Question from a reader:
I was a bit puzzled after seeing Tohru Hashimoto criticize the committee regarding the third-party report on Masahiro Nakai from Fuji TV. He mentioned things like “Don’t condemn” and “He had no chance for defense,” but I feel that his criticism might be off the mark. The report is an internal investigation using WHO standards, not
a criminal court ruling, right? The third-party committee did not identify Nakai as a sexual offender, nor did they impose sanctions. Why does Hashimoto continue to criticize as if Nakai has been condemned? I believe that the media coverage and the public’s reaction largely contributed to Nakai being socially cornered. I understand that Hashimoto appears on television, which makes it difficult for him to criticize the media, but does that justify redirecting his criticism toward a “more easily criticized committee”? The non-disclosure of evidence is a measure to protect collaborators, and criticizing that as “unfair” seems somewhat misguided. I think that if things continue this way, the essential issues won’t be resolved. What do you all think? Do you believe Hashimoto’s criticism is logically sound? Or do you think there are other parties that should be held accountable?
Reflecting on Tohru Hashimoto’s Criticism
Recently, I had some thoughts after seeing Tohru Hashimoto criticize the third-party report regarding Masahiro Nakai. His argument includes points like “Don’t condemn” and “He had no chance for defense,” which certainly has some merit. However, we must not forget that the report itself is an internal investigation using WHO standards, not a criminal court ruling. Working part-time at a judicial scrivener office, I’m sensitive to such legal perspectives. The third-party committee did not recognize Nakai as a sexual offender and did not impose any sanctions, so I find it questionable why Hashimoto continues to criticize as if Nakai had been socially condemned. I agree that media coverage and public reactions have indeed cornered Nakai.
The Influence of Media and the Target of Criticism
I understand that it’s difficult for Hashimoto to criticize the media, but using that as a reason to redirect his criticism toward a “more easily criticized committee” seems like a bit of a misdirection. The non-disclosure of evidence is intended to protect collaborators, and criticizing that as “unfair” feels somewhat off. In reality, since there have been no arrests and no criminal case, treating Nakai as if he were a sexual criminal due to media reports is unreasonable. Although the third-party committee used the term sexual violence in their announcement, I think many people may be misunderstanding the content of that report.
The Background of the Settlement and Its Understanding
As mentioned in readers’ comments, the fact that Nakai’s side acknowledged the woman’s claims and settled is significant. The settlement amount, rumored to be around 90 million yen, indicates the seriousness of the issue. What’s concerning is the process leading up to the settlement. The fact that the woman visited Nakai’s home and was alone with him is something that cannot be overlooked when considering the context of the incident. The third-party committee’s report was based on interviews regarding the circumstances before and after that time, but it did not address the core of the actual incident. This could serve as one counter-argument to Hashimoto’s criticism.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, whether Hashimoto’s criticism is logically sound depends on one’s perspective. Personally, I believe the parties that should be criticized are the media and news agencies. They played a considerable role in cornering Nakai. What do you all think about this issue, where opinions and emotions are intertwined? Do you agree with Hashimoto’s criticism, or do you have a different viewpoint? I would love for you to share your thoughts in the comments. By sharing our perspectives, we can hopefully get a little closer to the essence of this issue.
