I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Vaccine class action lawsuit initiated by bereaved families - Causal relationship between vaccines and tragedy to be explored on a global scale.
Families of people who died in Japan due to the coronavirus vaccine have started a class action lawsuit. It seems like it has finally begun. As the coronavirus spread throughout the world as a pandemic, vaccines spread as if to follow it. Used by almost all countries.
The dangers of the vaccine, which had a significantly shortened testing period, have been known from the beginning. In Japan, a research team at Kyoto University discovered the phenomenon of vaccine fragments remaining in the blood and presented the findings at an academic conference. It can be said that the harmful effects of residual vaccine fragments on all immune-related reactions are unknown. However, its harmful effects have not been scientifically verified.
The vaccine itself has not been tested or scientifically proven. It is a matter of course that the harmful effects have not been scientifically proven. Even if the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it is likely that the conclusion will be that the causal relationship cannot be determined. However, once this vaccine undergoes formal testing, the causal relationship may become clearer. It will take more than 10 years.
This problem is similar to war in some respects. It is a collective truth that we turn a blind eye to the sacrifices of a few people in order to protect the majority of society. The world is enveloped in this collective truth, and it is also true that tragedies that appear to be caused by vaccines are occurring in every country. The WHO is also silent on this matter. Interpretations and solutions to this worldwide choice of life will probably be completely different depending on the country.
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.
South Korean say Japan is a democratic backward country without direct election of leader.Don't you know the parliamentary cabinet system?
Some Koreans say that Japan, which does not elect a leader in direct elections, is a backward democratic country.Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system.The choice of leaders is similar to that of Britain.Britain's ruling party leader is a candidate for prime minister and is elected prime minister by a majority of the House of Representatives.
UK adopts the same parliamentary cabinet system as Japan.The prime minister, not the president, is elected from Parliament.
Some Japanese misunderstand this, but it is only an internal election to select a leader when the LDP presidential election is held.If elected here, he will be elected prime minister with a majority vote in the Diet.The disclosure of the party's election is only due to the high demand.There is no obligation to disclose it.It is unclear how the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Japan became leaders.
Considering how Moon Jae In was elected party leader in Korea, the same can be said.Democrats, who saw Sanders' superiority in the 2020 U.S. presidential election as a failure to beat Trump, persuaded two other candidates to withdraw their candidates and unify them with Biden.It's not about factionalism, but it's about doing the same thing .The Republican Party unifies Trump, but the cause is unclear.In any case, this is just a matter for parties to decide.
This has nothing to do with direct elections, whether they are democratic or not.Both the presidential system and the parliamentary cabinet system are forms of democracy.The essential point is the difference about votes.Lawmakers are elected from one district and the prime minister is one of them.The president is elected by the vote of the whole people.In other words, the content of the vote is different.Based on this, the president has the power to make decisions without the approval of Congress, which is different from lawmakers.On the other hand, we can think of the need for a referendum to give the president privileged power.
To concentrate one's power is to give one certain dictatorship.Whether this is necessary or not is a choice in the form of national democracy.In countries where war and civil war are expected, radical power is often entrusted to the leader.
The presidential system is given great authority for direct elections.The parliamentary cabinet system is selected by parliamentary approval, so the authority is limited.
The political reform outline of 1989 has become a mere shell - What is Prime Minister Kishida's formulation of
One faction after another announced that they would be disbanded, and Prime Minister Kishida also mentioned the dissolution of the Kochi-kai. Looking at the Political Reform Outline drawn up in 1989, we can see that it does little to address the current party ticket issue. This is an outline adopted by the Liberal Democratic Party in the wake of the Recruit Incident. Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will formulate "new rules," but what is the position of the political reform outline that his own party has drawn up in the past? You can read the full text of the outline by clicking on the link, but here we will describe the table of contents and main points.
Excerpt of the Political Reform Outline
Revising and strengthening the Code of Conduct and the Political Ethics Review Board
Enactment of law to disclose assets of members of the Diet to establish political ethics
Strengthening the ban on donations to ceremonial occasions, etc.
Regulations on business card advertisements, New Year's cards, etc.
Strengthening regulations on posters, etc.
Reducing personnel and office costs
Stock trading regulations
Restraint of parties and new regulations
Concentration of donations to political parties and support for member activities
Expansion of public aid to members of the Diet and examination of political party laws focusing on state subsidies
Fundamental reform of the electoral system
Reduction of total constants
Correcting disparities
Fundamental reform of the electoral district system
Exercising the uniqueness of the House of Councilors
Reform of the current proportional representation system
Reducing the total number of constants and correcting the imbalance in the allocation of constants
Enhancing deliberations and easy-to-understand parliamentary management
Respect for majority rule
Achieving efficient parliamentary management
Determination to remove and eliminate the harmful effects of factions
Transition to a modern national party
Reflections of tribal members
Improving the number of winnings system and ensuring that rewards and punishments are mandatory
New rules for determining candidates
Establishment of decentralizationMay 23, 1989 Political Reform Outline
Has anything been achieved in this? Looking at the recent party ticket issue, it appears that it has largely faded away, but Prime Minister Kishida recently announced that he is considering disbanding the Kochi-kai. Mr. Nikai's Shijo-kai has announced that it will be disbanded, and the Seiwa-kai, which started it, will also be disbanded. Was it because of the faction itself? In short, it was probably a matter of not reporting political funds. Looking at public opinion to date, it appears that the majority opinion was that the existence of factions themselves was not a problem as a forum for policy discussion, and the prosecutor's investigation also focused on undocumented issues.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he will create new party rules while dissolving factions, but first he will create check items from this political reform outline and evaluate each item in stages to see what has been achieved and to what extent. Why not consider it? Instead, they will consider "new rules."
The negative reason for the creation of factions is related to the structure of the parliamentary cabinet system. Personnel decisions within the party are all about internal party theory, and almost everything is shaped by interpersonal relationships. Your treatment will change depending on which trend you go with. Since the prime minister is the leader of the largest ruling party, the choice of leader is based on internal party theory and is determined by votes from party members based on their factions. On the other hand, if we adopt a dual representation system, no matter how many theories we create within the party, the top positions are decided by the people, so there is little point. It is said that in the United States, which has a presidential system, there are almost no cliques like there are in Japan.
It is said that one of the reasons why Japan has adopted a parliamentary cabinet system is to limit the authority of the top government. The reason is that they do not have much authority in the sense of reflecting on past wars after defeat. For this reason, Japanese politics takes a very long time to make decisions. In that sense, it can be said that the system is very vulnerable to emergencies. In a dual representation system, the people choose the top person, so the quality of their votes is different from that of other members of the Diet. Furthermore, the number of votes that would be obtained based on the assumption that all citizens would participate in the vote would be vastly different. Members of the Diet are simply elected in the regions in which they run for office. For this reason, the president is given greater authority than the prime minister, who is elected by members of the parliament. This authority also exerts great power in emergencies.
Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
In the history of the world, I have never heard of a country changing its flag because it won or lost a war. Britain and France have been at war many times, but did Britain, which won the Anglo-French War, demand that the French flag be changed? On the contrary, there is no idea that such a thing would become a point of contention in post-war processing. South Korea persistently demands that Japan abolish the Rising Sun flag, just as Germany abolished the Hakenkreuz flag.
A national flag symbolizes the country. The disappearance of a national flag means the disappearance of that nation. The Rising Sun Flag is the internationally registered flag of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force. Calling for the abolition of that flag is the same as calling for the abolition of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. Is South Korea claiming that it wants to go to war with Japan? If this is not the meaning, then the perception of what a ``flag'' is is too different internationally.
South Korea always equates the Rising Sun flag with the Hakenkreuz, and claims that since the Hakenkreuz, the symbol of Nazi Germany, has been abolished, the Rising Sun flag should also be abolished. Hakenkreuz is the party flag of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and there is a history of it being used as the national flag. There is no Nazi party now, so there is no Hakenkreuz. That's simply the story.
Unless Japan disappears, the Japanese flag will not disappear, and unless the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force disappears, the Rising Sun flag will not disappear. In the first place, the Rising Sun Flag is a flag that has been passed down culturally, so it will not disappear even if it has nothing to do with the Self-Defense Forces. No country will abolish its flag at the request of another country.
There is only one country in the world calling for the abolition of the Rising Sun Flag. That country is not at war with Japan.
