This month's note was scheduled to have been part one of a discussion of inclusion vs. exclusion, political, social, and legal, affecting the lives of foreign residents in Japan, but during the past few weeks my thoughts have been occupied with the contribution that Diana made on the lives of people around the world, and how in fact, "inclusion" is a fitting description of her efforts.

I return to Sunday, the 31st of August. Around noon I logged onto the internet and saw a news flash that the car in which Diana and Mr. Al Fayed were riding had crashed in Paris; there was a fatality, but Diana was taken to the hospital where she was in critical condition, according to the report. On TV, NHK said something similar in their 12:00 noon news update.

After completing my errands, I got home around 3:00 pm, and again checked the internet. At that time the news reported that along with the car's driver and Mr. Al Fayed, whose death had been documented earlier, Diana was also a casualty. As none of the channels on Japanese TV had any further information, after checking out other news sources on the internet, I joined a chat room where people around the world were filling in the various pieces of information about what had happened. By about 4:00 pm Japan time, in the US and UK all major channels were covering the accident and following the investigation; the first channel in Japan to abandon its regular programming and cover the tragedy finally appeared at 6:00 pm.

In the following weeks on Japanese TV news and "wide shows" we have seen detailed (though repetitive) TV coverage of Diana's wedding, her 3 visits to Japan, coverage of how brazen and disrespectful the photographers trailing her had been (very thin ice here), and a bit of the altruism for which she will be remembered.

While none of the media ignores her beauty or fame, the major international news services have represented Diana more by what she did than what she was, and it is those accounts that cause the feelings of sorrow and regret for a life that, if longer, is likely to have brought and received more kindness and love.

Inevitably there have been comments and articles disdainful of the outpouring of emotion shown worldwide for Diana. People have said that too much has been made of her death, that everyday people die and their deaths are unreported.

But those criticisms have been directed chiefly toward the existence of the monarchy, its celebrity, and inappropriateness to our times.

People around the world have acclaimed Diana as a person for the very things that contrasted her with the British royal family: her informality, her solidarity with ordinary people, and her commitment to trying to improve the lives and situations of people in troubled circumstances.

She reached out to children with serious illnesses, to physically and mentally-challenged people, to those suffering poverty, patients afflicted with HIV and AIDS, and most recently to victims of weapons that lie dormant waiting for innocent people to approach. Many peoples' lives were better for having had contact with Diana.

So although most of us didn't follow her life very closely and couldn't be called fans, we could not but admire and respect her for the care and compassion she showed such a wide range of people. So what if she was a member of the royal family. So "in-touch" was Diana with people, that at her death people around the world said that they had never felt such a sense loss for someone outside of their immediate family. In her circle she included people who had previously been left out; in her memory we will honor her if we do too.