Question from readers:
If Masahiro Nakai wants to assert that it’s “not sexual violence,” shouldn’t he tell the whole story? I feel like Tōru Hashimoto’s advice is missing the point. Recently, I heard that Nakai said, “The report from the third-party committee is one-sided,” and sought advice from Hashimoto. Hashimoto mentioned that if people listen to Nakai’s side, they might
think, “Huh? Is this really sexual violence?” Honestly, I think that’s unfair. Nakai chose silence from the beginning and hasn’t explained anything on his own, right? When the third-party committee conducted hearings, Hashimoto claimed, “I wanted to say something, but I was stopped.” Shouldn’t he have protested and shared everything at that moment? Now, when he claims, “Actually, it was like this,” it just sounds like a late-game argument. Furthermore, Hashimoto argues that “the term sexual violence has too negative an impression,” but he doesn’t touch on the actual facts of what Nakai did. By shifting the focus to impressions and saying, “This isn’t something that deserves social sanction,” it seems he is merely trivializing the victim’s experience based on his own values. The female victim testified that it was “against her will,” and Fuji Television entrusted the third-party committee with the investigation. If Nakai starts saying, “They didn’t listen to me, and I want my side to be heard,” then he must clearly state what happened in his own words. However, it appears he is trying to protect himself through “impressions” and “atmosphere.” Ultimately, if he has something to say, he should have presented it directly from the start.
Reflecting on Masahiro Nakai’s Issues
Recently, the turmoil surrounding Masahiro Nakai has stirred public conversation. There are various opinions regarding his statements and actions, but personally, I want to understand the emotions and circumstances behind them, even just a little.
The Choice of Silence
I feel that Nakai’s choice of silence from the beginning complicates matters. Hearing him say during the hearings, “I wanted to say something, but I was stopped,” gives off a sense of belatedness. It feels like he had the opportunity to firmly assert his stance during the hearings but chose to respond later through a lawyer, which indeed feels like “a late-game argument.” Missing the chance to explain what happened in his own words may have weakened his position.
The Relationship with Tōru Hashimoto
I also feel uneasy about Tōru Hashimoto’s remark that “the term sexual violence has too negative an impression.” While the power of words is significant, what matters more is the facts themselves. Focusing solely on impressions without addressing Nakai’s specific actions is, in my view, unfair. Given that the victim has testified that it was “against her will,” Nakai’s actions must be considered in how they are perceived.
The Fight to Protect Oneself
Additionally, it seems concerning that he appears to be using “impressions” and “atmosphere” to defend himself. Ultimately, unless he clearly communicates what happened, it will be difficult to gain public understanding. He had the opportunity to strengthen his position by explaining in his own words, but not utilizing that opportunity has narrowed his options. I believe this is a moment that calls for sincerity.
The Complexity of Law
From a legal perspective, determining whether something qualifies as sexual violence is a very complex issue. Without concrete facts, it is possible to conclude legally that he is correct. Laws have criteria for application, and they must be adhered to. Therefore, discussions based on facts are necessary.
Conclusion
There are many thoughts that arise regarding Masahiro Nakai’s situation. Whether he can speak the truth in his own words will significantly impact future developments. I also want to maintain my own opinions while valuing the perspective of others. What does everyone think? If you have any opinions or experiences regarding this issue, please share in the comments. I’d be happy if we could deepen our thoughts together.
