Examples of conduct punishable under the National Flag Desecration Law (×) and conduct that is not (○).
このページを で読む
The Japanese national flag desecration bill, submitted by four political parties, was approved by the Lower House Cabinet Committee on June 26, making its passage during the current Diet session increasingly likely.
The bill was jointly introduced by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party), the Democratic Party for the People, and Sanseito.
Under the proposed law, anyone who publicly damages, removes, or defiles the national flag in a manner that causes significant discomfort or disgust to others would face up to two years in prison or a fine of up to ¥200,000 ($1,200).
During committee deliberations, Professor Takahiro Eto of Momoyama Gakuin University's Faculty of Law, who appeared as an expert witness, explained how the proposed offense would be interpreted and what kinds of conduct would fall within its scope.
Two Requirements for the Offense
According to Professor Eto, two conditions must be met for an act to constitute the crime of flag desecration.
First, the object involved must qualify as a national flag under the legislation, which defines it as "a tangible object that is generally recognized under social convention as being used as a national flag."
Second, the conduct must involve publicly damaging, removing, or defiling that flag in a manner that causes significant discomfort or disgust to others.
Only when both of these conditions are satisfied would criminal penalties apply.
The LDP has also provided examples of conduct that would not be covered by the proposed law. These include:
- Images of the national flag created in anime, manga, or by artificial intelligence, as they are not considered "tangible objects" under the bill.
- Scenes in live-action films depicting the destruction of a national flag.
- News reports or social media posts by third parties that show or repost images or videos of flag desecration.
- Displaying outdoors a flag that had been defiled inside a private residence.
- Damaging miniature flags used as decorations in children's meals or flag images that form part of a painting.
By contrast, the bill would apply to acts such as:
- Pulling down and discarding a national flag displayed at a municipal government building.
- Tearing, burning, or cutting a national flag in a busy public place.
- Stepping on a national flag, covering it with mud, or urinating on it in a park or on a public street.
- Recording oneself cutting or burning a national flag in a private room and livestreaming or later uploading the footage online.
Difficulties in Enforcement
Professor Eto cautioned that determining whether a particular act violates the law may not always be straightforward.
For example, if someone accused of desecrating a flag claims the act was part of filming a movie or documentary, the case could become more complicated because the government has said scenes in live-action films would be exempt.
In such cases, Professor Eto said authorities would need to make their determination based not on formal labels but on "the objective circumstances and other relevant factors."
He also expressed concern that some of the government's examples of exempt conduct are not always easy to distinguish from acts that would be punishable under the proposed law.
For example, while the government says miniature flags used in children's meals would be exempt, Professor Eto argued that the distinction is not always clear.
As a result, he said it is difficult to categorically conclude that such items are not "tangible objects generally recognized as being used as national flags."
Call for Greater Legal Certainty
He raised a similar concern about Japanese national team flags bearing signed messages of support. Although the government considers these outside the scope of the bill, Professor Eto said questions could arise if offensive or insulting messages were written on them.
Professor Eto added that ordinary people could face a significant burden simply by becoming the subject of a police investigation, criminal prosecution, or media coverage before any judicial ruling is made.
He argued that laws should be drafted with sufficient clarity so that "people can read the text of the law and know with confidence that a particular action is unquestionably permissible."
Author: Makoto Chiba, The Sankei Shimbun
このページを で読む
