On October 27, the House of Councillors was the first to single-handedly submit to the House of Councillors a bill to amend the Penal Code to include the crime of “damaging the Japanese national emblem,” which punishes the act of “damaging the Japanese flag with the intention of insulting Japan. In response to this, ABEMA’s news program “Abema Prime,” broadcast on October 31, showed a video of a member of the House of Councillors who submitted a bill regarding the crime of vandalism of the national flag. In response to this, ABEMA’s House of Councilors member Mizuho Umemura, who submitted a bill on the national flag vandalism charge, appeared on ABEMA’s October 31 news program “Abema Prime. The debate was about the pros and cons of the flag vandalism law, and MC Canning Takeyama, who was engaged in a heated debate with Umemura, caused a firestorm with his comments. At the beginning of the program, he explained that the current law provides for punishment for damaging the flag of a foreign country, but not the Japanese flag. After introducing the controversy on social networking sites about the pros and cons of the flag damage charge, the facilitator, TV Asahi announcer Mio Hayashi, said, “Mr. Takeyama, there have been various opinions,” to which Mr. Takeyama replied, “Yes, I understand your feelings. I understand how you feel. But I think this country is a nation with people who dislike the Japanese flag, people who like it, and people who have various ideas about it. If you say that everything has to be this way, then you are saying that it is a dictatorship! If you say, ‘Everything has to be this way,’ it’s a dictatorship. He said that it is a moral issue and not something to be decided by law. I think we should take care of the flag, but there are people who don’t like it. Then, if you say that person is not Japanese, that person is also Japanese,” he said. This statement by Takeyama was cut from Abema Prime’s official YouTube uploaded on the 2nd.” (Entertainment reporter) In the distribution, after Takeyama’s talk, Umemura opened with, “The reason behind the submission of this bill is the House of Councillors election this summer,” and then he made a speech on the streets of the Upper House, waving a Japanese flag with a big “Hinomaru” on it. ×Mr. Umemura introduced a number of acts of obstruction, such as the waving of the Japanese flag with a large “X” on the Hinomaru (Japanese flag), at the Suffrage Party’s street speeches. He explained that there were many people who shed tears of frustration and sadness when they saw this, and that “we are now in an era where this must be enacted by law. In response, Takeyama bitingly said, “There are actually people who put an X on the Hinomaru (Japanese flag), and in this video, there are. This person hates the rising-sun flag. They don’t like the way this country is. And there are some people like this in the world. Umemura replied, “Yes, there are. If there are such people, they must feel insulted by the fact that the councilors decide that this is not allowed by law, don’t you think? What about the feelings of these people? Are you going to impose on them that they are wrong? Takeyama then continued to harangue Umemura, “You are not the only one who has been wronged by the law. Takeyama continued, “There must be people in the world who don’t like the emperor system, right? I don’t hate the emperor system. There are also people who don’t like the rising-sun flag. But I think there are also people who like this country. What will happen to those people? Are they bad people? On another occasion, he asked, “It’s okay if they hate the Hinomaru so much, isn’t it? I hate the Hinomaru so much, I hate it so much, but if I say I hate it, I’ll be punished, so I can’t say it anymore and won’t touch it. But you mean you don’t have a problem with me saying that I hate it so much? I asked persistently. When Umemura replied, “Yes,” Takeyama laughed and said, “But that doesn’t mean I don’t like it, because I don’t like it in my heart. In response to Takeyama’s series of comments, some commentators on the X-section commented, “As a TV personality who appears in the media, I feel like he was only touching on various opinions in a safe manner,” and “Isn’t a society where people are punished because they feel bad disgusting and scary? These opinions of the defenders and the comments such as “Cheat Takeyama, if you hate the Japanese flag so much, you should go abroad” and “The analogy is terrible, isn’t it? It’s up to the individual to decide what they like and dislike, and it’s fine to say, “I don’t like it. It’s fine to say so, but you don’t have to go to the trouble of tearing it up or burning it in public. In response to the flames, Takeyama himself updated X on November 5. I heard that there was some kind of firestorm, and when I looked at it, I saw that I was in trouble again on social networking sites! He started out by saying, “It’s too different,” and then added, “Well, I’m very sorry, but I’m a person who thinks the Japanese flag, the Kimigayo, and national defense are important! Please make no mistake about it. However, I think that the enactment of the crime of vandalism of the national flag should be decided through further discussion. He also asked for understanding, saying, “I understand your feelings, but there are parts where the crime of vandalism of foreign national emblems does not equal the crime of vandalism of national flags, so I think the legislature should have more discussions, but I ask for your understanding so that everyone can agree. But he asked for their understanding, saying, “I think that the legislature is discussing it more, but I would like to ask for your cooperation in making everyone understand. A reporter from the political affairs section said, “Mr. Takeyama dared to understand the argument. Takeyama-san, perhaps for the sake of making the discussion easier to understand, has brought up emotional arguments such as “like” and “dislike,” “pleasant” and “unpleasant,” and has also used the word “unpleasant” as a synonym for “like. The “pleasant” and “unpleasant” were the emotional arguments. This may have caused the flames. It would have been better to calmly present the issues, such as concerns about regulating freedom of expression, whether people like it or not, and how the law would be applied in practice if it were actually enacted.
