You write a lot about Japanese law. Perhaps you can tell us how common it is for a Japanese defendant sentenced to a term of two years or under to receive a custodial rather than a suspended sentence.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Sadly, it is all too common in grade schools in Japan.
But is ruining this guy's career over something that happened decades ago really the best way to solve it?
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but are you really saying this in full knowledge of what he actually did? If you don't know, I suggest you find out. You might change your mind. "Bullying" doesn't even begin to cover it. And while bullying is common in all countries, acts of this extreme nature are not that common at all.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Hi everyone - for some context, please let me share what I heard on the Japanese news (note that I am not saying I agree with this, just passing it on).
On the face of it, this appears to be a massive double standard that looks bad for Japan. However, the Japanese government position is this -
Vaccine passports are problematic, as they reveal personal information and can lead to discrimination against though who have not had the vaccine, violating the Constitutional commitment to equality of all citizens (personally speaking I think that requiring people to have a vaccine that saves lives, and letting the vaccinated go where the non-vaccinated cannot, is an obvious exception to this equality principle - I'm sure many readers would agree with this).
So Japan cannot implement a domestic passport for use inside Japan (either by Japanese or non-Japanese). Note that the Japanese business lobby are calling for such a passport in order to stimulate the economy by allowing the vaccinated to carry on as before the pandemic, but the government is resisting this for the above Constitutional reasons.
Now, overseas, the situation is different. Government in other countries are demanding vaccine passports from those who are vaccinated and wish to avoid mandatory quarantine. If Japan does not issue it's own passports for use outside the country, its vaccinated citizens (and foreign residents) will be disadvantaged when traveling outside Japan. The Japanese government is not responsible for schemes put in place by foreign governments, but is just trying to ensure its people receive equal treatment under those schemes that are in place.
So overseas - Japanese, Japan resident non-Japanese, Japan non-resident non-Japanese: all vaccinated people can use a vaccine passport = equality.
In Japan - Japanese, Japan resident non-Japanese, Japan non-resident non-Japanese: no-one can use a vaccine passport= equality.
So in these negotiations, the Japanese government will like accuse though countries demanding reciprocity of domineering behavior that would force Japan to break its own constitution. However, those countries will see Japan as failing to play ball. With this kind of difference in perspective, these talks may be difficult.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
This is quite possibly the single most atrocious statement I have read by a public figure in years. It is hard to no where to start.
"Don't go to Tokyo" -
millions of people live there or work there everyday. Some would rather stay at home and work remotely but due to the policies of their companies they cannot. How can you, without irony, suggested that millions of people should disrupt their own lives for a sporting event?
"In Rio everyone worries about Zika when it was not the place or the season" -
but this is the place and the season for COVID-19, so...what's your point?
"Japan is always efficient and organized - I don't know what the glitch is with the vaccine" -
If you don't know this, Mr. Pound, you cannot do your job and should resign. The reasons are well known and referred to frequently in the media. 1) Only doctors and nurses can give the jab, and there are not enough of then available. And during the Olympics, the availability will fall further as you steal our medical staff for your Games. 2) The vaccine approval was delayed to conducted "Japanese only" trials that produced the same result as the global trials 3) Japan is "too organized" to allow a turn up and be vaccinated approach, so everything is done by appointment. Unfortunately, the large volume of senior citizens who are not online means appointments are being done by phone. There are not enough phone lines.
This is basic knowledge about the current situation.
How can you possibly declare the Games are safe to hold if you are unaware of this?
Now, vaccines are being further diverted from the population as athletes are prioritized over vulnerable old people.
This is politically motivated
Evidence for this? Can we not go with the simpler explanation - people don't want to die for your Games. If anything, the politics is pushing in the other direction, trying to minimize the number of apparent infections (by refusing to test) so as to uphold Japan's international image.
all the restaurants and bars in Ginza are still open."
...you would know.
Mr. Pound, you should be aware that you come across as an intensely dislikable human being willing to sacrifice human lives for your own wallet. Absolutely horrendous, mate.
12 ( +12 / -0 )
As a migrant to Australia, one with a mixed southern European/English background, an Eastern European wife, and friends and neighbours with Chinese, Indonesian and Jewish backgrounds among many others, I find your "analysis" of Australian society utterly irrelevant, incomprehensible and risible.
Have you ever actually asked your Chinese-Australian neighbors and others what they think of Anzac day, or have you just assumed that they buy in to it because you have never asked them and they have never said otherwise? Next time you hang with them, ask them what they, as people of Asian heritage, think about positioning the Anzac story as a non-negotiable lynchpin of national identity. You might have an interesting discussion with them.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Those Governments can't be simultaneously racist - i.e. won't allow people in from India - and non-racist - i.e. welcoming skilled Indian migrants as citizens - at the same time.
Governments allow in specific groups of immigrants when the government feels it is in their own interests to do so. These reasons are various, but usually economic.
A government can very easily bring people in and then discriminate against them later on. There is nothing inherently impossible about this (it is after all what we are seeing in action now).
Additionally, a government can also very easily bring people in (and even give them citizenship) while still allowing a particular ethnic group to dominate decision making and occupy the central heart of the country's perceived identity. This happens all over the world.
That is why I cannot understand your suggestion that if a government allows in a particular group of migrants, it cannot behave towards them in a racist manner at a later date. Of course it can. There are numerous other examples of people being allowed into a country and treated shoddily afterwards.
A well-known example is the British government's encouragement immigration from the Caribbean after WWII to make up for a labor shortage. Years later the Windrush Scandal happened. You suggest that my position is internally contradictory and cannot therefore be valid - but this suggestion has no foundation.
On the issues of the virus, I understand the points you are making about the virulence of Indian strains and the horrific situation there. But making it illegal for citizens of a country to return is absolutely the nuclear option. It cannot be allowed in a democracy - ever - since it deprives the banned citizens of their fundamental right to residence in their own nation and protection by their government.
I believe that Australia sees some of its citizens as more legitimate than others and centers its national myth making and "spiritual heart" on the history of one ethnic group, namely Anglo Australians.
You can call this "analysis" irrelevant and risible if you like. But there are more than 200 countries in the world. As far as I know, Australia is the only one that has outlawed some of its own citizens from returning home (it is certainly the only developed country doing this).
What is it about Australia that allows this to be possible? I would argue it is because those who are disproportionately affected have virtually no political representation and no-one to fight their corner and, yes, some Australians are seen as more Australian than others. Is it a coincidence that Australia is doing this and other countries are not?
As I mentioned above, we have already seem from the offshore refugee detention issue that the Australian government, despite leading an "advanced multicultural democracy", is far, far more ready and willing that than other developed nations to chuck human rights in the bin.
So there is an observable pattern of behavior on the part of the Aus government.
If there are quarantine issues and leaks from quarantine, the correct course of action is to address and sort those problems, not to deny Indian-Australians the support of their own government and leave them to their fate.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Interesting that my description of Anzac Day seems to offend you more than brown-skinned Australian citizens being hung out to dry (or die) by their own government.
Your opinion over which of these two things requires the greater outrage rather proves the point I am trying to make.
That said, I'm not trying to be deliberately offensive. Perhaps "festival" upset you and if it did I would like to apologize. One can have a "sombre" festival - I used the word in that sense. I did not of course mean to imply that the occasion is joyous, if that is what you took from the word "festival".
If it helps, my view on Anzac Day is along the lines of this article.
In my view, it is inappropriate to have an ethnically exclusive commemorative event at the spiritual heart of what claims to be a multicultural nation. It puts impossible demands on immigrants trying to find and adopt the identity of their new nation; it offers them something they cannot possibly engage with.
I hope this does not get deleted for being "off topic". It is entirely relevant. The idea that Anzac Day is the one essential part of Australian identity that everyone must "get behind" is very much the same mindset that leads to the horrendous treatment of the immigrants locked into the tower blocks in Melbourne, or, as we see here, the discriminatory treatment meted out to Australians of South Asian heritage. They are not the right sort of Australian, you see.
As for living in Australia, I don't know what I could I say to convince you... that it's hard to get a spot for the Bunning's sausage sizzle and when you turn comes round you better hope it doesn't rain? that Telstra has poor customer service but Optus is even worse? that a nipper board is different from a surf board which is in turn different from a surf ski? that bin chickens provide a useful service when the remains of your Maccas has gone cold and you can't be bothered to get out of your seat? that when Origin is on, cheeky little signs goading the opposition appear above the motorway? That tradies will do just enough of the job to make it a hassle to find someone else before clearing off to do another job with a more lucrative day rate, later magically reappearing just before you can can them? (I once saw a truck on the motorway with the slogan "completes jobs on time and returns call" - where else could that be a unique selling point... ah, good times!)
Don't assume, eh. Of course there are many beautiful things about Australia. Not among these beautiful things are the following: race relations and proper introspection on issues of identity and belonging.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
AustPaulToday 06:29 pm JST
Jpn guy, justify those comments please.
Sick of hearing such comments, It has nothing to do with race!
I am quite happy to defend these comments. People implementing policies with a racial bias don't normally announce "we are implementing a racist policy". This means that in order evaluate so consider the past statements and actions by political actors, and the political context, including the nature of representation. Who is acting in who's interests (or who is barracking for who, isn't that what y'all say?)
Let's look at the context then shall we- what percentage of Australian's have a parent from a non-English speaking background? I believe that number is rather high.
What about your elected representatives? As far I can see, the percentage is way, way lower. The Australian parliament, and the state parliaments, are massively Anglo-biased. Of course, this is what you would expect where in a country where the Anglo-Australians are the largest group in the population and there is a first-past-the-post voting system which exaggerates the degree of their majority.
But we would also then expect these politicians as a group tend to act in the interests of the Anglo population. I don't that is even really a controversial statement.
The idea that all Australian's of all colors are treated the same is simply not tenable. For example, you have a quasi-religious ancestor worshipping festival every year on April 25. Whose ancestors are you worshiping? Why are all the other ethnic groups in Australia "required" to join in and follow protocol to worship the ancestors of a certain portion of the population? I believe in 2017 a Sudanese-Australian woman was actually forced out of the country following a hate campaign against here when she refused to follow the April 25 rituals. Are some people more Australian than others?
This action, that disproportionately effects Australians of South Asian heritage, is exactly inline with how many people see Australia as a nation - with the notion that some Australians are "more Australian" than others.
As I said, your politicians are not going to announce "we are going to treat people of different races differently and prioritize the Anglo population, while claiming to the rest of the world to have an equitable multi-cultural country ".
So we need to looks at past incidents trends and attitudes and try and figure out what is going on.
Look at the refugee policy. Look at the treatment of the First Australians . Look at the faces of those in positions of influence. Look at the comments down the years of your politicians. Years back there was an awful racist fella called Peter Dutton. His has said and did some truly atrocious things to non-white people, also making various statements that could be considered support for white supremacy - is Mr. Dutton still in a position of influence I wonder... ah, I just looked him up, he seems to be your Minister for Defense.
More recently then, there is the recent tower block lockdown in Melbourne. Admittedly, this was the Victorian State Government not the central government, but the same principle applies.
I recommend you take a look at the BBC article
Coronavirus: The tenants enduring Australia's toughest lockdown
Here are some quotes from the article:
The majority of residents have limited income and come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Many are migrants - some who arrived as refugees - from African nations, Vietnam and China. There are many young families and pensioners.
"Most of the residents found out about it when they saw uniformed police officers surrounding their homes," Ombudsman Deborah Glass said.
She said it was "unimaginable" that the "theatre of policing" which followed would have occurred for a similar Covid outbreak in a luxury apartment block.
So Aust Paul, unfortunately your pollies have form here.
I would suggest you views on how people of different ethnicities are treated in Australia do not necessarily reflect reality.
I apologize if the above feels piecemeal and cherry picked to you - I am not an academic, and I have not got the time to provide you with meticulous watertight research.
But the "it has nothing to do with race" is often wheeled out to defend actions that have everything to do with race.
Do you really think Australia, under any circumstances, would pass laws to jail people arriving in Australia from the UK? Which reminds me, what's that in the corner of your national flag? Another symbol of Australia's color-blind multiculturalism?
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
White Australia Policy alive and well.
Treating your own citizens in the manner is utterly despicable and a stain on the international reputation of Australia.
A government exists to protect and serve its citizens. In this life-threatening situation, surely the government's role is to help get its citizens home and into quarantine? Giving citizens no help to get home from a deadly pandemic and threatening to jail them if they do attempt to try is borderline psychotic behavior.
Does anyone believe the Australia government would to this to the US or the UK even if their situations were as awful as the situation in India?
I don't really follow Australian politics these days, so I looked up online to see who is implementing this cruelty.
No surprise - the government is still the same party that locked up refugees on an isolated island and continued to do so in defiance of the UN even as the refugees began to suffer horrendous mental problems and a number attempted o kill themselves (some succeeded) after fleeing from war straight into years of incarceration without trial at the hands of Australia.
Individual Australian people seem so warm and friendly, always there to help you out.
Why though, as a nation, does do Australians continue to elect the current mob of human rights violators?
Over the past few years, some of the policy coming out of Australia is simply inhumane.
-10 ( +5 / -15 )
Seriously? On a cruise ship?
Is this because ‘close contact’ is defined as something ridiculous like maskless contact within 2 metres for 20 minutes??
I think you are exactly right. A friend of mine who lecturers at a university had a student call to say they tested positive after attending class.
The teacher contacted the Health Center to arrange a test and was told that as the student and teacher were both masked, and the distance between the seats and teachers podium is more than 2 meters, the teacher does not qualify for a test.
She asked "how are you defining close contact then?" and the answer was similar to yours above. So of course not only the teacher but also the majority of the students in the class cannot get tested.
It is also worth noting that, in the absence of another method to determine who meets this very tight definition, it is based entirely on the student's self-reporting on who he spent time talking to while potentially infected.
So if the student simply fails to remember a close conversation the system breaks down.
37 ( +39 / -2 )
I don't necessarily disagree with "with the decision not to allow spectators from overseas to attend the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games".
The world is very uncertain at the moment and we cannot expect the Olympics to go ahead exactly in other years.
But the above question is a limited question that does not allow an adequate answer.
The question we should be asking is this:
Why is it OK for the ban on spectators from overseas to include vaccinated people when people in Japan can attend even if they have not been vaccinated?
I have yet to see a decent explanation for that. Whether or not we agree on stopping people coming from overseas to view the Games, the policies currently in place, when considered as a whole, appear to make little sense.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I hope the Japanese government will take steps to remind the public that people of all appearances live in Japan permanently and may have tickets.
Hopefully we will not see unsavory incidents of non-East-Asian looking people being asked "what are you doing here?" and told "you are not allowed" etc.
The ban itself is also strange.
Banning all foreign supporters means vaccinated spectators from are kept out while unvaccinated locals and unvaccinated athletes and officials are allowed to attend.
To be honest, I can see that it would be hard to allow only vaccinated spectators as there would not be much time to design, test and introduce any "vaccine passport measures"., and people desperate to come might try to cheat whatever system was put in place.
But the decision, despite the blanket supporter ban, to simply allow the unchecked attendance of thousands of unvaccinated members of the Japanese public, unvaccinated athletes and unvaccinated officials is absolutely mind-boggling.
Of course, checking who is and isn't vaccinated is the same problem I just stated.
That is why the only logical solution really was to cancel.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
You claim you are a black man. I don't believe you. I think you are a white man stirring trouble.
Actually, I do believe you, but see what happens when we start refusing to trust people and questioning everything they say. I am a mixed race English man (one black parent, one white) and believe me it is not at all hard to believe that royal family members where hoping they would not get a very black baby.
The problem is though, we all bring out prejudices to the conversation. For example, I know you are a relatively dark (not white-passing) black man. How do I know? Because you brush of Meghan's problem with being told she "does not look black". If she as a child identified as black, then having that denied by a classmate would be hard to deal with. It is not at all surprising she remembers that years later.
By dismissing Meghan, your preconceptions about the moaning of the privileged, light-skinned blacks to the conversation. And I admit, I bring my preconceptions about the attitudes of the British upper classes to the conversation.
But in the end of the day, neither of us were there, and neither of us has reason to doubt why Harry felt "uncomfortable" unless we have an ulterior motive for doing so.
By the way my friend, I suggest you read up about the past words of Prince Philip, the "chimpanzee" incident (Danny Baker), and endless other examples of prejudice from the UK royal family before you make a judgement that this is simply a matter of privileged people wallowing in a victim complex.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
What she presented as racist being asked "What color do you think your baby will be?" is what all Blacks in a mixed relationship are asked.
Yes, this is true. These questions can be innocent. But Harry directly said "questions were asked that made me feeling extremely uncomfortable". His recollection is clearly that, whatever was said, it was said with the tone of "I hope this kid will not be too dark". If it was not said in that tone, why would he feel uncomfortable? Or are disputing his recollection (where you there?) and saying that he made the whole thing up? What would be your reasons for believing that?
Asking "will he be light or dark, will he look like Mum or Dad?" is one thing.
If someone, for example says "we have traditions you know, we have a long history, you have to think about the family. I do wonder if he will be dark" - well then the meaning is completely different, isn't it?
Of course, I (like you!) was not there and don't know what was said, but why are people so eager to even deny this possibility and instantly conclude that a) it was an innocent question b) the above sort of nuance could never, ever have been present c) Harry (and Meghan) is lying.
The fact that so many people are instantly without evidence to the contrary eager to deny even the possibility of inappropriate remarks and determined to link this dialog to completely different innocent remarks made in completely different situations is exactly what this article is about.
Question yourself. Why does your automatic reaction take you down this road?
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
Her example of racism, wondering what a child’s skin tone would be, is ridiculous. Is wondering what a child’s hair or eye color an example of racism as well. Of course no.
This is a prime example of the denialism the article is referring to. The example was not simply "wondering what a child's skin tone would be".
You can disbelieve them if you want, but you can't change what they actually said in the interview. Harry (not just Meghan) said that "a member of the family queried what color the baby would be in a way that made me deeply uncomfortable". When Oprah asked him who said what he said "I will never share that".
So you can believe him or not believe him, but clearly, from the first person accounting he is giving, he is not talking about a simple "oh, I wonder if he will look like the Mum or the Dad?" type innocent question.
This is not Chinese whispers or second hand information. He is saying this was said to him directly. So if you want to deny this, you have to call him a flat out liar lying about what was said to his face.
Now, that is relatively rare, isn't it? To take what someone says was said to them personally - not a rumor or second hand information - and accuse them of making it up. That's exactly what the article is talking about.
When racism is the topic this kind of denial happens all the time. This is exactly the gaslightling. You are doing it now. If you want to disagree with Harry, that is your right, but you must (if you want an honest argument) say "I think you are lying about a personal conversation you claim to have had.
But you are not doing that are you? You are saying something quite different. To quote you again:
Her example of racism, wondering what a child’s skin tone would be, is ridiculous. Is wondering what a child’s hair or eye color an example of racism as well. Of course no.
Why are you completely ignoring Harry's statement about a conversation that left him "very uncomfortable"? Why are you shifting the goalposts in this way? Do you go through life frequently denying people heard what they said they heard? Or only in situations like this?
Under an article about denying and gaslighting, how can you un-ironically do exactly that without realizing it? It shows a lack of self-awareness, doesn't it?
Why would you conclude there was simply an innocent question? Where are you getting that from? You are simply bringing your own prejudice to the conversation without evidence.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
For those of you bashing TBS for saying "it is regrettable that he got arrested", please be aware that they are not saying "we wish he had not got found out".
The nuance in the original Japanese is "it is regrettable that one of our employees did something so bad that it warranted his getting arrested".
They probably said something like 「社員の逮捕は遺憾だ」or some other variation along those lines.
This implies criticism of the whole series of events leading up to and including the arrest.
I mean, think about it, is a major media organization going to make a statement like "We wish the police had not caught him?" Come on now.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
At the very least, you have to explain why this "pandemic" virus has not reached 99.09% of the population after circulating openly in the air for over a year.
Because measures, like wearing masks and not meeting in large numbers in crowded spaces are working?
If we went back to normal the rate would shoot up, wouldn't it?
In fact , we have seen infection does rise signficiantly up every time measures are weakened. It went up due to "Go Travel". It went up massively around January 10, 10 days after more people were breaking restrictions to spend New Year with there family. It goes down when an SOE is imposed and goes back up when the SOE is lifted.
We can see from else where what happens if we let it get worse - in other parts of the world, like North Italy and NY last year and Manaus, Brazil now, so many people are dying that the health system is under severe strain.
But, OK, maybe you are right and many more have been infected (not sure where you are getting 10 mil. from though) - this would mean that we are lucky that we have a weaker strain here in Japan for whatever reason and even if we let up all restrictions, we would not end up with a NY or Manaus like situation. How confident are you of that?
It's a pretty risky proposition isn't it? - you would literally be betting people's lives that the reasons we have not seen so many deaths is not the success of measures taken, but rather a fundamental difference between infectiousness in Japan and in those other areas where it has gone very, very wrong. Where is the evidence your would require to gamble with lives like that ?
A further point to bare in mind is that the more transmissions there are the greater the change of mutation into something even worse, which we are now seeing with the variants that have emerged from places like the UK that did not get their response together. Mutation-wise, the more people that have the disease, the more you are rolling the dice.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
And basically everybody is doing just fine.
Many of us already got Covid but didn’t even notice.
It’s a pandemic of positives but not of serious illness.
@Burning Bush - Really mate? Really? Are you still banging that drum?
Let's do some maths, shall we, if you can deal with that on a Saturday morning (well, this isn't even really "maths" is it, it's just basic arithmetic...)
The survey say 0.91% of people have antibodies. Let's call that 1% for simplicity.
Let's say around 10,000,000 people live in Tokyo (it's 9 and a bit). So give or take, 100,000 people in Tokyo or thereabouts have had COVID (it might be 80,000 or 110,000 but its in that ballpark).
Now, what is the COVID death rate? We have frequently been told throughout the pandemic that it is about 2%. However, estimates are difficult as some people have no symptoms whatsoever so are not included in the calculation. So maybe the 2% is or is not true...
The antibody tests, though, should catch these symptomless people (maybe not all depending on how long the antibody lasts and shows up in testing).
If we have around 100,000 infected people and the death rate is the 2% that has been reported, we would expect 2000 deaths in Tokyo.
The actual recorded number of dead is just under 1000. This may be half of the estimate of 2000 , but again it shows we are in the right ball park. This quick calculation did not produce an answer of 2, or 20 or 20,000 or even 200,0000 deaths.
The order of magnitude is correct. We should also remember that the figure of 1000 dead is missing those that died undiagnosed - so the actual number may be higher.
So, to recap we have uncertainty over whether the antibody test numbers include those who had short-lived antibodies, and we have uncertainty over whether the death figures catch everyone (such as those who died at home with no medical investigation) and this means that if we are working out a fraction to figure out the death rate, both the number on top and the number on the bottom (numerator and denominator) could well be too small and we are not entirely sure which direction the inaccuracy goes in.
But what is clear is that, despite these inaccuracies and uncertainties a death rate of around 1 to 3% is not completely off. Observation, experience and those statistics that we do have tell us that the death rate is not 10 to 30% but then neither is it 0.1 to 0.3% or 0.01% to 0.03 %.
So now, we can also imagine that, (if you do live in Tokyo) with just 1000 recorded deaths in a city of 10 million, you probably don't know anyone who has been ill with COVID, and since it is not happening around you, you think it is not really a thing.
But let's get back to our arithmetic and assume we follow your advice and do nothing. Let's say everyone gets COVID. How does that work out mate?
1% of 120 million is 1.2 million and we are looking at more than 1 million dead. If the whole population of the planet got COVID we are looking at north of 70 million dead - of course absolutely everyone getting the disease may be unrealistic, but if no measures at all are taken then what is there to stop the stats heading in that direction?
So @burning bush - I would argue that your comments deny reality, have no justification or evidence to back them up, and are completely irresponsible.
The reason Japan is surviving this pandemic so far is not because the disease is not serious - it kills upwards of 1 in 100 people who get it - it is simply that only around 1 in 100 people have had it so far so the total dead are around 1 in 10,000.
The reason for that is because people are successfully taking the measures that you have been arguing against (mask up, keep your distance, stay in, avoid unnecessary mingling)
9 ( +13 / -4 )
The only thing I have learned from this thread is that there will always be small-minded people who want to criticize and nitpick the life choices of other people, and for some reason this tendency goes into overdrive when talking about minorities and mixed race people. What ever happened to live and let live?
The criticisms leveled against Osaka here are ridiculous, and more evidence of the double standards that ethnic minorities in the public eye, particularly sportspeople, face.
Some people are simply never happy. Raheem Sterling, the Williams sisters, Lewis Hamilton, Colin Kaepernick (when did kneeling become a disrespectful act? - that's right, as soon as a black dude did it...); all hauled over the coals in public for nothing.
Why do people need to get up in the face of black and mixed race public figures. Away from sport, look at the hyper-criticism faced by Megan Merkle or Diane Abbot (one of the UK's first black women politicians who has for long years been the subject of cruel and unfounded abuse) every time she did anything.
Of course, the nitpickers and naysayers will deny what they are doing.
All together now; "we're not racist...."
How about y'all stop trying to drag people down?
-5 ( +4 / -9 )
Troy, you write
Japanese people are (not special but different):
It is a a given fact the medicines affect different racial groups differently.
Yes, it is true that some pharmaceuticals may possibly affect different racial groups differently.
But do you genuinely believe that pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies agreed to roll out this vaccine in the US, with its multi-ethnic population, without bothering to include a significant portion of people of East Asian heritage in the trials? Come on now.
Admittedly the sample size might be smaller, but we have seen this play out over and over. Japan, eventually, three, five, 10 years down the line rolls out a foreign drug in the domestic market after further trials that "discover" it is safe for people of East Asian heritage; exactly the same discovery that must to take place before the roll out in the US which has nearly 1 million people of Japanese heritage, more than 2 million of Japanese or Korean heritage, and more than 5 million people of Japanese, Korean or Chinese heritage.
Then there are your reservations about the vaccine because of what happened to one unfortunately individual.
(one single individual) ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. I think Japan has it about right.
Do you even science, bro?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, as long as you don't think it makes your people better than anyone else's people.
> I asked no question.
Your post invites us to consider whether Japan's repeated appeals to the UN to register all and sundry are, or are not indicative of a desire to suggest that Japanese culture is "better" than other cultures. If you have never run into this attitude, then perhaps you don't live here?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Mocking [a nation's] pride [in its heritage] just makes people seem very petty, even jealous.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, as long as you don't think it makes your people better than anyone else's people.
You answer yourself better than I could answer you.
-9 ( +2 / -11 )
If you have not clicked on the twitter link kindly posted by noriahojanen, you should!
Thank you noriahojanen, that is certainly an iconic (and ironic) photo. No doubt it will be much reproduced. I don't often click on random posted links, but I am glad I did. I think you are underselling this one!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Japan a different story away from home.
Indeed. The legendary victory against SA took place in the well-known Japanese town of Brighton.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Suppressing the news of suicides will only result in increasing them.
You are confusing suppressing the news (i.e. note reporting at all) with not mentioning details. Clearly we do not need details. A Japan Today article the other day literally spelling out the implement the individual used to hang themselves. Surely this level of detail is not required.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Hi Japan Today. It is well established that reporting suicide causes more suicide. Yes, that is correct. Research shows that when there are more stories of suicide in the news, suicide rates go up.
As other posters have mentioned, it is standard practice to include helpful contact information for suicidal people in a piece like this. All news organizations that wish to be taken seriously do this.
Similarly, it is now standard practice not to provide details on how the deceased passed since it may encourage people to copy the method. It is certainly completely unacceptable to provide information on the precise tool used to carry out the act as you have done here.
Please take a look at how the BBC, for example, reports these tragedies.
Of course, this approach will sometimes leave the more certain readers wondering about the details, but if it is proven that leaving out the details saves lives, perhaps you might want to follow this approach.
As I am not a journalist or a professional in a related field, I cannot point you to the precise research that concluded detailed reports on suicide literally result in more people dying, but I am sure the various journalistic and professional associations to which you belong to can point you in the right direction so as to bring your reporting into line with international standards.
Thank you. I hope you can take this on board.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
You've been jumping up and down about Trump's family for years. Now the shoes is on the other foot, you don't like it.
We don't know the results of the investigation. But sure, if he has been up to no good and is guilty, then he should not receive special treatment.
I think most "on the left" feel this way. We don't like special favors and cronyism.
But let me ask you questions... Is Biden planning to employ his son at the White House? Have him sit along side him in photocalls with world leaders? Give him negotiating roles for which he is not qualified? Make hims a "special advisor?" Provide him with a government salary (funded by taxpayers?) Appoint him to manage this or that project?
The answer to all these questions is no, isn't it?
So how can you possibly compare Biden's son, who will be completely uninvolved in his father's administration, with the Trump family and their nepotistic appointments?
Are you really looking at these two situations and concluding "these are exactly the same, just with the roles reversed?"
Cannot you not see the difference here? Serious question.
6 ( +17 / -11 )
I don't see mixed race people being "glamorized" here at all. I would suggest that interpretation is mostly in your own imagination. Perhaps you could expand a little more on why you see this as "glamorization", and that might make your position easier to understand.
It also seems a stretch to suggest the ad is painting all average Japanese people as bigoted. If you are to show minorities being bullied, then by definition there will be some portrayal of those who are causing the bullying them. This does not imply all Japanese people are bigots now, does it?
However, under the logic you present, we would never be able to highlight the bullying problems faced by minorities, since you could always employ the same counter-argument irrespective of the circumstances, namely that the perpetrators are being depicted in an unfairly bad light. Surely this logic applies consistently and would allows you to reject any attempt to address the topic on these same grounds. That is why, if we accepted your position, we find ourselves with a perfect recipe for sweeping unfair treatment of minorities under the rug, ensuring the problem never gets addressed and therefore never gets solved.
Another perspective worth baring in mind is this: under what circumstances is criticism, or indeed even simply reference to, Japan's treatment of minorities ever met with sincere introspection? The answer is pretty much never. Again, this is a recipe for prolonging problems by sweeping them under the rug. You want to make a case that this ad paints Japanese people in an unfairly bad light, but if you have been in Japan for sometime, it quickly becomes clear that any discussion at all on this topic raises hackles, no matter how it is presented or couched. That surely suggests the greater problem lies not with the source material but with the reaction to it, wouldn't you agree?
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Thier motivations were probably more on the whole competition side of things.
Maybe, maybe not. But we need to rank concepts in order of importance.
International rugby is one thing. Human rights is another.
The law says their is only one type of citizen, no-subclasses allowed. Historically, there are good reasons for not subdividing citizens at all (and keeping discrimination against non-citizens to the bare necessary minimum).
Standing firm to say that a given organization cannot suddenly wake up one day and say "you may be a citizen but you are not a citizen" is too important a concept to start making exceptions.
Whatever the personal histories of the gentlemen involved, and whatever motivations other people may decide they had for naturalizing, Japan Rugby are absolutely and unequivocally breaking the law here.
If you try to argue this with many local people they may respond "but they are foreign so it can't be helped". This attitude in itself is at the route of many of Japan's problems, and Japan Rugby behaving in this way is not helping.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I fully expect this film to provide an in-depth explanation and impartial analysis of the British Army presence in Southeast Asia. As we know, the good British people never discuss the war against Japan without full awareness of the morality and justice underlying their own country's actions.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
Posted in: Chiba Prefecture closes beaches until Aug 31
Posted in: Chiba Prefecture closes beaches until Aug 31