No, it makes perfect sense. He was not fully mentally competent. Thus, he is not as culpable as a fully mental competent person. His calculated sentence is reduced in accordance to that reduced culpability.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
OK, I may as well continue sticking my head out:
Um, by this "logic", peeping over the door into a toilet someone is using the toilet, because they've chosen to expose their genitals in a location that is not in their home.
When you are in a toilet stall, the toilet stall usually contains only you, so you have a reasonable expectation that no one else, regardless of their gender, race or otherwise would have line of sight to you. You are indeed in a private space, perhaps even more private in some ways than your home (excluding its toilet).
When you are in a public bath space, you have both given consent and can only reasonably expect to be seen by an unspecified multitude of people (不特定多数 as they say in Japanese). You cannot reasonably designate exceptions that are not allowed to see your body. As for the barrier, it is a bit thin to discriminate solely on position, since any female who wants to look can freely manuever past it. So you de facto are saying males can't see your body ... but saying a demographic can't do something just because they are (Demographic) is prejudiced and is forbidden in modern society.
Discriminating on the basis of ostensible thought tendencies of certain demographics is also discriminatory, and even if you can scan a particular individual for the actual presence of "lecherous" thoughts (still an impossibility with contemporary science), the guarantee of freedom of thought & conscience means you can't act on that basis either - the imposition of negative consequences for mere thought at least interferes with that guarantee.
But that's an ideal, and we live in the real world, where these hangups are real, and beyond that, are the norm in society. As such, those in this current society have the right to expect that their right to privacy, as it exists today, takes precedence over what you think the ideal world would be.
I'll dissent on the privacy bit (reasoning above), and generally am pessimistic of being able to calculate a strong theoretical moral case for the prohibition. (I'm sure the fact I'm not getting that visceral "ick" is obvious, for good or bad.)
Due to the above, the reality that people do get those "hangups" may indeed be the best justification available for those restrictions in the first place. So I can live with those restrictions as a fact of life. Having said that, I must wonder at the mentality of people, such as Girl in Tokyo, trying to make it bigger than it is. Since no actual, physical harm is actually done, the damage is psychological and exactly as big as the victim thinks it is. Why give her reasons to think it is bigger, rather than smaller? Why not do everything in your power to make her think the whole thing is a mosquito bite or less?
girl_in_tokyoToday 06:06 am JST
A number of years ago, a kid who was about 12 tried to grope me on the train. My first thought was to grab his Doraemon comic and smack him on the head with it. Instead, I looked right into his face as I took his hand off my thigh, and smacked his hand, and dropped it into his lap.
Yeah, that's about how big it has to be. You got offended and you made a proportionate response. The end. The method, by the way, advocated by a hundred anime. Maybe this is the real takeaway people should be getting from anime, rather than "They are 'objectifying' women", whatever that even means.
It is hard to have a universal definition of "Maturity", but I think a centerpiece is Proportionality - the ability to make reasonable assessment as the basis for proportional responses to stimuli. When a woman expands a relatively minor event into a crime, she's not only pushing any psychological splinters into herself harder, but she's not showing the ability to make proportionate responses - by extension she is immature. How anyone wants this to happen to themselves is a mystery to me.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
@Samit Basu Today 12:42 am JST
This is the reason why the Korean supreme court allowed the damages lawsuit, citing the lack of damages wording in the 1965 treaty.
This is so strange, Koreans offered to include the word "damages" in the 1965 treaty but Japan refused, claiming it did nothing wrong or illegal during the Japanese occupation of Korea.
You mean, the Koreans failed to produce the necessary factors to make the Japanese agree to fault, and so they decided to unilaterally push it under an abuse of sovereignty?
The Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation does not mention "damages", but it does explicitly mention "claims", which by literal interpretation would include any claims for purported damages.
(The abuse of "sovereignty", in which sovereignty is degraded to nothing more than claimed impunity to conduct acts that are incorrect, illegal, unjustified and/or inexcusable, is common to both China and Korea.)
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Yes, but prioritizing one's sexual urges over another's right to privacy is not healthy.
What privacy? These girls are in a public spring bath showing their bodies to other girls (but ultimately people). It seems a bit late for "privacy" which is supposed to involve, you know, "private" activities.
If anything, can't we say it is kind of a sexism for girls to be completely OK with other girls but go to pieces just because it is a male? How is this different from a person reacting negatively to the mere sight of a black man? Aren't we supposed to be getting over treating people differently based on gender, race or other factors commonly recognized to be outside their control?
@girl_in_tokyo May 19 01:48 pm JST
Here's the question, why should getting looked at make women "not feel safe"? Is there an intrinsic reason for that? Or are girls in choosing to act as if it is the end of the world actually falling into a feudal male trap, of agreeing to a worldview where they are so small and fragile that mere exposure of their naked bodies to male pupils is sufficient to cause permanent damage? I'm not sure how I could ever feel pride in myself if I believe that mere exposure to pupils from the opposite sex will and should damage me or make me feel insecure.
It is actually one solution to the problem if girls managed to view being looked at as a positive rather than a negative event.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
They got little to lose at this point, but who will be this "third country"?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
If you don't fight back when there is wrong, then wrong wins, Smith. Something to consider.
0 ( +6 / -6 )
I won't put it past possibility that he is a spy, but the Chinese are not giving me anything that would make their case seem credible, either. Thus, presumption of innocence has precedence.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The scenario was presented as follows:
In the fifth seesaw game after each won two games apiece, with the score tied 9-9, the officials called Hayata's first service a "let" for touching the net. Ito and Hayata, who thought they had won the point
So, in other words, if the Japanese version is correct, they should have gotten a point there. The umpire's decision voids that point, on grounds that the net was touched. You can't say a redo nullifies the disadvantage inflicted here, and I don't think saying a point was given is excessive.
Suppose we were rolling dice. You roll a six. I find some reason to say your six doesn't count and you must roll again. Does the fact you might roll six again on a re-roll mean my act was harmless? In fact, this is even worse than that because your redo serve will be weaker and more readable because you can't void away such things as muscle fatigue or memory or psychological damage at suffering an adverse ruling.
Nor am I accepting that the umpire made a mistake.
In fact, neither did I. However, in such cases, I find it more interesting to, while waiting for more information to roll in, to defer to the scenario as presented to look at it through "law". If this scenario is correct, what should we conclude, and so on...
if you're so demoralized after a 'do-over' in a sport that you end up losing the rest of that game, and the next, and hence the whole match, then perhaps the first thing you need to work on is mental fitness
I'll disagree here. Maybe it shouldn't happen, but it does. Reality is that the championship is supposed to be a closely fought high-stress event, and anything adverse can worsen the overstress and cause a degradation in performance which given a close opponent would be the end. Suppose I trip you just as you start in a marathon and your knee gets scraped (maybe not enough to even really draw blood). Not a serious injury, and I only cost you a few seconds in a 4-hour event.
However, while those few seconds probably are insignificant over 4 hours, unless your opponents are significantly below your level, that little scrape will bother you sufficiently to kill whatever chance you had for a good time. There are limits to how well one can "ignore injury", be it physical or psychological.
Of course, perhaps Quercetum is right in suggesting that the Chinese team was the better team (he almost certainly knows tennis better than me). Maybe the Chinese team would or should have won anyway. But that's a separate issue from whether this is "harmless error".
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
I'm trying to figure out how this one call was supposedly the point on which the whole match rested.
Try this, based on the scores only. The Japanese won R1 and R2. Then they lost R3 and R4. There are two basic reasons you can start losing when you've been winning. Either you have less stamina than the other side, so you performed worse later on. Or the opponents just changed tactics which you couldn't immediately adapt to. The fact they can claw back to a tie in R5 suggests the latter is the case.
So, at the point of the ruling, the tide was starting to flow back into the Japanese side. If we accept the premise the umpire made a mistake here, he not only gave one point to the Chinese, he also reset an advantageous flow - in essence, he gave the Chinese a chance to rally and demoralized the Japanese side. Since the last two games were relatively close, that could have been the entire margin right there.
exactly there will always be bad decisions made in sport, its inevitable, but they normally even themselves out over time. If you don't have the mental fortitude to let it pass and continue on then you really shouldn't be playing professional sports
I'll call this victim-blaming. Are you going to say that to someone bullied and died, by complaining about his mental fortitude? I think the Thin Skull Rule applies here.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
I'm no tennis expert, but based on the scores, I won't say the claim that they might have won or at least drawn if the umpire made a different call there is outside credibility (if they were losing by a mile anyway, that might be a different matter).
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@voiceofokinawaApr. 17 10:51 am JST
I think you meant the SolFA:
At the very top, it is written:
"Japan and the United States of America, pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America signed at Washington on January 19, 1960, have entered into this Agreement in terms as set forth below:"
The parties are thus Japan (the state) and the US (the state).
But then, XVIII 1 is really about property damage rather than more vague claims, which are dealt with XVIII 5:
"Claims (other than contractual claims and those to which paragraphs 6 or 7 of this Article apply) arising out of acts or omissions of members or employees of the United States armed forces done in the performance of official duty, or out of any other act, omission or occurrence for which the United States armed forces are legally responsible, and causing damage in Japan to third parties, other than the Government of Japan, shall be dealt with by Japan in accordance with the following provisions:"
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Maybe the teacher can start by conforming to the prohibitions in criminal law. A haircut actually does qualify as assault, as does spitting. When you get it cut in a barber shop, it is considered "Justified" because it is part of the barber's regular work (業務) and the guy consented. Neither of these factors would apply in this case.
I'm aware of even stricter schools enforcing no dyeing of hair, ie no artificial colors, and student having to restore their natural hair color.
I'm even aware of unfortunate foreigners that naturally have a different color, and now they have to dye it black, because it doesn't look natural to the teacher.
It's Japan, behaviour and conformity with the clan is intrinsic to the culture.
Unfortunately, unwarranted deference to authority even on useless points is indeed part of the Japanese culture. The courts are probably going to say that the school is a "Partial Society" and refuse to get involved.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Fascist or not, he was elected and represents a following.
-3 ( +4 / -7 )
@talaraedokkoMar. 26 10:01 pm JST
When injuring a person the apologizing person has to make sure the person being apologized to is satisfied. It’s that person or people that have the final say.
You are conflating the tatemae with the honne. The tatemae is indeed something like this, but it is in context of societal norms that puts limits on the damage a victim can inflict.
So here is the honne. Even if he is "sincere", the person apologizing does so with an eye to the souba (相場) of the realistic limit he has to pay. The victim also knows and adheres to the souba, and everyone ends up reasonably happy.
If the victim tries to take more than his societally agreed share, he becomes the one in the wrong, and third parties will apply increasing pressure for him to desist.
Which is why I say apologists are in fact part, perhaps even most of the problem. In failing to execute the point above, they in effect take away the foundations that even allow apologies to work.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
@IloveCoffeeToday 09:08 am JST
First of all, the agreement is not written on stone, it's not a blood deal. They can rip the deal whenever they want. Given the circumstances under which the deal was signed, they have more than enough reasons to invalidate the deal.
If you can invalidate deals that are already favorable to you, how can you be expected to keep your word?
Frankly, part of the reason this never gets resolved is very much people like you who condone and justify this kind of contempt for law. If South Korea knows that it would no one cheering for it, that everyone would have their priorities in the right place, somehow I don't think this would have happened. But of course people like you have been encouraging their brattiness and hooliganism because you are sorry for those women.
Really, looking at China and Korea, maybe we should have stuck with the system at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, where you actually have to pass standards of legality to have sovereignty.
9 ( +13 / -4 )
The monthly profits for the franchise owners, which are mostly couples, working very long hours, is an average of about ¥500,000 after everything is paid, including the staff.
There must be something missing in this statement, because if someone is willing to pay me 500,000 yen a month, and all I have to do is manage a store 24h and I even get to have subordinates to handle the grunt work and also to actually be on-watch so I don't have to myself, perhaps just snoozing not too far away ... sign me up.
I mean, look at what a (non-elite) civil servant makes:
It can be worse.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
The hate & extremism inducing effects of the so-called "truth education" is again making itself known.
18 ( +25 / -7 )
@smithinjapan Today 03:46 pm JST
Yeah, which is why Japan sends delegates to countries like the US to demand they change their textbooks, right?
I won't dispute something like that has happened (the facts). I do dispute that there's anything much wrong with this (the law). At the very least, it is an entirely consistent position with Japanese criminal law when it comes to defamation.
First, there is no way that the inclusion of such statements into a textbook is raising the young student's impression of the Japanese people. Thus, by nature it is defamatory. Defamatory means Unwert.
There are two justificatory conditions, both of which have to be met to exclude criminality:
1) It has to be the truth.
2) It has to be in the public interest.
Thus, if Abe (or the Japanese government) even subjectively believes it is not the truth, or not the whole truth, he has every right to call for a stop to such defamatory statements.
Even if it is the truth and Abe agrees it is the truth, he still has cause to act if it is not in the public interest - for example, if it may be exciting extremism against the Japanese people. Unfortunately, while it might be nice to hallucinate we can let history be history, that the statement is harmless academia, bitter experience over the past 20 years have clearly illustrated that such statements do have an incitement of extremism component. In addition to the previously mentioned symptoms, it includes such things as thinking Shrine Visits are worse and more offensive than Missile Brigades.
This just cannot be "in the public interest" :-)
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
@smithinjapan Today 02:25 am JST
Well, when you pretend you live in a vacuum and only one side is correct going in, that's what happens; objectivity implodes
I'm glad we can agree on this basic principle. Now perhaps you can apply that principle to this concrete scenario.
In fact, applying this principle will put a net uyoku far ahead of you. Here's why. A net uyoku, living in Japan, is exposed to a place where he will be able to read both sides of the argument, in Japanese. Even if he doesn't reach out to read the other side's argument in full, the argumentation he reads does not have the luxury of pretending the other side is non-existent or made of automatically evil people. It has to deal with the opposing side's argument in at least some fashion.
In the West, you have to stretch and learn another language just to see the other argument. Then you have to fight past a wall of indoctrination about "uyoku" (labelling at work).
Some people know they did, and have stories and sightings to prove it, same as sexual slavery.
Well, there are some things like the objective measurement of radioactivity. The documents of the research are also there.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I can see the following situation - Parent Smacks Kid for being aggressively abusive towards Grandparents, then gets as a result a criminal record, and if a Foreigner kicked out of the Country.... thus potentially destroying the Family life.
I assume this scenario has the kid hitting his grandparents just as the parent sees it. In that case, parent can rely on Article 36 of the Criminal Code to justify a proportionate level of physical action and exclude their criminality.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@BlattamexiguusToday 12:21 am JST
just google Dutch/Indonesian sex slaves Japan.
Are you talking that Lieutenant ... yeah way to go to show this is a common phenomena.
and the burnt papers =no evidence simply doesn't wash.
I think the principles of no producible papers = no evidence is an important part of the modern legal system, and one that should be upheld, not thrown out. If you can't find drugs in the suspect's house, that means no evidence, not that there must be drugs and they flushed it down the toilet.
You see, it is this kind of thing that worries me - this extremism. As soon as we talk about these stupid comfort women, too many people are willing to throw out the principles that sustain the modern liberal order and rule-by-law. They go into this schizo mode where they alternate between saying that modern Japanese are innocent and saying it is OK to inflict monetary and even worse losses on them. They claim to value modern criminal procedure and the protections it provides, yet they ignore it when it comes to the ostensibly burnt paper. They also claim to value freedom of speech and academic discussion, but of course you can't take the other side in this debate.
Extremism is, at the very basic level, when one feels his idea is so important that other people's legal rights and protections can be trampled. I find present behavior and attitudes toward law much more worrrisome and condemnable than a discussion about past facts.
4 ( +9 / -5 )
@smithinjapan Today 04:04 pm JST
"There will be no penalties for offenders, however."
In legal theory, there should be no problem, because most actions that would constitute child abuse also meet the definitions of various articles in the Special Part of the Criminal Code, so the penalties are already there. What's needed is a clear sense and declaration that the acts are Unjustifiable.
None of this should have been necessary if the Japanese legal commmunity read the Criminal Code and Civil Code like ordinary human beings. The Civil Code, article 822 establishes:
Article 822 A person who exercises parental authority may discipline the child to the extent necessary for the care and education under the provisions of Article 820.
Given how vague and abstract this is, one might reasonably think that whatever this mysterious right to discipline is, it will be delimited by the provisions of the Criminal Code.
But no, they decided (until now) that this provision "eats" into the Criminal Code as a justificatory defense, so it is "justifiable" to beat one's children.
Ugh. Hopefully they'll break that habit this time...
2 ( +3 / -1 )
ThePBotToday 10:18 pm JST
"Sex slaves" and "Slave labourers" are more proper terms, and they're also easier to remember.
You know - this kind of self-assured certainty is what puzzles me over this whole affair. That people not only just take the position, but automatically assume the opposite is wrong beyond debate.
I mean, AFAIK the stack really is thin. There's little if not no paper (supposedly they were burnt, but that still means no paper). And after that are basically ... accusations ... 50 years or so after the alleged fact. If I'm going to be convicted and have legal consequences inflicted on me, I'll at least want to see a slightly better stack than that.
4 ( +10 / -6 )
Say Whaaaat! The course had to appoint lawyers because of outside pressure due to the prosecutors office did not want to prosecute the Tepco executives!!!
Which is entirely within their discretion, and you might not want them to lose it, because a LOT of people are kiso yuyoed each year. In addition to the difficulties of making a solid case, there is also a legitimate policy element at work here - charging for negligence means saying goodbye to any cooperation you received from the companies involved in the future. The next time an accident happens, the burners will be on as high as they can stand, and nobody is going to do any voluntary studies once the thing is built, because it might say the wrong thing.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
No, he didn't. he even admitted it: The driver told the company he regrets "making the wrong decision,"
How much do you want to bet if he loaded the guy, was late, someone complained and the company gave him heat, he would also have called that a "wrong decision"?
To be fair, there is a certain cold logic working here. The wheelchair guy is 1. The ambulatory people are many. Further, if there is any tolerance for lateness, wheelchair guy is a lot more likely to get it. Who do you think should have his interests placed second?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
After more than 70 years, Japan is still under US occupation and will do what the US tells it to do. Time for the Japanese to regain their sovereignty and have all bases removed from Japanese soil.
If there was a "sweet spot" to do such a thing, it would be in the 1990s, when the Soviets ceased to be a threat, the Chinese are not yet a threat except by nukes and the North Koreans don't have missiles that can reach Japan. Japan should have seized that ~20 year span to create a more equitable relationship with the US, but the more comprehensively equipped military that would have been the basis would have been somewhat expensive (though still a fraction of those murderous social security pensions) and unpopular with the pacifist Japanese. This is not helped by the Chinese acting like Yasukuni is worse than real missiles, and the West actually going along with that BS which created an even higher wall to suitable rearmament.
And now it is too late. Japan can't afford to be with the US, and the US knows it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@SJ Today 03:20 pm JST
arbitrary claims without citing external sources.
What kind of sources do you want? Between the rounds, I think you've already been offered sources that point out how their citations do not really support them (thus on their merits). You've also been provided links that show that they are hardly likely to be a neutral or majority opinion.
Even you do not understand the legal interpretations of Japanese lawyers
One problem of that is that they did not even really get to the point of legal interpretation, which will involve actually working with the text, including dealing with the parts that are not in your favor (rather than hoping that nobody will bother clicking on the link). I will show you a simplified example of how this can be done (in other words, I'll try to do those incompetents' work for them):
You want to say that this is a human rights issue and you want to use ILO Forced Labor Convention as your support. All right. You start with something like this (note usage of exact articles):
"The permissible limits of forced labor during the period at hand is stipulated in ILO FLO 1930. Article 12 stipulates 'The maximum period for which any person may be taken for forced or compulsory labour of all kinds in any one period of twelve months shall not exceed sixty days, including the time spent in going to and from the place of work.' A15 stipulates ' The normal working hours of any person from whom forced or compulsory labour is exacted shall be the same as those prevailing in the case of voluntary labour' "
"According to the facts accepted by the court, they had been forced to work 20-hour days for a year, without rest. The prevailing norm at that time is 12-hour days [I made up these facts, but they'll be the kind of thing claimed and possibly accepted by the Korean judge.] This constitutes a clear, objective violation of Article 12 and 15."
And you don't escape from the weaknesses:
"Admittedly, the period at hand is wartime, for which an exclusion is included in Article 2: (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war... whole or part of the population;"
Generally, the play for inconvenient text is to try and read it down, such as:
"From a legal positivist point of view, it is admittedly not impossible to read this as a blanket exclusion. However, from the viewpoint of the text's intent and the demands of natural justice, it would seem unreasonable, even absurdist to claim such. It is more reasonable to Article 2 as a limited immunity conditioned on the principle of proportionality - that is to say, forced labor exceeding the limits of Articles 12 and 15 should be limited to that absolutely necesary for the 'cases of emergency'... (blah, blah, blah)"
Now, I'm not saying this is a winning argument, but it is a concept for an argument, which a professional will try and firm up (or realize it can't be done after all) by legal research into the jurisprudence. You might notice yours never even got to this "concept" point.
I end by linking to an amicus curae. It is for a completely different issue, specifically wrangling over the interpretation of a single clause. Personally I think it is a loser and the court's logic superior (I'll be fair and note that the ECHR will likely dissent with me), but what I want you to notice is to sheer chasm in quality and detail between this and what you quoted:
5 ( +7 / -2 )
On a straight reading of "claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples", it does not make any exclusion for "damages" or any other category of claims. Apologists are encouraged to remember the following:
VCLT Article 26: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
VCLT Article 27: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
It would be interesting to see a S-400 up close :-)
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@IloveCoffeeFeb. 12 10:48 pm JST
What about J-Politicians calling Korean CM ''prostitutes''? Is that not an insult?
Whether they are is a question of fact. Given a sincere belief that the average Korean "comfort woman" entered the relationship in accordance to a work agreement without coercion from the State, it is less an insult than an assertion of belief, which may or may not be a fact.
What about J-Pol. saying the Koreans who fought for independence are 'war criminals'', shouldn't they apologize for insulting Koreans?
Depending on the means they used in "fighting for independence", they may well be. Even a legally questionable or illegal (in terms of international law) annexation does not mean carte blanche in choice of means to "fight for independence" (see Palestine). The circle gets even smaller if you start with the idea it is legal.
What other J-pol. saying ''Koreans are naturally liars'', shouldn't they have to apologize now?
If you accept the premises, that is to say, you (for example) accept the premise that comfort women are prostitutes. When the South Koreans insist they are not, what can you logically call them but "natural liars"?
5 ( +6 / -1 )