirmed, shipments tracked, on-the-street interviews were conducted with underground whale meat vendors, and crew lists and shipment records were cross-checked. All of this meticulous leg work led to a box, the physical confirmation of embezzlement. The contents were unesu, or "whale bacon," which confirmed an open-secret of embezzlement taking place on the Nisshin Maru ship.

Junichi explained the roles on the investigation team. He described sending a box through courier to help track the shipments. Toru recalled fact-checking on tips from informants. You can read about this in the evidence from Greenpeace.

This afternoon, in an emotional moment, Toru recounted the events surrounding his arrest. In numbers: 75 police officers were sent to arrest the T2. Eight men searched Toru's home. He spent 26 days in custody — 23 without charges and under interrogation without lawyers. He lost six kilos in the first four days of a nine-day hunger strike in protest of the disregard by police of the Greenpeace explanation of the investigation.  

Toru was told by one policeman that it usually takes only two officers to arrest a person for something like taking a box. The police's reaction during the T2 arrest versus their reaction to the embezzlement evidence was disproportionate, to say the least. When asked why he didn't take the box to the police, he told the court that from his experience in the motorcycle trading business that police would not move on a tip — especially one that involved government and DIET (parliament) members, or even so-called "research whaling." It would be necessary to mobilize media and public pressure to secure a proper investigation. One officer told Toru that if it weren't for his occupation as a policeman, he would tell Toru he had done a great job.

The prosecution didn't have much to say, and probably only spent 20 minutes in total cross-examination of the T2. Their questions didn't lead to much either, and the lead prosecutor once even posed the befuddling argument: Well, if crew members, Kyodo Senpaku, and the Fisheries Agency of Japan all know about it and it is not a secret then it cannot be embezzlement.

I suppose the prosecutor must not consider very significant the idea that individuals are personally profiting off of a taxpayer sponsored "research program," or that this meat is not recorded in the Kyodo Senpaku Company record.  

Read the Press Release from Monday's court proceedings, and a recount of whistle blower testimony with nearly 30 years working for Kyodo Senpaku, whaling company.

This phase of the trial is over tomorrow, but the next phase is in May, so there is still time to sign the whale trial pledge!

March 9th 2010
Aomori, Japan

Between the prosecution and the defense was a three-sided screen blocking the audience view of the witness stand. These screens protected the identity of a whistle blower witness, the only one of many informants during the whale meat embezzlement investigation to take the stand. He said he came to court today because he is in favor of commercial whaling and thinks that the research whaling and embezzlement practices within it should be stopped.

Insider Information

The whistle-blower's testimony is based on nearly 30 years of experience working for Kyodo Senpaku, the whaling company, and his observations of the inner workings on the Nisshin Maru whaling vessel during two voyages with the fleet in the early 90s. The whistle blower commented that, in his view, embezzlement occurred when crew took the best parts of whale meat on deck before the company takes its official data, when the total amount of whale caught is never properly recorded. He witnessed crewmembers salting or preserving whale meat in their rooms, and noted that crew members favor the young and soft whale meat.

One difference between “souvenir” meat distributed by Kyodo Senpaku, and “embezzled” meat, he noted, was that embezzled meat is often of higher quality. He said that while he was on the ship, members of ICR, The Institute of Cetacean Research, took onomi, or tail meat, for themselves while claiming it was for research. According to the whistle blower, crew members did not like the officials taking such valuable cuts, as they were there to do their lethal research, not private business. He recounts finding an ICR member on the '93-'94 Antarctic voyage in the ship’s freezer storing the coveted onomi. He talks of boxes addressed to DIET members (Parliament of Japan) and Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) officials, and how the head of whale processing enjoys a status about as good as the ship's captain. Hierarchy could get you more cuts of valuable meat, he explained, and embezzlement on the Nisshin Maru is an open secret -- once you are on board the Nisshin Maru, you are aware it is happening. 

A Supposed Investigation
When the T2 brought forth all of the evidence of whale meat embezzlement to the Tokyo Prosecutor, the whistleblower was approached by police. The police came to him with their own assumptions, such as that Greenpeace had stolen official “souvenir” whale meat. After taking his statement, the police returned with an official copy. They had omitted the information he gave regarding any widespread embezzlement, and he protested. The police suggested he sign a statement that he had never received unauthorized whale meat. He wouldn’t, he said, because that was just untrue. According to the whistleblower, whaling crews in recent years have actually taken more cuts of meat than before. 

Ideas about Tradition and Reality
Ship crew, whale meat production staff, and ICR employees on board may be aware of details described above, but a survey done by Greenpeace Japan in 2006 revealed the public does not: 77% of people surveyed were against Japan whaling outside of Japan’s seas; 95% did not eat whale meat; 92% did not know that whalers also caught endangered species like humpback whales. When Junichi took the stand at 1:15pm today, the court got the chance to hear the truth about commercial whaling and research whaling. Finally, evidence from the whale meat embezzlement investigation that Junichi helped uncover would be heard. 

He spoke about Japan’s role in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) including monetary incentives given for countries to join, their side. At the IWC, Japan states that research whaling is an exception to the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, and that is how the Nisshin Maru can continue to hunt. This is the same research whaling the whistleblower accuses of embezzling whale tail meat. 

The Right to Know
Junichi retraced conversations with many informants.  Crewmembers provided pictures, and long detailed stories to Junichi and the investigation..  You can read more about this evidence in the whale meat embezzlement scandal as well as follow-up investigations in the updated dossier.  The box of whale bacon, unesu, was finally intercepted and documented by the team, the linchpin in a long investigation.  After talking to the prosecutor’s office which had agreed to follow-up on the investigation, he was surprised to discover later that the investigation had been dropped.  He was more surprised though when a reporter called him to ask if he had any comments about his imminent arrest to occur the next day. 

The lead defense lawyer asked, what do you want to say to the Aomori Court? 

Junichi gave an impassioned speech about citizens and democracy, that citizens have a right to investigate and the UNWGAD (UN working group on arbitrary detention) supports that statement. If this was just a case of a stolen box, why would he make such elaborate documentation and research? NGOs should be  supported in their endeavors to uncover the truth for the public good.

The prosecution will cross-examine Junichi tomorrow, and Toru will take the witness stand.  What happened today was amazing, as was Junichi's bravery: a dossier of evidence was laid out including video from the investigation, and whaling was finally put on trial in a Japanese courtroom.

Photos of Lady Justice on the move in Aomori from today!

Making of Lady Justice Video

Blog from Day 1 of this trial phase

Aomori, Japan

Outside of the Aomori District Court today, a living statue of Lady Justice stood beside a banner with some of the names of the 500,000 people who have pledged to support the Tokyo Two.  Co-defendants Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki walked in to court knowing they have support from all around the world, and walked out with new information that leads us to believe Kyodo Senpaku, government subsidized whaling company, lied to the public and the Fisheries Agency of Japan.

 

It began with testimony given today by former crew member (Mr. X) of the Nisshin Maru.   He is entangled in this case because some of his “souvenir” whale meat was contained in the box of evidence discovered by Junichi and Toru, though he had given it to another crew member. Read more about the investigation, the coverup, and the T2 case.

Although he was a defense witness, Mr. X was not exactly thrilled to be in the Aomori courtroom and was considered a hostile witness.  According to his own evidence, he must have taken far more than his “souvenir” allowance in unesu or whale bacon as a crew member.  His story has changed in regards to amounts, of whale meat he sent home in boxes, the types of cuts (young whale unesu or less valuable guts and fins), and when he sent them.   It seems in order to account for the high number of boxes sent as personal effects, he claimed many of the boxes he sent contained alcohol or ice from Antarctica.

Mr. X was unable to explain why more senior crew members leave with more “luggage” at the end of their journey, boxes and boxes of items loaded immediately by the processing crew onto to trucks after arriving to port.  They would not have been able to acquire such a load from gift shopping at ports of call (there are no shopping malls in the Southern Ocean).  He also couldn’t explain why a box of whale bacon worth thousands of dollars was labeled cardboard.  

He was clear about one thing: Kyodo Senpaku, his former employer, has never contacted him about the whale meat embezzlement case or the T2.  The company claims to have launched an internal “investigation “after Greenpeace uncovered the original embezzlement.  Kyodo Senpaku arranged their internal investigation on instruction from the Fisheries Agency of Japan which oversees the company. In July 2008, the Agency released a document and announced they were scandal-free and that in the course of the investigation, all crew were interviewed and asked about their personal cargo.

Public support has helped make it possible to hear evidence like this, to help put whaling as an industry on trial.   We hope that the Aomori District Court will get the message from our living statue who faced the cold and snow today.  Justice is blind, and the judges should not weigh evidence one way because of government involvement.

Follow the latest goings on in the trial on twitter.  

Photo with Junichi and Toru at a Press Conference this evening:

 

 

 

March 2010 is quickly becoming a month where the future of whales worldwide could be decided.  Will the International Whaling Commission working group put forth a proposal that will undercut the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, the most important international agreement on whales conservation?  Will the Japanese government try to silence whale defenders trying to share with the public the true nature of “scientific whaling” in Japan?