otherworldlyToday 03:29 pm JST
Ever eat at Saizeriya? Once is about enough.
I've had Saizeriya in both HK and Japan. The taste frankly isn't the best, but it is cheap and in terms of "cost-performance" it is OK as far as I'm concerned.
13 ( +20 / -7 )
JamesToday 12:20 pm JST
Doesn't fit with yesterday's testimony, "Nissan was afraid to lose Ghosn because other companies wanted him" and where offering him more If he was afraid of Renault he would have left.
Actually, it does. Yesterday was Nissan's motive to agree to pay him more, including the possibility of using illegal covert means. Today was Ghosn's motive to agree to getting his pay (deserved or not) via illegal covert means.
The prosecution seems to be building up a case. That Nissan and Ghosn both agreed means little because the protection target of the law requiring disclosure of payment is potential and actual stockholders, and secondarily other companies that may work with Nissan and would benefit from an accurate report of its financial health.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
The boys parents will just pay the victims family and nothing will happen to them. Even if the victim dies, there is no chance of prosecution. Just look up the Junko Furuta case.
Junko Furuta's assailants were prosecuted, convicted and jailed.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
I think Korean apologists here are having a real warpage of priorities. At this point, whether the Japanese are "sincere" enough in their apologies or what the Japanese may or may not have done in the past is less important than the key issue. Do you really think it is OK for a country to try and extort what they failed to win at the negotiating table by having their courts unilaterally declare a win?
@SJToday 11:55 am JST
Remember the basics. First, why would "Japanese government officials" say anything fatal to their side's position? Second, if you are talking about the extinguishment or not of rights, Japan's position is that it is non-justiciable (this complies it with the treaty) but a natural obligation may remain. This is done because without that reservation, it would actually be legally impossible to "volunteer" compensation. In law, legal compensation requires an obligation. Compensation gained without an obligation is Unjust Enrichment. The basic rules on this are actually similar between all those countries using the German Pandectic system of civil law, which includes both Japan, Korea and of course, Germany.
7 ( +21 / -14 )
SJJan. 8 12:33 pm JST
Most Japanese do not tell the difference between a state-to-state agreement and an individual right. Let's take a simple example: what are you going to do if you heard that both countries agreed to take away your private house without your consent?
First, remember. They've now sunk from commanding companies or individuals to commanding another State.
Second, in that case, I will sue my own State for making such an agreement. However, I will recognize that my State will have to take away my house now, because they have no right to allow internal law to block execution of an international agreement. Maybe they'll be nice enough to hand over compensation quietly.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
Business "name and shame"? Like if kabuchicho, seedy izakayas or Filipino pubs cared about their reputation.
True. On the other hand, the government is now pressing for legislation that would actually start handing out some real punishments. If they are on the name and shame list, the government has IDed them, and will come after them once the law is promulgated.
-14 ( +2 / -16 )
Conservative members of the LDP claim having separate surnames damages the unity of a family
While we talk about conservatism and old times, there was a time when the average family could just send the man out to work and still have a pretty good life. That isn't the case now, and if the woman is going places the surname business can literally put a dent in their money earning capability. You bring back those good times when one breadwinner is good enough and we'll talk, Conservatives.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
First, the article does not say the guy "jumped" in front of the vehicle or any similar thing. He stood in front of the vehicle, obviously with intent to deter this Kawakami from moving. When Kawakami started moving his car, the man climbed onto the hood.
Oh, that so justifies Kawakami making maneuvers with the car that could have killed someone. He may not have wanted to kill the guy, but he is indifferent to the possibility, which suffices for conditional intent.
It did not help Kawakami that he owes the other guy money, thus even if he had a weak self-defense claim (which will not reach anywhere close to justifying a move dangerous to life), it would be void because he brought the infringement onto himself.
It's basic criminal law.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
whi were those posters on the thread last week defending Japan’s abhorrent gender equality record?
Well, it's definitely not a plus to the record. On the other hand, I would think that gender equality is better measured over the chances of the average woman on the street or the ability of elite woman to enter the elite corridors of power rather than whether they are allowed to join the race for a ceremonial post or one sport (really, how many women really are that interested in stuffing themselves fat until they can be competitive in a sumo ring?)
Suga does admit it is an appeal to tradition, which is what you use if you don't have concrete reasons supporting your idea. If rationality is all that matters, Smith P is correct that Japan would have dumped its ceremonial monarchy. At least Britain's monarchy allows it the (not very useful) gain of being able to have the Monarch be the "head of state" of a few countries like Canada and Australia.
Its continued existence is a concession to tradition, to the very idea that continuing the past is in itself worth something. And if we are going to make such an expensive concession anyway, then there is an argument that it should be kept unalloyed.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
@Bungle Today 02:09 pm JST
Using your argument, all I have to do is say to the coppers "Oh, I drank the shochu X hours ago. I didn't realise that there would be alcohol remaining in my body.", and I am off scot-free.
In the case of your scenario, you probably exaggerated the value of X. They'll say something like "Really, you claim you had 12 hours between bottle and wheel, but your BAC makes it look more like you had two hours, three at the outside. Would you like to try telling the truth?"
It is not an offense for a defendant to lie in Japan, even in the court. However, it doesn't mean they have to believe you. And the fact you lied can itself be used against you: "As you can see, Judge, the defendant lied, and by a lot. We can infer that this is because he knew (that cognizance thing again) he was over the limit."
If you answered "Oh, I drank the shochu 2 hours ago" they will say
"Well, that's about what the breathalyzer says. I don't think we'll have much trouble convincing the judge that you know, could know and should know that the human body cannot detox a whole bottle of shochu in just 2 hours. Why don't you just tell the truth to the prosecutor - he might even consider a suspended prosecution."
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
@Bungle Today 01:58 pm JST
Well, that would explain the penchant the police have with extracting confessions from defendants.
Actually, it does, I agree. The fact they allow for longer interrogation periods (compared to the US or UK) and without the lawyer means they can expect to get more accurate information on the mental aspect from the defendant. If some lawyer coaches the defendant at every step and/or they only have to hold out for a few hours before they get bailed, obviously getting useful answers would be nearly impossible. The upshot is acceptance of a) plea-bargaining (threats of multiyear imprisonment), b) circumstantial evidence being used as "proof" of your mental state and c) the effective abandonment of mens rea requirements with strict or even "absolute" liability.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@AntiquesavingDec. 30 10:10 pm JST
Any personal reasons?
Other than getting weary that people who don't demonstrate knowledge of even the ABCs of Criminal Law prejudicially make presumptions of bias? Not really.
As for why my acquaintance failed, you omitted the part where he was not over the legal limit or even near it.
If he was over the statutory limit for the relevant articles, he would already have been accused of driving under influence or even drunk driving, would he? The police and prosecutor's side is that he still had a detectable amount of alcohol in his body (objective part), he knew it (cognizance), and he chose to drive (volition).
Your friend's choice to resist, and on his chosen grounds must have made the case very easy for the prosecutor.
So your point is a drink driver over the legal limit causes an accident but is apologetic gets off.
The drunk driver had a detectable amount of alcohol in his body (objective part), but he drove because he **believed he had gotten it out of his system* (thus breaking cognizance*).
It's not like he is contemptuous of the dangers of driving with alcohol (=lack of volition) - he would not have driven IF he knew he still had alcohol in his system.
It's not the apology, except as far as it promotes the theory that there is a lack of intent.
Bumping into a police or anyone is not a criminal offense.
You might want to correct that thought, right here, right now, for your personal liberty. Intentional unpleasant contact (including bumps) are sufficient to satisfy both the subjective and objective elements of the crime of Assault. It is the lack of intent that saves us from being criminals for all the bumpings we have in life, not the purported tininess of the bump.
Learn the behavior of denying intent. It'll help,
Having a car accident due to a unavoidable circumstance or deliberately speeding up and running over someone are very different one may cost or require insurance to pay for repairs the other is murder a crime, see the difference?
Exactly. It has a different mental state, does it?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@BungleDec. 30 10:14 pm JST
Usually driving offences are considered strict liability.
Just because common law countries allow objective imputation doesn't mean civil law countries do. In civil law countries, be it Japan, Germany, Russia or China (to take 4), you need some kind of mental state, and by default it is intention, though conditional intent is allowed. Even an explicit statement only expands the liability to include negligent mental states. There's no question of the prosecution being allowed to avoid proving a mental state.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
@Antiquesaving Today 03:03 pm JST
The Japanese filled notice to contest and the prosecutor decided to go toward in court and in court tried arguing that even the tiny amount of alcohol was enough to be dangerous.
This tells me a lot about your Japanese acquaintance and why he failed. We can infer that the defense position was the inverse - the "tiny" amount of alcohol was not dangerous. However that means the defendant didn't even try (or was made aware of the infeasibility of such a position by the prosecutor) to say he didn't intend to drive with alcohol still in his body. That is the key difference.
Suppose you bumped into someone and the police caught you doing it. Which do you think goes down better?
a) "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to bump him."
b) "It's just a little bump. Why are you butting in?"
That's the influence of the mens rea concerning the criminality of an act.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
@bokudaToday 11:59 am JST
No, for example, if you are unable to even stand, then the prosecutors won't have much trouble proving your cognizance. That's not the case this round - as measured he's just slightly over the limit, and he had taken a nap which means he did give his body a chance to work the toxins out.
-14 ( +1 / -15 )
@AscissorToday 11:26 am JST
Of course he wasn't, because there was no provable crime. The key words in his post were:
He cannot be punished unless he is cognizant there is alcohol still left in his body and drove anyway. Of course, the prosecutors will have to prove the above.
It is not a secret that standards for alcohol have been tightening up over the years, so a level of alcohol that does not make you manifestly drunk is now over the limit. You can reasonably be incognizant you are still over the limit.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
In her culture, hoop earrings are worn from a young age to defy racial discrimination and act as a symbol of strength and self-respect.
Overall, this time I'll side with the BoE. First, while that may be the way Latinos see this, in Japan they have no such connotation so the Japanese students are not going to be thinking "Wow, so brave."
They will be viewing this through a Japanese lens, which is more like "Wow, she's allowed to break the rules and wear ridiculous earrings."
Now, of course earrings are allowed but I think most people allowing them are thinking Studs that are small enough you'll miss them if you don't look carefully or are at a distance, not massive hoops.
Making the situation worse is the fact that, though the request came from the board of education, they didn’t ask the ALT to stop wearing earrings directly — instead, they instructed the principal of the school to discuss the matter with the ALT.
Mmm, there's a school of thought in managerial practice that calls this respecting the middle manager's autonomy and authority by not just directly "jump the chain-of-command".
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
Harumi Yoshida has to move. He is really a fringe case - he not only uses a wheelchair, but cannot speak and cannot breathe independently.
There is only so much a company that's barely making ends meet can reasonably do to satisfy the special, costly needs of an extreme minority demographic. They don't need a costly lawsuit or be forced to implement measures that would prove to be the last straw for them and thus inconveniencing those other people that rely on the service.
Harumi needs a hospital in a larger town, not lawyers.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
They are getting more desperate:
号外：「Ｇｏ Ｔｏ トラベル」を２８日から１月１１日まで全国で停止。首相が表明 （18:42）
(from Asahi just now)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I don't know how ranks work in the JSDF, but this doesn't seem normal.
If he's Type A (Defense Academy or U-grad) he should indeed have been promoted long ago. But if he's a NCO advanced to officer (Type B or C) it just means he isn't the brightest in the tree.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
OK, I don't get it. Why does everyone seem to immediately assume Woman here is saying the truth and Man here is a lying rapist?
Maybe if it was only the council, but if even the residents vote overwhelmingly to kick her out, then is there something they know that we don't? Like Man actually having a good reputation and thus being an unlikely womanizer?
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
rainydayDec. 4 07:50 am JST
Masks help do that. Never heard of anyone suffocating because they put a mask on.
While they don't quite suffocating, I can definitely feel the mask restricting my airflow, and I keep suspecting I am inhaling little fibers from those cheaply made masks and they are finding their way into my lungs to cause permanent lung damage.
I do put on the mask when I go out. And I am going out as little as I can. I definitely notice a shift in my habits towards home cooking despite the fact I can barely cook a cup noodle, just to reduce the time I have to use a mask.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
marcelitoToday 12:44 pm JST
If a mere statue that is a reminder of the past causes so much " hurt" to Japanese what about the " hurt " those old Korean victims must feel? Yet the rightwingers here always dismiss it and tell them to "move on". Yet you can't " move on " past a statue.
When I say hurt, I did not mean mere "feelings" or "non-material" damage. Said statue is designed to persuade (incite) people to pressure Japan to pay out good money despite having made two payouts already. When that happens, Japanese are materially hurt.
To my mind, the West should stop spoiling the Koreans, like they are slowly learning to do with the Chinese. Once we break them of the idea that they "deserve" the money or any other new concession, then we might make some progress. The past is not more important than the present.
10 ( +18 / -8 )
Mitte district mayor Stephan von Dassel said at the time that the group had been given permission to display a “peace statue” for one year as a “statement against sexualized violence against women in armed conflicts.” Instead, he said, the statue unveiled in September exclusively addresses the Japanese army's behavior in WWII.
Well, then the permission should be revoked, because the South Koreans (again) displayed a contempt for law. This statue is clearly designed to incite, if not hate, a desire to hurt Japanese. And what difference does it make if there is no hate but hurt happened. Hate is harmless, hurt is not.
ReasonandWisdomNipponToday 09:53 am JST
They respond after the statue is already up. With this kind of negotiations skills on Japan's part, is no surprise we gave them over 50 apologies and want more.
Yes, it would certainly have a better chance if Japan could quietly pre-empt the permission was issued in the first place. How much more should Japan spend in agent intelligence, so it can detect the actions of a sub-city level government?
Further, from the above information, the permission itself is rather hard to object to. The problem is Korean exploitation of that permission.
13 ( +21 / -8 )
OssanAmericaToday 12:29 pm JST
The four islands became Japanese by a negotiated treaty with Russia in 1855.
No doubt. It doesn't override the later Yalta Agreement, which is consistent with the Potsdam Declaration because it makes it clear other than those four big islands, all the little islands are at the discretion of the allies even if they aren't taken by greed (Item 8), and trying to say "South Kuriles" isn't "Kuriles" or some similar crap isn't going to get you far.
That the United States and United Kingdom reversed themselves for political reasons is not exactly the glowing moment of their history, and any interpretation that says sovereignty belongs to Japan is a karate kick regarding the final version of the San Francisco Treaty. You can't give up sovereignty and not give it up at the same time.
I generally side with the Japanese on territorial disputes but not when the Treaty text itself goes against their assertions.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Sven AsaiToday 04:19 pm JST
It’s surely not free. It has been paid already or will be cost afterwards, through taxes or expenses being cut in other fields or a higher debt amount of the country.
That's true of ANY governmental expenditure, is it?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
@itsonlyrocknrollToday 09:57 am JST
What makes you think M3 hadn't read it?
Regarding the point you selected, Mr. Ghosn was deprived of liberty for about 130 days in total - that is, about 4 months. The ECHR will have to consider the practice of the states under its jurisdiction, some of which it has affirmed.
http://www.moj.go.jp/KYOUSEI/SYOGU/setsumei01-02.pdf (Check out Slide 15/17)
Substantively speaking, there is little to no difference between 1x180 days and 6x30, is there? If anything, in offering at least more chances for the judiciary to terminate the deprival Japan may even have offered more due process than France or Germany.
As an aside, the UN report's biases extend beyond its findings of fact and even into diction. Consider the accusation hidden within lines like "*These obligations were disproportionate considering the absence of a risk of flight and destruction of evidence, as acknowledged by the Tokyo Court itself when ordering the release of Mr. Ghosn on bail.*"
The writer sounds like he has prejudged the Japanese courts as non-neutral. Prosecutors may "admit" or "acknowledge" versions favorable to the defense. The court "determines" or "finds" or "assesses".
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
A problem with Americans is that they often compare an idealized, move-like version of their own legal systems to the realities of other legal systems. For a bit of balance:
A discussion, from two American professionals that are neither apologists for China or Japan, talking about the American legal system.
If you think that a system that relies heavily on threatening defendants with overblown charges is necessarily superior to what Japan has, then there are clearly subjective values going on.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
8 million yen spent on dinner functions held for supporters during his time as leader, a possible violation of the political funds control law
No doubt it is illegal, but on the other hand on the scale of national politics it is peanuts, a rounding error.
-17 ( +7 / -24 )