国際連合人権高等弁務官事務所への同文の手紙

今年の2月に、国際連合人権高等弁務官事務所(OHCHR)が「児童の権利に関する条約」の選択議定書の草稿指針をまとめました。情報サイトによれば、この選択議定書は人身売買、児童買春、児童ポルノ、そして児童労働搾取を防止するために作られています。

しかしもちろん、典型的な権威主義的スタイルでOHCHRは良い法を手段として使って、悪法を強引に押し通している。今回の毒薬条項は14ページ、第56条にあります。選択議定書は「児童ポルノ」を「存在しないバーチャル児童を描写する性的に露骨なイメージ」と定義しています。

幸いに、OHCHRは3月31日までパブリックオピニオンを受け付けています。しかし、残念なことに(そして国連らしく)、英語、フランス語、そしてスペイン語のコメント以外の意見を受け付けていません。

日本人に自己弁護をする機会を与えずに、日本のマンガとアニメ産業を脅かすなんてひどい、と我々は思ってます。だからこそ我々は英文で、日本の人々がOHCHRまで送れるために、同文の手紙を作りました。OHCHRはWordドキュメントファイルのみを受け入れますので、このファイルをダウンロードして、あるいは内容を自分が作ったWordファイルにコピペして、そしてこの問い合わせメールアドレスまで送って下さい: crc@ohchr.org

https://www.anonymous-japan.org/wp-content/uploads/OPSC_comment.doc


To whom it may concern,

I am writing to with regard to the Draft Guidelines on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC). I would like to preface my submission by praising the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) for working to oppose child exploitation, child pornography, and child abuse in all its forms the world over. The victimization of children should be neither forgiven nor forgotten, and the good intentions of all involved in the OHCHR are worthy of praise.

That being said, I note with great dismay that the content of the Draft Guidelines contain some worrying language that I feel must be addressed. Namely on Page 14, Sections 56 through 59, which I will quote in their entirety below:

“56. Child pornography is defined in article 2 OPSC as “any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities, regardless of the means used, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes”. The qualification “by whatever means” reflects the broad range of material available in a variety of media, online and offline. It includes, inter alia: visual material such as photographs, movies, drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.

57. The Committee urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form. The Committee notes that such material is increasingly circulating online, and strongly recommends States parties to ensure that relevant provisions of their Criminal Codes cover all forms of material, including when the acts listed in article 3.1(c) are committed online and including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.

58. The Committee is of the view that “simulated explicit sexual activities” should be interpreted as including any material, online or offline, that depicts or otherwise represents any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct and realistic and/or virtual depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.

59. Moreover, for the reasons explained in paragraph 63, any representation of the sexual parts of a child, including realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes falls under the definition of this offence. Where it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”, the Committee deems it necessary to consider the context in which it is being used.

While the intentions of the OHCHR are admirable, I am concerned that the potential ramifications of these Sections have not been thoroughly considered. While it is perfectly understandable, and highly admirable, to encourage member states to enact laws that protect the rights of children, it is not at all clear why the the OHCHR wishes to criminalize “virtual depictions” by the same standard as material that victimizes actual human beings.

My concerns are twofold: firstly, it diminishes the gravity of real human victimization by placing it on the same level are virtual representations of the same, which necessarily entail no actual human suffering. Secondly, it presents a very real danger of threatening hard-won rights in the areas of free speech and creative expression. The zeal of many to protect the vulnerable can often, unfortunately, cloud their judgment with regards to the long term ramifications of their decisions, and laws that restrict creative expression in entirely virtual creative mediums invite abuse by those with power to abuse their position.

Additionally, while Section 58 of the OPSC makes the definitive statement that “[realistic depictions of non-existing children] contribute to normalising the sexualization of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material”, the OHCHR offers neither sources no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, in 2012 the “Sexologisk Klinik” in Denmark authored a report for the Danish government on the subject of “animated child pornography”, in which they found that “there are no scientific studies to illustrate whether the possession of fictitious child pornography…may lead individuals to commit sexual assault on children”1. In other words, one of the core assumptions of this section of the OPSC would appear to be begging the question. Given that the OHCHR is seeking to criminalize otherwise perfectly legal acts that neither produce real victims as a primary effect, nor definitively inspire further victimization as a secondary effect, this is a worrying lack of due diligence.

It should be noted, in February of 2016 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held a review of the Japanese government’s efforts to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. During this review, one of the issues for discussion between CEDAW and a delegation from the Japanese Government was “Banning the sale of video games or cartoons involving sexual violence against women ”2.

In response to this issue, Ms.Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture made a powerful and admirable rebuttal3. While this rebuttal was written in Japanese, it has very kindly been translated into English by user “u/RyanoftheStars” in the KotakuInAction subreddit on Reddit4. While her comments were regarding the CEDAW, I feel that portions of her rebuttal are highly relevant to the OPSC, and to illustrate my point I wish to paraphrase some of her comments below:

I am absolutely in agreement that the protection of the rights of children is important. On the other hand, I think it should be carefully and seriously evaluated whether the measures taken to ensure those protections are valid ones or not. If we are asked to consider whether “Protecting Children’s Rights” requires us to “Ban the Media Virtually Depicting Child Exploitation,” then we must reply that that is an absolute “no.”

The so-called child exploitation in manga, video games, and other virtual media is a made-up thing and as such does not threaten the rights of actual people; therefore, it is meaningless in protecting the rights of children.

It goes without saying that the sexual abuse of actual real people is an actual violation of their rights and should obviously be forbidden by law, and that it’s necessary to protect and support victims. However, the figures in manga, video games, and other virtual media are creative fictions that do not actually exist, and thus this is not a violation of any real person’s human rights. We should focus on attacking the problems that affect real children’s human rights as quickly as possible.

It is noted that on the other hand when it comes to “media that depicts child exploitation” a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society. The basis for the values in Local Society A and the basis for the values in Local Society B are not necessarily going to match. Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society.

If we are to aim for the smooth operation of society as a whole, then there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any media that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.

As stated above, we cannot say that banning the sale of virtual media that “depict child exploitation” is valid, even if we were to agree that the goal of protecting the rights of children is correct.

There is nothing to be gained from regulating fictional child exploitation. However, while you’re trying to fix the rights of fictional characters, you’re leaving the human rights of real children in the real world left to rot. As well, the entire reason we have a media genre such as manga that developed to take on themes such as the sexual exploitation of children came from an attitude to tolerate “drinking the pure and the dirty without prejudice.” It’s because we had the freedom to express our views and with that to express the view of a world of humans that live and die, that there are pure and wonderful things and dirty and nasty things mixed with each other.

As a final comment, I would like to address a point regarding the content of this letter. It may be the case that multiple submissions will be received by the OHCHR with identical or similar phrasing. While I’m certain this may create the impression that the submissions are insincere duplications, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, Sections 56 though 59 of the OPSC present an existential threat to the livelihood of a number of artists and industries in nations (primarily Japan) that produce fictional and virtual material that may very well fall under the jurisdiction of the OPSC. However, in spite of the global nature of the OPSC’s scope, the OHCHR has refused to accept submissions in any languages aside from English, French, and Spanish. This is highly discriminatory against people in multiple nations around the world who are unable to communicate in these languages, and are thus unable to speak in their own defence in spite of the fact that they are directly threatened by the OPSC’s overly broad definitions.

Towards that end, this letter has been created as a collective effort by concerned residents of Japan to help give a voice to the voiceless. I would hope that, in future, the OHCHR will accept public comment with the same breadth of scope that they use to impose their views on others.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

(これを消して、自分の名前をローマ字で入力して下さい)

1https://jm.schultzboghandel.dk/upload/microsites/jm/ebooks/bet1534/pdf/bet_1534_bind_II.pdf (p.196-198)

2https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17028&LangID=E

3https://wmc-jpn.blogspot.com/2016/02/blog-post.html

4https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/48ed9t/opinion_japan_womens_institute_of_contemporary/d0iypiz/

アノニマスの見解 Ep.14:国連ロリ権利高等弁務官事務所

Well…here we go again…
あぁ…またかよ…

In the last ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI video, we talked about how the Censors try to impose their views on others by force. Back then it was through corporate power via Sony, but this threat has another vector…government power. But before we get into that, I’d like us all to do a thought experiment together. Are you ready? Let’s go:
前回の「アノニマスの見解」動画で、我々は検閲屋が自分の意見を他人に押し付ける方法について語りました。あの時、検閲屋はソニーの企業権力を行使していましたが、もう1つの攻撃方法もあります…国家権力です。しかしこういう脅威について語る前に、まず一緒に思考実験を行いましょうか?それでは、レッツ・ゴー!


Hey, have you guys ever seen those fucking SAW movies? There’s like eight of them, and they’re all about people being kidnapped and tortured. It’s basically snuff porn. Seriously, it’s some sick fucking shit. People who enjoy watching this are almost certainly dangerous people, and probably future psycho killers.
ところで、皆はあの「Saw」という映画シリーズを知ってるかい?シリーズトータルで8本の作品があるし、シリーズ中全作品内で人々は誘拐され、拷問されるんだ。本質的に模擬スナッフ映画に過ぎないのさ。本当に汚らわしい映画なんだよ。こんな映画が好きな方は絶対に危険人物だと思う。結局殺人鬼になるんだよ。

Listen guys, I think we can all agree that..ah..”such depictions contribute to normalizing the glorification of torture and fuels the demand of snuff material”. So even though kidnapping, torture, and murder are all already illegal, we ought to ALSO make it illegal for anybody to have “any representation of abduction, torture, or murder, regardless of the means used” including “visual material such as drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments”.
聞いてくれ、皆。このような描写は拷問を賛美して、実際のスナッフ映画に対する需要を増やすに違いないだろう。じゃあ、誘拐、拷問、そして殺人はすでに犯罪だということにも関わらず、さらにそれらの犯罪の描写も同じく犯罪と見なそう。そのテーマが含まれる絵、マンガ、録音、デジタルコンテンツ、文作、そして彫刻も禁止しよう。

Obviously, this would mean outlawing an impossible number of creative works. But these things glorify crimes, so nobody should ever want to see that anyway. And if they do, they’re probably sick fucks and don’t need rights or protections anyway.
確かに、数え切れないほどの創作を禁じらなければならないことになるな。でも犯罪の描写だからこそ、普通の人間はそういうことに興味はないはずだ。そして興味のある方は危険人物だからこそ、権利を与えなくていい。


If that sounded incredibly stupid to you, then welcome to being sane. Unfortunately, it’s a very small club. And getting smaller every day…
以上が信じられないぐらい愚かな思考の道筋だと思ったら、おめでとうございます…正気な人間である証明ですね。残念ながら驚くほど少数の人々です。そしてだんだん減り続けているでしょう。

In February of 2019, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a draft guideline of the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which according to their website exists to prevent human trafficking, child prostitution, child pornography, and underage exploitation. Sounds good, right? Who doesn’t like protecting children?
今年の2月に、国際連合人権高等弁務官事務所(OHCHR)が「児童の権利に関する条約」の選択議定書の草稿指針をまとめました。情報サイトによれば、この選択議定書は人身売買、児童買春、児童ポルノ、そして児童労働搾取を防止するために作られています。聞こえが良いですね。子供を守りたいのは当然でしょう。

In typical fashion for these types of authoritarian censors, however, the OHCHR is using a good thing everybody supports as leverage to force in a bad thing that helps nobody. In this case, the poison pill is page 14, section 56, where they define “child pornography” as anything and everything that virtually depicts sexually explicit images of non-existing children.
しかしもちろん、典型的な権威主義的スタイルでOHCHRは良い法を手段として使って、悪法を強引に押し通している。今回の毒薬条項は14ページ、第56条にあります。選択議定書は「児童ポルノ」を「存在しないバーチャル児童を描写する性的に露骨なイメージ」と定義しています。

Why? Apparently because the OHCHR thinks loli/ero art is a gateway drug to real life child abuse. Obviously everybody is countering that idea with the argument for free expression, and its an important argument that needs to be made. But I’d like to examine our earlier thought experiment in more detail to take an entirely different approach.
その理由は?おそらく、ロリ/エロ絵が実際の児童ポルノにのめり込む入り口となるコンテンツだと、OHCHRは思っているからです。もちろん、いろんな人々がそれに対して表現の自由の点から反対します。そして重要点だと思います。しかしながら、我々はこの動画の冒頭に行った思考実験をさらに詳しく検討して、この問題を違った角度からアプローチしたいと思います。

Part of the reason for choosing the SAW movies, and the example of kidnapping and torture for the thought experiment, was because of the difference in peoples’ reactions. Obviously most people have a much stronger emotional reaction to the idea of children being hurt, and arguably with good reason…it’s just a normal human reaction. So when the idea of virtual child abuse is brought up, it usually causes a similar knee-jerk emotional reaction. But the same doesn’t usually happen with depictions of violence in general, even sadistic violence like the kind you’d see in SAW. Most people would agree in the abstract that torture is bad, but the reaction is almost never as visceral. If you tried to ban all SAW movies for glorifying torture, I imagine you’d have a hard time getting as many people on board with the idea.
「Saw」映画そして誘拐と拷問を一例として用いる理由の一つのは、引き起こす反応の違いからです。子供に危害を加えるという考えは当然、強く感情的な反応を引き起こします。そしてそれは、人間の正常な反応であるといえます。いわゆる「バーチャル児童虐待」という考えは持ち出されると、同じような無条件反射的な反応は持ち出されます。でも一般的な暴力(「Saw」に描写されるサディスティックな暴力でも)はそのような反応を持ち出さないですよね。ほとんどの人々は拷問が悪いという考えに抽象的に同意しますが、とてつもない反応ではないと思います。もし世の中から「Saw」映画を全面禁止しようとすれば、多数の支持を得るとは思えません。

This is because the reaction is, fundamentally, an emotional one. And while our emotional reactions have their places, they cannot and should never be the basis for the creation of law. For laws to function well, they need to be logical principles that can be applied equally and fairly to all situations.
つまり、その「バーチャル児童虐待」に対する反応は根本的に感情に基づいています。感情的な反応にはメリットがないわけではないとはいえ、法律の基礎にはなれるはずがありません。法が正常に機能するために、厳密な論理に基づかなければなりません、そして全ての状況に平等に当てはまらなければなりません。

Once we strip away the emotional language of this Optional Protocol, what are we left with? “Virtual depictions of illegal acts that harm non-existing people must be illegal, on par with the real-life acts they depict”. If we apply this principle equally to all situations, we would end up with absurd results. Practically speaking, almost every work of fiction from any time period would be illegal by this standard. If this principle is meant to apply in the case of child exploitation, why not kidnapping? Why not murder, or torture? If the law isn’t going to be fairly applied across the board, should it even exist?
感情的になった言葉をはぎ取れば、選択議定書の原則はこれです:「架空の存在しない犠牲者が生じる犯罪行為の描写は、実際の犯罪と同じ基準で犯罪と見なさなければならない」 この原則を全ての状況に平等に当てはまれば、ばかげた結果が生じます。事実上、人類の歴史の中で作られた創作物は犯罪になるでしょう。この原則はバーチャル児童虐待の場合に適用するなら、何故バーチャル誘拐の場合に適用しないのでしょうか?また、バーチャル殺人やバーチャル拷問の場合は?全ての状況に平等に当てはまることができなければ、この法は本当に存在するべきなのでしょうか?

Supporters of the Optional Protocol might argue, as the OHCHR does, that virtual depictions of crimes would normalize them, and fuel demand for real crimes. My only response to this is…prove it. I don’t believe that this is true, and if the OHCHR isn’t offering any evidence to back that up I’m going to accuse them of begging the question. On the contrary, I’m going to argue that the majority of people are perfectly capable of understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. Our media and popular culture is saturated with fictional acts that would be illegal in real life, but media spotlight fallacy aside, people are not rushing out to commit these same crimes in massive numbers.
選択議定書の支持者は(OHCHRと同じく)バーチャル児童虐待は実際の行為を賛美し、需要を増やすとも言うかもしれません。しかしそれなら、証明はどこですか?私は同意しません。証明がない場合、OHCHRが思い込みによるひどい法制定を作っているとしか思えません。むしろ、ほとんどの人々は空想と現実の違いを十分理解できます。メディアと大衆文化は犯罪行為の描写でいっぱいなのに、(マスコミのスポットライト効果を無視した場合)ほとんどの人々が飛び付いて犯罪を実行するわけがありません。

In spite of this, the Optional Protocol urges countries to enact laws that would criminalize otherwise legal activities that produce no victims. Where these laws might run against legitimate creative freedoms, the Protocol “deems it necessary to consider the context in which it being used”…an open invitation for the creation of censorship boards, further centralizing more power in fewer hands.
それにもかかわらず、選択議定書は圧力をかけて、国家が被害者なき法的行為を犯罪と見なさせようとしています。表現の自由に反する行動をする可能性がある場合、選択議定書は「状況をよく考えることは必要であると考える」と判断します…つまり、検閲機関の設立を招くでしょう。力のさらなる中央集権化に過ぎません。

The sad thing is, this isn’t even the first time the UN has tried shit like this. Back in 2016, another UN Committee tried to ban the sale of manga or anime depicting sexual violence against women. This attempt was denounced by Kumiko Yamada of the Japanese Women’s Institute Of Contemporary Media Culture, and the most salient point she makes could just as easily apply to this current round of attempted censorship:
残念なことに、これは目新しいものではありません。2016年に、国連が女性に対する暴力を描写したマンガやアニメを禁止しようとしました。あの時に、女子現代メディア文化研究会の山田久美子さんが国連を強く批判しました。そして彼女の批判の重要な部分は現状の検閲未遂に応用できると思います:

“…when it comes to manga that depicts sexual violence a certain segment of people are going to find it unpleasant. Nevertheless, to ban expression and commerce unilaterally based on feelings of whether or not something is unpleasant, or viewpoints on what should be moral, is a practice not to be condoned. The basis for feelings about what is or is not repulsive, and moral viewpoints, will differ based on the individual or their region and that culture’s segmented local society…Therefore it stands to reason to suddenly use one local society’s standards as the standards of a society as a whole would only prompt a massacre of discord in conflicting values among the people in the greater society…there might be workarounds we can implement so that a certain type of person can avoid suddenly running into “unpleasant expressions” they don’t want to see, but these should be limited to regulations in zoning and circulation only. We should not ban any manga that depicts “unpleasant expressions” under content guidelines that enforce moral standards unilaterally on society.”
「性的暴力を描写した漫画について、一部の人が不快に感じることがあるのも事実です。しかしながら、快・不快の感覚や道徳的価値観を基準に、表現することから販売に至るまで一切を禁止するべきではありません。快・不快の感覚や道徳的価値観の基準は、個人によっても、また地域や文化で区分けされるローカルな社会によっても異なります…したがって、あるローカルな社会の基準をいきなり社会全体の価値観として扱えば、社会の中に価値観の不一致による軋轢が生じます…一部の人々にとっての「不快な表現」が唐突に目に入ることを避ける工夫は必要ですが、それはゾーニング等の流通規制に留めるべきです。社会全体に一律に強制力を持つ法律による内容規制で、「不快な表現」を含む漫画を描くこと自体を禁止するべきではありません」。

We couldn’t agree more.
我々も大賛成です。

Of course, the real question is…what can we do about it this time? Well, fortunately the OHCHR is accepted comments from now until March 31st. Unfortunately, and very typically for these people, they refuse to accept any comments that aren’t in English, French, or Spanish. This is spite of the fact that the rules they seek to create will impact people the world over.
もちろん、真の問題は「今回は何をできるのか」。幸いに、OHCHRは3月31日までパブリックオピニオンを受け付けています。しかし、残念なことに(そして国連らしく)、英語、フランス語、そしてスペイン語のコメント以外の意見を受け付けていません。世界中の人々に影響を及ぼすにも関わらずね、さすが国連ですな。

We decided that it was unfair to threaten the livelihood of people without giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves. So we’ve created a form letter for Japanese viewers to download, copy, and send to the OHCHR’s contact e-mail address. The OHCHR will only accept Word documents, so download our document file or copy-paste the text into a Word document of your own and attach it to an e-mail sent to this address.
日本人に自己弁護をする機会を与えずに、日本のマンガとアニメ産業を脅かすなんてひどい、と我々は思ってます。だからこそ我々は英文で、日本の人々がOHCHRまで送れるために、同文の手紙を作りました。OHCHRはWordドキュメントファイルのみを受け入れますので、このファイルをダウンロードして、あるいは内容を自分が作ったWordファイルにコピペして、そしてこの問い合わせメールアドレスまで送って下さい。

If you’re an artist or a fan of manga, anime, or doujin culture in Japan, we urge as many of you as possible to participate. Without a strong reaction from the public, laws like these can easily slip through before you know it. And once they become written into law, they’re almost impossible to remove.
もしあなたが、日本のマンガ、アニメ、同人誌文化に興味ある方ならば、この活動に参加するように強く要請します。これに対する大衆の圧倒的な拒否反応がなければ、このような法は気付かれずに擦り抜けてしまうでしょう。そして一度でも法として成立してしまえば、取り消す至難の業です。

It’s also wise to prepare for the worst case scenario. Remember that centralization is the tool of the Censor. The decentralized privacy tools we promote are an important line of defense to preserve both creative and individual freedoms online. Don’t just wait for the government to save you, start taking action to defend your own freedom today.
もちろん、念のために最悪の事態に備えることもお勧めします。力の中央集権化は検閲屋のツールであることを忘れなく。我々が共有している分散的なプライバシー保護ツールは、表現の自由の主要防衛線です。政府や国連に任せるだけではなく、自ら権利を保護しましょう。

And the next time somebody tries to create laws to protect the rights of fictional people, let’s remember that they may have an ulterior motive. If a law is truly needed, it should exist to protect the rights of real human beings. Any law that tries to go beyond that doesn’t exist to protect you, but to police your thoughts and beliefs. And those types of laws should always be opposed.
そして次回、誰かが「存在しない架空の犠牲者」の権利を守るための法を作ろうとしたら、下心があるかもしれないということを忘れないで下さい。法が本当に必要であれば、現実の実在する人々のために作られるはずです。その範囲を通り越そうとする法は人を守るためではなく、単なる権力掌握に過ぎません。

This was ANONYMOUS NO KENKAI. And until next time…MACHIUKENASAI.
これはアノニマスの見解でした。そして次回まで…待ち受けなさい。