By Lee Kyung-min
A district court ordered Park Yu-ha, 59, the writer of the controversial book "Comfort Women of the Empire," to pay 90 million won ($74,000) in compensation to nine survivors of sexual slavery under the Japanese occupation, Wednesday.
The Seoul Eastern District Court ruled in favor of the nine victims, recognizing that Park's book published in 2013 inflicted emotional distress on them.
The nine, including Lee Ok-seon, 87, filed a suit last year against Park seeking 270 million won — 3 million won each — claiming that they were subject to emotional suffering due to her degrading depiction of them as "voluntary prostitutes," as well as characterizing the relationship between some of the former sex slaves and Japanese soldiers as "comrade-like."
The court recognized that Park defamed the victims by depicting them in a degrading manner with false facts.
"Park indicated in her book that the victims not only voluntarily become prostitutes, but added that they actually enjoyed it, thereby incurring enormous emotional distress," the court said.
The court said that the facts regarding the victims' plight during wartime atrocities are well established by a number of U.N. reports and academic journals as well as Japan's 1993 landmark Kono Statement.
It said many of their conclusions reached the consensus that the victims suffered deplorable conditions with their human rights irrevocably violated.
The court dismissed Park's claim that her work as an academic piece should be immune from criminal prosecution.
"Considering the fact that the victims are still alive, her right to academic freedom does not supersede that of the victims' basic right to dignity," the court added.
Earlier, Park said that she had no intention to degrade the women involved, and that she was unfairly accused of being a sympathizer of Japanese wartime atrocities.
"The use of the phrase that was the subject of contention at the trial was intended to position them in a larger context of history. Readers are entitled to make their own judgments, but my intention was to introduce an alternative to the socially dominant view," she said.
The same court in February ordered the publisher to revise 38 such sections which it recognized as defamatory against the women. The newer version of the book was published with such revisions in place.
Separately, the nine victims filed criminal defamation charges against Park. The first hearing will begin at the Seoul Eastern District Court on Jan. 20.
The Japanese literature professor at Sejong University in Seoul has been taking constant public criticism over the book, in which she claimed that there was no evidence to show the Japanese military was involved in the recruitment of women for forced sexual slavery — the same claim made by the Japanese government.
She also wrote that many Koreans collaborating with the Japanese government lured the women into sexual slavery.
Park said that her view, regarded as unconventional or outrageous here, was to suggest a more comprehensive or alternative approach toward resolving the comfort women issue, which remains a symbol of irreconcilable strife between the two countries.
Former sex slaves and civic groups said that Park has helped the Japanese government exempt itself from responsibility for the atrocity.
Mixed responses
Earlier last month, 190 scholars and cultural pundits here issued a statement denouncing the indictment and the district court ruling, calling them an "anachronistic move" against the principles of democracy.
"Freedom of study and the press are severely restricted due to the judiciary measure," they said in the statement.
But 380 scholars and activists from Korea, Japan and the U.S. criticized Park for aiding the Japanese government in dodging its culpability. They said that academic discussions regarding the comfort women issue should be dealt with delicately, keeping in mind the fact that some survivors are still alive.
Nine scholars and activists said the prosecution indictment to hold a scholar criminally accountable for her academic work was improper.
They also noted that Park made claims without proper legal understanding or supporting facts, saying considering the sensitivity and gravity of the issue, such a provocative viewpoint requires a painstaking process before being presented to the public.
 |
| Park Yu-ha |
The Seoul Eastern District Court ruled in favor of the nine victims, recognizing that Park's book published in 2013 inflicted emotional distress on them.
The nine, including Lee Ok-seon, 87, filed a suit last year against Park seeking 270 million won — 3 million won each — claiming that they were subject to emotional suffering due to her degrading depiction of them as "voluntary prostitutes," as well as characterizing the relationship between some of the former sex slaves and Japanese soldiers as "comrade-like."
The court recognized that Park defamed the victims by depicting them in a degrading manner with false facts.
"Park indicated in her book that the victims not only voluntarily become prostitutes, but added that they actually enjoyed it, thereby incurring enormous emotional distress," the court said.
The court said that the facts regarding the victims' plight during wartime atrocities are well established by a number of U.N. reports and academic journals as well as Japan's 1993 landmark Kono Statement.
It said many of their conclusions reached the consensus that the victims suffered deplorable conditions with their human rights irrevocably violated.
The court dismissed Park's claim that her work as an academic piece should be immune from criminal prosecution.
"Considering the fact that the victims are still alive, her right to academic freedom does not supersede that of the victims' basic right to dignity," the court added.
Earlier, Park said that she had no intention to degrade the women involved, and that she was unfairly accused of being a sympathizer of Japanese wartime atrocities.
"The use of the phrase that was the subject of contention at the trial was intended to position them in a larger context of history. Readers are entitled to make their own judgments, but my intention was to introduce an alternative to the socially dominant view," she said.
The same court in February ordered the publisher to revise 38 such sections which it recognized as defamatory against the women. The newer version of the book was published with such revisions in place.
Separately, the nine victims filed criminal defamation charges against Park. The first hearing will begin at the Seoul Eastern District Court on Jan. 20.
The Japanese literature professor at Sejong University in Seoul has been taking constant public criticism over the book, in which she claimed that there was no evidence to show the Japanese military was involved in the recruitment of women for forced sexual slavery — the same claim made by the Japanese government.
She also wrote that many Koreans collaborating with the Japanese government lured the women into sexual slavery.
Park said that her view, regarded as unconventional or outrageous here, was to suggest a more comprehensive or alternative approach toward resolving the comfort women issue, which remains a symbol of irreconcilable strife between the two countries.
Former sex slaves and civic groups said that Park has helped the Japanese government exempt itself from responsibility for the atrocity.
Mixed responses
Earlier last month, 190 scholars and cultural pundits here issued a statement denouncing the indictment and the district court ruling, calling them an "anachronistic move" against the principles of democracy.
"Freedom of study and the press are severely restricted due to the judiciary measure," they said in the statement.
But 380 scholars and activists from Korea, Japan and the U.S. criticized Park for aiding the Japanese government in dodging its culpability. They said that academic discussions regarding the comfort women issue should be dealt with delicately, keeping in mind the fact that some survivors are still alive.
Nine scholars and activists said the prosecution indictment to hold a scholar criminally accountable for her academic work was improper.
They also noted that Park made claims without proper legal understanding or supporting facts, saying considering the sensitivity and gravity of the issue, such a provocative viewpoint requires a painstaking process before being presented to the public.
