Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past.
2022-07-13
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Inejiro Asanuma, chairman of the Japan Socialist Party Central Executive Committee, is a １７-year-old right-wing boy, Otoya Yamaguchi, during a speech at the Hibiya Public Hall in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo on October １２, １９６０. The case of being stabbed by an arrow.The criminal Yamaguchi committed suicide in a single room at the Tokyo Juvenile Classification Home on the night of November ２, three weeks after the incident.
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed case
October ２１, １９９０ A former member of the House of Representatives (１２th term) belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party and Hyōsuke Niwa, a member of the Aichi Prefectural Assembly (２nd term), was temporarily discharged from hospital due to schizophrenia at the Ground Self-Defense Force station in Nagoya city. He was stabbed in the neck and died the following month.The criminal is readmitted to a mental hospital .
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
In １９９２, on April １２, the day before his visit to North Korea as the leader of the LDP delegation, he was stabbed and killed by a ２４-year-old second daughter who suffered from a mental illness at his home. Her second daughter wasdetermined to be incapacitated due to her loss of soul and was not prosecuted, but she committed suicide four years later.
Koki Ishii stabbed murder case
On October ２５, ２００２, Democratic Party member Kouki Ishii died after being stabbed in his left chest with a Yanagi knife at his home parking lot in Setagaya Ward. On June １８, ２００４, the Tokyo District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, stating that he could not trust the defendant's alleged "financial trouble" motive.On November １５, ２００５, the Supreme Court confirmed a sentence of life imprisonment .
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
At ７:５１ pm on April １７, ２００７, Mayor Ito, who was on a tour, arrived in front of his election office in Daikokumachi, Nagasaki City, near JR Kyushu Nagasaki Station. He was shot at around ７:５１:４５ pm shortly after staff told reporters that the mayor had returned.
On May ２６, ２００８, the Nagasaki District Court sentencedto death, pointing out that it "shook the foundations of democracy, such as confusing elections."
On September ２９, ２００９, the appeal trial at the Fukuoka High Court abandoned the first-instance judgment, andwas sentenced to life imprisonment again . In a peculiar case in which the incumbent mayor was shot dead during the election, the suitability of the death penalty for one victim became the biggest issue. Regarding the reason for avoiding the death penalty, Judge Shoichi Matsuo pointed out that "It is necessary to fully consider that there is only one victim."
He then decided that "it is a challenge to democracy, but the motive is a grudge against the victims, not the purpose of obstructing the election itself," and concluded that "the choice of the death penalty must be hesitant."
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Regarding the cases where politicians were killed in the past, except for the case where the criminal committed suicide, both the case of Kouki Ishii's murder and the case of Tetsuya Shiroo's shooting have been confirmed as indefinite imprisonment for the murder of one victim.
Planning is the worst
The murder of former Prime Minister Abe includes social impact, election obstruction, firearms tampering, sword law violation, planning, clear murder, execution of murder, and unclear motives. When considering planning, it is a weapon that manufactures firearms by itself and is prohibited by law that has the ability to kill, which is considered to be the most malicious in terms of planning.
It is not at the level of purchasing kitchen knives in advance at a home improvement store or making a detailed action plan to kill the victim.
１ Representative and degree of influence
There is no doubt that he is one of the most influential people in Japan in terms of social impact, but since he is a general member of the Diet, it is unknown to what extent it will be added.
The motive is attributed to personal grudges, but there is no causal relationship between the suspect's mother and religious groups.#Blue#There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
Life imprisonment or death penalty
If you look at past examples, you will be sentenced to life imprisonment, but it will be interesting to see if you will be sentenced to death.Former prosecutor Yoji Ochiai points out that there is a possibility of the death penalty, using the death sentence of the first instance of the Nagasaki District Court as an example.
Although it is an epoch-making judgment as a death sentence for the murder of one person, what kind of judgment will the judiciary make regarding planning, its maliciousness, selfish motives, etc.? The anger of the people does not seem to subside.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Rui Matsukawa announces her candidacy for the House of Councilors election | Japan should increase the number of orthodox right - wing female members.
Supporting right-wing female legislators in the House of Councilors election
Women's political participation tends to the left
Japanese politics with few female politicians
Creating a constant will solve the problem
It's not a constant, it's a matter of awareness of participation
We need right-wing female MPs
It was decided that July 10th would be the day for voting in the House of Councilors, and Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker Rui Matsukawa announced her candidacy on Twitter. This is the last day of the Diet session, and she said she will aim to pass a law establishing the Family Agency. She specializes in foreign affairs and is also knowledgeable about national defense, having served as Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Defense. I am not of the opinion that we should increase the number of female councilors, but rather that we should increase the number of orthodox right-wing female councilors like her and Councilor Takaichi.
Recently, when it comes to national defense in particular, there tends to be criticism that men are out of control when it comes to the military, but a female lawmaker's statement that Japan's national defense should be strengthened is a sign that women's public opinion is It also serves as a strong backing.
Good morning! It's finally the last day of the Diet session. We aim to enact the Children and Families Agency Establishment Act. The House of Councilors election is finally here. Thank you very much to everyone for the past 6 years. I would like to continue working with you. I will do my best. pic.twitter.com/Dm9xLsklWi? Rui Matsukawa =Liberal Democratic Party= (@Matsukawa_Rui) June 15, 2022
Up until now, female members of parliament have tended to be left-wing. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing things like ``opposing the amendment of Article 9'', ``getting along with neighboring countries'', and ``helping the weak'', and these statements will never make Japan stronger. In other words, there were many members with strong socialist and communist thinking. Regarding their historical views, they also said the same thing as China and the Korean Peninsula, calling for Japan to apologize to its neighboring countries.
She cried out that women's voices should be heard and spoke in the Diet as a representative of women, but her comments were left-wing, had strong socialist tendencies, and had a self-deprecating view of history. So, What has become of Japan today as a result of her listening to that voice?.
Some people say that there are few women members of the Japanese Diet, but what about the number of candidates? If there are fewer women candidates, it is natural that there will be fewer women elected. It has been pointed out that the percentage of women elected to the House of Representatives in 2021 is 9.7%. Not running for office in the first place means that you have no desire to become a member of the Diet, but calling for more women to become members of Congress is putting the cart before the horse.
Female members of the opposition parties often argue that the number of female members should be set at one-third, etc., but right-wing female members of the Liberal Democratic Party oppose this. Have opposition members ever wondered what would happen to the National Assembly if one-third of the members were incompetent? Of course, there are some excellent female politicians. This is also due to the fact that he himself ran for office and was elected.
In the first place, are there any gender differences in Japanese politics? I feel like this is based on the fact that in the past, women have not taken an interest in politics and have not participated in it.
This is because both men and women have equal rights to run for office and vote, and if we compare the population, there are more women than men. In other words, if all female voters vote for a female candidate, that female candidate will definitely win.
What is needed is a right-wing female lawmaker who can think about Japan's future, including national defense. Up until now, there was an illusion that Japan, protected by the US military, did not need to think about national defense, and on this premise, myths of friendship and equality with neighboring countries had flourished. Left-wing female parliamentarians were born from this soil. What they have done is no more than simply slandering the government and the ruling party.
The environment surrounding Japan is not always beautiful. We need to increase the number of right-wing female members of Congress who face these issues head-on and seriously consider how to deal with them.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution. The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in 2005, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
The people wish for lasting peace and are deeply aware of the noble ideals that govern human relations, and trust in the justice and faith of the peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
We must not concentrate on our own nation and ignore others, and the law of political morality is universal and follows this law. I believe that it is the responsibility of each country to maintain its sovereignty and to establish equal relations with other countries.
The Japanese people pledge to do their utmost to achieve their noble ideals and goals in the honor of the nation.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe] We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article 9 of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article 9 of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
The debate on the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
World's First Anti-Racism Bill - Proposed by Japan, a Permanent Member of the League of Nations.
I wonder if Japan appears in world history around the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The world took note of the great accomplishments of the eastern island nation, and the West, which had considered China a great power, came to call China the ``sleeping lion.''
The next great achievement was the Russo-Japanese War. Heihachiro Togo, who won the Battle of the Sea of Japan, was featured on the front page of newspapers around the world, and is said to be the first Japanese person to be featured on the front page of a newspaper around the world. After that, Japan rose to the forefront of the world and became a permanent member of the League of Nations in 1919.
In 1919, Japan became the first country in the world to propose a bill to eliminate racial discrimination at the United Nations. Already during this period, Japan objected to the West's domination of Asia. Former Foreign Minister Nobuaki Makino criticized the racial discrimination caused by Western countries' colonies in various parts of Asia. (Nobuaki Makino: second from the left in the front row of the photo)
This is the world's first international organization to introduce a bill on the elimination of racial discrimination, with two representatives from France and two from Italy in favor, 11 from Greece, the Republic of China, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slovenes and Japan, and the United Kingdom against it. ・There were 5 people from the United States, Poland, Brazil, and Romania, so there was a majority in favor.
Many Japanese people think that the elimination of racial discrimination is a concept developed from the West, but in fact, it was Japan that first called for the elimination of racial discrimination.
At the time, Britain was abducting black people from Africa and trading them as slaves to the Americas. America used black slaves to grow cheap agricultural products and export them to countries around the world. The American representative argued that this was a no-go because it was not unanimous. Is there such a thing as a principle of unanimity among the 16 members?
Makino once objected, saying that the bill could be passed by majority vote, but the bill was rejected in accordance with the principle of unanimity in the United States, which was already a superpower at the time. This was nine years after the annexation of Japan and Korea and 22 years before the start of the Greater East Asia War.
South Korea continues to say that it was discriminated against and deprived of by Japan, but Japan was fighting in international organizations on a completely different scale. The annexation of Japan and South Korea and the annexation of Taiwan are assimilation policies that are completely different from Western-style colonies. Assimilation policy means that the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese living there have equal rights and are subject to the rule of law.
The Greater East Asia War was a war between Japan and the white countries that ruled Asia, based on the idea that all Asian countries should maintain their independence and co-prosperity. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere concept was not something that suddenly appeared on a whim.
Korea claims that it suffered racial discrimination during the annexation of Japan and Korea, but it seems that they do not really understand what racial discrimination at that time meant.
Three years of Japanese and Russian people living together in the Northern Territories - Return of the territory and current residents
Japan's territorial issues include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. These three regions are completely different geopolitically, historically, in the relationship between the two countries, and in the process by which problems arise. To put the issue of the Northern Territories simply, Japan announced its surrender on August 15th, but it was officially announced on September 2nd that the Soviet Union later ratified the Potsdam Declaration, but it was not accepted internationally outside of the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union. April 28, 1952, the day the San Francisco Peace Treaty went into effect. During that time, the former Soviet Union invaded and annexed the Northern Territories.
It was in 1948 that the Soviet Union ordered deportation to the Japanese islanders, so there was a period of about three years from 1945 when Soviet soldiers, Soviet immigrants, and Japanese people lived together. It is very interesting to hear the testimonies of Japanese islanders from that era.
``Russians were big and scary.'' ``Soldiers came to my house with shoes on and guns, and they said, ``Watch, watch!'' So I thought it was something, so I handed him the watch, and he said, ``Harasho, harasho,'' and was happy. So I went home.
Russian children were cute and cute and looked like angels. Her eyes were so white and big, and her green eyes were cute like a cat's. Japanese and Russian children played together, going back and forth to each other's homes. This is the testimony of former islanders and Japanese people.
I believe that former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the first prime minister to ask the Japanese people, who are demanding the return of the Northern Territories, where about 17,000 people currently live, whether they should expel the Russians currently living there. The Japanese people living in the Northern Territories at the time continued to demand the return of their territory, but the Russians living there never asked them to leave or take away their homes.
