Kazuaki Shimazaki comments

@Alan HarrisonToday  05:04 pm JST

Fly back to Tokyo. You have be kidding. Who on earth would put their faith in Japan's so- called legal system. Even Japan's imbecile judges don't have a clue about justice. They are just a bunch of scared rabbits.

You are making some rather defamatory claims. Care to back them up? And be careful, you need to show Japan's judges are particuarly weak. Remember that while a "pro-government" judgment doesn't demonstrate judicial independence, nor does it automatically show a lack thereof. If the governent's case is strong (as it should be), the judge is not supposed to let the need to demonstrate judicial independence (which to put it in the crudest form is to make an anti-government judgment) keep him from adjudicating as the law demands.

Innocent defendants do not jump bail.

It's possible for an innocent defendant to jump bail, but all the surrounding evidence and investigations in other countries clearly point to a direction that Ghosn is at least not being arbitrarily detained. A company dispute does not mean Ghosn did not violate the criminal law.

I'd also point out that at the end of the day, Ghosn got a reprieve in getting bail at all despite being an obvious and as it turned out ACTUAL flight risk, and he betrayed Japan (or at least those who took a chance to give his [profanity] a reprieve. So I hope no Westerner complains again when he doesn't get bail - blame Ghosn!

While the government had planned to codify a clearance clause within a bill for enhancing economic security passed in May last year, it was struck down after some opposition parties expressed fears over the system potentially being an invasion of privacy.

Well, if that's what we need to do for international cooperation, sometimes there can be little choice.

Though it's hard to discern detail out of a short newspaper article, my instinct is that considering he had mitigating factor and his young age, this is a heavy sentence by Japanese (or Continental Law) standards even for killing two people. Maybe the judge is a hidden diehard fan for the old doctrine of patricide as an aggravated form of murder - patricide shouldn't be a distinct thing anymore because it violates the equality provision of the Constitution, such is the position of the Japanese Supreme Court certainly, but the wide sentencing range for homicide certainly allows a conservative judge to slip it back in through the back door.

Elon Musk is just being fair. The case for Taiwan not being part of China is uber-weak despite the attempts of the United States to adjust wording to keep it an arguable position. Arguable is very far from actually being strong, and recognizing that Taiwan is this extralegal jurisdiction the PRC suffers and acting accordingly may be the best route of keeping said jurisdiction alive for as long as possible.

Good idea. The reality is that resources are limited, so even if this experiment is ruled a success, it's unlikely the scale of issue will grow to more than 1 per class (1 in 40) in the near future. Any student who wants to use one will be in a tough race to demonstrate he is most in need of said robot of an entire class. Even if the school allows private substitutes, they probably cost a piano each, so it'd be an uphill fight to convince all but the very richest parents to pay a million yen for a private robot.

The other 39 students are going to have to tough it out and go to school as recommended by the naysayers. And for the one student who's most in need out of 40, who's to insist that's not the best available solution for them. 

No, take those few special kids out of their comfort zones.

OK, Sven. If those "special kids" die from suicide or suffer any other harm, it'd be assessed as your fault. Still willing to say that? What? Not fair to put the blame on you? But that's one of the problems facing the schools and boards above them - if they force the special kids to school in the 21st century and they die, parents are very liable to sue the involved school. Any strategy they suggest will have to take this fact into account.

Look, from the fishing industry's perspective, they would never be sincerely happy with this plan. The Japanese government's duty, however, is not only to the fishermen. It's the same mistake as the Okinawans - they want the government to favor them *at the expense of the rest (majority!) of the Japanese population*. And they wonder why after some efforts to placate them it never goes well for them.

It's why Canada legalized it - they realized that the problems caused by illegality were worse than the drug itself.

Let's at least try to stop and slow the flooding before just leaving some compartments flooded.

Cigarette smoking is far more deadly, yet nothing is ever done. Legalize marijuana, tax it, make some money and everyone will be happier.

Cigarettes are being "pumped" out in Japanese society as far as I can tell. The only reason we leave alcohol alone is because by the time we got around to trying to stop it, it's too big to be stopped without causing excessive pain, so now we live with it. Without cannabis, it might even be the optimal choice for Canada or the Dutch, but it's not necessarily true anywhere else.

We don't need to add another chemical (or chemical family) to the list of tumors we really should be excising but have to leave alone because it has gotten too big.

Someone check his background. He might be a Chinese sleeper agent. His speech is a typical example of defamatory speech. Even if one argues that his word choice is technically defensible, phrasing it this way here and now has no plausible public interest justification to counteract the clear disadvantages it brings, including giving hostile states a useful word bite.

@JJEToday 07:37 am JST

The fact is the environmental impact and potential long term health implications are far from known. There has been a concerted campaign to falsely obscure the truth in the local and western media.

In other words, as far as you know, there are no significant environmental impacts or long term health implications, and all you are really doing is asking for proof of a negative.

@quercetumToday 08:46 am JST

These two types of water, contaminated and cooling water are inherently different however, as they come from different sources, contain different radionuclides and require different levels of sophistication in terms of the treatment methods involved.

And Japan does seem to be working harder to clean the water. The only difference that matters is how much is left in the water at the point of release. The available information says that Japan is not releasing more. At some point you have to let go.

One reason we have international organizations like IAEA is to balance between competing demands and viewpoints. Japan satisfied the IAEA, thus it satisfied what passed for procedural justice in this case. You will need to show some manifest error (not jump at shadows) before you can even begin to challenge that.

As an alternative, if you are willing to pay out of your pocket the difference between the cost of what they are doing now (and there's nothing wrong with choosing the cheapest method that meets the standard - that's why we have standards, so entities can focus their priorities on other things once they are met) and the cost of whatever method you prefer (and assuming your method has no disadvantages), the alternative can be considered.

@antifunToday 09:15 am JST

But so many people demanded this "pointless gesturing" before it was actually done.

@sunfunbunToday 09:04 am JST

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

If he literally lacks a sense of moral responsibility, he won't even have tried to take care of the bedridden mother. He would have dumped her before anyone can even think he had any duty to sustain her existence.

I think Abe's basic point is sound. It's nice to think that we wouldn't have done it, but only a very small portion of the general population (unfortunate parents that take care of permanently bedridden kids for years on end, for example) would have analogical experiences such that they can have honest confidence when declaring they won't have done it.

1glennToday  09:42 am JST

I am so used to the idea of joint custody that I don't understand the idea of not having it.

Here's some interesting commentary (in English too) on the issue:

https://www.international-divorce.com/japans-one-parent-rule

It is alien to Japanese tradition and Japanese law for a child's parents to have any significant sharing of parental responsibility upon a family break-up. When parents separate in Japan, one parent invariably takes the child and the other parent largely or entirely disappears from the child's life. It is an extension of the traditional Japanese custom that children belong to a family and can be registered on the official Japanese koseki (family register) of only one family. Thus, the one-parent rule is not merely the mandated law but it is also the societal norm. Indeed, it is considered entirely inappropriate in Japan for the parent who does not have custody of a child to interfere with family peace. and with the child's best interests, by demanding more than occasional and extremely limited contact with a child. It is also considered to be entirely inappropriate for a Japanese court to interfere with family peace by taking any significant action against the parent who is in possession of a child except for suggesting and encouraging mediation or conciliation in the context of the rule that a child “belongs” to the one parent (and his or her family) that has custody of the child.

A significant reason for the one-parent rule, as well as the concomitant practice of drastically limiting child visitation, is to allow and encourage the custodial parent to establish a new family with a new spouse. It is common in Japan for a custodial parent's new spouse to adopt a child from a prior marriage. Thus, if the noncustodial father has significant contact with his child, it would significantly hinder the mother's opportunity to remarry, which would be considered in Japan to be unfair to both the mother and the child.

I'd add only that because the vast majority of divorces in Japan are done without the involvement of judges, as a rule it's only when things go bad that things escalate to court, and at that point the priority is to avoid the worst case. If relations have been poisoned to the point spouses are willing to defame each other (a common complaint as can be seen on this thread) in front of their children, mandating joint custody is unlikely to produce better overall outcomes, and may even be a door to disaster.

@Hito BitoToday 02:08 pm JST

Do an investigation. Research the situation further beyond "hunches" of the locals. Use the scientific method, and if wrong is being done, prosecute or press for reparations. Because we all can't base our reality on your "hunches" or "gut feelings," now, can we?

And here we bump into the problem where the burden of proof has to be adjusted by the actual ability of each party to produce it. If it's say a SDF base, then at least the Japanese government would have full jurisdiction to perform tests. Whether you believe they would report any bad news to their full value is another issue - but at least they can do the tests.

On a US base they de facto (and likely de jure) don't have that jurisdiction. They basically have to take whatever the US military admits to. Much as we may argue for "investigation", when the investigation isn't going to happen a decision will have to be made on whatever information is at hand, rather than insisting we must all act as if it definitely did not happen.

FWIW my personal thought is that the US military is a large organization, and when you are above a certain size, you will have a non-zero failure rate. Any single person is most likely not a criminal, but put 1000 random guys together and the odds favor at least one or two of them to be such. So if a few honest accidents happened with the fire extinguishers, so be it as long as it is not an above average rate.

But that's not the same as being kept in the dark.

However, if you are actually upset that Chinese people are calling up Japan to complain over the phone, then you are a massive loser, the very type women mock and are repulsed by.

It's still wrong, especially since the recipients of the calls have no direct control over the decision. The right of protest still means you should direct your words at someone that may seriously be able to help.

If the goal is to indirectly press their victims to press on the government, in essence it is terrorism-lite. Too small (at least on a case-by-case basis) to qualify by far, yet fundamentally the goal is the same.

Chappell's defense team has expressed concerns that if extradited, he might be made to confess under duress. Japan has argued that police interrogations in principle are recorded.

Japan needs to give diplomatic assurances that the principle would be applied to this specific case, not make a general statement of principle.

The problem here is what are ECHR standards, even, in concrete terms?

If you say it's the unconditional permission for attorneys to attend interrogations, then Germany doesn't have it for the police interrogation phase. You do indeed have to the defendant speak to a lawyer in some way, which Japan allows in principle.

The length of interrogation ... well, its said that it is now, on principle, 8 hours a day

What a concept ,bail. The Japanese authorities heads must be spinning.

As for this, previous ECHR case law has allowed for at least 60 days of pre-trial detention. And anyone even mentioning the name starting with G should remember his contribution in ensuring bail rights for foreigners who come after him.

I'm even more surprised that the JGov has let it adrift

I'm not sure they can help even if they want to. The budget for this fiscal year has already been allocated several months ago. Every yen (down to an error measured in mere hundreds of yen at most) has already been assigned to one department or another, for use in one month or another.

YubaruToday 05:16 pm JST

Well, then it's time to stop all outside activities right? Construction workers are in the sun just as long, if not longer than these baseball players. Oh and what about the old guys who are directing traffic at these sites too!

Construction workers aren't competing. While it is still bad, to some extent they can cope by moving more slowly or procrastinating more when the heat gets bad. His work chief is likely to be a veteran who understands what it is all about. He's not expected to make a maximum exertion in the blazing sun. The societal costs of unfinished buildings also exceeds that of competitive sports.

Well, let's get it over with. The faster that water is released, the faster the less rational part of the world can start getting over it.

@toraToday  02:47 pm JST

The idea of these scams is to speed-rush the victim, making him believe he needs to hand over the money. Now. Not two days later. The same panic that makes him rush to the ATM in the first place will cause him to override or disable any time-based protections. Further, there's always a small but finite chance that it is for real (this possibility is why these schemes work at all), and no bank will want to be the one who caused severe consequences by being the party to hold up a truly time critical transaction.

If we can ban kids from doing things because we don't think they have the mental capacity, in principle there can be little objection to banning older people on the same pretext. Further

On July 26, it came to light that the National Police Agency has proposed locking ATM use for any bank account held by someone over 65 years of age that hasn’t had a transaction in over one year.

It targets a limited group. By using the ATM at least once a year, you can keep your ability to continue using it. One has to admit the sudden use of an ATM by someone who hasn't used it for years is highly unusual and can justify special scrutiny.

Then one day they will actually get to a hearing in which some quack oh sorry " child psychologist or child welfare expert" will claim that so much times has past, the child doesn't remember much of the other country or the language and that the child is fully settled with family, grandparents, school and interrupting this at that point would cause trauma and mental damage.

Hold it, how do you justify calling the expert witness a quack? Have you personally examined any of the involved children that gives you grounds to refute the expert? Or are you actually saying he can be right and he should be ignored because...

@girl_in_tokyoToday 07:58 am JST

And they would be wrong. That's why you shouldn't assume anything. I am not sure why, but heterosexuals, particularly males, just assume they are the default and that normalcy revolves around their preferences. It's a very arrogant and self-important attitude.

Try not to read anything and everything as a sign of potential mysogyny.

I wrote it out that way because as far as I know you are a woman.

If I believed you were a male, the sentence would have gone "everyone will see that you are a MAN and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a WOMAN."

For the other part of your response, assumptions are an inevitable part of life, simply because we don't have time to ascertain everything, ascertaining everything can be anywhere from inconvenient to personally dangerous, and also because the average human mind feels anxiety when they are aware potentially important variables have to be left as "UNKNOWN" or Blank. Interpolations and Extrapolations from limited data are a part of the human existence and contribute to mental stability.

@Strangerland July 27 12:59 pm JST

Again, how is this different from racism? What percentage of individuals is it ok to discriminate against, before it goes from making a judgement based on a one-sided statistic, to bigotry/racism?

Ah, I see, the slippery slope fallacy. What I'd say is that honestly, the line is situational, but over 80% would certainly be a safe place when that line is far enough away it is functionally out of sight.

I say the line is situational because it clearly depends on the disadvantage placed on each side. For example, over on the other thread there's a spat over banning students from a certain school (collective) based on the actions of a percentage of them. Since the disadvantage to the students (not being able to use one restaurant) is limited compared to the potential damage to the restaurant from rowdy students, it's hard to blame the restaurant for its defensive measures if even 10% of the visiting students are disruptive. For something with a greater disadvantage, the burden of proof gets higher. But if the the probability is over 50%, I really find it hard to blame taking a shortcut unless the disadvantage to one side would simply be massive (for example, no one will say 50% is good enough for a criminal conviction), which clearly is not the case here.

StrangerlandToday 12:31 pm JST

What if their conclusion is wrong, and she has no interest in men whatsoever?

Given the actual ratio between heterosexuals and LGBTs, the probability of hit is something like 95%, which is rather good for a heuristic. Plus it's guaranteed to hit all the heterosexuals in the room, and I don't see how a 5% chance of being wrong negates this.

girl_in_tokyoJuly 26 06:39 am JST

Sorry, but what do you mean by this? There is no good argument for outing someone. None.

I am saying that heterosexuals are outed from the start simply because they are the majority and default. You are a woman. If you walk into a room, everyone will see that you are a woman and conclude if you date with or approach anyone it'd be a man. Trying to block this automatic heuristic is like fighting the sea. In that sense, you are outed from the start. From that perspective, letting everyone know homosexual man will be approaching or trying to date males is only evening out the playing field.

Nihon Enigma Today 08:58 am JST does have a good point. Ultimately, this is no different from for example banning non-Japanese in onsen or not renting apartments to them on grounds they have an increased estimated probability of causing problems.

So you can choose between one or another position, either to respect the seller/lessor's right to free contracting (sales are also contracts) and to protect the sanctity of their spaces or to insist that everyone be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as individuals rather than a stereotyped collective.

But you shouldn't have different answers for each scenario.

girl_in_tokyoToday 02:01 pm JST

No. The best way to end discrimination is for people not to be bigots. It's not hard to not be a bigot. It's only hard when people make the active decision to be a terrible human being and foist their horrible behavior onto others.

You do realize that could be an argument for outing him. One cannot decide whether or not to be a bigot if they don't even know about someone's membership in whatever-minority-demographic.

Like feminism, this case represents the schizophrenic attitudes of gay advocates, where they kind of want to be equals and be protected (thus not equals) at the same time. From an "equal" perspective, heterosexuals are outed by default, and following this any homosexual who demands his preference to be treated as an equal should be ready to do the same. But that's not what happens.

I'd be surprised if a real kid good enough to write a program in C didn't pick up enough general computer knowledge along the way such that he can't figure out Powerpoint, even if he hasn't been specifically taught on how to use it.

That's not my experience of employees who studied technical subjects at college or university. But I hope you're not suggesting a "knowledge of computers" involves understanding of PowerPoint and Google.

I'd say it's a problem if they don't either specifically know how to use PowerPoint and Google or have developed a generalized skill and knowledge base that's deep enough to allow them to quickly pick up on the basics of using either when it is needed.

Kids here get the worst swimming lessons I’ve seen out of any developed nation.

School Swimming lessons in Japan may compare poorly to Australia (don't have personal experience with either), but I go to an international school in Hong Kong (Canadian system) and I definitely had ZERO education in swimming. The local school system AFAIK doesn't have swimming lessons (swimming clubs are another matter) either, so if any is provided it's already a one up.

Tony W.Today 09:13 am JST

The headmaster "requested" students not to go to the river? He should have BANNED them from going! The more emphatic statement might have made a difference.

What was he supposed to do? Even if he can catch them, should he apply the school disciplinary system against kids that are not on school premises or under the direct supervision of a teacher, not on school hours, in summer vacation no less. I thought usually the Japanese school system is already considered too interventionist on what students can do after school hours.