Outrage Over Japanese Bhutan King Mockery


Fuji TV has been subjected to yet another wave of rabid right-wing criticism after it dared to air a show containing a parody of Bhutan’s royal family.

The variety show segment in question, which probably neither needs nor deserves any explanation:


This rapidly provoked tens of thousands of mostly outraged posts online, concentrated on that great sump of the Japanese Internet, 2ch. However, as yet there is no response from Bhutan whatsoever.

Although the Japanese media has only a very rudimentary culture of political satire and attitudes towards Japan’s royal family – and by extension those of other nations – still tend to be little more than slavish reverence, the real reason behind the outrage is probably rather more partisan.

Japan’s excessively vocal and Korea-obsessed Internet right is convinced that the Japanese media, and Fuji TV in particular, is deliberately conspiring to artificially create the impression of a “Korea boom,” which they believe is engineered by a an insidious combination of ethnic Koreans, pro-Korean left-wing Japanese in the mass media, and Korean media conglomerates with stakes in Japanese companies.

Their evidence for this ranges from convincing examples of otherwise inexplicable Korea-boosterism to doubtful xenophobic fantasies, but the effects are in no doubt – numerous anti-Fuji TV protests against the station and their sponsors, and even heckling of Fuji TV cameras in public have been seen recently, and there is now an eager crowd of frenzied right-wingers desperate to leap on any perceived misstep.

It is likely this rabid desire to bash a supposed Korean cat’s paw, rather than any actual respect for an insignificant third-world mountain monarch, which drives their outrage to such a shrill pitch:

“Fuji again!”

“This is just shameful!”

“I can’t believe it – to think they would mock the royal family of another nation.”

“Some things you just don’t do, Fuji!”

“How crude can you get.”

“Who cares about this?”

“Fuji TV are just disgusting.”

“Hurry up and start bashing their sponsors again!”

“What’s wrong with this, even if it is Uji TV? [“uji” = “maggot”] If they can’t parody them how can they parody Bush or someone?”

“What’s insulting about it anyway? They are just mimicking him.”

“And the net right goes crazy it…”

“You can’t make fun of a king!”

“Would you people please stop saying you shouldn’t mock royals. Some royals are hated by their people, and unlike Japan’s figurehead monarch, Bhutan’s has real power. People who say criticism of their royals is an insult against their nation are just hypocrites or people looking for an excuse to bash Fuji.”

“Mocking a president is fine, but you can’t make fun of a king! It’s like mocking the Imperial family.”

“Mocking Asian royal families like those of Bhutan or Thailand is no good! Their people all really love them. Although Anglo-Saxons seem to like mocking their royals for some reason.”

“How would the net right react to them mocking the British royal family?”

“It has nothing to do with them, it’s an issue!”

“If they mock the Kims I’ll forgive them this.”

“Apologise, you filthy Korean maggots!”

“This really has nothing to do with Bhutan now, does it?”

“Why would you insult a head of state like this? It’s the same as making fun of a country.”

“So go and protest against The Simpsons, you idiot.”

“Can’t we do something about these right-wing nutters going on about this rubbish?”

“What would the Bhutanese think of this if they saw it?”

    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    23:01 29/12/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Time to mock Japans Imperial Family?

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:41 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)


    Avatar of RoxbiT
    Comment by RoxbiT
    02:28 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (-0.2)

    they mock another country and ruin JAPAN"S IMAGE!

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:35 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    I bet not many Koreans even know any Japanese TV channels. lol They probably don't even know the existance of those variety shows or even the channel itself.

    Comment by Anonymous

    get the fuck out of here Jap or we will bomb your shore again and make more tsunamis where you live
    piss off!

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:17 01/01/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    No, fuck you.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:25 07/01/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    this is too funny.

    Comment by Anonymous

    fuck you koreans ... im gonna bomb your mainland ..

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:36 30/12/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    I feel kinda bad, it's like everyone has forgotten that all people on this earth are equal, I'm no religious person but that's one thing they hit the nail on the head with, Royal? who gives a shit, just because their ancestors did great things to make peace and nations for us all doesn't mean that any current people in "Royal" families are any better a person than us posting in these forums right now. A parody of a royal family should be met with the same response as any parody, if its funny, laugh, if its not, then you can mock it for being so.

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:43 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Monarchy normally come from killing off every that stood in their way of been the supreme ruler, I don't think we should think of them as bringing any kind of peace to anything.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:31 08/01/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    You have no rights to judge people if you don't know about him or her

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:19 24/05/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    This is not judging this is stating the facts.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:26 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    Fuck off commie. Do you seriously believe everyone is equal? Nobody who isn't a nutjob should believe that nonsense.

    And yes, Royalty are better people then you because they are related to people who did world changing things, unlike you, deal with it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:03 30/12/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    World changing? You idiot, the royal families are literally powerless puppets. Their power is ripped off by constitution in modern nations. Their existence is merely a decoration to the nation. How would a decoration ever change the world?

    Comment by Anonymous

    Monarchs have only become the minority in the last half a century, as compared to the entire rest of human history, numbnuts.

    And look how its all turning out.

    And even as powerless figureheads, Royal Families continue to hold more political sway then you. So really, anti-monarchists are just butthurt plebs.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:47 30/12/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Many royal people were incompetent, had no sense of duty but all the sins in the world. They were just born in a place of power, simple as that. No merit at all, so stfu capitalist scum.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:25 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-0.7)

    Most elected Officials were incompetent, had no sense of duty but all the sins in the world. They just bullshitted their place into power, simple as that. No merit at all, so stfu commie.

    Monarchs at least cannot pass blame, and actually suffer from their choices, unlike termporary leaders who leave a shit for someone to clean up as their term ends

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:20 24/05/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    But they did nothing themselves they are just using the fame of their ancestors.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:04 30/12/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    “Mocking a president is fine, but you can’t make fun of a king! It’s like mocking the Imperial family.”


    A Head of State is a Head of State, whether you call them a king, president, whatever. The notion that a king "outranks" another country's Head of State because one is royalty and one is not is absurd.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:48 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    I saw that too. But it's just more ignorance from the Japanese people when it comes to government. It only makes sense considering they won't stand up to people like Ishihara.

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:41 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Well said royalty is a joke when is someone born of one family so special they can't me mocked when they screw up.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:28 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-0.8)

    Why is it absurd?

    A King is a lifetime position, while an elected official generally changes every few years.

    Obviously an elected official is inferior to a King who has a permanent position.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:53 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Inferior how? Yes, a king holds his position over a longer period, but what powers does he have that place him "above" another Head of State? They hold equal rank (as Heads of State). You don't get more points for being a Head of State longer than the other guy. The point I'm trying to make is that a king has no power over another Head of State just because he's royalty. Just because some place (IMO absurd) reverence on royalty because they hold the position permanently doesn't mean they actually hold a special position.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:35 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    Yes, I am quite familiar with the divine right of kings and the concept of the Japanese emperor being divine, since that's the source of all this "outranking" nonsense and (IMO) absurd reverence of royalty.

    The president of the US may have more political power than the president of Zimbabwe, but he still has to treat him as the Head of State of a sovereign state. They both hold the same position as representative of their respective nations.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:24 01/01/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    it's a fossil of judeo-christian tradition actually.

    A monarch (as opposed to a president) is considered the embodiment of his country. Therefore, you cannot personally insult the king, as any offense you give him is considered towards his country. Presidents, on the other hand, are afforded no such privilege.

    Another example of such a difference is that as late as the 19th century, Ambassadors (diplomats of the first class) are only sent to monarchies, whereas Envoys (diplomats of the second class) are sent to Republics, because of this perceived superiority of a monarch over a president. Of course, this is no longer the practice, but it is neither strange nor improper really for people to afford more respect towards a monarch than a president due to tradition.

    Finally, Bhutan is a tiny, weak country as opposed to the USA, mocking the Bhutanese head of state can be seen as an act of bullying, whereas it does not carry that same connotation if you mock Obama.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Traditionally the King was subserviant only to God himself. An elected official being chosen by mere peasants obviously is of inferior capacity.

    As Japanese terms still revere the Emperor as a descendent of the divine, it obviously suits that the mockery of a mortal and the son of god are very different things.

    However even in modern terms no Head of State is equal. The President of the US wouldn't hold himself at the same level as the Grand Poobah of Zimbabwe, at least I would hope not.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:57 29/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    Why do we still have monarchy in democratic society such as Japan and UK. The leader should be the one elected by the majority of the public and not some assholes that feels privileged because they born "to the right people" i live in Australia and i rather our coins have more kangaroos rather the queens ugly mug

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:48 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    *laughing girls* (´∀`) he thinks the leader is actually elected by the majority...

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:25 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    This exactly.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:55 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    What? The emperor is just a figurehead. Prime minister ring any bells?

    Avatar of Momo
    Comment by Momo
    15:09 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    I thought democracy only lets you vote your own dictator?
    Besides your own elected official are relying on "bought" vote and once in office, are they really doing their jobs? Besides not all people are rational enough to pick the "ideal" dictator, most people are silly enough to vote for someone properly stupid, but eloquent in their speech/promises..

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:35 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Democracy lets you vote the best candidate. That some countries the populous is to stupid to vote in their best interest does not make the elected leader a dictator. Since in 4 years they will be gone or 8 at worst.

    Real dictators don't leave and neither do monarchy society. Real monarchy are oppressive society with some freedoms that have been hard won by the populous. Personally France and Russia had the right idea about their monarchy. Of with their heads.

    Avatar of Pyrus
    Comment by Pyrus
    14:38 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Why are some monarchies still in existence in democratic countries? Because however unwillingly it occurred, they changed & adapted to the times they found themselves in & managed more or less to stay on the good side of the people they ruled over enough to keep from being discarded or overthrown.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:21 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    They're cultural icons and living testaments to their country's past, even if they no longer wield true political power. For the most part, the idea of treating them respectfully isn't born out of fear of reprisal, but out of deference and acknowledgement of historical importance.

    Under your concept, Modern Art should be torn apart because you don't approve of it's appearance and functionality, even if it's purpose is to relay a point or visualize an abstract idea.

    Just because you don't appreciate a national concept doesn't mean that it's bad and should be removed in and of itself.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:48 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Art had it's time and people moved on and evolved. Royalty are old fossils that they keep honoring even though they serve no purpose.

    Countries like Japan and the UK are simply outdated. If neither of them can honor and study history without keeping these fossils around, then that doesn't speak well of their dedication to history, does it?

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:26 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well that's what England did, they got rid of their monarchy before. However, immediately after, there was a complete tyrant that ruled in its place. So they brought the monarchy back

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:54 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Regretably in some country (like mine) have very low % of educated people, sure they get to choose whoever they want in democratic society but in reallity many of them were swayed by money and sell their votes (which will be leeched back later). Politicians are corrupted beyond help and Monarchy system can sometime help reduce potential corruption.

    In my opinion it all came down to the leader, if the leader wishes for the best of the people then no matter which system it will still be a lot better than a good system with corrupted leader....

    Comment by KHANblog

    "Why do we still have monarchy in democratic society"

    Because modern republics are essentially elected versions of monarchies. I have nothing agitates, even support a monarchy giving if they were given more useful functions, be more accountable and have more modern features.

    Avatar of TFish
    Comment by TFish
    03:56 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    You really have no true understanding of what a monarchy, or a republic is.

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:39 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nice copy and past but do you understand it? Its easy to do some paying from wiki but do you really understand the differences. No I don't think you do.

    The difference is time. We get rid of our leaders when they suck. That is what a real democracy is. Monarchy can't . As for democracy there are a bunch of country that like to say they are just that but are really military ruled or some hybrid version of democracy. Just calling it self a democracy does not a democracy make.

    Now less Wiki and more actual thinking.

    Comment by KHANblog
    05:58 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    I know what a monarchy and a republic is and the difference between them. I just know more of the complexities and various functions of the two to say what I said. If you gotten to read how differently these two function in various countries you get the point. The only two democratic and modern forms of a republic (based on how widely they are used) are the presidential system and the particularity republic.

    If you choose a presidential system, you essentially have person who is both the head of state and active head of government. The person will also be the active commander in chief of the armed forces. Since the executive is separate from the legislature in a presidential system, the president has free reign to appoint in government whomever they like, conduct policy however they want, and become the dominant player in the system (which is why they call it the presidential system) with little to no accountability (save for specific confirmations or impeachment which is hard to come by). The functions and powers of a president in a presidential system has little difference IN DETAIL to those of an absolute monarchy (absolute monarchies both old and current need and used appointed ministers and some sort of an Assembly). Don't believe me? research the various actions, functions and powers of the presidents under a presidential system and the effects it made and compare them to those of monarchs of an absolute monarchy. The only major difference is that person is elected and is called president.

    If you choose a parliamentary republic, you essentially have an elected version of a constitutional monarchy. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarchy has extremely little to no power at all and is a ceremonial figurehead. While a prime minister elected by the legislature runs the government and country. You can complain about monarchy being just a wasteful and useless relic at this point. Though The Republic campaign in the UK primarily advocates a parliamentary republic using Ireland as their main example. But the same arguments against the British monarchy are made by the Irish against their presidency. There is little point to transition a constitutional monarchy to a Parliamentary republic where the only change is that the person is elected and is called president.

    Which is why I said MODERN republics are essentially elected versions of monarchies. Because even though the person is elected and is called president, you still get the trappings of the monarchy you abolished.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:23 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    Because you only have Democracy through Royal Consent. Ie, the only reason the democratic process exists in Japan and the UK is because the Monarch approves of it.

    And personally I find it much better for a person to be born into a position and hold personal responsibility for his actions that affect a nation rather then some brainless shit who can smoothtalk his way into office and fulfill no promises.

    But you Aussies are the unwanted convicts we evicted anyways so it stands to reason you would be traitorous scoundrels.

    God Save the Queen

    Avatar of jr2nd
    Comment by jr2nd
    10:55 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    it brings money/tourists into the country, helps with other country friendships.

    all good things especially now in this time.

    Avatar of Zanber
    Comment by Zanber
    00:58 30/12/2011 # ! Quality (+0.8)

    So Japanese people care more about TV station than their government issues aka Ishihara

    Comment by Anonymous

    why not ? korean is enemy afterall.. go go jp kill those korean

    Avatar of TFish
    Comment by TFish
    22:55 29/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    Why does anyone actually have respect for royalty?

    Monarchy has got to be one of the stupidest things humans have ever invented. The fact that any still exist is a testament to the ignorance of the people they rule.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:50 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    Exactly, and this explains why the UK is so backwards.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Well, I don't agree. Monarchy is good provided you have a good king. Why? Well, worst case; you have one currupt bastard in charge with quirks that everyone knows....in democracy you have a lot.

    People always act like democracy is the only way.
    Truth is that is is horrendusly ineffective.
    I await a better option.

    Avatar of TFish
    Comment by TFish
    01:51 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    "Well, worst case; you have one currupt bastard in charge with quirks that everyone knows....in democracy you have a lot."

    Yeah that line of thinking is completely, and totally flawed. You've got one guy with complete, and absolute power in charge.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:56 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Each system work efficiently on different situation.

    Democracy aren't always the best system, its just more idealistic you felt that you have freedom to choose whom you felt is a good leader but on the other hand not everyone will choose the right guy some will sell their vote for a little extra money.... what worst is its much harder to assemble a team of good politicians than a single good leader

    Monarchy(absolute) on the other hand can be a big gamble if you happen to get a good Monarch then all is well, if not then tough luck.

    seriously, whats more important than the system is people, people who devoted themselves to country not for personal gain only...

    Avatar of Kiljoy616
    Comment by Kiljoy616
    01:44 31/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    No one need a good king. That is an oxymoron. People need a good leader and staff to deal with problems that arise and when that leader is no good you get a new person.

    All monarchy are stupid and useless. Ignorance alone is what keeps them around and the believe in some higher power crap.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:27 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    My opinion is that there will never be a perfect system... just live with what you have.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:31 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-0.7)

    Democracy is the stupidest thing people ever invented.

    The idea that the best leader is the best liar who can gain popular support is beyond retarded.

    Monarchs at least see the nation as their property, and hence have a determination to improve it as benefitting the nation directly benefits them.

    Compare this to a temporary politician that seeks short term benefits.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:10 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Yeah, your wife is also king's property, so can he fuck your wife?

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:06 30/12/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Actually, kings of the old ages has the right to sleep with the bride on her marriage night. I am against this unless I am the king.

    Comment by Anonymous

    What do you think the word FUCK means?

    Comment by KHANblog

    Have republicanism been a vast improvement to the world given it track record the past 200+ years?

    Avatar of TFish
    Comment by TFish
    01:51 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    You have absolutely no concept of history if you don't think so.

    Avatar of TFish
    Comment by TFish
    04:00 30/12/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    You really don't understand how politics work at all other than what I assume is a paragraphs worth of information you got off of wikipedia regarding which countries are classified as a republic, and which are classified as monarchy.

    The fact that anyone would agree that letting people remain in control of a government simply because they were born is a testament to your ignorance.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Then you don't have the concept of what improvement means at all. I do have the concept of history to know that a republic is NOT the only or even major factor in human improvement. It is individual policies and ideologies/philosophies seldom or not even related to republicanism. It can said that republicanism, at least in certain countries, can do more harm than good.

    Before you deride me, Drop your stereotypes of what you THINK monarchy is and know that all monarchies function differently. They don't have the same type of origin and people have different opinions on it. You know there is such a thing as constitutional monarchy which is different from a traditional/absolute monarchy don't you? Their can be an alternative to the two as well.

    To say that republics are the drivers of human improvement and monarchies are a hindrance of it is to say that third world republics are more "modern" than first world constitutional monarchies like Scandinavia or Japan simply because of the monarchy vs republic dichotomy.

    Can you please explain further on your opposition to monarchies TODAY on how they function without taking in to consideration WHY the still exist in the respective countries in the first place. Because really, this issue is more complicated than a simple textbook reference.

    Comment by KHANblog
    06:11 30/12/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    Then you apparently don't know history or politics cause you should know that whatever is the certain attribute of a government is a product of the times and its circumstances. This is due to the consequence that the definitions, theories and arguments of monarchies and republics have been so diverse and changing.

    Monarchy originally meant as a state and/or territory is run by of a single person or family. This makes the idea of a constitutional monarchy in the modern sense contradictory. Even then, some classical republicans during the enlightenment and some now classify a constitutional monarchy as a type of republic.

    Conversely, earlier republics did not put any emphasis on a head of state. More importantly, not on a single head of state/executive for it would be too reminiscent of a monarchy (in the earlier sense). The creation of the presidential system and parliamentary republics are basically a slap in the face of earlier republican intents. There are those who say that a republic shouldn't be democratic or at least purely democratic.

    Like a said, this issue is more complicated ans complex than a simple textbook reference.

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments