This article, concerned with the whole congressional theme "Law and Emotion", has three reference points. First, repressed emotion. Second, the language of emotion as counterfeited emotion. Third, the method of hearing multilateral voices spoken by different people. In my view, those reference points are developed into the notion of children's rights and rights of relationships. I also want to mention the relevance of child abuse applied to that notion.
According to the reports about child abuse issued by Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the number of child abuse has been steeply increasing in recent years. Logically, its implication might have two meanings. In fact the cases have increased, or the cases are the tip of the iceberg though people become careful of child abuse. In any case, the problem of child abuse, including emotional abuse, is very critical. So we have a legal protecting system of children suffering various abuses.
It seems that the protection against child abuse is often based on children's rights. Actually, I truly think rights of children remedy many sufferings of children by abusive conducts. But in "rights talk", I would like to call it language of rights, there are multifaceted counterfeited emotions. Rights of protection are controversial, because the degree to which children have to be protected from abuse, and how to protect children is not definite. Rights of autonomy are contentious as well. That notion might become tamed autonomy. Otherwise its implication has a threat driven into neglect.
In order to avoid the situation that rights talk or language of rights has overgrown, multilateral voices spoken by different people must be heard. We have to hear different stories. But contextual thinking, or story, without theory causes new suppression within the context. The notion, rights to relationships combine context with rights oriented toward universalism.
