Megumi Fuji's Essay 'Kamiya-kun Was Just Sleeping' Goes Viral, Igniting Human Rights Debate

Author Megumi Fuji's contributed essay, titled "Kamiya-kun Was Just Sleeping," has garnered significant attention on social media, quickly becoming a trending topic. The article profoundly examines the concept of "human rights" in the constitution and their universal scope, earning praise from many readers who described it as "excellently written" and "must-read content."

Questioning the Essence of "Human Rights First"

In her article, Ms. Fuji emphatically states, "Human rights are not about feelings," adding, "You might want to recognize the human rights of people you like, and deny them to people you dislike. But that's not what human rights are about." She strongly asserts that human rights are not subject to personal emotions or preferences. She then emphasizes the importance of learning the sometimes difficult universal principle that "even the most corrupt villains have human rights."

Ms. Fuji also reflects on her own learning process, stating, "When I studied human rights, I always braced myself, struggling with the thought, 'Do I really have to accept people I dislike?'" She points out how living with dignity as a human being is a continuous and difficult struggle in modern society.

Sarcastic Reference to Sōhei Kamiya

The "Kamiya-kun" mentioned in the article's title is presumed to refer to Sōhei Kamiya of the Sanseitō (Political Party for Japanese Kokoro). Ms. Fuji alludes to constitutional scholar Sōta Kimura's description of Sanseitō's "constitutional amendment proposal" as a "bizarre document," then sarcastically writes, "I wonder if Kamiya-kun was sleeping then," and "The human rights class at law school was wonderful. Kamiya-kun was just sleeping." This expression, in particular, has drawn attention as it casts doubt on whether Mr. Kamiya truly comprehends the fundamental concept of the universality of human rights.

Expanding Discussion and Warnings

Comments on social media indicate that many have re-recognized the importance of the "Human Rights First" mindset. Meanwhile, Ms. Fuji also raises a warning against the spread of exclusive ideologies she observes, such as "exclude foreign nationals; exclude Japanese nationals who are naturalized if their ancestry goes back three generations; we don't need LGBT people; we don't need unmanly men or unwomanly women; we don't need civil servants with ideas we don't like." She warns that "the scope of 'Japanese people' is steadily narrowing." Ms. Fuji's question, "Why do the people applauding so innocently believe they will be included in that 'Japanese' category?" encourages deep reflection among many readers.

This contributed essay serves as a significant catalyst, prompting society to consider fundamental questions about the nature of "human rights" in contemporary society and to whom, and how, their guarantee should extend.

The Context

Megumi Fuji is a prominent Japanese author known for her insightful social commentary. Her essay delves into the fundamental principles of human rights, particularly in the context of the Japanese Constitution, which guarantees universal human rights. The title of her essay, "Kamiya-kun Was Just Sleeping," is a satirical jab at Sōhei Kamiya, a key figure and leader of the Sanseitō (Political Party for Japanese Kokoro or Heart), a nationalist political party in Japan that gained some traction in recent elections. Sanseitō is often criticized for its conservative and sometimes exclusionary views, particularly concerning immigration, gender roles, and what it perceives as traditional Japanese values. The party's "constitutional amendment proposal" (創憲案) has been widely panned by constitutional scholars, like Sōta Kimura, for its questionable legal and philosophical grounding, leading to descriptions such as "bizarre document" (怪文書). Fuji's essay highlights the tension between universal human rights principles and the rising tide of exclusionary nationalism in Japan, urging readers to reflect on who truly qualifies for human rights protection and the dangers of a narrowing definition of who belongs.