Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
2022-09-23
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Opposition party members developing their own theories
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article ４, Paragraph ３, Item ３３ states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article ７ of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
Clearly answered questions in the Diet
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article ４, Paragraph ３, Item ３３ of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
Opposition parties' opinions should be at the level of approval rating
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about ６% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about ５%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around ５% to ６% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
The media mass-produces inequality in speech
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
The curse of primary balance has been lost for 30 years, and now is the time for fiscal spending.
The lost 30 years were born from the curse of fiscal surplus
Why not use fiscal stimulus to address the national crisis?
Japan used to be the same as today's China
Why did Japan go for austerity?
30 years of innovation only to be stolen
Only Councilor Sanae Takaichi answered these questions clearly
The curse of a primary balance surplus has become an excellent material for opposition parties to appeal to the government for fiscal austerity. Yoichi Takahashi has said that he does not mind fiscal stimulus, or printing money, up to the inflation target of 2%.
Both Prime Minister Abe and Policy Research Council Chairman Takaichi have set an inflation target of 2%. In the first place, the topic of primary balance became popular after the bubble burst.
As many large companies go bankrupt, the government repeatedly imposes fiscal stimulus, resulting in deficits and financial bankruptcy. The bursting of the bubble was a national economic crisis.
So when is the government going to do something about the national crisis without spending money? In 1989, 32 of the 50 companies in the world by market capitalization were Japanese companies, but by 2019, there was only one Japanese company, and that number had disappeared. Ta.
During the bubble period, Japan was to America what China is today. It is true that growth was not based on illegal business like in China, but there is no doubt that it was a threat to the American economy.
The United States should have predicted Japan's bubble would burst. Or maybe it's a country that can play a role in triggering this.
If Japan had been able to implement bold fiscal stimulus after the bubble burst, it would have been possible to quickly overcome the aftereffects and return to a growth trajectory. Japan is among 11 countries subject to currency manipulation monitoring announced by the U.S. Treasury Department on December 3 of this year.
Trade friction is at the root of the current U.S.-China relationship. In addition, the defense of East Asia was also involved, and Japan at the time was also experiencing trade friction between Japan and the United States.
Even after the bursting of the bubble economy, Japanese companies have continued to innovate in a variety of ways. i-mode was the world's first mobile phone to connect to the Internet, the all-in-one concept of integrating a camera, calculator, memo pad, etc. in a bag into a mobile phone, and mixi was the original social network.
These ideas became the exclusive domain of American GAFA. Even though Japan was in the bud of creating a new industrial structure, it ran out of water and nutrients.
So why or who put a stop to it?
Internal pressure, external pressure, various things can be imagined. Japan's balance sheet shows that its finances are sound, and fiscal stimulus will not cause a national fiscal collapse. This is exactly what was at issue in the last presidential election. There are two points: fiscal spending and national defense.
Councilor Takaichi was the only one who clearly answered that question, and I had no idea what the other candidates were saying.
Japanese economy continues to fly low. We need a rocket engine to get back on the growth track.
Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor.
The Cabinet's decision in April 2021 and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in 1930.
When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor.Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork.The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article 2-2.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b).
South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima.
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ARTICLE 1
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
ARTICLE 2
1. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include--
(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
Continuing attacks on the Gaza Strip - What is the definition of a civilian? | The atomic bomb was dropped without any warning.
Regarding the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the invasion of Ukraine, I understand that the concept of war criminals under international law is extremely weak, but I would like to ask about the definitions of civilians, civilian facilities, military personnel, and military facilities. After these wars are over, the international community will need to be redefined.
According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are members of the National Guard and are allowed to own firearms according to the Constitution's interpretation. Are they civilians or soldiers? For example, in South Korea, where a conscription system is in place, those who have completed their conscription period are registered as reservists. Are they civilians or soldiers?
In the Nanjing Incident, the commander of the Kuomintang army fled, and the Kuomintang army changed into civilian clothes and fled into a private house, where they fought using civilians as shields, but were they civilians or soldiers? I wonder if the private house they barricaded themselves in had become a military facility at that point. Or will it still be a private house?
At the Tokyo Trials, Rabe testified that the Japanese military did not fire on the Nanjing Safety Zone, calling the Japanese invasion a massacre. Civilians in Nanjing were able to escape to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was demarcated by international law. The Gaza Strip is approximately 50km from north to south, and evacuation to the south would take up to 25km, making it possible to evacuate in one day.
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier? At the very least, are they risking their lives to protect their homes? Are they civilians or soldiers?
In other words, the international law that judged Japan in the past is weak to this extent, and even today it criticizes the killing of civilians based on this idea, but does not deny wars based on the exercise of the right of self-defense. I'm watching this battle in it. What should be answered is a clear division between civilians and soldiers.
It is said that there were 122 air raids on Tokyo, but each time did the US military notify Japanese civilians that they were about to carry out an air raid? Or, before the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a bomb of another dimension will be dropped that will cause damage over a wide area. Did Truman tell them that it would be difficult to survive there? If it had been done, would Japanese civilians at the time have been evacuated or would they have remained to fight?
Such international laws only have a deterrent effect and have no meaning in actual war.
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
