I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
TSE market capitalization returns to number one in Asia - Expectations for Japan's competitiveness after withdrawal from Chinese investment?
On the 11th, the total market capitalization of stocks listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange exceeded that of China's Shanghai Stock Exchange. It seems that the TSE has returned to the top spot in Asia for the first time in about three and a half years. Various things are being talked about, including a move away from investment in China and expectations for Japan's competitiveness to recover. In the first place, the current strange international situation is the result of developed countries investing in dictatorial countries such as China and Russia.
In 1973, the G7 once accounted for 65% of world GDP. That's the GDP of only seven countries. This was seen as a monopoly on the world's wealth, and problems in developing countries were discussed. At that time, the world was also in the era of the Cold War, but the Cold War itself was at least a better era than now. Economic and political exchanges between communist and capitalist countries were closed off and blocked by a barrier called the Iron Curtain. Russia and China are calling for a return to the Cold War era, but is that really the case? One could argue that the Cold War era was the era with the least number of wars in the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of Eastern Europe collapsed one after another. China also pursued a path of liberation and reform, aiming to become an open nation. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world went crazy and thought the era of tension was over, but that was not the case at all. The loss of balance in the world has led to localized conflicts. Issues that were not highlighted during the Cold War era have been exposed as tensions have eased. Various things have been said about this, and while that may be true, I believe that it is essentially a matter of money.
What began with the collapse of the Cold War was global capital, or so-called globalism. Globalists are talked about as a conspiracy theory on social media, but there is no interest in knowing who is behind it. The problem is that the era when business and investment in authoritarian countries began can be thought of as the collapse of the Cold War. Did they simply think that the world would turn to democracy once communism fell? What is clear today is that the country has spent decades cultivating a state in which its domestic market is opened up to the capitalist state as much as possible, and wealth is distributed by a dictator.
The Cold War era was a great time. It was a time when the world was divided based on ideology, and it was a rational and peaceful time. The world should once again create an iron curtain of democratic and non-democratic countries. We no longer need to care how much wealth the G7 makes. Only countries that choose the democratic state form can receive democratic investment. As long as we continue to be a dictatorial nation, we should just live with the economy of dictatorial nations. You should rethink that. However, there will be some remorse for the times when we grew a nation that grew fat and threatened us with weapons.
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.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
Judgment cases seen from the murder of former Prime Minister Abe and the murder of a member of the Diet in the past. [Table of Contents]
Assassination of Inejiro Asanuma
Hyōsuke Niwa stabbed
Shinjiro Yamamura stabbed case
Koki Ishii stabbed
Nagasaki Mayor Shooting Case
Indefinite imprisonment in past examples
Planning is the worst
1 Representative and degree of influence
Life imprisonment or death penalty
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.
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.
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 suicidefour years later.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.There is no causal relationship with former Prime Minister Abe. , I can't find the part that takes into account the situation.
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.
