|
The first lawsuit
In
1962 the textbook screening authority rejected a textbook which Ienaga
and other scholars penned, insisting that it described the war too
darkly. After modification the textbook was conditionally approved in
1963. Ienaga filed a lawsuit in 1965 against the Education Ministry
claiming that textbook screening was unconstitutional because it
violates the freedom of expression and education under the Article 26 of
the Constitution.
The
first trial
In 1965 the Tokyo District Court awarded (Kozu Judgment) that the
screening system was not unconstitutional according to national
education rights and that the textbook screening system is a restriction
of freedom of expression for the sake of common best that should be
accepted generally, and that is not equal to censorship which is
prohibited under Article 21 of the Constitution. Meanwhile the court
accepted Ienaga's claim partially that some of the screening decisions
abused discretion and ordered the state to pay 100,000 yen to the
plaintiff.
The
second trial
In 1974 Ienaga appealed. In 1986 the Tokyo High Court awarded (Suzuki
judgment) that the claim of the state was constitutional and there was
no abuse of discretion. Ienaga lost wholly.
Appeal
hearing (the third trial)
In 1986 Ienaga appealed. In 1993 the Court of Appeal (Kabe
Judgment) followed the second trial almost all and rejected appeal.
Ienaga lost wholly.
In
the above lawsuit Ienaga sought compensation for his mental pain caused
by the government demands for alteration of the subject text. In lawsuit
a plaintiff has to seek specific solution and seeking decision that the
screening system is unconstitutional does not produce any ground for
filing suit. So Ienaga had to claim a certain amount of money.
The
second lawsuit
The
first trial
In 1967, Ienaga filed a second suit. He sought the reversal of the
rejection in 1966 of the textbook "New Japanese History".
In 1970, the Tokyo District Court awarded (Sugimoto Judgment) that right
and wrong decision on the description in textbook is against the Article
10 of the Basic Education Law, in view of citizens' education right.
Also the textbook screening corresponds to censorship that is prohibited
by the Article 21.2 of the Constitution and granted the reversal. Ienaga
won wholly.
The
second trial
In 1970 the defendant (the Education Ministry) appealed. In 1975 the
Tokyo High Court awarded (Azegami Judgment) rejected the defendant's
appeal that the decision of screening had no consistency as public
administration. Ienaga won wholly.
The
third trial
In 1975 the defendant appealed. in 1982, the Court of Appeal pronounced
that the Education Ministry guidelines has been revised already
therefore the issue to be argued became whether there is benefit from
the suit to seek the reversal of the rejection or not, then overturned
the above judgment and ordered a retrial.
The
retrial
In 1989 The Tokyo High Court revoked the judgment of the first trial and
rejected the lawsuit on the ground that there is no benefit from the
suit because of the revision of the Education Ministry guidelines.
The
third lawsuit
The
first trial
In 1984, Ienaga filed lawsuit on the rejection of 1982 textbook. I 1989
the Tokyo District Court awarded (Kato Judgment) that the screening
system itself is constitutional, however, admitted the abuse of
discretion in the screening process, pronouncing that screening on the
description of Somotai (Somo unit) is unconstitutional and ordered the
state to pay 100,000 yen to the plaintiff.
The
second trial
In 1989 Ienaga appealed. in 1993 the Tokyo High Court awarded (Kawakami
Judgment) that the screening system itself is constitutional, however,
admitted the abuse of discretion in the screening process, pronouncing
that screening on the description of Nanjing Massacre and Rape of
Nanjing by the military army is unconstitutional as well as the
description of Somotai and ordered the state to pay 300,000 yen.
The
third trial
In 1993 Ienaga appealed. In 1997 the Court of Appeal awarded (Oono
Judgment) that the screening system itself is constitutional, however,
admitted the abuse of discretion in the screening process, pronouncing
that screening on the description of Unit 731, the Japanese Imperial
Army's notorious biological warfare unit, which conducted experiments on
live prisoners in northeastern China during the war. and Rape of Nanjing
in Nanjing Massacre is unconstitutional as well as Somotai (Somo Unit)
and ordered the state to pay 400,000 yen to the defendant. Ienaga's
argument that the screening is tantamount to censorship was rejected.
After
the trial
The most significant point of argument in the lawsuit was Ienaga's claim
that the screening system was unconstitutional. However, the Court of
Appeal handed down the decision that the screening does not prevent the
textbook to be published as ordinary book and it has no purpose for
banning or reviewing before publication, therefore it is not regarded
censorship and the system is determined to be constitutional. This
judgment is supported by many scholars. Decision against Ienaga was
finalized practically.
The
rejected textbook was published as ordinary book from San-itsu-shobo in
1974. |