The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOOpposition steps up battle in Diet against 'conspiracy bill'
TOKYO©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
19 Comments
Login to comment
thepersoniamnow
I think this is trying to read like it's a real debate and being discussed and thought about by the nation. Its written similarly in Japanese as well, but the fact of the matter is, the other parties do not have the seats to stop the LDP.
Their discussions are just talking about a few points on TV then usually the motion goes through, or is delayed but is set to pass on.
This will pass through with little opposition.
Loss of freedom from next year and I'm supposed to believe it's because of the Olympics?
AgentX
That's the whole idea!
It won't be stopped. The opposition is toothless and the people (if given the chance) will always nicely do as 'suggested'.
Japan once again showing that democracy and freedom are not welcome here.
Goodlucktoyou
State Secrets, State Security, Conspiracy...what the next one? Conscription?
Scrote
It's no good whining about the chairman when your party is so useless it couldn't even field candidates in every seat during the last elections.
How about highlighting limited aspects of the conspiracy bill and giving examples where ordinary persons would come under investigation? Force the LDP to answer specific points, instead of letting them get away with blanket denials.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
This durn conspiracy bill has been "debated" for like 15 years. It is time for an up or down vote and the demand for "debate" is really better described as a Japanese version of the filibuster - keep nitpicking unproductively until the Diet session ends.
People who are interested in the issue might look up a certain article called "Criminal Conspiracy Law in Japan" by a Chris Coulson. Though it is published in 2007 (Michigan Journal of International Law), the law's basics hadn't changed that much and it represents a third-party view from someone who at least studied law professionally.
Aly Rustom
Give them hell guys!
lostrune2
Anything goes in the War on Terror
CH3CHO
thepersoniamnow Today 07:12 am JST
It seems parliamentary debate is something new to you. In UK, in Japan or wherever, the minority parties do not have enough seats to stop the ruling party. Yet, the debate is important process in democracy.
Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 12:06 pm JST
According to the article, the decision has been made 3 times in the 15 years.
Three similar bills have failed to pass the Diet due to such concerns.
Scrote Today 10:07 am JST
Japan has multi-party system. Oppositions make coalitions in some of the districts to avoid splitting votes. It is nothing wrong.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
One must make a distinction between real parliamentary debate and using it as a substitute for a filibuster when you don't have nearly enough votes. As you mention, this basic bill has been on on-and-off for the past fifteen years. Every concern has either been addressed as much as possible or not addressed at all. At some point, you have to realize the bill isn't going to get any "better" and at that point it is actually abuse of the process to just keep demanding more "debate".
As for the merits of the case, the fact is that the Japanese government is correct as to the requirements of the international convention they signed up to and ratify and the concerns of the opposition are at best just that, Potential concerns.
CH3CHO
Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 01:32 pm JST
No. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/treaty/pdfs/treaty156_7c.pdf
against Transnational Organized Crime
Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally:Japan needs to criminalize either (i) or (ii) of article 5. To criminalize (i), Japan needs to criminalize conspiracy. But Japan can satisfy treaty requirements by criminalizing (ii) which it already has.
Only_In_Japan
As much as I hate to say this, the sad truth is that the ruling coalition will ignore what the opposition has to say, and they will also ignore what the people have to say.
They'll ram that bill through, and it'll be law, and we gradually lost more freedom.
The Japanese people had the chance to stop Abe and his cronies from cementing their claim to power, and hardly anyone voted. This government is only interested in tightening it's grip around the necks of the taxpayer.
But hey, in a few weeks, everyone will forget about and everything will be fine... Right? Right?
CH3CHO
Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 01:32 pm JST
To add to my previous comment, read paragraphs 48 to 51 on page 21 and 22 of "legislative guide for the implementation of the United Nations convention against transnational organized crime".
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/legislative_guides/02%20Legislative%20guide_TOC%20Convention.pdf
The guide clearly explains that criminalizing conspiracy is only one option out of two ways to satisfy treaty requirements.
Aoi Azuuri
Criticism from UN were distorted in Japan by Abe government and bureacrats with some mainstream media.
Public broadcast NHK avoid to broadcast deliberations about conspiracy bill at The Diet.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
@CH3CHO Today 04:20 pm JST
The guide clearly explains that criminalizing conspiracy is only one option out of two ways to satisfy treaty requirements.
Yes, it is permissible to substitute a law for criminal association. However, as to whether Japan already has one of those is very questionable. Sure, it does have 組織的な犯罪の処罰及び犯罪収益の規制等に関する法律, but right now it only covers a fairly limited range of crimes - 15 in Article 3 (of which 4 of them cannot be punished for Attempt and only 2 are punishable for Preparation), 1 each in Article 7, 9 and 10. That's quite far from penalizing not only participation in "criminal activities of the organized criminal group" but "other activities" that will contribute to criminal actions.
Further, we are still left with the problem of defining the "criminal group" and this is much more expansive than the conspiracy bill now rumbling through the Diet, with any "activity" being criminalized.
CH3CHO
Kazuaki Shimazaki Today 01:32 pm JST
So, you now agree that Japanese government is NOT correct as to the requirements of the international convention. That is a step forward.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
@CH3CHO Today 06:35 pm JST
What statement exactly are you claiming they are wrong on anyway? They claim they need this bill to meet the requirements of CATOC, and they are essentially correct. The fact that they can in theory make a criminal association bill that's just as problematic does not change that. Further, according to Coulson:
The option of using a criminal association bill had not really been on from the start.
thepersoniamnow
@CH3CHO
Debate is not something new to me actually, but perhaps English comprehension is likewise rather new to you as well?
I didn't say anything regarding the role of debate in democracy, on that I agree.
If you watch the debates, I am saying that they seem very much a formality. I get the feeling like they are going through the motions only and it will be strong armed through.
NHK and other major media outlets do not openly challenge or question the ruling party's intentions, or critically analyze the topics nearly enough for me. Since you defer to England, I'm sure you agree that a Parlimentary Debate there can be very robust.
It almost seems like they are massaging my mind to accept that this is all necessary for the Olympics and because of scary terrorism.
CH3CHO
Kazuaki Shimazaki June 7 07:17 pm JST
They do not need the conspiracy bill to satisfy the treaty requirements, which you have already concurred.
Remember,
Kazuaki Shimazaki June 7 06:29 pm JST
Kazuaki Shimazaki
@thepersoniamnow June 7 07:49 pm JST
I wouldn't go that far. The legislature is providing a check, as can be seen by the number of times similar bills have failed to pass and that the bills have been narrowed down with each revision. However, this time it is indeed likely to be a formality. How many times can you debate the same basic bill before all the substantive issues are rolled over?