By Sloane Hardin
Executive Summary
The Great East-Japan Disaster in 2011 forced many Japanese citizens to analyze weaknesses in their country’s National Disaster Response Plans. From this analysis, they recognized that the LGBT+ community was omitted from the plans, leading to marginalization and discrimination post-disaster. This is a global issue that stems from a lack of data on the impacts of disasters on queer communities, but also from a heavy cultural stigma within Japan that encourages many policymakers to avoid the topic. This paper outlines a policy option for the Japanese government to pursue — qualitative post-disaster needs-assessments that focus exclusively on queer citizens.
History of Disaster Response Plans and the Impact on the LGBT+ Community
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) citizens in Japan are repeatedly marginalized during natural disasters despite Japan’s place as a global leader on disaster management. Little research has been published on LGBT+ discrimination in Japan during natural disasters, and activist groups are focused on more immediate rights for the queer community, such as marriage equality and employment protections. With arguably the best National Disaster Response Plans (NDRPs) in the world, one would not expect Japanese NDRPs to exclude some minority groups.
Since the 1960s, Japan has worked annually to strengthen their NDRP. However, on March 11th, 2011, the Higashinihon Dai-Shinsai (Great East-Japan Disaster) overwhelmed the Japanese NDRP with a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, violent aftershocks, and tsunamis. Over 19,000 people died, with more than 8,000 additional people missing or injured.[i] The disaster devastated livelihoods and sparked a new conversation about Japan’s NDRP and who it excluded.
While Japan advanced their disaster response and resilience to be among the best in the world, the lack of explicit measures in their NDRP to assist the LGBT+ community allows for personal and structural forms of discrimination to affect the quality of post-disaster aid. For example, inability to access appropriate gendered resources due to inaccurate gender indicators on government-issued IDs, as well as response workers’ own prejudices impact transgender people from getting the quality care awarded to their cisgender peers. Likewise, since same-sex marriage has yet to be legalized on a national level, same-sex couples struggle to locate one another in the post-disaster chaos, and they cannot access their partner’s information, such as their vital status or location, since they are not listed as family.[ii] This means queer couples in long-term, committed relationships are not required to be informed if their partner died during the disaster, unlike married couples.[iii] Furthermore, inadequate response measures impact couples’ ability to live together post-disaster since several shelters and public housing facilities operate on heteronormative definitions of family and couple.[iv] These complications exacerbate vulnerabilities faced by LGBT+ citizens and can lead to additional trauma from the disaster.
With queerness heavily stigmatized in Japanese society, a majority of LGBT+ people choose not to disclose their sexuality or gender identity to their friends or family.[v] Disasters can force individuals to come out despite the possibility of hostility from their community, or they may have to hide their identities during the recovery process, which can worsen the trauma of the disaster. In a 2012 essay, Yamashita recounts two transgender women’s experiences of marginalization. One woman refused to shower at a public shelter due to privacy issues, and a volunteer degraded the other woman, calling her slurs.[vi] This additional level of social stress impacts whether LGBT+ individuals seek out resources, such as public housing or post-disaster counseling,[vii] and underscores the personal and systemic issues in disaster response.
The lack of action stems largely from a lack of study. Within the scholarly literature, only four widely-cited papers analyze the impacts of natural disasters on queer citizens in Japan. Azusa Yamashita, a queer advocate in Japan, authors two of the papers, one of which is an expansion on her initial 2012 essay. Meanwhile, Dale Dominey-Howes, Andrew Gorman-Murray, and Scott McKinnon wrote two papers that discuss global trends regarding queer people and disasters, referencing Yamashita’s works in their analysis. Their paper identified that the specific needs of the queer community frequently go unaddressed in disaster response policy due to an absence of post-disaster data from a gender and sexuality perspective.[viii] Likewise, most NGOs and national advocacy groups have practically neglected the topic of disaster relief equity, prioritizing other issues of LGBT+ discrimination and stigmatization in Japanese society. However, the lack of inclusive resources available to the LGBT+ community and the lack of qualitative data on queer disaster experiences remain major obstacles to developing and executing an effective and equitable NDRP in Japan.
Incongruence Between Frameworks in LGBT+ Protections and Current Policy In Japan
After the Higashinihon Dai-Shinsai, Yamashita established the Iwate Rainbow Network, designed to advocate for and research ways to improve disaster management for LGBT+ citizens. In 2016, the Iwate Rainbow Network released the Rainbow Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Guide which lays out a framework for individuals, advocates, and governments to follow to best preserve the dignity of all people. Although the guide has existed for five years, no progress has been made on the issues presente
Cultural values and social stigmas are marked obstacles to incorporating LGBT+ inclusion into Japanese NDRPs. The stigma surrounding the queer community is so intense that, in 2015, a student at Hitotsubashi University committed suicide after his crush told his friends he was gay.[ix] Furthermore, several politicians have pushed the blame for low birth rates in Japan onto the LGBT+ community. For examples, in October 2020, Tokyo assemblyman Masateru Shirashi insisted that heteronormative, child-bearing families should be the only accepted norm.[x]While the Diet (also referred to as the National Assembly) passed an LGBT+ understanding bill in 2019, it was heavily criticized for being inadequate.[xi] Lacking a central, coordinating body, individual sectors have made “piecemeal” efforts to address LGBT+ discrimination.[xii]
This stigma in Japan is noteworthy considering the country has increasingly taken lead in the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC), which has strongly supported LGBT+ rights over the last decade. However, Japan has not promoted those same values domestically.[xiii] In 2011, HRC adopted the resolution “Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity,”[xiv] based on the 2007 Yogyakarta Principles.[xv] Moreover, in 2015, HRC published the “Final research-based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations,”[xvi] which specifically addresses the issue of stigmatization and discrimination of LGBT+ people in disaster response plans globally. Furthermore, the lack of action by Japan undermines its commitments in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 for “integrated and inclusive…measures.” [xvii] It also demonstrates a lack of progress on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).[xviii]
In 2018, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) published a report on inclusion of queer citizens in NDRPs in the Pacific region, “Pride in the Humanitarian System Bangok 4-7 June Consultation Report.”[xix] This report addresses the need for direct input from the impacted people and lays out detailed recommendations based on a variety of case studies. A similar report from 2017, “Integrating Gender into Humanitarian Action: Good Practices from Asia-Pacific 6,” suggests utilizing post-disaster needs assessments and taking qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, notes on the experiences of LGBT+ individuals.[xx]
Although marriage inequality and employment rights are already national grievances, when disasters strike, the full impact of inequality in Japan is revealed. The implications of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law regarding public housing, marriage, and other issues could fundamentally change how Japan’s NDRPs are executed. However, with the intense social stigma that surrounds the LGBT+ community, Japan likely will not see that legislation pass soon. Additional data on the harmful experiences of queer citizens during disaster response could address these problems now while political change lags behind expectations.
Policy Recommendation
The lack of data on queer citizens’ experiences in natural disasters harms these individuals and their families, undermines Japan’s international commitments to human rights, and leaves major gaps in the country’s disaster risk management. Unfortunately, social stigma cannot be changed by public policy, but the systemic issues can be addressed. The integration of LGBT+ data into Japanese NDRPs is the strongest, most realistic solution available to ensure that the needs of this community are considered and provided for in disaster situations.
The lack of inclusive data poses the largest roadblock to effectively including LGBT+ citizens in Japanese disaster response plans. As such, the government of Japan must take a more active stance on the matter by collecting qualitative data from their queer citizens. Collecting data and building off the 2017 UN report “Good Practices from Asia-Pacific 6” would be the strongest and most sustainable way to ensure Japanese LGBT+ citizens’ inclusion in NDRPs.
The strongest policy option available to the Japanese government is to conduct regularly scheduled post-disaster needs assessments that focus on qualitative data as opposed to quantitative data. While quantitative data is great for large-scale analysis, with such little data and so few openly queer citizens, the focus of the needs assessments must be on the qualitative experiences of those willing to speak to such issues. Following the widely adopted and modified relief-to-development continuum, these assessments should be performed weekly in the response phase of the disaster to record the immediate obstacles faced by queer citizens, such as the inability to locate partners. During the recovery phase, biweekly assessments should be used to identify what resources these citizens lack access to, like housing. Finally, in the development phase, monthly assessments should be conducted to ensure equal treatment before the law when reestablishing livelihoods. Testimonials should be examined on a rolling basis, and NDRP policies should be ever-changing with the introduction of new data. With this, the Japanese government can better focus on the specific experiences of their queer citizens, address the aspects of the NDRP that fail to meet their needs in the recovery process, and enact changes in current policies during the pre-disaster phase of the continuum.
This policy only requires an expansion of current disaster response measures, which is why this is the preferred policy recommendation. It formally incorporates queer citizens into the Japanese NDRP and allows for the government to combat the low levels of data collected on LGBT+ post-disaster needs. Additionally, by focusing on the qualitative aspects of NDRPs, the Japanese government will be able to identify the region-specific needs that would be best handled by local authorities versus the national trends that would be best managed by the Disaster Management Bureau or the Diet.
An important limitation to this policy is that the needs-assessments cannot be conducted solely in government-sponsored relief centers since evidence shows that these tend to silence the LGBT+ community due to fears of stigmatization, violence, and interpersonal discrimination. Across the globe, needs assessments struggle to acquire enough data on the queer community to create a significant change in policies, and this trend should not expect to differ in Japan. The Japanese government, which has not broached the subject of national discrimination laws for the LGBT+ community, may struggle to identify facilities outside of the government-sponsored locations as well as people who would be willing to openly discuss the issues they have faced as a queer person. While this policy could encounter limitations due to social stigma surrounding the LGBT+ community in Japan, the cons to this policy are easily overcome through partnerships or larger systemic changes.
Conclusion
The Higashinihon Dai-Shinsai highlighted the inequality queer, Japanese citizens face by demonstrating the impact of the lack of inclusive measures in the country’s NDRPs. From an inability to locate missing partners due to not having marital status to direct verbal abuse from volunteers in government-sponsored shelters, the absence of protections and accommodations wreaked havoc and exacerbated trauma in LGBT+ communities and families. Not only do these issues cause domestic problems, but they also fail to honor international commitments, like the Sendai Framework or HRC resolutions, which are sponsored by Japan.
Despite reports from international human rights agencies like Amnesty International, the general lack of data on adverse effects of disasters on the LGBT+ community in Japan perpetuates the issues. Only four widely-cited papers analyze the impacts of disasters on queer citizens in Japan, and they are all co-authored by a small group of people. Furthermore, the culture of Japanese politics combined with the stigma associated with being queer allows for discrimination to continue. Combined, these create a guise for policymakers to hide behind instead of addressing the reality of the situation, acting upon it on a national level, and fulfilling their international commitments.
The policy outlined in this paper serves to combat the lack of data to provide support for the LGBT+ community. Gathering data on the failures of NDRPs for queer citizens specifically would allow the government to further solidify Japan’s spot as the global leader in disaster risk reduction for a marginal amount of effort. This is the most effective option for the Japanese government to incorporate protections for LGBT+ citizens given the constraints of political and social stigmas in the country.
Endnotes
[i] Azusa Yamashita, Christopher Gomez, and Kelly Dombroski, “Segregation, Exclusion and LGBT People In Disaster Impacted Areas: Experiences From the Higashinihon Dai-Shinsai (Great East-Japan Disaster),” Gender, Place & Culture 24, no. 1 (2017): 66, https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1276887.
[ii] Amnesty International, “Human Rights Laws and Discrimination Against LGBT People In Japan,” Amnesty International, (Amnesty International, LTD. 2017) 22, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA2259552017ENGLISH.PDF.
[iii] Yamashita, Gomez, and Dombroski, “Segregation, Exclusion and LGBT People,”69.
[iv] Andrew Gorman-Murray, Scott McKinnon, and Dale Dominey-Howes, “Queer Domicide,” Home Cultures 11, no. 2 (2014): 251, https://doi.org/10.2752/175174214X13891916944751.
[v] Yamashita, Gomez, and Dombroski, “Segregation, Exclusion and LGBT People,” 68.
[vi] Azusa Yamashita, “Beyond Invisibility: Great East Japan Disaster and LGBT in Northeast Japan,” Focus, no. 69 (2012): 7, https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section1/pdf/Focus69L.pdf.
[vii] Yamashita, “Beyond Invisibility,” 8.
[viii] Dale Dominey-Howes, Andrew Gorman-Murray, and Scott McKinnon, “Queering Disasters: On the Need to Account for LGBTI Experiences in Natural Disaster Contexts.” Gender, Place & Culture 2, no. 7 (2013): 915. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.802673.
[ix] Takumi Toguchi, “Alarm Bells Sound Over “Outings” In Japan’s LGBT Community,” Kyodo News, April 12, 2019, https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/04/677717754ff7-focus-alarm-bells-sound-over-outings-in-japans-lgbt-community.html.
[x] “Tokyo Politician Under Fire After Blaming LGBT Community for Falling Birth Rate,” Japan Times, October 06, 2020, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/06/national/masateru-shiraishi-adachi-tokyo-lgbt-discrimination/.
[xi] Rik Glauert, “Japan’s Ruling Party Reveals Draft ‘LGBT Understanding’ Bill.” Gay Star News, June 26, 2019, https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/japans-ruling-party-reveals-draft-lgbt-understanding-bill/.
[xii] “Japan’s Anti-Outing Efforts Falling Short, LGBT Advocates Say,” Kyodo News, September 06, 2020, https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/09/c02dd067cb03-japans-anti-outing-efforts-falling-short-lgbt-advocates-say.html.
[xiii] “Japan: Introduce LGBT Non-Discrimination Law.” Human Rights Watch, May 15, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/15/japan-introduce-lgbt-non-discrimination-law.
[xiv] Human Rights Council resolution 19/41, Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, A/HRC/19/41 (17 November 2011), available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/19/41.
[xv] “Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the Applications of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” Yogyakarta Principles, March 26, 2007, http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf.
[xvi] Human Rights Council resolution 28/76, Final research-based report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on best practices and main challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster and post-conflict situations, A/HRC/28/76 (10 February 2015), available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/28/76.
[xvii] General Assembly resolution 69/283, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, A/RES/69/283 (3 June 2015), available from undocs.org/en/A/RES/69/.
[xviii] General Assembly resolution 70/1, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1 (21 October 2015), available from undocs.org/en/A/RES/70/1.
[xix] Devikara Prim Devakula, Elisabeth Dotter, Emily Dwyer, and Maria Holtsberg, “Asia And The Pacific Consultation Report: Pride In The Humanitarian System. Australian Aid,” (Bangkok, Thailand, 2018), https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Office%20ESEAsia/Docs/Publications/2018/12/Consultation-Report_Pride-in-the-Humanitarian-System_All-Annexes-compressed.pdf.
[xx] IASC Regional Network Working Group on Gender in Humanitarian Action in Asia-Pacific, co-chaired by UN Women, UN OCHA, and ADPC, “Integrating Gender into Humanitarian Action: Good Practices from Asia and the Pacific 6,” (Bangkok, Thailand, 2018), https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Office%20ESEAsia/Docs/PublicatioPu/2018/12/Consultation-Report_Pride-in-the-Humanitarian-System_All-Annexes-compressed.pdf.
Leave a Reply