No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Yamazaki, Shoot Emperor Hirohito!” Okuzaki Kenzo's Legal Action to Abolish Chapter One (The Emperor) of Japan's Constitution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2025
Extract
At the New Year's public opening of the Imperial Palace on January 2 1969, a Japanese war veteran by the name of Okuzaki Kenzō (1920–2005) fired three pachinko pinballs from a slingshot aimed at Emperor Hirohito who was standing 26.5 meters away on the veranda greeting about 15,000 visitors. All three hit the bottom of the veranda, missing Hirohito. Not many people seemed to notice that it was Okuzaki who fired them. Okuzaki then shot off one more, calling to the ghost of his war comrade, shouting, “Yamazaki, Shoot the Emperor (Hirohito) with a pistol!” Again he missed. Policemen on guard duty searched frantically for the perpetrator but could not identify him in the crowd. It was not certain whether Hirohito himself noticed the pinballs hitting the bottom of the veranda. Together with Hirohito, his wife Empress Ryōko, his two sons - Princes Akihito and Masahito - as well as their respective wives were also standing on the veranda, but it remains unclear whether any of them were aware of this incident.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 2019
References
Notes
1 Okuzaki Kenzō, ‘Chinjyutsu Sho (Statement for the Preparation of the Trial)‘ (hereafter, Okuzaki's Statement) in Yamazaki Tennō o Ute (Shinsen-sha, Tokyo, 1987) pp.205-207.
2 Chapter I The Emperor of Japan's Constitution: Article 1. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power. Article 2. The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House Law passed by the Diet. Article 3. The advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor. Article 4. The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government. The Emperor may delegate the performance of his acts in matters of state as may be provided by law. Article 5. When, in accordance with the Imperial House Law, a Regency is established, the Regent shall perform his acts in matters of state in the Emperor's name. In this case, paragraph one of the preceding article will be applicable. Article 6. The Emperor shall appoint the Prime Minister as designated by the Diet. The Emperor shall appoint the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court as designated by the Cabinet. Article 7. The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state on behalf of the people: Promulgation of amendments of the constitution, laws, cabinet orders and treaties. Convocation of the Diet. Dissolution of the House of Representatives. Proclamation of general election of members of the Diet. Attestation of the appointment and dismissal of Ministers of State and other officials as provided for bylaw, and of full powers and credentials of Ambassadors and Ministers. Attestation of general and special amnesty, commutation of punishment, reprieve, and restoration of rights. Awarding of honors. Attestation of instruments of ratification and other diplomatic documents as provided for by law. Receiving foreign ambassadors and ministers. Performance of ceremonial functions. Article 8. No property can be given to, or received by, the Imperial House, nor can any gifts be made therefrom, without the authorization of the Diet.
3 Mori Takemaro, Ajia Taiheiyō Sensō (Syuei-sha, Tokyo, 1997) pp.50-52.
4 Okuzaki's Statement, pp.5-6.
5 Ibid., pp.7-10.
6 Mori Takemaro, op.cit.,p186.; Fujiwara Akira, Gashi-shita Eirei-tachi (Aoki-shoten, Tokyo, 2001) pp.35-37.
7 Fujiwara, op.cit., pp.41-47. Around the same time, the Japanese Imperial Army made a similar grave error on Guadalcanal Island. In early July 1942, the Imperial Navy sent approximately 3,000 troops plus 2,200 Korean forced laborers and Japanese construction specialists to build a large airfield at Lunga Point on Guadalcanal Island of the Solomon Islands - a vital point for the Allied forces to connect the U.S. and Australia. On August 7, shortly before the completion of the airfield, 11,000 U.S. Marines suddenly landed on Guadalcanal, capturing it as well as the nearby island of Tulagi. In repeated attempts to recapture Guadalcanal in the following six months, the Japanese continued to send lightly equipped troops without gathering sufficient information about the strength and activities of U.S. forces on the island. In addition, given US supremacy in the air and at sea in this region, the Japanese could not transport adequate ammunition, food and medical supplies to support their troops. By the time the Japanese abandoned Guadalcanal in February 1943, 20,860 of the 31,400 soldiers sent there had perished: about 15,000 of this total death toll were victims of starvation and tropical disease. For more details on the Battle of Guadalcanal, see Eguchi Kei-ichi, 15 Nen Sensō Shō-shi (Aoki Shoten, Tokyo, 1991) pp.191-193.
8 Concerning the inter-relationship between the lack of a clear sense of responsibility among Japanese military leaders and the emperor system, see Yuki Tanaka, Kenshō Sengo Minshushugi: Naze Watashi-tachi wa Sensō Sekinin Mondai o Kaiketsu dekinai no ka (Sanichi- Shobo, Tokyo, 2019) pp.139-145.
9 Fujiwara Akira, op.cit., pp.52-54.
10 Ibid., p.51.
11 Peter Charlton, War Against Japan 1942-1945 (Time-Life Books Australia, Sydney, 1989) Chapter 4 ‘Taking the Huon Peninsular,‘ pp.112-129.
12 Okuzaki's Statement, pp.12-14.
13 Ibid., pp.17-19.
14 Ibid., p.100.
15 Ibid., pp.64-102.
16 Ibid., p.30.
17 The film revealed that two soldiers of the 36th IER were executed for the crime of “desertion in the face of the enemy” 23 days after the official surrender of Japan. The film implied that the two men were killed by their officers because they ran away in order to avoid participating in group cannibalism. For details of widespread cannibalism among Japanese soldiers in New Guinea, see Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II Second edition (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017) Chapter 4 ‘Judge Webb and Japanese Cannibalism.‘
18 Okuzaki's Statement, Part I, pp.5-123, and Part II, pp.125-207.
19 Ibid., pp.125-139.
20 Ibid., pp.139-143.
21 Ibid., pp.144-154.
22 Ibid., pp.162-164.
23 Ibid., pp.166-168.
24 Ibid., p.177.
25 Ibid., pp.168-176, 184-192.
26 In ten years, he wrote down numerous ideas, comments and thousands of short poems in 36 thick notebooks. Some of these writings were truly remarkable; e.g., “It is much more courageous to become a POW rather than to be killed on a battlefield, controlled by confused mass psychology. Indeed, becoming a POW is a far more respectable human action. However, the most courageous thing to do is to absolutely refuse to go to war and kill enemies.” “I am prepared to sacrifice myself for eliminating the emperor but not for the emperor.” “Sadly human beings are controlled by the environment that they themselves create.” “Happiness gained at the sacrifice of oneself or others is relative, improper, unsuitable, unnatural, impious, anti-social, irrational, emotional, beastly, and inhumane. Therefore it does not last very long, and sooner or later it turns into unhappiness for everyone. As any happiness in an unequal society is directly or indirectly created at the sacrifice of oneself or others, it is momentary, finite, toxic, and numbing.” Some of these texts are reproduced in his book Yuki Yuki te Shingun no Shisō (Shinsen-sha, Tokyo, 1987)
27 Ide Magoroku, ‘Okuzaki Kenzō ni kansuru Oboegaki’ in Okuzaki Kenzō, Yamazaki Tennō o Ute, p.245.
28 Okuzaki's Statement, p.202.
29 Ibid., pp.168-174.
30 Mainichi Shimbun, January 3, 1969.
31 Fukeizai, the crime of violating lese majesty, was officially abolished when Japan's new constitution took effect in May 1947. According to Fukeizai defined by Article 74 of the Meiji Criminal Law established in 1880, a person who committed an insulting or disrespectful act against the emperor, another member of the royal family or a shinto shrine belonging to the royal family was punishable for a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. However, GHQ had regarded this law as extremely undemocratic and cruel, so already in May 1946 it instructed the Japanese government not to apply it to any legal case. In fact the judges of the Tokyo District Court contemplated punishing Matsushima Matsutaro with fukeizai, for participating in a mass political demonstration on May Day 1946 held near the Imperial Palace, holding a placard condemning Hirohito personally. The placard said that Hirohito was eating plentifully when the rest of the nation was starving. The judges tried Matsushima and pronounced him guilty of “defamation” of Hirohito, not of fukeizai. For details of the trial of Matsushima, see Yuki Tanaka, op.cit., pp.271-274.
32 Okuzaki Kenzō, Yamazaki Tennō o Ute, pp.214-215.
33 Ibid., pp.215-216.
34 Ibid., pp.216-218.
35 Ibid., p.219.
36 Okuzaki Kenzō, Yamazaki Tennō o Ute, p.230; Hoshino Yasusaburō, ‘Tenno-sei Hantai Jiken’ in his book, Zoku Nippon no Kenpō Hanrei: Sono Kagakuteki Kentō (Tokyo Keibundō, Tokyo 1972) p.278.
37 Hoshino Yasusaburō, op.cit., p.278.
38 Ibid., 279.
39 Ibid., p.280.
40 Ibid., p.280-281.
41 Ibid., p.281. Article 37 of the Constitution of Japan: ‘In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. He shall be permitted full opportunity to examine all witnesses, and he shall have the right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf at public expense. At all times the accused shall have the assistance of competent counsel who shall, if the accused is unable to secure the same by his own efforts, be assigned to his use by the State.‘
42 Okuzaki Kenzō, Yamazaki Tennō o Ute, p.238. The Supreme Court judges did not even bother to utilize a minority argument that the Preamble is not formally part of the Constitution or law but simply a basic idea or philosophy embodying the Constitution.
43 Okuzaki Kenzō, Yamazaki Tennō o Ute, p.233.
44 For a more detailed analysis of the deep contradiction between the basic philosophy of Japan's Constitution elaborated upon in the Preamble and Article 1 “Emperor,” and of the historical reason why such illogicality was embedded in the Constitution, see Yuki Tanaka, op.cit., Chapter 3, pp.169-230.
45 Some testimonies written by these former Japanese soldiers stationed in China are available, for example, in the book, Arai Toshio and Fujiwara Akira ed., Shinryaku no Shōgen: Chugoku ni okeru Nippon-jin Senpan Jihitsu Kyōjyusho (Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1999).
46 Watanabe Kiyoshi, ‘Tennō Hirohito e no Kōkai Shokan’ in his book, Watashi no Tennō Kan (Keisō Shobō, Tokyo, 1981) pp.21-72.