John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:

> Oh, I see, you mean I should report the incident after the event?

This is the normal way police work. When it is too late.

> I thought
> you meant I should do something that would bring the criminals to justice.

If you are so convinced there are no police, or that they are no use, why yes,
the only alternative would be to do something yourself or watch them go.

> Even if I had a mobile phone (which I don't) I don't think these people
> would have waited politely while I called the police.

It doesn't matter. Crimes are often reported when criminals are already long
gone or when there may be no concrete proof. It can't be helped.

> > So you mention two you've seen to far. Do you believe there are more, even
> on
> > just your train?
>
> If you mean do I think there were more than two culprits, I doubt it.

There are only two pickpockets operating, because you've seen two? Riiiight.
What police hear reported at the police box, or what we read in the papers, is
just a lie, then.

> If
> they were being professional about their work they would stick to two
> people,

Video has shown Latino gangs, operating in a group of four, for example.
Newspapers also report Korean gangs of up to seven, IIRC, even those who carry
knives which they would attempt to use on police who try to apprehend them.

Maybe you just happened to see two thieves, or one twosome of thieves. You
don't know what you missed.

> because the necessary number of people to pull off successful
> pickpocketing is two,

No, it can be done with one, and certainly is done.

> and having even one more person on board would - among
> other hazards - double the chances of being ripped off by an accomplice and
> greatly increase the chances of attracting attention to themselves. No,
> two's company, three's a crowd in that game.

So please explain the publicly available reports of larger gangs operating on
the trains.

> If you mean do I think the two incidents I saw are the total of what's out
> there, of course I don't.
>
> > > The person who'd stolen the
> > > wallet had passed the goods on to someone else.
> >
> > Too bad you aren't street wise enough to recognize the person who ends up
> with
> > the stolen items.
>
> I'm street wise enough to know what the game is,

Except the fact that pickpockets also operate alone, or in groups larger than
two.

> and street wise enough to
> know it's done in crowded places

And you don't know that thieves don't only operate in crowded areas of trains,
either. A single thief and the victim may be the only people in the entire car,
like when they strike against sleeping or drunk passengers.

How street smart do you claim to be, anyway?

> precisely in order to make it well-nigh
> impossible to know who the goods are being passed along to. You don't seem
> to be aware of either fact,

I am aware of that. But it seems you do not know much more.

And I still say it is too bad you are not street smart enough to have seen
where the evidence went.

> and you're still sneering about the street wise
> bit,

Because your basic ignorance of some aspects of pickpocketing on Japanese
trains, available to anyone who watches news or police documentaries, leads me
not to believe your street smarts, if true, are relevant to Japan.

> even though I told you not to, but there you go. Suit yourself...

No, you suit yourself claiming yourself as street smart when you simply seem
not to know.

> > It's the job of the police or prosecutor to get evidence, even if you have
> > none. You know the truth of the matter.
>
> Ah. Ericworld.

No, that is most certainly the real world.

> > > The norm is the norm. If you want it as defined by the dictionary it
> means
> > > "what is expected or regared as normal;
> >
> > But what is "normal"? One could argue that crime in and of itself is not
> > normal.
>
> OK, you're still having difficulty with this. I'll try again. The expression
> "the norm" is used to describe things in their customary or habitual state.
> We can leave out moral arguments about what is or is not "normal" behaviour,
> not because they have no relevance at all, but because we can deal with it
> much more simply by looking at it in terms of frequency. If you generally
> have coffee in the morning and once in about six months you have tea, then
> coffee for breakfast is the norm.

Your norm.

> Similarly, if you go to work by train
> every day without incident and once in about six months there's some kind of
> incident - a fight, a pickpocket, a chikan - then the days without incident
> are the norm.

Also your norm. Why don't you check all reports of incidents?

> For about three years I travelled to work from an outlying suburb and got to
> recognise people's faces and patterns of behaviour quite well. There was one
> very strikingly attractive woman who used to make eye contact with me (we
> never spoke), and we often ended up next to, or quite close to each other,
> all the way to Shinjuku (sometimes I was with my wife, sometimes not - about
> 50/50, I guess). Now, if that woman had ever been the victim of any kind of
> chikan I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

That's one woman. I know women who have been sexually assaulted, even multiple
times.

> I'm also pretty sure (from the
> way she put down an ojisan who started trying to talk to her in a way she
> didn't like one day - not overtly sexual, she just wasn't taking any
> nonsense) that she wouldn't have just suffered in silence. Nothing ever
> happened.

That's one day. Did you ever ask her about her other days or history as a crime
victim?

> These days, there's a very pleasant middle aged lady who frequently seeks me
> out on the morning train for a chat.

That's a middle aged lady.

> Again, I just can't see that she's
> being groped before my eyes and I'm not noticing it.

Have you ever imagined that you don't see it or it doesn't happen, BECAUSE you
are watching?

> *Please*, some of you
> fjlijers who use the trains regularly, are my experiences that unusual, for
> pity's sake?

No, it is not unusual to watch women and not see them molested. I've never seen
the sex crime victims I know molested, either. But I won't allow you to suggest
they weren't molested.

> Is everybody else observing downcast eyes and hearing subdued
> squeals of protest from women passengers stressed beyond endurance because
> of unwanted male attention while travelling,

Please know that such outward signs of being molested are hardly the only
response. Some bold women will apprehend the criminal themselves. Others will
do absolutely nothing, even if it happens repeatedly, on a regular (ie about
daily, basis). I know such a woman.

> or do things seem pretty calm
> and peaceful - regular faces making eye contact, people behaving in a
> civilised and decent fashion?

That is unusual. They are well behaved on your train? You do not ride with
commuting students or animated groups of young people?

> Am I (for some reason best known to the gods)
> living in Noddy land while everyone else is in some hardcore nittygritty
> Japan where women grit their teeth and get the daily grope over with before
> putting in a day's work at the office?

The real Japan most indeed is a place where women suffer in silence, whom you
will never know about, and it seems, will never acknowledge.

> > Try a percentage. If over three quarters of women respond to survey in a
> > national paper that they've been molested on the trains, that sounds like
> a
> > real serious problem to me. It was disgusting enough that women reported
> it
> > happened repeatedly or were victimized by several men at the same time.
>
> Yes, I'm not happy to hear about such things either.

Then believe it, even if it may not actually be as high as claimed by that
sample of respondents. You simply don't know, because you don't see it, and you
aren't checking outside your own experience as much as you could have.

> And I don't want to underestimate the seriousness.

Would you believe the real situation as seen elsewhere is not as nice as you
make it sound your own regular train ride is?

> I would, however, like to get it very clear
> what we are talking about here. You say "molested", but how much of this
> behaviour went beyond lecherous looks, innuendo and a demeaning use of
> language? Are you very clear that it was all actually *physical*?

Yes. Again, an example of your ignorance.

> I ask this
> for several reasons, but the only one I am advancing here is that I travel
> frequently on the trains and, despite being quite attentive (I have a
> tremendous interest in the behaviour of my fellow man - and woman) have seen
> remarkably little of such behaviour.

I also do not see much serious crime. That does not mean it doesn't happen, nor
will I tell people who know of it, that it isn't happening, because I didn't
see it myself.

> I have to say, though, that a situation where several men victimise a woman
> would hardly escape the attention of other passengers,

Now you are starting to understand the seriousness of the problem. Would you
believe that molestation even when seen, is often ignored?

> and as such didn't
> really come under my definition of chikan.

Why not? Why is a group of men assaulting one woman at the same time, not
chikan? Is it only bad if one man at a time is feeling a woman up on the train?

Damn. Is gang rape also not your definition of rape? Is group sex not your
definition of sex?

> To me, that kind of thing comes
> under the more general term "sekuhara" (sexual harassment), while chikan is
> a particular *manifestation* of sekuhara (the furtive grope). So I want to
> get it very clear what kinds of situations are covered by your statistics.
>
> Now, I have *never* seen a woman being groped by a group of men, on a train
> or anywhere else, in Japan or anywhere else.

So what?

> However, I've seen plenty of
> situations on Japanese trains where there's been some kind of altercation
> between a woman and a man or group of men.

It is good you know about that.

> By their nature, such
> altercations are far more visible than the actions of the groper.

I'm sure you are correct.

> Usually,
> the woman just moves away while things are still at the verbal stage, or
> gets rescued by other bystanders if the man (who is usually drunk) makes a
> sudden lurch at her. However, she would be quite right to say that she had
> been harassed, and if the figures you are citing include incidents like
> these (where the abuse was verbal or, while physical, was nipped in the bud)
> then I think we should get that clear.

No, we are talking about "chikan".

> I've also seen situations where, when people are regularly taking the same
> commuter train (especially in the morning), a kind of stalking goes on.

Did you know there is also stalking chikan, the molester who will follow a
particular victim, even if they attempt to escape, or even if they go to
another train, to molest them further? I know a woman who was the victim of
such a man who sought her out on the daily train to molest.

And yes, indeed, I am referring to being felt up in a physical, sexual manner,
not the trouble between a man and woman in a relationship, or the actions of
simply rude or obnoxious passengers, which may be much more visible.

> My
> wife and I noticed some strange behaviour from a young man when she and I
> were travelling together to work some years ago. He would try and place
> himself between us and edge his way closer to her, with his back to me.
> Nothing ever came of it, but if you were to give my wife a questionnaire and
> say was she harassed she would quite likely say yes.

Now ask her if she was assaulted by a "chikan", street smart man.

> Equally likely, though,
> since it happened years ago, she might have forgotten all about it. If your
> statistics for repeated harassment

"Chikan", not sekuhara. Man, not only do I not believe you are street smart,
you seem not to know your dictionary.

> include cases like this (where there was
> an *implied* threat, but no actual abuse, either physical or verbal) then,
> again, I think we should get it clear.

Be clear we are talking about "chikan".

> Then there are those situations where a group of men and women, perhaps
> after a party of co-workers, are travelling home together and one of the men
> steps out of line. there will be a squeal, perhaps, a cry of "yada!", a
> moment of tension. Then it will pass and things will be back to "normal". Do
> your statistics include that kind of altercation?

I do not believe the women reported that as "chikan".

> If, on the other hand, your statistics really are those for women who have
> been groped and humiliated then let's get that clear too.

Yes, I believe that is what reports of "chikan" refer to.

> But we can't
> really discuss the statistics until and unless we know what they represent.
> The only thing I will stick my neck out for is that chikan is not "the norm"
> for Japanese men.

BS. You are sticking your neck out to make every sort of denial imaginable, to
refute victims' reports, or what actually happens to victims of chikan. Why
don't you come straight out and tell us you simply don't believe they were
molested, and not in such large numbers?

> > > So why are you so damned sure that it is normal for people to be groping
> > > unwilling victims on trains?
> >
> > Because it happens so much. Groping people is what chikan are famous for
> doing.
>
> Well, it's what chikan do *by definition*.

So get it.

> But maybe you mean like gaijin
> are famous for going totally apeshit?

Many are. Too many young men in Japan should not be allowed to become drunk.

> I'll bet there's a survey that proves
> 99% of Japanese people have had experience of *that*!

I'm sure there is not, because infants and small children would not be able to
respond so, to give you that 99% of Japanese.

Here you go again, trying to minimize the problem of chikan or questioning what
reports on chikan mean.

> > > Let me assure you, as one who uses them
> > > frequently, that such behaviour is very much the exception. It is not
> the
> > > rule.
> >
> > You mean you just haven't seen it yourself, or don't know enough victims
> who've
> > told you about it.
>
> I think I've given you plenty of examples which make it clear that (a) I use
> the trains (you don't)

Irrelevant. What is going on in Tokyo or nationwide, have nothing to do with
only you and I.

> and (b) I keep my eyes pretty well open

And you still don't know or see how thieves on the trains are known to operate,
such as alone, or in groups larger than two. You have most certainly proven
that.

> (whereas from
> what you say half the time you wouldn't recognise a pickpocketing scam if
> you saw one and it wouldn't surprise me if the same went for a chikan
> operating under your nose).

I am sure I would not notice most chikan. I also know that the problem is much
more serious than what I am able to see.

> As for (c) I've got a lot of firsthand accounts
> to draw on

So do I.

> and probably have a much better idea of what goes on than you do,

No, you don't, because apparently, you don't get news.

> that's really not something I'm prepared to discuss here. As I say, I don't
> want to underestimate this problem,

Bullshit. You don't seem to believe at all. You should dare to say as much.

> but no way am I prepared to let some
> punk get away with saying "for Japanese men chikan is the norm".

He's not a punk, he's a lawyer. And I did not say it.

> > > > In japan, chikan is the rule for men, not the exception. [Ernest
> Schaal]
> >
> > I don't know what it means, and I didn't ask. It could mean that Ernest
> claims
> > Japanese men are chikan as a rule. Huh.
> >
> > > Like I say, believe it if you like -
> >
> > I didn't comment on Ernest's statement.
> >
> > > I really couldn't care less,
> >
> > You care enough to respond to numerous posters on it.
>
> Yeah, I guess you're right. And I'm typing a reply at 4:30 a.m., so you
> *must* be right. OK, my momentary exasperation has passed; please *don't*
> believe it, Eric! A belief in the essential goodness of the human race

A belief in the essential goodness of the human race, as can often be seen in
Japan, where many people think they and society are so peaceful and safe, is
one reason so many Japanese are victimized at home and abroad, when they could
have prevented it so easily, by for example, not carrying or keeping so much
cash unsecured. Japanese (generalization) need to be more street smart. Yes,
more street smart like people in other countries where they have to live with
and deal with more crime and more serious crime.

> should extend to Japanese men as much as to anyone else. Ask the idiot
> politicians whether they'd make the same kinds of statements if it was their
> own wives and daughters who were the victims and I suspect even they would
> waver, if not crumple.
>
> --
> John
> http://rarebooksinjapan.com