Lawsuit seeks to remove public memorial to Japanese "comfort women"

[Matthew Cline]

In brief:

During WWII Japan forced many women sexually service Japanese service men; they were/are called comfort women^WP. The city of Glendale, California has erected a memorial to them in a public park. A federal lawsuit is seeking to have the memorial removed, mainly on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause^WP of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with the federal government's sole right to conduct U.S. foreign policy. You can find a lot more details at this Popehat article.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a city government having an opinion on foreign matters doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to conduct foreign policy. I mean, the city of Berkeley has it's own foreign policy, but everyone just ignores them. Also, following the logic of the lawsuit, wouldn't cities be unable to put up memorial to the Armenia genocide, since it would piss off Turkey?

 

[catsmate]

In brief:

During WWII Japan forced many women sexually service Japanese service men; they were/are called comfort women^WP. The city of Glendale, California has erected a memorial to them in a public park. A federal lawsuit is seeking to have the memorial removed, mainly on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause^WP of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with the federal government's sole right to conduct U.S. foreign policy. You can find a lot more details at this Popehat article.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a city government having an opinion on foreign matters doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to conduct foreign policy. I mean, the city of Berkeley has it's own foreign policy, but everyone just ignores them. Also, following the logic of the lawsuit, wouldn't cities be unable to put up memorial to the Armenia genocide, since it would piss off Turkey?

If upheld this could require the removal of Holocaust memorials, statues of ACW figures and pretty much everything. I'd be very surprised if it succeeded. I suspect it's an attempt to intimidate the city government into removing the memorial. There have been previous attempts to persuade Glendale to remove the monument, boycotts of scholastic links, an internet petition et cetera.
One of the plantiffs is GAHT-US, the "Global Alliance for Historical Truth" an organisation dedicated to historical revisionism and whitewashing Japan's past which has links to right-wing Japanese politicians. The others are members of GAHT.

 

[Spindrift]

In brief:

During WWII Japan forced many women sexually service Japanese service men; they were/are called comfort women^WP. The city of Glendale, California has erected a memorial to them in a public park. A federal lawsuit is seeking to have the memorial removed, mainly on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause^WP of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with the federal government's sole right to conduct U.S. foreign policy. You can find a lot more details at this Popehat article.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a city government having an opinion on foreign matters doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to conduct foreign policy. I mean, the city of Berkeley has it's own foreign policy, but everyone just ignores them. Also, following the logic of the lawsuit, wouldn't cities be unable to put up memorial to the Armenia genocide, since it would piss off Turkey?

Can private citizens sue on behalf of the US Government?

 

[angrysoba]

In brief:

During WWII Japan forced many women sexually service Japanese service men; they were/are called comfort women^WP. The city of Glendale, California has erected a memorial to them in a public park. A federal lawsuit is seeking to have the memorial removed, mainly on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause^WP of the U.S. Constitution and interferes with the federal government's sole right to conduct U.S. foreign policy. You can find a lot more details at this Popehat article.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a city government having an opinion on foreign matters doesn't interfere with the federal government's ability to conduct foreign policy. I mean, the city of Berkeley has it's own foreign policy, but everyone just ignores them. Also, following the logic of the lawsuit, wouldn't cities be unable to put up memorial to the Armenia genocide, since it would piss off Turkey?

Without focusing on the specific case, maybe it is not such a bad principle after all. Presumably government monuments can either receive tacit or overt agreement from the federal United States if the Supreme Court ends up ruling that way. For example, in that article you posted, he says:

Though the plaintiffs make this argument about the comfort women memorial in Glendale, it is nearly limitless in its application. For instance, though this fight is over a memorial, it could just as easily be about a city council resolution recognizing a day to remember some historical event. Similarly, though this fight is about the agenda of reactionary Japanese forces that seek to suppress discussion of wartime conduct, it could just as easily be about a hundred other historical disputes.

Well, the answer to this point, and presumably to your rhetorical question is, yes.

That is, yes, it could apply to hundreds of other historical disputes and yes, in principle, why would it not need federal approval to erect a monument to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians or to the Nazi genocide of the Jews? Such approval may indeed merely become a formality, but what is wrong, in principle, for a city government to need federal permission to put up a monument?

If upheld this could require the removal of Holocaust memorials, statues of ACW figures and pretty much everything. I'd be very surprised if it succeeded. I suspect it's an attempt to intimidate the city government into removing the memorial. There have been previous attempts to persuade Glendale to remove the monument, boycotts of scholastic links, an internet petition et cetera.
One of the plantiffs is GAHT-US, the "Global Alliance for Historical Truth" an organisation dedicated to historical revisionism and whitewashing Japan's past which has links to right-wing Japanese politicians. The others are members of GAHT.

Not necessarily. Maybe it would just require federal permission. While we can think of some examples that should be uncontroversial, such as Holocaust memorials, we can surely think of some examples which would be controversial. If monuments started going up celebrating Oliver Cromwell's sacking of Drogheda, then maybe citizens would demand some kind of higher court of appeal.

Can private citizens sue on behalf of the US Government?

I think you can make a claim that something violates the constitution which may or may not be the same thing as suing on behalf of the US Government.

 

[fuelair]

How does a monument to a known atrocity (and we have Japanese soldier's own photos from Nanking pretty well making denial of this kind of behavior pointless) need any permission? I do not recall anything in US laws requiring anyone to not memorialize something or to get permission before doing so...

On the bright side, the abysmal ignorance of trying to do such is certainly bringing the actions way more out in the open than the anti-rememberers might have wished - that part is great!!!!!*

*None of this should be taken as blaming current Japanese citizens of being involved in the crimes memorialized - they clearly were NOT the ones who committed them.

 

[Babbylonian]

Maybe I'm just dumb, but erecting a monument or even issuing a direct statement, even if it conflicts with the official position of the US Federal Government, seems like it falls under the protection of the 1st amendment. While certainly no state or locality could go out and negotiate a treaty with another country that would conflict with official US foreign policy (for example, Oregon can't on its own normalize trade with Cuba), local governments are as free to speak out on issues as their citizens (arguably, they would be speaking on behalf of their citizens).

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe I'm just dumb, but erecting a monument or even issuing a direct statement, even if it conflicts with the official position of the US Federal Government, seems like it falls under the protection of the 1st amendment. While certainly no state or locality could go out and negotiate a treaty with another country that would conflict with official US foreign policy (for example, Oregon can't on its own normalize trade with Cuba), local governments are as free to speak out on issues as their citizens (arguably, they would be speaking on behalf of their citizens).

According to Matthew Cline's link that is not the case. Local governments do not have 1st Amendment rights. If they did then presumbaly they would be able to erect their own religious monuments, and yet they cannot do that, and if they did then private citizens can indeed take those governments to court.

 

[Babbylonian]

According to Matthew Cline's link that is not the case. Local governments do not have 1st Amendment rights. If they did then presumbaly they would be able to erect their own religious monuments, and yet they cannot do that, and if they did then private citizens can indeed take those governments to court.

You're right about the highlighted part, but that's covered by the establishment clause and has nothing to do with federal supremacy.

And they don't even seem to be making an argument based on US federal supremacy, not really.
From that link:

More specifically, given the inflammatory language used in the plaque that is prominently featured alongside the statue, Glendale has taken a position at odds with the expressed position of the Japanese government.

Apparently, they want Japanese government supremacy.

I was indeed wrong about the 1st amendment, but the idea that local governments should need monument approval from the federal government is pretty crazy. Even review of a monument's status is inappropriate unless there are actual individual rights being violated...and comfort isn't a constitutionally protected right, especially when what is making someone uncomfortable is the truth.

 

[angrysoba]

You're right about the highlighted part, but that's covered by the establishment clause and has nothing to do with federal supremacy.

Yes, I know. My point was merely that the first amendment does not apply, and if it did there would be a contradiction in allowing freedom of religion while prohibiting it at the same time.

I was indeed wrong about the 1st amendment, but the idea that local governments should need monument approval from the federal government is pretty crazy.

Well, that is an opinion. And I think that opinion was also made by those who thought it was perfectly acceptable to put up religious monuments on federal land. They could not understand how the establishment clause prohibited these monuments.

It would be like saying, "So if we can't put a statue of the Ten Commandments up then that means we can't put up a baby Jesus in a nativity scene, and we can't do prayers in school and we can't put 'In God We Trust' on our notes...". The answer seems to be "No", "Probably not", "That's tricky" and "Come back to us on that".

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to Matthew Cline's link that is not the case. Local governments do not have 1st Amendment rights. If they did then presumbaly they would be able to erect their own religious monuments, and yet they cannot do that, and if they did then private citizens can indeed take those governments to court.

Yep only the federal goverment can erect religious monuments.

 

[angrysoba]

Yep only the federal goverment can erect religious monuments.

Could you explain what you mean? What you have written is surely incorrect.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could you explain what you mean? What you have written is surely incorrect.

Tying this to that are entirely different issues. Not violating the establishment clause is very different from having a memorial to a historic event. The claim in this case is usurping the federal government's role, so clearly to connect the two you have to think that religious monuments are the federal government's job.

 

[angrysoba]

Tying this to that are entirely different issues. Not violating the establishment clause is very different from having a memorial to a historic event. The claim in this case is usurping the federal government's role, so clearly to connect the two you have to think that religious monuments are the federal government's job.

You seem to be very confused about why the establishment clause has come up.

Look ->

Can private citizens sue on behalf of the US Government?

I think you can make a claim that something violates the constitution which may or may not be the same thing as suing on behalf of the US Government.

Initially I answered with things like this in mind:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma has filed a lawsuit seeking to have a monument that bears the Ten Commandments removed from state Capitol grounds.

That is, private citizens suing, not so much on behalf of the government as in defence of the US constitution as they understand it.

To make that point, I do not have to simultaneously claim that the federal government gets to put up monuments of the Ten Commandments, now do I?

Later in the thread it was asked whether the first amendment applied to state or local governments. I said it did not otherwise that would itself set up a contradiction. Why is that? Because the first amendment allows freedom to practice religion and yet prohibits Congress making laws establishing a religion. As you no doubt know, it was essentially thought of before as only applying to the federal government, but the incorporation doctrine saw such applications cover the state and local governments too. But that is another issue.


Anyway, suffice to say you have clearly misread what I have written.

 

[catsmate]

How does a monument to a known atrocity (and we have Japanese soldier's own photos from Nanking pretty well making denial of this kind of behavior pointless) need any permission? I do not recall anything in US laws requiring anyone to not memorialize something or to get permission before doing so...

The point of the suit, other than attempting to whitewash Japanese actions, seems to be that as the monument refers to actions by a foreign government and has caused controversy, it infringes on the unique Federal government right to conduct relations with foreign nations.

Theoretically any such requirement could be interpreted to prohibit any state, county or municipal government agency from engaging in direct action in conjunction with any agency of any non-US government.

On the bright side, the abysmal ignorance of trying to do such is certainly bringing the actions way more out in the open than the anti-rememberers might have wished - that part is great!!!!!*

Oh yes, it's quite extraordinary how ignorant people are of the Streisland Effect.

*None of this should be taken as blaming current Japanese citizens of being involved in the crimes memorialized - they clearly were NOT the ones who committed them.

Just the current Japanese citizens attempting to whitewash, cover up, deny and minimise those atrocities.

 

[angrysoba]

How does a monument to a known atrocity (and we have Japanese soldier's own photos from Nanking pretty well making denial of this kind of behavior pointless) need any permission? I do not recall anything in US laws requiring anyone to not memorialize something or to get permission before doing so...

By the way, the Nanking Massacre is a separate incident to the forced prostitution of so-called "comfort women", which is itself a euphemistic term.

 

[catsmate]

Perhaps the city should respond by erecting a monument to the half million plus Chinese killed by Japanese biological warfare?

 

[The Greater Fool]

If foreign policy is in the sole domain of the federal government, would that put an end to the whole 'Sister City' thing? I can't conceive how that could not be considered foreign policy.

 

[KatieG]

By the way, the Nanking Massacre is a separate incident to the forced prostitution of so-called "comfort women", which is itself a euphemistic term.

There were "comfort women" in China, Korea, and Japan. The concept began in 1932 and the majority of women were Chinese and Korean. What was done to these women is unspeakable. They deserve this kind of recognition and I hope the monument is allowed to stay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

 

[Spindrift]

This is just another example of America, land where you can sue for just about anything and someone will. On the plus side, most silly lawsuits are silly and don't go far.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Perhaps the city should respond by erecting a monument to the half million plus Chinese killed by Japanese biological warfare?

Half a million is probably a conservative estimate, unfortunately.

At least they didn't get raped first, like a lot of Chinese civilians.