Question from a reader:
After seeing Tohru Hashimoto criticize the committee, I became a bit curious. Regarding the report from the third-party committee about Masahiro Nakai from Fuji TV, he mentioned things like “don’t condemn” and “there was no opportunity for defense,” but is it truly the committee’s fault? That report is based on an internal investigation according to WHO standards,
not a criminal court verdict. The third-party committee did not label anyone as a sexual offender nor imposed any sanctions, so I don’t understand why Hashimoto continues to blame the committee. In fact, I think it was the media coverage and the public’s reaction that truly cornered Nakai. I understand that Hashimoto appears on television, making it difficult for him to criticize the media, but directing his anger towards a “criticism-friendly committee” seems a bit misplaced. I also believe that the non-disclosure of evidence is a necessary measure to protect those who cooperated. Criticizing it as “unjust” feels somewhat off. I have a sense that, without addressing these fundamental issues, we won’t find a resolution. What do you all think? Do you believe Hashimoto’s criticism is logically sound, or do you think there are others who should be held accountable?
Hashimoto Tohru’s Criticism and the Role of the Third-Party Committee
Recently, seeing Tohru Hashimoto criticize the report from the third-party committee sparked some questions. Every time I hear his statements like “don’t condemn” or “there was no opportunity for defense,” I find myself questioning whether the committee is truly at fault. The third-party committee is solely an internal investigation and differs from a criminal trial. The report is based on WHO standards and did not label anyone as a sexual offender. Should Hashimoto really be blaming the committee?
Media and Public Reaction
I believe it was the media coverage and the public’s reaction that truly pressured Nakai. The media has a responsibility to report the facts, but sometimes excessive reporting can distort the truth. I understand that since Hashimoto is also on television, it may be difficult for him to criticize the media. However, I feel it is somewhat inappropriate to redirect his criticism towards a “criticism-friendly committee.” Regarding the non-disclosure of evidence, I perceive it as a necessary measure to protect collaborators. Criticizing it as “unjust” feels a bit strange. There are likely various circumstances behind the release of the report. For example, it should be considered that the female party may not have wished to take the matter to court.
Personal Thoughts and Conclusion
Being involved in the legal field myself, I am particularly sensitive to such issues. The law can be harsh, but it cannot ignore human emotions and circumstances. While it is easy to criticize the contents of the report, I believe it is crucial to understand the background and complex situations involved. In closing, what do you all think? Do you find Hashimoto’s criticism logically sound, or do you believe there are other parties who should be held accountable? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
