Response to a comment on Savoie case

I've been commenting here and there on the Savoie case in Japan, where the father is now in jail under suspicion of having abducted his own children. I hadn't seen it as useful to comment here because there were so many other people commenting about it, it seemed superfluous. But I've gotten some specific questions from someone, so here are my answers for those who have an interest.

I saw your posting on Community in Japan...for a guy into philosophy I am surprised at your post....

Hm. So if I'm into philosophy, I should know better. Okay. That's cute.

... of course the Savoie case is beneficial to all. It has clearly brought to light Japans backwards Family Law System and inequity in "justice" But it is a difficult situation with Chris Savoie. We are stuck on this one. It has the most media coverage to date, but has issues. And all divorces have issues. There is no pretty divorce.

"There is no pretty divorce." I would have thought the same. But actually reading this at mutant frog changed my mind. I guess just like most of us aren't murderers or thieves, most divorces aren't so bad. Perhaps we need the law most when things break down ...

Here's the deal... None of us has any desire to condemn a fellow American who is facing the same level of hopeless desperation, as each one of us have faced since the first day we understood the reality of the Japanese policy on this issue. But Chris was intending to break the law in Japan, and was intending to do something that would be against the law here in the US. Abduction or re-abduction is wrong.

Okay, you're straddling the fence here between what's moral and what's legal. Think about it. That's basically what the whole book_A Time to Kill_ is about, right?

If I had to decide about the morality in this case, that is who should be with the children and how much, I tremble because it's a vast murky swamp.

However my main point is this. The mother of the children had entered into very detailed legal proceedings in America. In the context of these proceedings she undoubtedly agreed to many very specific things, probably under oath. To the degree that no one coerced or physically *forced* her to make these commitments she should be obligated to fulfill them. Despite that, the state of Japan is actually *protecting* her from having to fulfill these agreements. Why is that appropriate?

The father's actions are legally questionable to say the least. However, they do serve to highlight that the state of Japan is protecting the mother from fulfilling her own agreements. His actions highlight what I stated above. In a lawless situation, people behave unlawfully.

Put this in your philosphy-check machine...If we are to take a principled and objective stand against Japan on our issue, we cant be seen to CONDONE what Chris did.

I'm not necessarily into this *we* thing unless you can define it more specifically. I have mixed feelings about what Chris did. Ultimately, I don't know him, his children, his ex-wife, his new wife, nor all their combined life experiences. So I can't really condone or condemn him. I can merely point out that if there was a legal way to pursue this issue, people would be less inclined to do stupid or desperate things. His actions certainly highlight that.

We totally understand his feelings and empathize with him entirely. My heart goes out to him entirely. This thing has to end up focused on how far out of sync Japan is with the rest of the major industrialized societies of our world on social justice, family law, children and human rights, and a whole host of other facets. AND NOT focused on us allowing Chris a free pass to break the law, even though we would like to give him one. We cant have it both ways. Its a bitter pill, but we all must take it.

I'm not at all sure he broke the law. I guess if he physically harmed his ex-wife, then that's a serious issue. However, I'm not even clear on if he was divorced in Japan. If you're at the playground and your children refuse to come home, so finally, you pick them up and carry them to the car, are you "abducting" them from the playground? What if you wife wants them to play some more? How terribly confusing.

Who knows what's really correctly legal here? That's just the problem. Japan doesn't have any structure in place for dealing with this problem.