Darkness of child abduction business continued Here are the "Villains" who killed the Hague Convention|Yoshiko Ikeda

Darkness of child abduction business continued Here are the "Villains" who killed the Hague Convention|Yoshiko Ikeda

Second Special Scoop:Why Japan has become known as the child abduction nation. So-called human rights lawyers and other proponents solicit parental child abduction and have been pulling the strings behind the scenes of this issue. their methods to neutralise the Hague Convention are uncovered in this edition.


The trap that Japan set in the Hague Scheme

The Hague Convention is a treaty that puts the interests of children first. Therefore, the marital relationship is irrelevant to the decision to return the child. It doesn't matter if one of the couples was unfaithful or if there was domestic violence. Even if there is domestic violence, the problem will be resolved if the couples live separately and introduce coparenting. Thus, it cannot be used as the grounds for refusal to return. The Hague Convention only states that violence to children should be taken into account.

It is the provision of Article 13 of the Hague Convention that states that if "there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,0" then return could be refused. A situation that exposes a child to physical or psychological harm is, for example, the case where the child is being abused. An example of an intolerable situation is when the country in which he or she used to live is in a state of war. Thus, the Hague Convention allows the refusal for a child to be returned only when it is clearly recognized that the interests of the child will be harmed.

However, after the ratification of the Hague Convention, Japan manipulated the domestic law, implementing the convention. It is called the Act for Implementation of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Japanese government included domestic violence as a grounds for refusal to return a child in this act, which the Article 13 of the Hague Convention itself does not include.

As explained by Shibaike, Article 28 of the Implementing Act states that when deciding to refuse to return a child under the Hague Convention, the court shall consider a risk that the respondent would be subject to violence by the petitioner in such a manner as to cause psychological harm to the child, if the respondent and the child returned to the state of habitual residence.

The reason why domestic violence harm the interests of children may be that when it occurs in front of the child it causes psychological harm to the child, so can be considered child abuse and that the child is exposed to physical and psychological harm. In Japan, this is called witnessing domestic violence and is regarded as a form of child abuse under the Act of the Prevention of Child Abuse. In any case, what is important is that it is the Japanese court which decides whether there is a risk of witnessing such domestic violence. Therefore it is important to know what the criteria are in Japan for determining domestic violence according to Japanese standards.

What’s unusual about Japanese domestic violence criteria

According to Japanese government information, examples of domestic violence actions include shouting and ignoring for a long time. In other words, a husband who finds evidence of his wife's flirting can be accused as domestic violence if he shouts at her, and this may be considered child abuse if the child is there. In addition, in case of a quarrel between husband and wife shouting at each other, the Japanese court accepts the husband’s actions as domestic violence if his wife abducts their child and appeals to court complaining that she has been a victim of these actions. This is common practice in Japanese courts.

If a Japanese parent who abducted a child from another country and returned to Japan claiming that he / she was a victim of domestic violence, and made a petition for refusal of return under Article 28, the Japanese court would refuse to return the child based on this domestic violence judgment criteria in Japan. Moreover, as is clear from Article 28, it is sufficient if there is a risk of violence. The word risk is an inflammatory word that can be abused with a broad interpretation. It is again the Japanese judge who determines such risk.

In other words, if you take even one step inside a Japanese court, the international rules such as the Hague Convention will not be applied at all. As long as Japanese parents successfully abduct their children to Japan from the country in which they currently live with evidence of domestic violence fabricated by using dirty tricks that the so-called human rights lawyers suggest, a Japanese judge will approve the refusal to return under the Hague.

At the seminar, Shibaike further explained the following points to the Japanese parents in France in order to apply Article 28. "It's also important to come back with proper evidence of domestic violence. For example, a good way is to go to a French hospital to get a proper medical certificate. If you're in a shelter, go to the shelter to ask its staff to write a paper to certificate that you’re in the shelter. If you go to the police, ask the police to write down the records of the consultations with the police, etc..... and bring back such evidence properly.”

No matter how indifferent a Japanese judge is, it is difficult to have a determination of domestic violence without any evidence. Especially, in the case of Hague, which is also seen by the international community. So it would be helpful for the Japanese judge to refuse to return the children because of domestic violence against their mother if the mother could show some kind of 'evidence'.

関連する投稿


中国によって「自由」を奪われたモンゴルの惨状|山田宏×エンフバット・トゴチョグ

中国によって「自由」を奪われたモンゴルの惨状|山田宏×エンフバット・トゴチョグ

モンゴルで起きている現実は明日の日本でも起こる。中国による人権弾圧を20年以上にわたって訴え続けてきた南モンゴル人権情報センターの代表が7年ぶりに緊急来日。今モンゴルで何が起きているのか? 南モンゴルを支援する議員連盟幹事長の山田宏参議院議員と緊急対談を行った。


森喜朗氏“集団リンチ事件”と朝日新聞|門田隆将

森喜朗氏“集団リンチ事件”と朝日新聞|門田隆将

朝日をはじめとするマスコミの常軌を逸した森喜朗氏への“集団リンチ”。 朝日の手の内を知り尽くした筆者が、その裏に隠された真の目的を暴く!


森元総理への異常なメディア・リンチ|花田紀凱

森元総理への異常なメディア・リンチ|花田紀凱

「男性は会議が長い」には寛容であり、「女性は会議が長い」にはなぜ不寛容なのか。そもそも森元総理の発言のどこが「女性差別」なのか。大新聞、テレビ、週刊誌、ネット、外国メディアまで揃いも揃って叩きまくる、異常なメディア・リンチに花田編集長が物申す!


北京五輪の開催地変更を求めよ|櫻井よしこ

北京五輪の開催地変更を求めよ|櫻井よしこ

今こそ問うべきだ。世界を大中華主義で染めたいのか。人権弾圧を続けて民主主義を息絶えさせたいのか。国際法を中華の法の支配に替え、世界秩序を大転換したいのか、と。


『「目に見えぬ侵略」「見えない手」副読本』㉔脅かされているのは「人権」そのもの

『「目に見えぬ侵略」「見えない手」副読本』㉔脅かされているのは「人権」そのもの

『目に見えぬ侵略』『見えない手』の入門書と言える『副読本』を発売! 二冊の大著から奥山真司氏監修のもとエッセンスを抜き出し、見開き40項目だけでシンプルに解説しています。その中から三項目を特別公開。今回は二つ目「人権」問題について。


最新の投稿


マスコミが報じない川勝知事が暴言失言を恐れない理由|小林一哉

マスコミが報じない川勝知事が暴言失言を恐れない理由|小林一哉

「磐田は浜松より文化が高かった」 また暴言をした川勝知事。しかし、撤回もせず、悪びれる様子もない。なぜ、川勝知事は強気でいられるのか――。


【今週のサンモニ】怒りを煽りながら禅問答を繰り返す|藤原かずえ

【今週のサンモニ】怒りを煽りながら禅問答を繰り返す|藤原かずえ

『Hanada』プラス連載「今週もおかしな報道ばかりをしている『サンデーモーニング』を藤原かずえさんがデータとロジックで滅多斬り」、略して【今週のサンモニ】。


「もしトラ」ではなく「トランプ大統領復帰」に備えよ!|和田政宗

「もしトラ」ではなく「トランプ大統領復帰」に備えよ!|和田政宗

トランプ前大統領の〝盟友〟、安倍晋三元総理大臣はもういない。「トランプ大統領復帰」で日本は、東アジアは、ウクライナは、中東は、どうなるのか?


【読書亡羊】原爆スパイの評伝を今読むべき3つの理由  アン・ハーゲドン『スリーパー・エージェント――潜伏工作員』(作品社)

【読書亡羊】原爆スパイの評伝を今読むべき3つの理由  アン・ハーゲドン『スリーパー・エージェント――潜伏工作員』(作品社)

その昔、読書にかまけて羊を逃がしたものがいるという。転じて「読書亡羊」は「重要なことを忘れて、他のことに夢中になること」を指す四字熟語になった。だが時に仕事を放り出してでも、読むべき本がある。元月刊『Hanada』編集部員のライター・梶原がお送りする時事書評!


【今週のサンモニ】思考停止に繰り返される「多様性・反戦アピール」|藤原かずえ

【今週のサンモニ】思考停止に繰り返される「多様性・反戦アピール」|藤原かずえ

『Hanada』プラス連載「今週もおかしな報道ばかりをしている『サンデーモーニング』を藤原かずえさんがデータとロジックで滅多斬り」、略して【今週のサンモニ】。