1)Imperial Japanese military high command has ordered the forced conscription of comfort women.
2)In Korea, there were no volunteers and this is why Japan decided to kidnap them at gunpoint.
Please show us your evidence
8 ( +13 / -5 )
Imperial Japanese military high command has ordered the forced conscription of comfort women.
Please show or guide us to any proof
9 ( +13 / -4 )
"A former Korean comfort woman Sim Mi-ja who refused to be on Chong Dae Hyup's payroll said, "The Korean women, who testified before UN Special Rapporteur, lied on behalf of Chong Dae Hyup. They are swindlers"
"In an interview with Professor Park Yuha of Sejong University in South Korea, a former Korean comfort woman Bae Chun-hee said she hated her father who sold her. She said that men who recruited Korean women and operated comfort stations were all Korean, and that Korean women who testified before UN Special Rapporteur lied on behalf of Chong Dae Hyup.
If you are to believe blindly what all self-appointed victims' testimonies, you should also believe the ones like above. FYI, there is official medical(scientific) process to certify atomic bomb victims
7 ( +8 / -1 )
I like how you have to start off all your comments with "apparently" and "sounds like" and then judging conclusively that the victims were the perpetrators and the perpetrators victims.
Uemura is the plaintiff who started this suit and Sakurai was one of defendants and Uemura lost in his case at regional court level. That's all. Other than that, it should be entirely up to anyone how you see this case and post comment. Any problem ?
Reminds me of people who say women shouldn't dress the way they do if they don't want to be raped and saying men are the victims of harassment, etc.
If Japanese laws had any teeth, Sakurai -- a known bigot and nationalist -- would be arrested for hate speech, but like other Abe cronies, some of whom have raped women themselves, they get off Scott-free while the women are given death threats and told their speaking up, or the newspapers that print it, are threatening security and embarrassing the nation. I wonder if he's any relation to the Osaka hate group head, Sakurai, who drives around literally telling Koreans to die, including children, that they are cockroaches, and Zainichi to "go home" (despite this being their home), then getting in a near fist-fight with the Osaka Mayor after rightly being told off. Japan is an embarrassment on this issue.
What the heck are you talking about? What the heck are all these got to do with the topic?? If Japanese law had any teeth, you are the one of the first groups who would be arrested for hate speech.
Donot dring and post.
Mods. I am sure you're going to delete me but if you do, delete smithinjapan all together for the sake of fairness.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Apparently Uemura's article was based on true testimony, but he was then subjected to a campaign denouncing it as 'fabrication'.
The article might be based on her testimonies but failed to report precisely, which he has admitted already.
Kim Hak-soon's testimonies themselves vary. Which one is the true testimony and how do you judge it's true?
7 ( +10 / -3 )
Apparently Uemura's article was based on true testimony, but he was then subjected to a campaign denouncing it as 'fabrication'.
The article might be based on her testimonies but failed to report precisely, which he has admitted already.
Kim Hak-soon's testimonies themselves vary. Which one is the true testimony and how do you judge it's true?
7 ( +11 / -4 )
If speaking the truth is met with threats, violence and nonsense arguments. Then the truth obviously hurts.
Apparently, Uemura's articles were not truth. He's cowardly kept evading without official correction on his articles admitting his misunderstanding.
Look how he is trying to evade hi,self off the core of this lawsuit.
"The point is not whether the comfort women involved forced recruitment or human trafficking. Let's just squarely face the damage done, overcome it and join hands in promoting understanding among Asian countries," Uemura told a news conference in Tokyo on Thursday.
Sounds like some cheap maxim. He probably forgot how all these started happening, more than anything, who is the plaintiff who has caused this spat. This very statement itself proves he himself knows he screwed up
6 ( +10 / -4 )
At issue are two articles Uemura wrote for the Asahi 27 years ago, including one based on the account of the first South Korean comfort woman to come forward, Kim Hak-soon.
Regaring Kim Hak-soon, guess not many posters may not know.
「I learned from Yun Chō ng-ok, the founding corepresentative of the Korean Council(=Chong Dae Hyup=Teitaikyo) , that Kim’s original unpublished story given to Yun......her foster father apparently worked as the manager of the comfort station until he disappeared one day」
pp.127-130, The Comfort Women, C. Sarah Soh, University of Chicago Press2009
15 ( +20 / -5 )
Better not to post without knowing what the topic is really about or at least read the news at least once.
This is about a defamation suit made by a Japanese journalist against another journalist and some publishers wrt the plaintiff's articles. The articles in question contained misinformation (which Asahi newspaper took as long as 20yrs to admit and correct ), and those were only about some Koreans.
3 ( +12 / -9 )
Because Kpoop groups concerned are not only stupid but also perverted giving themselves to pleasure by making money from those they deliberately insult.
If that was called "sincere apology", what the heck they have been demanding from Japan all these years?
12 ( +15 / -3 )
SWC got furious about Japanese girls group but has been quiet so far this time.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
General rule of interpretationThe context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Minutes of Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation
Hope you can read Japanese from page 115 characters inked in red.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
should be read "to find out damage suffered by individuals"
13 ( +13 / -0 )
"The rights and the claims" in the Article2 covers all sorts of rights to claim and /or claims for any kind of compensation. SK supreme court read it differently simply because the 65 treaty didnot refer to illegality of annexation. Japan was not at the table to discuss and clarify the lawfulness of the annexation in the first place.
Japan tried and suggested to gather individual data to find out damages caused by individuals to compensate INDIVIDUALLY just like it did for Japanese-Japanese. but S.K stuck to lump-sum payment to SK government to handle itself as one of domestic issues at the time. BTW those 4 plaintiffs were not forced to work in slavery in S.K. They raised their hands and some took interview process to enter Japan to work.
16 ( +16 / -0 )
@ Mr. Aly Rustom
No. Revision is making a change to an existing document. whitewashing once and rewriting is a complete alteration..
Final document rewritten on white paper after whitewashing (coating or erasing or whatever) could be the same as the result of revising parts of an existing document.
Actually it does. ALOT. It shows that you cannot whitewash facts the way Japan always tries to do. Just like we cannot ignore the radiation coming out of the reactor you cannot ignore history or bad things happen.
Fine. I got it. I actually do not mind going way off the topic unless mods heartlessly delete our conversation for us only to find out having wasted big time. Mods or JT can control the topics to discuss but we cannot. I am sometimes frustrated as JT does not pick up the news I want to discuss about.
I wish Japan would not be like the way you think from your 15~16 years of experience in Japan, but I am not so confident at this point.
Pot calling kettle. YOU are the one trying to whitewash history, not me.
All I suggested was you do not use the impolite term like BS. Pot calling kettle. Agreed...
I sometimes use impolite terms and I think I will again too. You’re right..
I don’t think I am whitewashing if the term whitewashing means coating or hiding all the bad, shameful history. I think I am just keep posting to feel just lucky if any of my posts could provide small chance for readers to slightly change the view from negatives into positive direction.
First of all, I know who was in power at the time, and I am willing to bet my life that had Abe been PM at the time, we would have lost Tokyo. I am grateful for how PM Kan handled the disaster but am very critical about how his administration handled the info.
Do not bet your life like that in comment section of the media like JT, may I suggest? And I cannot make any comment on such hypothetical comparison.
All I can say is... that I like Abe much better than Kan and you are the other way around I noted.
I brought up Fukushima because I think that it sheds light on a very important aspect of Japanese culture...DENIAL. This is what I'm getting at. The fact that Japan thinks it can hide something that is known and out in the open is the problem. You can't ignore things and just expect them to go away. But that is a part of Japanese culture. This is why we have the statue problem, now and the same aspect of Japanese culture-DENIAL- is responsible for the mess that is Fukushima. The minute Japan learns to stop whitewashing facts and starts learning to deal with them head on is the day Japan can solve its problems with its neighbors as well as the disaster that is fukushima.
Denial, Denialism, Apologist, Revisionist, Revisionism, whatever….words often-quoted in evaluating Japan’s history recognition. I am not really sure those are right description appropriately fitting with Japan and Japanese. People use too easily, too lightly such terms and the term Truth
Anyway, I remember you said somewhere in the past you wouldn’t care about Japan even a bit unless you live in this country. I hope you would care about Japan even if you are gone to somewhere else Of course, if you like Japan and decide to spend the rest of your life, and hence, trying to make this country and your country better, I appreciate that. To be honest, I would like the person like you to be Japanese citizen rater than some ridicuouls…(I’ll stop here in order not to be a racist)
I also noted you use your real name (I suppose) which I admire and think you are serious always when posting something whereas I just use handle name. There is a difference in it.
I'll be checking regularly for your post.
There’s not much worthwhile in what I say. Take things easy. I wouldn’t be able to promise to use no BS words in future. I would rather come back with full of dirty words withour caring a bit about being deleted. So Pot calling Kettle. You’re very right.
Ok, what does that have to do with this article?
I think I can foresee what you would say next, if I answer in the way I was about to, so it’s waste of a few posts for both of us. Let’s stop here..
Is the statue the one making the noise?
The same thing.
And have a good night.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Japan claims the statue violates vienna convention and to be removed. Skipping all other points I and others mentioned, it is well known that there was noisy fuss around the statue in Bussan for removing or protecting. Every Wednesday, there have been demonstrations in front of the Embassy in Seoul which could be noisy and disturbing the emabssy. [That] has great deal to do with the statue issue violating the convention or not.
First of all, Japanese revisionists are not trying to revise history. They are whitewashing it and trying to rewrite it altogether.
Although I disagree with your comment, whitewashing once and rewriting could be equal to revising somthing.
We saw the EXACT SAME thing during the Fukushima crisis. The j-media and gov lied to the people about the radiation and ANYONE who said anything else was considered a Japan-basher. Sorry, but when people stand up and say the truth, they are not japan bashers. The people who really don't care about japan are those who hide the truth or try to change it for their selfish political reasons.
First of all. Fukushima has nothing to do with the statue. Read the title of the article.
Secondly. If you happen to expect proper response, stop inserting BS into your comment.
Thirdly. having said that off topic. I know it was quite shocking Freanch embassy leaked some shocking news and made their staffs evade quickly. Although then-PM was ironically not Abe you hate so much, and I cannot be sure Kan and his fellows intentionally lied or didn't grasp situations, or try not to make Panics happen or anybodyelse hid the truth or anything...the fact those foreigners who stood up for saying the truth, I personally appreciate very much and this is not sarcastic but from my heart.
My next post will be much later as I need to take off soon.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Not exactly. I claimed that I can claim the accepted version of history to be the case, and when asked for evidence, I showed how the Japanese government had admitted [it] had happened.
OK. Accepted version must be true although I strongly believe any nation has right to revise later if it could realize it misunderstood or made errors in accepting the claims from the others. The problem is that the story symbolized or inscribed by the statue was not included in their accepted version or in [it] which had happened.
Your attachment of Kato’s statement nowhere refered to and accepted the horror story or does it look accepting it to your eyes?
If not, my argument still holds that the statue symbolizing non-accepted story impairs the dignity (Let’s put IF on the premises for now)
Let's keep it to the statue. That's real. We can discuss hypotheticals until the cows come home, but I prefer to discuss the situation we are actually dealing with. That said, I think we've already said everything on the matter. I showed how the statue does not violate the convention. You disagree. If you have something new on the matter, I'm happy to discuss it.
Well that one was new for me although Kazuaki briefly refered to it. Like rightwingers’ loud speaker van, or the noisy disturbance removing or keeping the statue for Bussan consulate, the case is actual, not hypothetical. If the noise is clearly disturbing, 2nd half of sec 2 art22, covers this case and host country is obliged to stop it? If you are fed up with this continuing, you don’t have to answer.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Fine. Let me quickly sort out this part of our conversation. I argued the statue impairs the dignity because it symbolizes the story which I called false. You argued the statue doesn’t impair the dignity because the story is not false. I called it false because her disturbed hair, for example, implied the story that IJA soldiers broke into her house and snached her up from home (according to Mr & Mrs Kim, the creaters). Or that IJA forcibly abducted 200,000 girls (mostly Korean)(according to epigraphs of some statues.. To counter such story, I left one document which is about Korean PoW mentioning "All Korean prostitutes that PoW have seen in the Pacific were volunteers or had been sold by their parents into prostitution. This is proper in the Korean way of thinking….
You argued you can equally claim the story to be true and provided the link to NYT article. I pointed out NYT you provided falsified part of, or not accurately reporting what Japanese politicians remarked. I also mentioned Asahi article published a few day before(which NYT based the article on) also contained errors which Asahi took back and apologized. By saying those, I meant your proof was not dependable anyway in the first place over-all even before I need to gointo the details of the article. and I explained how Politicians remarks were exaggerated. I also pointed out the fact Japanese officials were not accepting in their remarks falsely reported by NYT, the claim symbolized by the statue that IJA snatched up , abducted girls in the peninsula. So I said it cannot be your proof to hold your argument that the story to be true.
Back to your last post.
So are you trying to claim that the article made up the apology by the government?
No, the article made up as if those politicians admitted there were forced recruitment, abduction of girls by the hand of IJA in Korean Peninsula, by which I think you intended to prove for the horror story to be true.
Because the apology was the part of the article relevant to our conversation. The rest of it isn't, and therefore if your comments are not in relation to that apology, they aren't relevant to our conversation.
No you did not clarify the apology is the one and everything for the story to be true. You just said you can claim the story to be true.
So if are you trying to say, because those politicians apologized, the story cannot be false, I say wrong. Making apology does not mean accepting the all claims or stories made by your opponent. I don’t have to prove this.
From the article: Today Japan's chief Government spokesman, Koichi Kato, offered a more specific apology, saying, "We would like to express our heartfelt apology and soul-searching to those women who had a bitter hardship beyond description." His specific comment: 従軍慰安婦の募集や慰安所の経営等に旧日本軍が何らかの形で関与していたことは否定できないと思う。この機会に改めて、従軍慰安婦として筆舌に尽くし難い辛苦をなめられた方々に対し、衷心よりお託びと反省の気持ちを申し上げたい
Yes. Nothing wrong with this part. Admitting some involvement and making apology this way do not mean accepting the horror story.
Yep. It's pretty hard to revise the truth.
Yes it is if it is truth and it always is good to revise untruth. Though your noisy friend seems making unsubstantial noise ,it is not always impossible to revise untruth.
Speaking of noise, What was your arugument about Vienna convention art22 sec2 in case noise or noisy sound like loud speaker disturbing the embassy but the sound source is off the wall. Is the convention covering how to treat disturbing noise from outside but from very close to the main gate? Since this is not hypothetical at all but rather actual, I bet even Vienna in 1961 tried to cover this kind of case. No?
5 ( +6 / -1 )
You think that the Japanese government based their admission on an Asahi shimbun article? Yeah, right. You'll have to prove that.
I didn’t say that.
I meant that NYT article on 1/13/1992 you linked was mainly based on Asahi article published 2 days before but NYT (and JapanTimes also) made falsified reporting, and that Asahi ‘s original article itself on 1/11/1992 was one of those which did include falsehood and misunderstandings about comfort women for which, though it was too late, Asahi admitted and took back and made official apologies after more than 20years passed (as you know). Asahi article on 1/11/1992 reported that prof.Yoshimi found out IJA’s document which indicated IJA’s involvement in comfort stations, which was the trigger of those NYT and JapanTimes reporting and of Japan’s acknowledgement
The fact is, the government admitted it happened. I know you don't like that, but I'll take their word over your revisionist word any day, even 25 years later.
The government admitted what? That’s the question. If you rely on the NYT you linked, it contains several falsehood. Not only NYT but also JapanTimes reported in similar manner at that time, which were nothing but intentional impression management
For example, Title is false: [Japan Admits Army Forced Koreans to Work in Brothels]. None admitted forced prostitution by IJA. Japan admitted direct or indirect involvement in setting up comfort stations (and it didnot exactly know what kind of roles IJA played exactly yet for which Japan promised to investigate @1)
@1 Japan later made offcial press conference and clearly mentioned that it could not find any document or proofs that backs up forced recruitment or forced prostitutions by the hands of IJA
Both NYT and JapanTimes reported as such,
Over the weekend Japan's Foreign Minister, Michio Watanabe, said "I cannot help acknowledging" that the Japanese military was involved in forcing the women to have sex with the troops.
whereas he actually said [I cannot help but acknowledge some involvement (in comfort stations). Period.
Japan or no Japanese officials admitted so-called forced prostitution or forced recruitment but just the fact IJA ‘s involvement in setting up/operations of comfort stations, which Involvement, Japan has never been denying since then hasn’t it..
Honestly, I don’t understand what you are trying to prove with this NYT article. It is proving nothing for Seiji Yoshida-kind of horror story which the statues symbolize to be true
And I know I should tell myself again there is nothing much I can do here in JT and give up to change the view of Japan bashers wrt comfort women issues but at least, Revisionists have been doing great jobs without giving up easily like myself. History should always be revised whenever necessary as far as closer to the truths.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Yes, you keep repeating yourself, and I've already addressed the points you've brought up, and pointed out how they are incorrect.
I don’t mind repeating and it’s you who are incorrect. Vienna did not need to write down the second half of art22 section2 if someone simply tries to enter and the erect the cause of disturbance and impairment without permission because those can be defined as intrusion, violation.
I didn’t expect to take the case this far but how the current convention can treat airborne object like drone demonstrating something loudly or keep taking photos for unknown purposes over the premises. How far above is or is not the drone floating around over the premises allowed as out of the WRITTEN sope of the treaty?
Does convention specify air rights? Does the term premises include air rights? Sounds stupid maybe?, I don’t disagree. See? If you try to dig up to find complete answers only from what are written, you don’t wait for long till you hit the wall and run into the world court for answers. The Law written down is not for what it is written or how it is written but for what it is written for. The Essence In the case we are talking about is the environment which, of course, includes some undefinable sphere around the embassy.
If you have something new like the article or professional legal opinion about sec2 art22 in line with your argument, I appreciate and will be happy to address it. Or at least, you are supposed to cook the 4 facts I have kept mentioning to align them reasonably in line with your flavor of the argument. And I hope there would not be any more [I don’t know, as I wasn’t there]
Sure, the Japanese government themselves have admitted that it happened:
Surprise I must say
As it has been always, NYT spread the copy of Asahi with unreasonable spice attached. Honestly, (don’t take it offensive), It is amazing that you linked very this one to prove you can equally claim. The link you provided, the one NYT copy/paste with unsaid exaggeration, on 1992 Jan 12th, entirely based on the sensational (which Asahi panicked with joy) scoop published a day before on 11 th, which was actually a sensational debut of prof. Yoshimi Yoshiaki** btw, and those days people believed the story of Seiji Yoshida, especially Asahi.
Since then, what have happened, if you know, or should I say you must know?
Both Asahi (more specifically Uemura, the reporter of Asahi) and Korea messed up between comfort women and Teishin-tai(women’s volunteer corps = the oprigin of the name of ChongDaeHyup)
Some Halmeonis diverted their original testimonies 180 degree to something like I was snatched up from home by Jap soldiers (but later completely took those back)
South Korea attacked back Japan for spreading out falsified story and setting fire on the issue.
Seiji Yoshida admit all those as fabricated in his own brain and disappeared to somewhere
Coomaraswamy who quoted Yoshida Seiji as a critical reference in her reports started evading contacts from Japanese Media
Asahi finally admitted and took their falsified news columns back as falsified and apologized.
I stress, Japanese government did not admit IJA forced Koreans into sex slavery as reported by NYT on Jan12 1992. That’s falsified spice to make the copy from Asahi look sensational. Japanese government got just panicked by the Asahi’s scoop a day before Miyazawa was to take off to make his first visit to SK as new PM of Japan. What J-Gov officially admitted was the fact Imperial Japan was involved into the comfort women stations( system).
Then Why Miyazawa apologized 8 times in Seoul? You tell me. IJA involved, popping out a few days ago, How anyone can prepare themselves in dialogue directly about the issue. But I stress again, He did not mention IJA forced girls into prostitution, all he and J-Govt said was IJA was involved into the system.
Now I am little surprised, your proof to claim equally turned out to be the one like this.
Are you kidding me or not? If so, please stop.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Except that it does not say 'around the embassy'. So the premise upon which you base this statement is incorrect.
Yes It doesn't say around. but the essence of the second half of sec2 art22 is to set such environment for the premises. You may say ..except that it does not say environment so I repeat it is the essence.
Using your logic, I can also say, except that art22 sec2 second half does not say it is specifically about on the premises**.
Furthermore, using your logic, if protesters build barricade or any other obstacles right in front of, just a meter off the main gate, host country doesn’t have to do anything and the embassy cannot do anything. Is it realistic?
In addition to the 3 facts I posted previously like 1)100m law, 2)girls statue in front of US embassy 2002 3)Korean Foreign minister’s statement wrt the convention, I also want to ask If it is not violation, how the hell Korea didn’t say so in the first place when reaching mutual agreement in Dec2015 or they can even declare the two statues are not against the convention right now rather than including meaningless reference to Japan’s concern into the agreement2015? Isn’t it proving many people have different way to look at the convention from yours?
If the convention were referring to the area around the embassy, it would be clear not only that it referred to the area around the embassy, but also to what degree, whether it's a distance, such as 5 meters, or something visual or what not. That's the thing about laws and conventions, everything is and needs to be explicitly stated so that there is no vagueness. As nothing is stated about the area around the embassy, it is not covered.
Like I said, if all the treaties, conventions are clear enough, you don't need world court to fight over how to read it.
It doesn't. I can equally claim that to be the revisionist narrative, as you can to claim that the story is a Korean narrative.
It does. And please go ahead and prove it. I already gave one reference, it’s your turn despite I cannot promise timely return.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
but cannot deal with people doing things like hurling molotov cocktails from outside the embassy - that's the responsibility of the host country.
Molotov cocktails, bombs, turd, whatever thrown over from outside, those are attacks, intrusion, damage, rather than disturbance and impairment not to mention disturbing. Of course host country must deal with those. So what?
I don’t think your responding along the line of conversation. I mentioned that bring in and erect the cause of disturbance and impairment to its dignity from outside into the premises can be rejected and removed by the embassy (with or without help from host country) as the premises is their jurisdiction without permission /obligation of host country, in other words, without art22 second half of section2. Restating as such in next half of section2 is to set non-disturbing ,peaceful environment around the Embassy.
For your theory to be correct, there would need to be some statement about the distance from the embassy for which the provisions would be applicable
Many treaties are imperfect, which is the reason why ICJ exists. You are not answering to the question why S.K had law to prohibit demonstration within 100m radius (and Chong Dae hyup made silly excuse that it is not demo but is press conference!!)
Otherwise, a statue anywhere in Korean could be considered a violation of the agreement.
No. I already replied. They are not annoyed, disturbed, impaired unless they must see it or must hear it everyday. Even if they are, they don’t have any right to take down the statues somewhere far away.
It's not a Korean narrative. It's one that's been repeated by women from multiple countries.
It doesn’t change a thing. As far as the statue symbolizes some falsified story, it still impairs the dignity of Japan and women in other countries do not know what Korean women went through and hence cannot testify for them. And the issue of comfort women which Japan and Korea agreed to solve in 2015 finally and irrevocably is different from other Sexual crimes done by individual soldiers on/near battle fields against women of enemy countries.
Again World know better than Seiji Yoshida kinda story and these statues symbolizes the kinda story happened in the penninsula. I leave just a small reading for you. And my next post if needed will be delayed as I need to take off.
U.S. military documents featuring Korean POW testimony discovered at U.S. National Archives
"All Korean prostitutes that PoW have seen in the Pacific were volunteers or had been sold by their parents into prostitution. This is proper in the Korean way of thinking but direct conscription of women by the Japanese would be an outrage that the old and young alike would not tolerate. Men would rise up in rage, killing Japanese no matter what consequence they might suffer."
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Not necessarily. If someone spray paints graffiti on the wall of the embassy, they have defaced it, without entering the premises. They could also throw garbage and things over the walls. These require the protection of the country in which the embassy is in (which is why you see local guards protecting embassies in a lot of countries).
Both examples are the conduct from outside the premises that diplomats inside the premises may not notice, which local guards should hinder. I simply meant the cause on the premises does not require the Embassy to ask for host country’s permission/obligation to remove because the premises is their jurisdiction and they have any rights to remove those, in other words, it does not have to be restated as such in section 2. Section 1 states inviolable. First half of section2 states against any intrusion and damage. Anybody trying to throw over the wall, or to bring in and erect the cause from outside can be rejected and stopped as violation, intrusion, damage already even before calling it disturbance or impairment. How must the art22 be such redundant unless it wants to cover the cause of disturbance and impairment around the premises.
Well, that's your opinion, but it's not the accepted opinion of the world, so your opinion is irrelevant in this matter.
When and how the world accepted Korean narrative symbolized by the statues? Actually the academia (even in Korea) who still believe the narratives Seiji Yoshida kinda story happened in the peninsula got real minor. Even some halmeonis revised their testimonies (again and as expected) off that story. The number of halmeoni victims who still claim being kidnapped, abducted by Japanese soldiers came down to just a few if not none.
If Japan did nothing wrong, why would they be disturbed or irritated?
Is one usually disturbed or irritated if being protested against what he/she’s got nothing to do with?
3 ( +6 / -3 )
maybe they know that crying like babies isn't a winning tactic. Mr Abe and Nippon Kaigi should take a lesson from others.
I take this as you have never encountered such demonstratioins in front of foreign embassy which J-Police does nothing about. Who's been crying like babies? I see korean lunatics sometimes do in their demo but never seen any Japanese crying.
The testimony is on the record and held by NHK among others. Ask your friends at NHK to transcribe the testimony and put it on the internet please.
I take this as confirmation that those are not testimonies you linked but the news again everybody knew. I don't believe there are no such definitive testimonies only NHK in the world holds. The civic group like WAM would do anything to expose them to the world long beofre if any. And I also confirmed that you have never read those yourself.
It's not irrelevant at all, if it was you wouldn't have Mr Abe's lackeys making a big show of going there, nor would you have the US government telling Mr Abe not to attend, which he hasn't.
How Yasukuni is related to the statues in front of Embassy/Consulate violating Vienna convention and the agreement 2015? Either one or both of them refers to Yasukuni in any part of the convention/agreement? or People visit there to pray for Korea to remove the statues?
Mr Abe only shows a spine when standing up to former Asian enemies but not the biggest historic enemy of all or the Russians. Is that selective bias? Not sure why he can pray for Japanese victims at Pearl Harbor but not in NanJing or Seoul. Again selective bias maybe.
Isn't it because of the big difference in military power in case of Russia? simple as that. plus much better relation with each other in case of USA. Ask the same question to China and S.Korea why just Japan?
Japanese war crime revisionists are like climate change deniers, plucking the thinnest thread that supports their position despite the overwhelming weight of evidence. Arguing with them is just as fruitless I sense.
I am one of them. We arugue regardless of the weight of evidence and we don't think the weight is overwhelming. If it is just as fruitess, just don't argue with us.
As noted, it isn't just about Korea, but they are the one's doing something about it.
Right! Isn't it the reason annoying Japanese some rightwings why Korea always and the most.
IF the shoe was on the other foot I am pretty sure, wait Japan already does it, plays the "woe be us" "we were the victim" .
IF.....Woulda' coulda' shoulda' . Don't be so sure in IF story, that's your suggestion I took.
Woulda' coulda' shoulda'.........whitewashing the past does no good for anyone, victim and aggressor alike.
I don't understand why people like you always use the term :whitewashing. It's denying part of and revising part of, without those, entire world which knows better Woulda' believing still the rediculous narrative of Seiji Yoshida, a.k.a IJA hunting young girls in entire peninsula.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
Art22 Clause2 does not limit receiving State responsibilities [to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity] only to on (the ground of )premises. Your on/off argument sounds nothing but quibbling.
The premises does not allow anyone to enter, erect any, leave any without it’s permission. If Clause2 limit the cause of the disturbance and impairment only to the ones on the premises, it contradicts per se as the embassy/consulate are able to get rid of those immediately by themselves without help/obligation of receiving State. Disturbance and Impairment around the premises( like 3meters off the consulate’s wall, or across the road right in front of the main gate of the embassy) does matter simply as you can see closely and you can hear closely.
All other 28 statues elsewhere are irrelevant as Embassy/Consulate do not see them, do not hear the noise of demonstration. Simple as that.
I do not agree with your argument impairment to indignity was done by Japanese and Korean just mentioning it with this reminder AT ALL when the statues come with inscription of falsified statements. The statue is symbol, with or without falsified inscription, of which every parts carry meanings, hair, fist, naked leg, vacant chair aside, etc. Typically her disturbed hair symbolizes the korean girl ( and this story presented by Lee Yong-Soo is VERY controversial and she took the story back later) was snatched up from home by Japanese soldiers who broke into her house at night. Since when Japan officially accepted such Korean narratives? Never. As long as the statue symbolizes those falsified messages, even partially, that is impairment to Japan’s dignity.
Like I said, it’s ambassador, consuls, the staffs who would feel disturbed or irritated, not you, not Koreans.
The Facts 1) S.Korea had law to prohibit any demonstration within 100m radius of the embassy 2)the government took down girls statue protesting US twice in 2002 3)Foreign minister Yun clearly expressed his concerns with regard to Vienna Convention donot support your simple argument.
I agree only with that Japan should’ve taken the issue to ICJ long before.
Thanks for the link but I must say I expected some links to the testimonies which were not disseminated in Japan due to political pressure. I know some NHK documentary program about comfort women was not broadcasted some years ago as I had my friends working at NHK. I am sorry to say your link do not take me to any testimonies (and the links included inthere, most of them out of work, expired). Do you have any idea which part exactly are the testimonies?
As for your and others’ other comment re Black Van right wings in front of Russia or other embassies. If the ambassadors and others keep being annoyed, yes, it is the problem and J-Gov/J-Police need to take immediate action and I believe they always do. Have you encountered any political right-wing demonstrations which went on for such long time in front of any embassy and the ambassador/staffs made offcial claims against it?
Loud speaker right wings in front of Korean embassy does matter but those Zaitoku-Kai sort of actions done elsewhere against Koreans in general present in Japan are irrelevant to this conversation about Vienna convention, and about the proper way to treat the premises of the mission.
Visiting Yasukuni is also irrelevant in terms of the J-K agreement 2015 as it does not refer at all to Yasukuni. It is also irrelevant in terms of Vienna convention unless Yasukuni built in front of such embassy and people carrying out their mission in there feel disturbed.
6 ( +9 / -3 )
Thanks. I am bit busy now so I read it later and come back if any.
it showed that they are not. I pointed that out.
How did it show they are not. Does it have any title for art.22 like The premises???
The following part does not limit the obligation to preventing any disturbance...only within limit of embassy grounds. That's what I call nitpicking.
Answer me why then SK had law to prevent any demonstarion within 100m radius.
and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
2 ( +8 / -6 )
Thy are just the most vocal even about falsified part of the issue which you seem to claim Japan must suck up because it got let off the hook for too many things.
And MacArthur did regret already before he went to the grave
3 ( +8 / -5 )
You do like nitpicking don't you. I read it is ambassador, or consuls, or their staffs whether they feel disturbed, or non-peaceful in carrying out their missions, not you, not civic groups, not Korean government or law makers. Or Japanese embassy or consulate cannot even make a word of complain if the cause of the disturbance taking place a few meters away from the fence/gate of premises? What the law prohobiting demonstration within100m radius distance from the premises existed for in SKorea?
It seems very easy for you to say so. If reality and history were not as those Korean narratives have been stressing, the things would've been different and nobody would've talking about this issue by now.
1 ( +8 / -7 )
Your link to old japantimes news doesnot support your assert. That one was old news everynody knows and those amerian historians all depend on Yoshimi Yoshiaki and (Toshi)Yuki Tanaka and so on anyway. Care to provide any links to those not disseminated in Japan due to poritical pressure? I am greatly interested in those. please. and Thanks in advance.
If you meant some article written by someone about how you read the convention, that's his/her view. Convention should be read as it is written
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
4 ( +10 / -6 )