Recently, a new proposal has been stirring debate in Japan: a plan to revise the Penal Code and create a brand-new offense called the “Japanese Flag Desecration Crime,” which would punish anyone who tears or burns the national flag with the intent to insult the nation. I stand firmly against this proposal.
Japan already has Article 92 of the Penal Code, which punishes the desecration of foreign flags or national emblems. If someone damages another country’s flag to insult that nation, they can face up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to 200,000 yen. Supporters of the new law argue that it is only “balanced” to protect the Japanese flag in the same way.
A well-known public figure added fuel to the fire by saying, “Just make it a crime to burn the flag. Only bad people will be troubled,” and “Every advanced country punishes flag desecration.” These remarks received enthusiastic applause.
But I reject this line of thinking, both philosophically and democratically.
To begin with, who decides who the “bad people” are? That power always rests with the authorities. Law is not a tool for those in power to silence people they find inconvenient. If anything, a democratic society must constantly revisit the foundational question: Why do we protect even speech that offends us?
As for the claim that “all advanced countries punish flag desecration.” This is simply false.
In the United States, the landmark cases Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman clearly established that punishing flag burning violates the First Amendment. In other words, Americans who burn the American flag on American soil cannot be prosecuted—because political expression is protected at the highest constitutional level.
In Europe, countries such as Germany, France, Spain, and Italy technically have laws against desecrating national symbols, but enforcement is extremely cautious and narrow, precisely because political expression is so highly valued. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and the Nordic countries have no such laws at all.
I am particularly resistant to adding criminal provisions when there is no legitimate legislative basis for them. Does the act of damaging the Japanese flag cause any serious social harm? Are the majority of citizens actually affected by it? Is there any factual necessity that would justify creating such a law? If the answer to these questions is no, then the only function of the law would be to restrict people’s freedom, nothing more.
The supporters of this bill must understand that those who oppose it are not doing so because they want to burn the Japanese flag. I love Japan—the country where I was born. Nothing gives me more peace than the familiar landscape of my hometown. Needless to say, I find the act of desecrating the Japanese flag deeply offensive and difficult to witness. Nevertheless, whether such a law should exist is a question that must be approached with great caution.
If this law passes, the next step may be a “Refusal to Sing the National Anthem Crime.” After that, perhaps a revival of “Lèse-majesté.” Then, one day, “Criminal Criticism of the Government.”
Freedom is rarely taken away in one dramatic sweep. Fascism does not arrive with marching boots. It seeps in quietly, one harmless-sounding restriction at a time.
Those who say “I don’t care—punish the bad guys” fail to see how this story unfolds. You assume you will never be classified as one of the “bad guys.” But history shows that once freedom is trimmed at the edges, the definition expands, and the liberties of ordinary, harmless people shrink.
That is what I fear. And that is why I cannot support this law.
