Japan's Lack of Remorse for WWII

 

Japan’s recognition of World War II is complex, focusing on a "peace nation" identity while often omitting, minimizing, or denying specific war crimes and atrocities committed in Asia. Official apologies have been issued, but the education system and political actions frequently downplay their brutality during the war.

Key aspects of Japan's often considered selective memory of World War II include:

·         Education and Textbook Controversies: Japanese school curricula are accused of skimming over actions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, leading to younger generations with limited knowledge of, or sensitivity to, wartime atrocities.

·        Contested History: While acknowledging the suffering caused, some officials and, to a limited extent, public discourse have attempted to revise or deny events like the Rape of Nanking and the use of comfort women.

·         Lack of Formal Recognition for Specific Crimes: The Japanese government has not formally acknowledged or educated the public about specific atrocities, such as those conducted by Unit 731.

·         Official Statements vs. Public Sentiment: Despite numerous, often deemed insufficient or insincere, apologies, nationalist views often deny that Japan did anything "wrong," causing continued tension with neighbours like China and South Korea.

·         Focus on Victimhood: The narrative in Japan often emphasizes the devastation of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rather than its role as an aggressor.

While acknowledging the "deep regret" for the suffering caused, Japan has not fully embraced a comprehensive acknowledgment of all wartime atrocities in its official historical narrative, leading to an ongoing, contested memory of the war.

Finally a Court Decision - Glacial Pace While Citizens Rot

 

The Federal Court of Appeal will release its decision this Friday on whether the Federal Government broke the law by invoking the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors during the 2022 Freedom Convoy and by freezing the victims' bank accounts.

After nearly four years, Canadians will finally see the court’s ruling on the Emergencies Act appeal.

That timeline alone must jump out at you and make you think. When government action directly impacts fundamental rights and freedoms, justice delayed is accountability denied. 

Decisions of this magnitude should not take years to resolve. At the same time, the consequences are immediate, lasting, and deeply personal for the people affected, including peaceful protesters who were beaten, arrested, and jailed. At the same time, the government was able to quietly coast along without consequence.

And let’s not forget what happened in the meantime. Canada went through a federal election. Justin Trudeau exited quietly. And then a banker who had not lived in Canada for years was effectively parachuted into the leadership. All of that occurred before Canadians received a judicial answer to whether the most extreme use of state power in modern Canadian history was lawful.

Serious questions:

How can the public meaningfully hold government to account if our courts move at a glacial pace?

What does the rule of law mean when rights can be restricted quickly, but remedies arrive years later?

How is democratic accountability preserved when political consequences come and go before legal scrutiny is complete?

Courts do play a critical role in checking government power — but timeliness matters. When courts hold government to account, the public must be able to do the same, while decisions are still relevant and leaders are still answerable.