Janie Kitagawa’s “Sexual Assault Allegation”: “Question and Answer Session at the Diet” 23 Years Ago That Made the Media “Hesitate” to Pursue the Allegation

On the evening of May 14, Johnny’s’s president Keiko Fujishima posted a video on her official website apologizing for the allegations, and released a document responding to questions from various quarters. On the evening of May 14, President Keiko Fujishima of the Johnny’s Office posted a video on its official website apologizing for the incident and released a document answering questions from various quarters.

In the meantime, on the 16th, former Johnny’s Jr. members Cowan Okamoto and Yasushi Hashida attended the DPJ’s hearing at the National Diet. In front of the participating lawmakers and bureaucrats from the Ministry of Justice, the National Police Agency, and the Child and Family Agency, Mr. Cowan said,

In front of the participating lawmakers and officials from the Ministry of Justice, the National Police Agency, and the Child and Family Agency, Mr. Cowan said, “If it’s not a parent, it’s not child abuse. It is simply scary. If a child who doesn’t understand is sexually abused by someone other than his or her parents, we can’t protect him or her, can we?

He questioned the fact that “child abuse” regulated by the Child Abuse Prevention Law targets “children in the care of their guardians (parents, etc.).

In the past, Mr. Janney’s sexual abuse has been the subject of debate in the Diet.

In 1999, the Shukan Bunshun (weekly magazine) reported more than a dozen times on Johnny’s’s alleged sexual abuse, based on the testimony of a former Johnny’s Jr. The Johnny’s office sued for defamation of character, claiming that the allegations had no basis in fact, but in May 2002, the Tokyo High Court ruled that the statements of the two boys who testified in court were credible because they were specific and generally consistent. Johnny’s appealed the decision, but in 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and the High Court decision became final.

In the midst of all this, in April ’00, the Diet’s Special Committee on Youth Affairs took up the allegations of sexual abuse by Mr. Janney. Yoshihide Sakaue, a member of the ruling party in the Diet, questioned whether it was child abuse,

The definition of child abuse is abuse perpetrated by a parent or a guardian in place of a parent.

And Mr. Janey said.

“It does not fall under the category of parent or guardian in place of a parent.

Therefore, it does not constitute child abuse. Mr. Sakagami further stated that

“Does this violate the Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Law?”

Mr. Sakagami asked, “Does it violate the Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Law?

The answer was something along the lines of, “I will refrain from giving an answer since this is a case-by-case investigation, but in general, if there is any violation of these laws, we will take strict measures to deal with it.

The answer was something along the lines of, “This is an investigation that involves a specific case, so I will refrain from giving an answer. In addition

“Wouldn’t a person who commits an indecent act on a boy under the age of 12 also be charged with indecent assault?

To the question, “In general, no.

The answer was, “In general, if you commit an indecent act on a person under 13 years of age, you are guilty of indecent assault.

There was no specific response on how to respond to Janney’s allegations of sexual abuse.

The New York Times on this,

The Associated Press also reported on the question-and-answer session at the Diet.

The Associated Press also reported on the parliamentary question-and-answer session and accused almost all of the major Japanese media of ignoring the allegations.

Although we thought it was a milestone that the Diet took up the issue, looking back at the news reports of the time, we cannot deny that the fact that the answer was “by definition, this does not constitute child abuse” and that the answers were limited to generalities may have put the brakes on the search for the truth.

It would have been a good opportunity for politics and the police to intervene and stop it, but they did not.

The tangible and intangible pressures of the “Johnny’s empire” prevented an investigation of the truth, and the fact that the entertainment media ignored the discovery led to the continued infliction of new victims. This came to light when the BBC reported on the case 20 years after the High Court ruling.

Johnny’s Jr. waiting for their debut.

Mr. Okamoto says that the Jr. members who were waiting to make their debut endured the situation because they thought that if they did not persevere, they would be at a disadvantage as TV personalities.

They were patient, thinking, “If we don’t be patient, it will be detrimental to our status as TV personalities. Incidentally, Mr. Okamoto said, “If they refused, they were told they would not be allowed to stand on stage,

“They thought that if they refused, their stage position would deteriorate and they would not be able to debut.

The high court ruling at the time also confirmed this.

This is too unfair, as there are many entertainers who are suspended for long periods of time or fired from their offices even for drug cases or infidelity that is not illegal. ……

It was desirable to settle the issue before his death because it was a different issue from the achievements that Mr. Janney had left behind by sending many popular groups to the showbiz world.

I was a reporter at the time, and I remember in ’88, I wrote an article about the publication of “To Hikaru Genji” by former “Four Leaves” member Kouji Kita, which made the top of the entertainment page.’ In ’00, the New York Times ran an article on the Diet question-and-answer session, and the high court ruling in the trial in which Johnny’s sued the Weekly Bunshun was also reported as a “substantial victory for Bunshun’s side.

However, TV and national newspapers did not report them, and no major movement occurred.

In any case, for the sake of the current and former talents, we hope that Johnny’s will properly summarize and clarify the facts.