Last December, a political speech from Japan went viral, and once again the world was reminded that they do things differently. The video showed Mizuho Umemura, a House of Councillors member from the populist Sanseito party, objecting to calls from Muslim residents that their burial options be expanded. Japan cremates its dead, and the prospect of burying dead bodies raises concerns over land constraints and groundwater contamination. Umemura said that Muslims settling in Japan should be told that if they die they can either be cremated or have their remains repatriated at their own expense. The lawmaker argued that Japan's cultural practices shouldn’t be altered to meet external demands, emphasizing that Japan has maintained its national identity by adhering to its traditions.
That's the kind of blunt language that gets the Western media labeling a politician “far right”—in other words, summarily dismissible. Umemura made her point without tact, but that shouldn't bury her message. Muslim immigrants in any nation are going to make demands that make the citizens uncomfortable. Then, the people have to decide if they want to appear to be nice and welcoming to the rigid ideology of Islam or whether Muslims should adjust to the culture they've voluntarily moved to. This choice is closely tied to a nation's history. Japan, for its own historical reasons, favors the latter approach. It's never been a nation that welcomes foreigners as residents.
If the choice is, however, to make concessions to a new culture, then the citizens must be prepared for extreme demands that might test the tolerance level of open-border progressives. When Douglas Murray made a TV appearance with Muslim journalist Layla Maghribi in Doha several years ago, the British author and political commentator restated his belief that Great Britain has no obligation to reshape its culture in order to make Muslim immigrants feel more comfortable. She responded, “But you're not asking people with other traditions whether they care about the sight of other people drinking alcohol.”
Maghribi called this a “Western-centric viewpoint,” as if every Muslim nation weren't Muslim-centric. Murray told her she was barking up the wrong tree if she thought Brits were going to modify their drinking culture to appease new arrivals in their nation.
It's hard to overstate the arrogance and sense of entitlement it takes to suggest non-Muslim nations surrender a key element of their culture just so Muslims don't feel uncomfortable. Muslim nations don't make such concessions. There's a host of Western practices—equal treatment of women, free speech, love of dogs and music, tolerance of gays, etc.—that make Muslims uncomfortable, so the Brits should pay attention to people like Maghribi when they’re explicit about how far they'd like Westerners to appease them. Especially in Europe, such demands will only grow louder as the Muslim population grows. Anyone brave enough to resist must be resigned to being called “far right” and “Islamophobic.”
European nations such as France and England have permitted massive Muslim immigration without understanding some of the core aspects of the religion when it's exported to the West. As a result, France suffered the Charlie Hebdo murders and a coordinated set of terrorist attacks in 2015 in Paris that killed 130 people and injured hundreds. The UK suffered a coordinated set of suicide bombings on public transportation in 2005 (52 people were killed, roughly 700 were injured) and the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack that killed 22 people and injured over 1000.
Such attacks leave psychic scars on a nation. So what would any sensible nation like Japan do to ensure it won't have collective trauma? The answer is to avoid the European mistake of not keeping tight control over Muslim immigration. As Japan has no historical/colonial ties with Muslim nations, as do France and the UK, the task is simplified. While the empty pro-mass-immigration slogan—”Our diversity is our strength”—is a favorite among DEI-loving Western liberals, it's never caught on in Japan.
Progressives have allowed leftist philosophers to talk them into feeling shame about Western culture, but this “original sin” guilt hasn’t taken root in Japan, which has its own views on immigration. Whereas Western nations have embraced immigration out of liberal democratic ideals, economic expansion, or humanitarian commitments, the island nation has emphasized social cohesion, low crime and cultural continuity. Rapid demographic change doesn't dovetail with those priorities, nor do the Japanese see it as compatible as a civilization resting on a shared ancestry, language, culture and social mores. The common Japanese phrase that translates into “single ethnic nation” (also a favorite white nationalists) is at the center of Japan’s identity. Unlike the U.S., a nation built on immigration, Japan doesn't celebrate its immigrants. There's too much fear that they could alter the cultural and ethnic character.
Japan doesn’t conform with the Western approach of viewing immigration as a humanitarian imperative or a means to achieve the virtuous goal of diversity. Instead, its approach is utilitarian, driven by an urgent need to address a shrinking labor force while preserving cultural and racial homogeneity. So far, Japan has allowed 420,000 Muslims into the nation—.03 percent of the total population.
Several viral claims—such as "Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims," "propagation of Islam is banned," and "Muslims cannot rent a house"—are untrue. What Japan does to keep a handle on the situation, however, is to keep its immigration laws stringent and selective. While foreign workers from Muslim-majority countries are increasing, foreign residents, regardless of religion, face hurdles for permanent residency or citizenship, placing them in long-term, temporary "limbo.” This has brought criticism from the outside, but Japan isn’t concerned. It's estimated that 400 individuals who travelled to the Middle East to fight for or support the Islamic State (ISIS) have returned to the United Kingdom. A similar travesty won't be repeated in Japan.
Japan's immigration policies are superior to Europe's because they value the survival and cohesion of a high-trust, high-functioning civilization over suicidal virtue-signaling and demographic disruption. Europe has opened its borders to millions from incompatible cultures, thus importing crime, grooming gangs in the UK, routine street riots in France and Sweden, welfare dependency, and the rapid erosion of Enlightenment values. Japan has stubbornly refused to deviate from its core ideals. There's no Islamist terrorism, crime rates remain low, and the nation retains a key cultural element Europe has lost—a shared national identity that fends off the constant multicultural friction and political tribalism tearing Europe apart.
Europe waited too long to address its immigration policies, and now it's too late. Liberalism is often blind to threats from the outside. Japan isn’t.