Kazuaki Shimazaki comments

Posted in: Japanese high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional See in context

/dev/randomToday 12:12 am JST

The court argues that "both sexes" does not imply "both of the two possible sexes", but should be taken to mean "both of the spouses". Which is a fair reading: The wording "both sexes" was not included in the constitution to define biological sexes for marriage. It was included to grant agency to both spouses -- as opposed to what it was before: a unilateral decision by the head of the household.

I know you are happy with the ruling, but this is really knowingly mis-reading the text. If they really were thinking to "grant agency to both spouses", instead of 両性 they can write 両者 or 双方.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: China demands Japan start Fukushima treated water compensation system See in context

Then they should have no problems with it then

What China is saying is Give Me Money whether there's any actual damage or not - note the word Potential.

If there is any significant provable damage, there's already a court system the Chinese can try. Japan does take foreign plaintiffs.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Posted in: Teacher suspended after threatening to kill junior high school student See in context

What did the student do?

One student might be a case of him being recalcitrant (doesn't fully excuse him but still...), but with other students, even female students, the odds just favor this teacher being unfit.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Posted in: Teacher suspended after threatening to kill junior high school student See in context

At least the teacher did the right thing by resigning himself. They should have fired him.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Posted in: 17-year-old boy arrested for beating up man, leaving him in serious condition See in context

There are very scientific and social reasons for having a distinction between child and adult crime.

That's the theory. I do, however, think that there should be more graduation placed on where this distinction can be used.

I think criminal law is better off being lenient to people up to age 25 (the age when they say the cortex usually is finally finished) over crimes where provocation or conflicting interests is a factor.

In exchange, for a clean cut case of malice like this seems to be, the age can be brought down, perhaps even to 6 if the case is simple enough. Or we can come up with another penalty for such cases that does not involve deprivation of liberty and a criminal record - such as them losing the automatic presumption to majority at 18. With that mistake in their file we are not confident he has the sense of responsibility et al required to exercise his dispositive civil capacity. He would have to prove he is worthy of being permitted such capacity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan's Defense Ministry hosts Singapore Airshow display for 1st time See in context

@YubaruToday 08:08 am JST

Selling war makes money, and that is what it's ALL about.

True, but read objectively, Article 9 really doesn't block the selling of weapons. Any interpretation otherwise is to meet political needs (almost a religion) rather than legality or constitutionality. Japan just couldn't humor the peaceniks anymore, that's all.

@TriringToday  11:52 am JST

There are several subvariants of the Mark 41, and you need the longest one to fit the Tomahawk. Since the Mogami is built before they decided on having Tomahawks, choosing the Strike version would mean an un-necessary volume, weight and cost penalty. If by then they were already covertly considering the possibility in the future they'd load Tomahawks, one way to sneak the capability on in advance is by getting the Strike version, but otherwise it won't be.

Samit BasuToday  02:27 am JST

So if Australia buys off the shelf, then Mogami is a compelling option, but if customization is applied, not so much because of Japanese defense contractor's inflexibility.

I wonder when the Aussies will learn maybe their better interest is to not customize things and just take the entire package off the shelf. That way, they would at least have ships.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: WikiLeaks founder Assange may be near end of his long fight to stay out of U.S. See in context

Manning was released on May 17, 2017. After 7 years. Assange has been confined for 12 years.

Because he's always trying to delay the inevitable. His error is too great - I don't think any State can reasonably promise immunity for such a transgression. The only unhypocritical thing to say is that the US must be allowed its fair chance to try him, regardless of Assange's health.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan business lobby chief supports separate surnames for spouses See in context

If there's a divorce, Family Cohesion is already dead, so I don't think that point is valid.

Some one from the press should ask the simple question, "That is a very interesting concept,. How would it destroy family cohesion?"

The problem is, we don't know, and that's scary. Now, don't get me wrong, there are clearly tangible advantages to changing this policy. However, it's also true that cohesion is hard to even define precisely, let alone determine exactly what develops or breaks this desirable yet not well-defined concept, and by how much.

Does wearing the same uniform, living in the same place, eating the same food and doing the same activities increase cohesion? All else being equal, I think many people would say yes. If that's so, it's hard to imagine that having the same family name won't have at least a minor positive effect on cohesion.

Also traditionally the family is an entity in its own right, and even today we still have some leftovers of this in the legal system, such as shared property between spouses, or the very ideal of parental rights, or even the de facto right of kids to use property in the house though they clearly didn't own, buy or earn them. When one says he's "Will Smith", he's almost saying I am Will of Smith company (family). From that sense you can see the logical contradiction between claiming to be one family (company), but every time she introduces herself as Jill from Buick company even though she's in the Smith Company, and whether such a person really thinks of herself as part of the company.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japanese gov't to submit bill to introduce joint custody after divorce See in context

You aren't looking at it from a system perspective. It doesn't know Innocence from Guilt. It knows the presence or absence of a claim, the presence of which has a certain probability of being true, and whether the policy is to avoid false positives or false negatives.

At least the current scheme avoids the worst case. Ultimately, when a claim is received, it can only be used as the basis of a certain level of action. Selecting inaction risks a strongly negative result - such as the death of the kid you chose to not shelter. Given the circumstances, it's perhaps inevitable that any DV claim against you will be greatly prejudicial to your chances, simply because the cost of being wrong is so great.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japanese gov't to submit bill to introduce joint custody after divorce See in context

A problem remains, however, when a distressed divorcing parent desires to remove the other parent from the child’s life. That distressed parent is not going to choose joint custody and can resort to false claims of domestic violence, which can easily be done in Japan, where no evidence is required to file a domestic violence claim and enter a government-run shelter for two weeks.

Isn't that considered desirable? By the time you can "prove" domestic violence claims to beyond reasonable doubt, you may well be dead or crippled.

If one side is willing to file false claims, it isn't a friendly divorce anyway, in which case coerced Joint Custody can easily end in disaster. You can't take the supposed better outcomes from Joint Custody in the West (where most divorces go to court and thus they include many friendly divorces) to Japan where courts mean a clearly Unfriendly Divorce.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Gov't appeals ruling against passport denial for Japanese journalist See in context

It is easier to understand if you realize that the reason Turkey banned him is because after entering Turkey, he illegally left it to sneak into Syria, where he was abducted. This failure to go through border control, and the fact he clearly lied on any application to enter and used Turkey as an instrument for his own ends combine to form the reason he was banned.

Officially the ban is 5 years but if Turkey is anything like the US or a lot of other places, "5 years" is more like a 5 year non-appealable ban and a more conditional ban for the rest of his life - he can try, but he shouldn't expect success.

Further, this man's declarations have already been proven unworthy, so the court is pretty naive to just say it won't be a problem if Yasuda travels to other countries - he's all too likely to be using THEM as tools to enter whatever zone interests him - Gaza this time perhaps?

I say grant him a passport on the proviso he won't be bailed out if he gets into trouble in a war zone yet again.

Except I'd note such a proviso is not realistic. As soon as he is captured, the pressure will be on to bail him out.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Foreign firefighters stifled by Japanese gov't bureaucratic restrictions See in context

sakurasukiToday 09:18 am JST

These are the key words in your article:

*Non-Japanese employees would also be unable to exert public authority for imposing taxes, seizing tax delinquents’ properties, deciding urban planning, acquiring land, conducting on-site inspections or performing similar tasks.*

borschtToday 09:22 am JST

Actually, either they are too panicky or they are ironically weak in what's supposed to be a Japanese (or Oriental) strength. This is about basic word definitions. The non-Japanese citizen cannot be authorized to perform any administrative or quasi-administrative act - that is, he can't change the rights and obligations of anyone. He cannot order. He cannot permit. He cannot forbid. He cannot grant or revoke privileges. And he cannot make any legal determinations which has the practical effect of changing the rights of obligations of anyone (that's why they are called "quasi").

It certainly does not mean he cannot be allowed to spray water onto a fire or drag survivors out. Either Mie village's leadership wasn't well trained in law, or it is more complicated than the article lets on. Maybe they are afraid while executing his duties in the chaos of the real world, he'd encounter a situation where he's alone and he needs to issue an administrative act, but he has no right to do so,

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: New Japan envoy in China meets with national detained over spying See in context

Nice soundbite, but the reality is that the "laws" are so broadly written that they mean "anything the Emperor wants them to," so people often don't know when they're breaking them. Plus, cases are ruled on by CCP-controlled courts.

To be fair, it's also possible that it involves something that if they bothered telling us, we might agree it is actually a state secret.

It can happen. Japan is a little like Canada, having little professional spy capability like the CIA. That does not mean they don't want intelligence, however, so they ask for "favors" from their own countrymen, or diplomats just "chat" with the man and something just plops out. These amateur spies don't know fieldcraft nor do they even realize they might need it (since they just have a chat), and the Chinese realize what was transmitted...

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-ready-pay-settlements-two-men-imprisoned-china-2018-report-2023-12-26/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Vietnamese trainees told to undergo contraception to work in Japan See in context

Isn't it necessary for any woman anywhere who does any job, then?

I can actually accept "no pregnancy" limits for labor contracts that are short term. I remember awhile back there were cases of female idols who signed contracts banning them from getting into relationships (because they affect her "sales value") and tried to fight to get out of them in court, and I remember siding with the companies.

Women should have the right to reproduce, and it is also in the State's interest (or even survival) that they do. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that a pregnancy imposes significant losses to the company that's paying their paychecks. I'd say that companies are justified in having the first contract (2-5 years) where they impose a limit. But when they get tenure or they are on their second contract, the company should acquiesce to the maternity leave as both a right of the woman and as a necessity for the State (Japan needs Kids and it needs to Bring Them Up as Well as Feasible). The State should reciprocate by helping to buffer the company from the losses.

Or how about female university students? It costs a lot of money for them to go to university for 4 years, becoming pregnant is surely going to affect their studies so why shouldn't they be required to use contraception as well?

At least they are only hurting themselves, rather than depriving anyone of work product when they get pregnant. I'd save the crimp on their reproductive rights for their first job.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Vietnamese trainees told to undergo contraception to work in Japan See in context

I'd bite a bullet - it is necessary. These people are here to learn while working for a few (say 3-5) years. Pregnancy means losing one of those years, a real loss. Men, like it or not, don't lose their work capacity after impregnating someone, but the impregnated isn't as fortunate. Idealism runs into reality.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Posted in: Japan literary laureate unashamed about using ChatGPT See in context

Back before AI got good enough this was even a semi-feasible way to write (or draw), I freely use Google Translate's automatic translation to assist in the translating work I have to do for the company. Of course, it's not always ideal or even acceptable, but it can provide a starting point or propose alternatives, and every so often it can pop out something good enough I can just use it and move my attention to the next sentence. I'd assume she's using it in an equivalent manner and if so I can hardly object.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Navy officer who was jailed in Japan over deadly crash released from U.S. custody, family says See in context

Then why was he allowed to drive??

TBF, one reason for this is the shoddy (as a generalization) American public transit system and societal infrastructure that's overly slanted towards the use of cars, making his ability to drive one a necessity for normal everyday life.

I do want to see him being put on a No Fly List though - clearly it is hazardous for his health if he faints to airliner air.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Navy officer who was jailed in Japan over deadly crash released from U.S. custody, family says See in context

Japanese prosecutor assigned to this case had a prior acquaintance with the victims.

A particularly irrelevant complaint. Suppose the family did use their influence - all that means is that the family clearly hasn't reconciled with the defendant, and thus there is no reason to drop the prosecution.

The doctors who supported Arkonis' innocence were dismissed, and scientific evidence was overlooked.

They were supporting an implausible and low probability conclusion - Alkonis fainting to airliner air, without warning (the latter being negated by him admitting he noticed he was swerving a few minutes before the final crash). Ultimately, also you don't know how they performed - you shouldn't just assume they made a presentation as convincing as you wish they did.

But I hate to think what concessions we (DoS, DoD, USFJ, etc.) made to get the GoJ to transfer Alkonis to U.S. custody and allow him to return to the U.S.

I sure hope behind the doors some concessions were made.

I'm a little puzzled as to what exactly his family have to do with this accident as they were not in the car or even in Japan.

At the time of the involuntary manslaughter (as the US authority put it), they were all in the car with him. They could have suggested at the first swerve they pull over.

By your very own argument what does the sentence or punishment for their son's crime have to do with his parents? They were not in the car or even in Japan.

I don't think it's uncommon for Japanese to believe that parents should act at least somewhat responsible when their sons really foul it up. Parents are responsible for much of any child's "programming".

So now that he has discovered he suffers from a rare medical condition that hits when ascending mountains, let's hope he will refrain from making anymore high-altitude trips!

I better see him living up to his story. No more mountains or planes for him, now that we know he's a "rare breed" that faints in airliner air.

Coming from a place where prison is seen more as a way of rehabilitation than punishment and revenge, I don't really get the point of prison for an accidental killing like this.

Well, maybe Alkonis will learn to pull over when he feels the first swerve. Or he'd learn to get better rested. Or it'd be pounded into him he really must avoid not only mountains, but also planes or at least doing anything significant after riding one (since he insists he just fainted to airliner air). There are actions he can take to avoid a repeat of this incident.

I'm glad the U.S. Bureau of Prisons kept him behind bars for a little bit of time before bowing to political pressure.

Well, TBF, at least they made it sound like it could be for legally sound reasons.

The Japanese legal system denied him his basic legal right to have an attorney present during questioning.

A fate no different from any Japanese. The Japanese people decided that the attorney blocks the ability to properly interrogate the suspect, and that does have a cost. Such as prosecutors relying on threats of manifestly excessive charges to get plea bargains, or inferring intent on weak inferences.

Their standard tactic is to hold someone three weeks with no access to any attorney and question them harshly for 11-12 hours a day without breaks.

They are allowed "access to attorneys" in between the interrogation sessions, which are now 8 hours long.

To add insult to injury he was denied the testimony of expert supporting witnesses.

The witnesses are Americans, for one thing. For another thing, they are pushing something implausible. Third, you don't know whether they even performed all that well.

The article does not state explicitly what kind of discharge he received but it is fair to assume that if he was put into a Federal prison he received a Bad Conduct Discharge and that is the equivalent of a felony conviction.

I should hope so, considering he did kill two people and tried to get away with an implausible excuse.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Landfill work resumes at new U.S. military site on Okinawa despite local opposition See in context

Yes, he said that. The agreement does indeed settle that issue. And you seem to be under the illusion it was for nothing at all, but there is clearly at least one explicit trade here - the reversion of jurisdiction to Japan (reversing the 1952 San Francisco Treaty).

In terms of implied trades, if Japan wants to leave it unsettled, the US can simply not revert jurisdiction. It can also cease to defend Japan, and though the deal does bring advantages to the US Japan as the frontline country clearly has a more critical need for the help than America has in providing it. The US might also start pushing back on the provision of economic concessions to Japan (such as the deliberately cheap Japanese yen which makes it easier for them to export) - in essence they can do what they did in the 80s in the 70s.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Man arrested for attempted murder after dragging police officer along with car See in context

@kiwiboyJan. 12 11:57 pm JST

The driver is not intentionally running the person over. They are not driving towards them at great speed. They are simply driving forwards [...] in a direction AWAY from the person who's trying to hang on.

I cut the part that's not established in the article, but I agree the driver is not purposefully running the person over. However, that's not the requirement of the criminal law, which allows for indirect or "conditional" intent - you don't have to want the outcome, you just have to be aware it exists and be indifferent to it. People need to study the basics of criminal law (we really should teach this stuff in high school) before making such statements.

I'll bet a few beers that the prosecution drops the case because they're not confident in winning - proof enough that it's NOT attempted murder.

Not confident in winning is not "proof" it's not attempted murder. I grant you the driver can try a few things in his defense, but all I said was that the case was "colorable", which means arguable or potentially winnable.

@kaimycahlJan. 12 11:45 pm JST

If the officer used common sense he would have not been dragged at all.

To put your argument in legal language, you'd say there is no conditional intent because the driver "relied" on the police to back off. And perhaps the doubt that the court will indeed go that path may stop the prosecution.

However, perhaps you should ask yourself why a court would necessarily take this inference if the question is put to them.

Even if this had been a dispute between two ordinary civilians, it's not hard to take the side that the driver should not have taken the risk at all even if it means suffering the inconvenience of being delayed while he calls a cop to resolve the situation. It certainly is true that the person stopping the car may have a legitimate grievance and if the driver is allowed to escape the chances of a normal civilian even finding him again is significantly reduced - the optimal solution may indeed be to burden the driver to wait until his identity can be well-established by an authority (police) for finding him later, even before taking into account the reduced risks to life and limb.

Add that one of the sides is a police, and the driver is an offender. The fact that there is a legitimate tort is basically undisputed, and there is a duty on the policeman to enforce the law, which increases his reasons for taking any means to stop an offender from escaping. The driver can and should be aware of this factor.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Man arrested for attempted murder after dragging police officer along with car See in context

How on earth is driving your car for SEVEN meters while someone hangs onto the side of it, attempted murder? It's "attempting to get away".

First, you are confusing "motive" with "intent". All the driver needs here for an colorable case is that he was cognizant of a significant probability the hanger-on will die if he continues to drive, and he was indifferent to the outcome (he doesn't have to want it). Which seems likely since most people will stop once the idea they may be responsible for a death crosses their mind.

Second, he didn't "drive" the car for seven meters. The officer managed to hang on to the accelerating car for about seven meters before falling off - the perpetrator drove far enough away to temporarily break contact and was only later relocated through surveillance footage.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Gov't to bypass Okinawa governor and approve U.S. base relocation See in context

Article 4 of the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Agreement only states that Japan and its nationals wave all claims to damages incurred during the occupation period. It doesn't say illegality involved in the forceful confiscation of private property is pardoned.

FIrst, Yubaru is correct that things never got to the point of being a "pardon", simply because they were never found via trial procedures to be in the wrong. In waiving all their claims to damages, Japan is agreeing to give up their (including their nationals') right to even begin civil or criminal proceedings on the issue.

Yubaru should be credited for citing the treaty. Reading through other parts of it, the US is deeply aware from the day it began occupation to the day of reversion can be deemed controversial, and other parts have been used to effectively absolve the US and its personnel from any possible legal issues rising from them.

Or if it did, could a mere bilateral agreement transcend internatiovebnal law, that prohibits such confiscation

It gives Japan a potential claim right, but that right can be employed several ways. In this case, you can say Japan effectively "sold" the claim right.

First, as I've pointed out in my answer the last round, the claim right isn't worth very much because the issue is well past time-bar, which means a court's "most neutral" response is to throw the case out anyway. That's not counting how, if this is treated as a legal rather than historical issue, it's not hard to see how the US authorities can array defenses. Remember the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff or prosecution.

Second, it is used as part of the deal proffered to get the administrative rights to Okinawa back from the US at all. What is more valuable to Japan - getting Okinawa back or keeping some theoretical, long-shot claim rights? What is better for the Okinawans - getting out of the American administrative / judicial thumb or keeping some claim rights that have little chance of success in anything but a South Korean (because your reasoning reeks of theirs) court?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Sentences finalized for 3 ex-SDF members guilty of indecent assault See in context

Japan needs to designate parts of its Penal Code as out of bounds for Suspended Sentences.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Xi reluctant to resolve disputes with Japan during talks with Kishida See in context

Xi rose through the ranks of a corrupt system via corruption most likely. FTFY.

Let:s be fair - he probably didn't make it all the way up there without showing real competence.

That's totally up to the people of India and Brazil when they elect their leaders. If they don't like them and they "haven't served them well" they will elect different ones (as Brazil recently did).

Well, that's the party line, but the problem may be that you can't find suitable leaders within a realistic democracy because they are so distracted by tactical (4-year cycles) needs.

Also, in the case of India, it's not a secret Modi is working to decrease the Civil-Political rights situation. As does Trump and to a lesser extent the US Republicans. The UK is getting tougher on protests. So even that part as an argument is weaker than it was just 5 years ago.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Gov't overrides Okinawa objection to OK U.S. base transfer work See in context

"This execution by proxy is unacceptable as it robs the prefectural government of its administrative authority and means they are trying to construct a new base by infringing on our autonomy and independence."

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether you should be giving out permits based on whether you like projects or not, or even if they are popular with the population. You should only be thinking of whether it meets legal requirements.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Posted in: Court only holds TEPCO responsible to compensate Fukushima evacuees and reduces damages See in context

Motomitsu Nakagawa, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said that Tuesday's high court ruling was “almost a mere copy and paste” of the top court decision and that it “makes me infuriated.”

You can hardly fault lower courts for complying with the jurisprudence set by the Supreme Court.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Posted in: Gov't to bypass Okinawa governor and approve U.S. base relocation See in context

The easiest way to deal with your objection is simply to invoke the fact it is time-barred, being well over 20 years. Forcing an issue against a time-bar is problematic both substantively and procedurally. For example, if forced into court the US will no doubt plead that it was unaware that the relevant hexes were not abandoned land. Also, they did allocate land outside the base to the villagers so they were recompensed. Third, they were the administrators of Okinawa up to 1972 so they might be able to claim even eminent domain. And of course, since we are well over the prescription period the remaining records are incomplete, so just try and prove that they intentionally appropriated land they knew wasn't abandoned or that the villagers definitely did not agree to accepting the compensation. The inability to determine facts with precision, and the unfairness of requiring people to keep records forever just in case they might be sued one day, are both valid reasons for the time-barred period, and it would be invoked. As far as the law is concerned, Futenma is not illegal property.

The second easiest way to deal with your objection is that to the extent that Funtenma may be illegal, the US government is willing to settle the dispute. Settlements are a matter of negotiation and free contracting, and if the settlement is that you provide them with another piece of land, that's legally valid. It might reflect your weak bargaining power (because the Japanese people are unwilling to pay enough for their defense, for example), or it might reflect the reality they are more likely than not to win any court case even if it is held (some reasons provided above). Either way it doesn't make it legally invalid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Gov't to bypass Okinawa governor and approve U.S. base relocation See in context

What happened isn't a matter of popularity, but the law. The governor isn't supposed to approve or deny plans based on his preferences or even the project's popularity, but whether they meet the relevant legal standards. He abused his authority and tried a pretext to block something he did not like. The government duly lined up along with the peasants for a day in court. Now the government is permitted to Substitute the Governor in the Duties He Failed to Execute. (Yeah, the translation of daishikkou is wonky I agree).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Detainee dies after being found unconscious in cell in Saitama Prefecture See in context

Well, since they tried taking him to the hospital, short of extraordinary circumstances what happens next can be blamed on the health services instead of the police.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Posted in: Police panel proposes up to ¥12,000 fine for cycling violations See in context

I think it should be ¥500,000 or so for serious violations. Leave ¥15,000 for first time non-helmet wearers, and then go up each time exponentially.

But they want people to cycle. You have to ask yourself whether you will still commute by a bicycle if you can be fined 500,000 yen for it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.