Talk:Enforced prostitution in Western Borneo during Japanese Occupation

Source
The documents at the Tokyo Trials were mimeographed. In the Netherlands alone there are three libraries with full sets: NIOD, Groningen University and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I expect that more sets can be found in other Allied countries and Japan.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
I hope I used the right template. Under Dutch law - and I guess elsewhere too - there is no copyright on court documents if they are made public. Probably because they ought not to be creative. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Conformity
I have meticulously copied the original. The references to the exhibit number are the only parts not mimeographed; they are partially stamped and hand-written on the original. It was of course not possible to preserve the original formatting, but all of the text is presented in the original order. See 'Why placeholders' for the only exception. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why placeholders for some names
Dutch privacy regulations prohibit official bodies to publish the names of victims, suspects, convicts or witnesses as long as they are still alive. NIOD therefore cannot allow me to publish some names based on their documents, unless I prove these people died. This has nothing to do with copyright: anyone with access to another copy of this document in a less restrictive jurisdiction can fill in the placeholders. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be done
Apart from some improvement in the formatting, I want to create some links to Wikipedia, to provide more context. And of course a link the other way around. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To really provide some context, I ended up creating a Commentary subpage. All links to Wikipedia are on that page. The document itself only contains links to the commentary subpage. For the moment I consider my job completed, but of course in Wikiworld a job is never completed.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 22:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
The reason for this contribution can be found in discussion on Wikipedia. The women from many of the countries involved were illiterate, just after World War II their countries were becoming independent and most of the Japanese documents were purposely destroyed at the end of the war. The Dutch made up less than 0,5% of the population of Indonesia at the time, and Indonesia was only one of the countries occupied by Japan. So in numbers the Dutch part of the suffering was very limited, but it is well documented. It corroborates the testimonies of victims elsewhere and cannot be refuted by some who like to rewrite history. The English language documents on this subject I can find, I will put on Wikisource. This is, by the way, one of the very few Dutch documents dealing with Chinese and Indonesian women. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 00:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by 218.41.156.248
I have moved the following statement by here as I am unsure how much of it is uncontentious; it assumes to know the prosecutors motives. John Vandenberg 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this document was not adopted as an evidence by prosecutors, because it was not enough to prove Japanese Army's order but an accidental abuse of women by soldiers. This kind of incidents were judged by Dutch court in 1948, too. In any case, Japanese Army prohibited violent treatment of women by official rules, so these cases were not the Army's organized crime but personal abuses. That was the judgement of the Tokyo Tribunal and the Dutch court.

The first sentence of this remark is contradicted by the fact that the document does not only bear a document number, but also an exhibit number. There probably was a problem with linking this incident directly to one of the persons on trial in Tokyo, so it served only to show an example of the atrocities committed by the Japanese military in general. The other case is quite different, is mistaken on that one too, but that is not relevant for this document. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; talk2me 12:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspected as much; thanks for clarifying. John Vandenberg 12:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)