Latest news with #Gion
Daily Mail
07-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
What REALLY happens when you spend an evening with a geisha? Two-hour 'invite-only' sessions with traditional Japanese hostesses can cost up to £2,500
The powerful image of the geisha - scarlet lips across an alabaster-white painted face, a glossy black wig and ornate kimono - has been associated with Japanese culture since the 17th century. Yet, even in the age of social media, the true lives of these traditional female hostesses, the most successful of whom can charge 500,000 yen a night - around £2,500 - for two hours of their time, remains shrouded in mystery. The country's biggest geisha community remains centred around the historic streets of Gion in Kyoto, Japan 's former capital, where they reside in highly private houses, protected from the prying eyes of camera-wielding tourists by bamboo curtains and dark, latticed wooden windows. Geishas rarely use their real names, and glide around the city between evening appointments with their heads down, awaiting an opening sliding door at the teahouses (ochaya) or traditional houses (okiya) where they perform in private. When a wealthy tourist or businessman or woman taps on the door, typically between 6pm and 10pm, the exclusive entertainment that awaits them is a much more salubrious affair today than it once was. Until the Second World War, geishas in training - known as 'maikos' - would only be considered to have full geisha status after their virginity was taken by a client. The practice of mizuage - deflowering a geisha - has long since been outlawed, but the idea that these enigmatic women - more commonly known in Japan as geikos - sell sexual services has been harder to shake. Post-war, when Japan was occupied by Allied soldiers, the image of 'getting a geisha girl', prostitutes who would dress in traditional Japanese clothing for sexual liaisons with soldiers, carved out a stereotype that modern geishas, highly skilled conversationalists, musicians and dancers, have fought against ever since. Arthur Golden's book Memoirs of Geisha, published in 1997 and made into a film by Steven Spielberg in 2005, in which he wove real-life anecdotes from geishas into a fictional story, did little to quell the seedier side of geisha life. The book portrays a world where sexual boundaries are pushed by rich men and degradation is commonplace, with geishas tied to a code of silence about what happens in the time spent with clients. One of the geishas Golden spoke to, Mineko Iwasaki, later sued him for defamation - after he named her in the credits of the book, settling out of court with the author. So revered as a geisha during her working life, she was dubbed 'one in a hundred years' - and told a Manhattan court in 2001 that Golden had betrayed her trust and painted geishas as merely playthings for wealthy men. Seeking a percentage of the $10 million in sales generated by the book, she said at the time: 'I told him many things about the geisha world. I did everything I could for him. 'But the condition was that he would not use my name or my family's name in the book - it was based on this that I agreed to talk with him. In the end, all those promises were broken.' A Netflix series in 2023 served up a more wholesome depiction of modern geisha life - focusing on the strong bonds formed between young maikos. The Makanai: Cooking for the Maiko House focused on the food geishas in training are served in the houses they share with other maikos and the mother figure assigned to them, known as an okami-san. However, it's clear that choosing a life that honours old Japan is much less enticing than it once was - the numbers of geishas working dwindles year-on-year. Teenage girls who do make the decision, usually when they finish Junior High at around 15, to become a maiko must leave their families behind, seeing them just twice a year, with no access to a mobile phone. In Kyoto, many maikos spend their days at the surprisingly large geisha school on Hanamikoji Dori, practising the dances, hospitality and musical recitals they will perform for paying clients in the years to come. While some geishas work on an invitation-only basis, tourists can pay - via an agency - for a two-hour experience, with dinner, performances, games and conversation, typically costing around 50,000 yen (£250) for each geisha in attendance, plus up to around 30,000 yen for each meal taken (£150). Those who want to enjoy the experience on a more regular basis can sign up for an subscription account, charged monthly to cover all of the costs associated with a geisha dinner, from the taxi ride to get there to the private hire of the ochaya. Exclusivity and trust is everything, with new accounts only given to those who can provide a guarantor. The traditional dress maikos wear differs from those of geishas; their own hair is exposed, only their lower lip is red, and they are seen wearing a long and flowing back sash with high wooden sandals. Upon achieving geisha status, both lips are coloured red, sandals are lower and the back sash is shorter. Training to become a geisha takes five years, with maikos becoming geikos at the age of 20, when they must leave their house-share and find their own accommodation, where they live alone. A local Kyoto guide explains that many maikos don't make it though. 'They're away from their families, they can't use a phone - they must communicate by letter - and it's very hard for them.' And even when full geisha status is achieved, those who work in the industry must often find their own clients. The worst thing that can happen to a geisha? Cupid strikes. Says our guide in Kyoto: 'There are some geishas who are working until they are 70 but those who want to marry and have children must leave the profession.' Recent years have seen a new battle emerge in Kyoto too, with geishas faced with tourists desperate to catch a glimpse of them as they walk to and from work in the four main geiko districts. Signs warning of fines of up to 10,000 yen (around £50) for non-consensual photographs, introduced in 2019, had previously failed to prevent people approaching geishas and in 2024, residents of Gion urged the city council to take action against tourists harassing geishas. On TikTik, one clip shows a geisha trying to swerve an irrepressible tourist armed with a smartphone as she makes her way down Hanamikoji street, with onlookers pleading with the sightseer to stop. A woman in one clip, shared by @gogotrain51718293628190, can be heard telling the holidaymaker: 'You can't do that, it's so rude'. Locals say the popularity of the districts had seen them overrun with sightseers, many of whom who will stop at nothing to get the perfect photo - one local described Gion's streets as being treated like a 'theme park'. Several streets are now off limits for the 'geisha paparazzi', with only those who've paid for a geisha experience, and local residents, allowed to enter. What's clear is that this enduring celebration of Japanese culture, while diminishing with each year that passes, remains just as fascinating now as it was hundreds of years ago.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, second from left, and other attorneys representing Greenpeace speak to the media March 19, 2025, outside the Morton County Courthouse. (Amy Dalrymple/North Dakota Monitor) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. This story was originally published by the North Dakota Monitor. Like South Dakota Searchlight, it's part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. North Dakota Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Amy Dalrymple for questions: info@
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Snow covers the ground at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Bloomberg
27-05-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
The Best Hotels in Kyoto for Every Type of Traveler
On any given month, Kyoto might receive from 3 million to 4 million tourists, outnumbering locals at least 2 to 1. So it's no wonder that every international hotel brand has been intent on planting its flag in Japan's culture capital. Just last year, wellness pioneer Six Senses—known for resorts in such far-flung beach spots as the Maldives and Fiji—opened one of its first urban properties in Kyoto to great fanfare. Within the next year, the so-hot-right-now brand Capella will open its doors in the city's Gion district. (It's the same company whose Bangkok hotel most recently took the No. 1 spot on the World's 50 Best list.)
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota Supreme Court denies petition to move Greenpeace trial to different court
Exterior of the Morton County Courthouse in Mandan on Feb. 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition by Greenpeace to move its legal battle with Energy Transfer out of Morton County. Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the jury in the lawsuit, which concerns the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, will not be able to deliver a fair verdict since many Morton County residents were directly impacted by the demonstrations. It cited survey data as well as statements made by prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The environmental group also raised concerns that jurors may have been targeted with pro-fossil fuel content, including political mailers and advertisements, leading up to the trial. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage Greenpeace suggested moving the case to Cass County. Energy Transfer has said that its own survey data indicates that Morton County residents would not be biased jurors in the case, and that moving the lawsuit to a different court would be cumbersome. The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning in denying Greenpeace's petition. On Wednesday, the North Dakota Supreme Court also denied a request by a group of news outlets, which included the North Dakota Monitor, for expanded access to the trial. The high court did not provide a reason for that denial, either. The group had asked the Supreme Court to review Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion's decision not to allow any photography, video or livestreaming of the trial. While media and other members of the public may attend the trial, they aren't allowed to use phones or other electronic devices in the courtroom. In an order denying requests for expanded access, Gion said he was worried about keeping witnesses sequestered as well as the possibility for the harassment of witnesses, jurors, attorneys and court staff. Media attorney Jack McDonald in the petition asked the court to order Gion to reverse his decision given the significant public interest in the trial. In the petition, McDonald cited the North Dakota Constitution, which holds that all courts shall be open, as well as the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. McDonald also argued that Gion didn't sufficiently explain the reasons behind his decision. North Dakota district judges commonly allow up to two photographers and up to two video cameras in the courtroom during proceedings. Some expanded media orders also allow journalists to bring audio recorders and cellphones. Some North Dakota judges have allowed media to view hearings remotely through Zoom, though not consistently. A private livestream is being provided to some attorneys for Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. Other media organizations that joined the petition were Forum Communications, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, KFYR-TV, KXMB-TV, The Bismarck Tribune, DRILLED, The Intercept, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, News/Media Alliance, Society of Environmental Journalists and the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Media petition North Dakota Supreme Court for expanded access to Greenpeace trial In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer seeks roughly $300 million from Greenpeace for damages it claims the environmental organization caused in relation to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace aided and abetted criminal behavior by protesters, and spread a misinformation campaign about the pipeline project in order to delay its construction and tarnish the company's relationships with banks. Greenpeace denies all the claims, and says Energy Transfer is unfairly targeting it in an attempt to harm the environmental group and intimidate other activist organizations. The high court last week also denied a petition for expanded livestream access submitted by a group of attorneys monitoring the case. The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning behind that decision. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
