@Dan Lavender Today 09:09 am JST
In order for a country to tell its people to stay home in a crisis it must offer its people financial support to do so.
In fact, it needs to offer both financial AND legal support. In failing to make the request an "order", no legal obligations are changed. The default position is that salaryman are under their contractual obligations to work. So unless the boss decides to be nice and agree voluntarily to the request (and since he was not coerced, he will not be compensated), the salaryman has little choice but to show up or risk losing his job.
Orders are not always restricting. If you use them right, they can in fact be empowering.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
A committee-led fudge. And as the saying goes: a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
At least it kind of punches a hole in the tale of Abe being power-hungry. Or maybe he's smart and thinking maybe he can channel his record of restraint this time towards Constitutional change.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
@browny1Today 10:03 pm JST
Where did you get that idea from? Based on what?
For such it would require documented evidence spread over a long period of time, proving the real intent and desire of all concerned and existance of deep compassion. Witnesses to the growing circumstances would be essential.
List of procedural requirements aimed at increasing the probability her will to suicide is genuine, or
(1) the state of mind of the young woman who was probably extremely depressed, in despair and needed loving understanding and help
Even now, an apparent refusal to believe that it is a genuine feeling.
BUT, as I hinted at earlier, who believes they have the right to kill someone because they asked them to?
Let's reason it out. First, it is the woman's life, not anyone elses'. If you believe in autonomy and individuality, then you must acknowledge that it is at her disposal. She has consented to its loss, in fact asked someone to help with disposing it. The consent eliminates the idea there was a protected interest harmed ... ergo, valid.
If we accept that people can genuinely wish to suicide, then to disallow this is in itself to infringe on their autonomy. And if we allow suicide, then what is getting someone to help? And if it is valid to get someone to help, why is the person who stood up to the plate worthy of criticism?
Well ... the above is my opinion. Now for the opinion of Japanese Criminal Law:
Assisted suicide is a violation of Article 202, punishable for up to 7 years imprisonment. The reason for the penalty being lighter is the consent factor, and further from the viewpoint of the victim it is basically suicide (which is either non-criminal or non-culpable depending on the theorist) so it is clearly a less criminal act, and it is less exigible to demand the defendant to refuse, so there is a culpability cut.
As for why there is even a penalty at all, theories range from a limit on those who can dispose of life to its wielder, to a normative reduction in the victim's dispositive capacity based on estimates of such victims' average mental state (in essence, inserting a norm on grounds of disputing that it is genuine consent).
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
It seems a lot of the criticism so far is based on a fact assumption: That the Woman didn't really want to die.
What if we assume she did? How would that change everyone's calculus?
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
commanteerApr. 6 09:43 pm JST
These are exactly the kinds of words that have been used in the past to usher in authoritarian governments. Not to diminish the risks, but think about the results, I am glad that Japan is not (yet) following the path of taking away human rights. People who brush off this concern are people who have never experienced losing human rights - and are not all that different from people who brushed off early reports of corona-virus because they have never experience such a thing.
While I agree with the general sentiment above, from a legal viewpoint, for making this thing work IMO a better balance is to authorize an order, with penalty. The penalty can be symbolic peanuts, say 100 yen for individuals and 10000 yen for legal entities that try to order their people to violate the order, but it should be there.
Because an order from the government changes the legal obligations of its subjects, while a request does not. The order actually gives the little guy a solid legal basis for staying at home. The request does not do that.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
SerranoToday 04:20 pm JST
Well, he's trying to calculate for the point when most people are for it and the most reluctant are at least willing to accept it. This reduces the resentment caused by these orders to a bare minimum and increases compliance to a maximum.
Without voluntary compliance, it seems even a combination of risk to life and threatening murder charges (like in Italy) cannot stop all violators.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
smithinjapanToday 12:30 pm JST
but pres tel how much of a history textbook is devoted to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki vs.... say, sexual slavery and the Nanjing Massacre?
From the Japanese perspective, why do you think the former is LESS interesting than the latter?
And I'll also propose that critical bits are suppressed in the Western narrative. You mentioned the atom bombs. As far as I can see, the overall effect of the education in America is to train the average American to see the atom bombs as something controversial, but at least it is not abominable to claim it was justified. However, in dealing with it in a half-arsed manner, critical parts are dropped from view. Do you notice it is always phrased in terms of "Invasion" or "Nuke"? Options like "If we don't want to waste one million soldiers and it is unacceptable to nuke civilians, then we should just be happy with the destruction of the Japanese Fleet and sign a peace from a position of strength." never even show up. The requirement for "Unconditional Surrender" is subtly altered into something non-negotiable.
Or how about critical little bits that rarely make it in. You have to DIG to find a Marco Polo rendition in America that started when the Chinese took potshots at the Japanese. Instead, everyone is expected to swallow the Kool-Aid about it starting with the Japanese just kind of asking out of nowhere about a missing soldier... and it seems that many do. This actually changes the solution quite a bit, but no one cares, right? You'll also need to work to find out that the Chinese outnumbered the Japanese over 10 to 1. Or that divisions were NOT in a state of mobilization when the incident happened?
Or the Chinese actually provoked the whole 2nd Battle of Shanghai, which is then lost and that's why the Japanese were even IN Nanking. (I don't know about you, but since the entire plan there was to surprise-rush the Japanese, as soon as that did not work I'd be suing for peace)
(By the way, in case you think these are entirely from Japanese sources, there are English sources that mention them, just as there are history books in Japan. But they aren't in the main educating flow).
These little "details" didn't make it into American education, right? Instead, you are given an impression of Operation Barbarossa, except in Asia.
-5 ( +3 / -8 )
Cricky Today 11:52 am JST
what? I welcome people into my house my family from all nations. Why do you say that? I just said my experience. If I was hostile I wouldn't have home stays. And my family certainly don't focus on negatives. I was just saying when exposed to historical facts through an robust educational system it was a shock. You can't possibly think I'd berate anyone for their nationality?
I don't think you do, and I'll even apologize for just assuming YOU (or your family members) initiated the whole WWII conversation rather than it being something they experience in class. Re-reading it, I have to admit the original post allows for the interpretation that your family did not initiate the conversation.
Still, I'll suspect not many people from other countries have to suffer such weight being given to a nation's past wrongs. The Germans, OK, they start their guilt education at home. But otherwise, Americans won't spend a lot of time about every massacre that happened under British colonization, the British won't talk about the Yanks and the dead American Indians ... etc.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
CrickyToday 06:46 am JST
Had a home stay (several) who became upset when told Japan tried to conquer China, the Whole pacific. All they knew was Atomic bombs not why. Lack of education.
Or maybe they are just feeling the hostility from their homestay host choosing to bring this crap up. When you receive homestays from other nations, do you feel the need to dredge up whatever you feel are the nastiest parts of their history and portray them in the least favorable manner?
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
moonbloomToday 08:09 pm JST
The biggest reason for government spending in Japan is social services, especially pensions. In essence, Japan is being choked trying to pay those whose uselessness is at an end. (This is a cold way to put things but is nevertheless true).
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Mike Today 12:15 am JST
I was arrested because a drunk Japanese man came to my group sitting outside and grabbed our beer started drinking it, then proceeded to grab my wife and kiss her on the mouth.
I throw him out of the area, he fell to the ground and police came and arrested me.
I had video evidence of what happened on security cameras, and even the prosecutor said, she understands my actions, but that doesn't mean I can ever put my hands on someone even in that situation.
I don't want to cause trouble, but I don't want my wife assaulted either. So instead of assuming all these people are bad, I'd suggest you look at the context of japanese law first, and go case by case.
Here's where a little education in law would have saved you trouble. Based on your presentation, the Japanese man is guilty of both theft (of your beer) and forcible indecency. However, I presume he stopped conducting criminal acts after that. Unfortunately, at that point, your ability to claim justified defence ends, and that's why you may not assault him. Further, even if he is continuing his assault, you are required to use proportionate force, and based on the fact you can "throw him out of the area", you are significantly bigger and stronger than the Japanese, which leads to problems of excessive defence.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I agree. They continue to feed the public negative information about Cannabis in order to get the public to reject It and in the hopes people will be less interested in buying and believe me, this country would be better off if they smoked it and the more they legalize it. Seem like the country is losing the battle on trying to stop people from taking it. As long as the people want it, they’ll never stop it.
It seems there is no shortage of evidence to suggest there is a negative effect regarding cannabis:
Sure, there is debate on how bad it is. But it is a matter of degree, not of direction.
The only reason we hadn't banned alcohol and tobacco yet is due to entrenched interests. They are two drugs too many. If cannabis hadn't entrenched itself yet, I see no reason to add a third drug to the list.
-7 ( +0 / -7 )
No! It is necessary to correctly brainwash them with propaganda that has been proven false.
Search for Recreational Marijuana and Cognitive Decline: What Every Clinical Neurologist Needs To Know
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
In some situations, male teachers reportedly enforce the rule requiring female students to submit to underwear checks.
What others risk prison to see, these guys do legally...
9 ( +9 / -0 )
WolfpackApr. 4 09:01 pm JST
It is obvious that Wood lost his case because he left without informing his company and was gone for a longer period of time than prescribed by law. I can sympathize with his parental desire to help his child but he made a choice and is responsible for it.
You are going to have to use information extrinsic to the article to make this as a conclusion rather than a hypothesis.
What can be said is that even if this is true, it does not forgive his company's cowardice. If we accept the company's position is that he broke rules over the paternity leave (or another matter), then under Japanese law, they do have the right to formally issue a disciplinary penalty, which can include either warnings, pay cuts or even demotions.
What they are not supposed to do is this passive-aggressive crap of reassigning him and claiming to be nice:
During earlier court testimony, Akihiro Kiyomi, Wood’s former boss, and Chiharu Abe, who took over Wood’s job at the company, said they reduced his workload after his child was born because they thought he needed to take it easy as a single father.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
@Osaka_Doug Today 07:18 pm JST
However, isn't Wood entitled to take parental leave by law and the company cannot reject his request?
Again, without the ruling it is hard to be sure, but what seemed to have happened is that the company, unable to fight the law, resorted to maliciously disputing the facts to delay the inevitable:
Glen Wood’s lawsuit states that when he first asked his company for paternity leave in 2015, he was rejected on the grounds that “there was no such precedent.” After the boy was born in October of that year, the firm was forced to accept Wood’s legal right to parental leave, but they then refused to acknowledge that he was the child’s father. After Wood submitted DNA test results to prove the was indeed the father, the company finally allowed him to take paternity leave. However, according to the legal statements in Wood’s case, after he informed the firm that he was going to become a single father, he suffered two years of willful mistreatment. He was then fired.
The idea that the designation of something as a right means the exerciser CANNOT be held at fault for using it is not well ingrained in Japanese society.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
JeffLeeToday 06:57 am JST
That's why he lost. He made Japanese people lose face. No Japanese court would ever find in your favour if you embarrass Japanese people, regardless of how right you are.
Well, don't be so sure about that. Arudou Debito did win his Otaru onsen case, despite (or because of) splattering it all over the media.
While it superficially looks bad, it is also true you can't tell exactly what happened without being able to see the ruling proper. What facts were submitted. What was accepted. Was any reasoning given? Etc.
-3 ( +8 / -11 )
ThonTaddeo Today 10:03 am JST
Let's deal with this case instead of bringing other cases into it. If she was a suspect from the start and cracked at the 23rd day, sure, fine, valid point. Now for this one.
The original investigation was not for murder, but for professional negligence. A crime of inaction by not responding to an alarm. In this case, like in many others, there will be little if any objective evidence. Without someone willing to be a witness, this kind of crime will be unsolved. I'll also point out that she was not the duty nurse, and thus not the suspect.
Of course, no one said that they heard the alarm ring. From the viewpoint of the investigators, this may be true but it is also no secret that in these kinds of cases, colleagues are not that happy to sell one of their own down the river. If anything, if they actually sold the suspect really fast now you have to be suspicious because they might just really hate this suspect and see this as the perfect chance to get rid of him.
For the above reasons, a certain amount of pressure is an inevitable part of this kind of interrogation. Otherwise, you will have to sign your acceptance that this kind of case will be left unresolved, the perpetrator never caught and the victims' need for justice unsatiated.
As for your paragraph 1, all I can say is that even under pressure from your boss, there are things you will concede to and things you won't. I should hope your boss cannot, for example, bully you into murdering someone, though he may be able to bully you into working extra hours without pay.
Besides I don't see why a Japanese boss is automatically worse than say a Chinese boss in say his aggressiveness. Or are you saying Japanese as a group are more doormats than Chinese or Americans?
Despite the above, if the problem was the duty nurse getting convicted, then you may still have a case. I again note, however, that they did not jump to conclusions and just arrest duty nurse. And at this point, Mika is free.
Then she confessed. She was not even under interrogation at the time. She was free. She sank herself!
As far as the problem of criminal liability is concerned, in Japan, it is not a criminal offense for a defendant to lie. It is for a witness to lie.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Imprison him. In addition to the sexual offense, he has also violated
the right of people to peace in their homes
normal societal and managerial functions, because a bona fide person who is conducting a routine facility inspection will now find things a lot harder.
the order publique.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
browny1Today 04:50 pm JST
So why did they confess? Who knows, but what it does mean is that confessions alone are simply unreliable and should only be used as an adjunct to concrete evidence, and not as the sole evidence in of itself.
In this particular case, the investigation started off as a case of professional negligence, with the suspicion being someone sleeping through an alarm. Since it is a crime of inaction rather than action, there will be no convenient forensic evidence.
I'll also point out that being nurses, they have access to gloves and full body wear, which will reduce the chance they'll leave suitable fingerprints even in a crime of action. And said fingerprints won't be all that probative, since they have valid reasons to touch the machines.
I will also note that while they were pressuring the other nurse, who was on duty, they did not seem to have arrested her on the negligence charges as soon as this Mika said she heard the alarm, which kind of goes against of grain of them being careless, or giving up on uncertain cases or any other negative implication, or overly eager to gain confessions by applying maximum pressure.
If anything, the real corrupter of the whole legal process was Mika by a false confession under a low pressure situation. Further, ironically, if they had just arrested the other nurse, Mika would not see her being "pressured", which will kill off the motive to make a false confesion.
If you make a false confession before you are even arrested, don't expect to escape jail.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
What really makes my head shake is that they let someone with a "mild intellectual disability" become a nurse in the first place. Still, we'll say she's sufficiently mentally competent for her tasks.
Ostensibly, the interrogator "banged on the table" and "acted like he would kick a chair", and that was when she decided to say she heard the alarm go off. Gee, say she's a victim all you want but what a surprising lack of mental fortitude. Can she hold herself together at the sight of blood?
Ostensibly, what then happened was that the duty colleague got a lot of pressure. But even at that point, she was in the clear. Until she chose to give her false confession, Ms. Nishiyama wasn't even a suspect, much less arrested.
Under the circumstances, I really cannot blame the judge for accepting her testimony at face value and not letting her reverse.
Based on information from:
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
Midnight Sun TribeToday 07:46 am JST
Great. Next they can campaign to get rid of leather shoes and suits for professionals because they are constricting, any kind of uniform for stores, restaurants, hotels, or anywhere because they are morally demeaning, and fatigues, camo, boots, for military unless they are deployed directly into the field. Then everyone can wear hoodies, burlap sacks, and t-shirts regardless of whatever business you created that gave them the opportunity for a job. Or... maybe they can create their own business and decide what people wear if they want to get paid by them to represent their company.
What's wrong with everyone being allowed to wear the most comfortable clothing available?
6 ( +6 / -0 )
@starpunkMar. 21 01:12 pm JST
So Kyoka Mase, who fights back in self-defense after being shoved against a wall and having his car vandalized gets arrested too?
First, since the car was already vandalized by the time he showed up, justifiable defense cannot apply to the bit about the car. Only the bit about him being shoved against a wall can be put in the justifiable defense bracket.
Second, Kyoka is half the age of Go, a young man in his prime. There is a legitimate question of excessive self-defence (disproportionality) as he "threw Izuta into the ground".
To put it another way, suppose unfortunately Go Izuta hit a hard curb or something and died to that throw. Would you have been as quick to excuse or justify Kyoka Mase's actions?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
@HBJMar. 21 03:21 pm JST
An 82 year old man reversed into my car in a parking lot. My car was parked and my wife and I were in the supermarket at the time. I was deemed to be 20% ‘at fault’ because my tires on the drivers side were touching the white line - not over the line, just touching. I tried explaining that I was trying to leave as much space as possible for my pregnant wife to get out of the passenger side - but it didn’t make any difference. The police made it an issue by officially reporting that my tires were touching the white line. After that the old guy’s insurance company wouldn’t let that fact go and insisted they’d take the case to court if I didn’t agree. The fact that the other guy reversed into my front right headlight was neither here nor there. Had I been bang center in the space he’d still have hit me.
First, as I understand it if you are only 20% at fault, you'll still get money just a little less.
Second, everyone has a story as to why they did not follow the rules, but you still broke them, and you've just confessed to it.
Third, such rules save a significant amount of time for everyone because if it had to be fought in court, you'll have to record exactly where your car was to the centimeter, then hire experts to prove that the fact you did not park your car properly made absolutely no difference to the situation.
Fourth, the rules also create an incentive for everyone to keep to the rules as much as possible, because in case you get hit, you'll get more money if you followed the rules exactly than if you did not for what, in this case, was ultimately for your (you+wife) convenience.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
"women who were forced or coerced into Japan's wartime brothel system under various circumstances, including abduction, deception and poverty."
In other words, though some (perhaps even most) might have joined because they are poor, Japan will be blamed for it anyway.
Whether you like it or not, sex work pays well. And the biggest reason it pays well is that forbidden fruit factor. If people sign up for such work to pay their debts or their parents ... well, what can we say? Certainly we can't fault the people who at least gave them an option.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Do the hustleMar. 19 08:53 pm JST
So, the mother has been tried and sentenced. Now, the father has tried and sentenced. The next step should be to bring the social workers who let this happen into a court.
Sigh ... the fact is, they are in a difficult position. Ultimately, they don't know. They had reason to suspect, but they did not know.
Suppose they refused. Then the man might sue them for violating his "parental rights" and his right to "family life". The court may not be sympathetic and we'll end up this same road. Yet you don't want courts to too easily defer to the views of the administrative officer.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Chip StarToday 06:37 am JST
Now, that's a bit unfair. First, generally speaking, most people arrested by police are really guilty. Second, a very large number of the convicted get suspended sentences, and a lawyer's work is often to reduce the sentence, not fight the conviction - that's true also in the West.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Is that the best that he can come up with?
When you are a defense lawyer you use what you can, and the defendant didn't give him a lot to use.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
A number of schools in Japan held graduation ceremonies Tuesday amid the new coronavirus outbreak, by limiting the number of participants and shortening the proceedings to prevent the spread of the pneumonia-causing virus.
I think a lot of students are thinking, thank you Virus!
13 ( +13 / -0 )
girl_in_tokyoToday 12:56 pm JST
Because women experience so much sexism that they’re unable to correctly identify it and thus need men to let us know; but at the same time we have explain why something is misogynistic because it’s not obvious to the men reading that it’s misogyny, and thus we have to “prove” it’s misogyny by men’s standards, which of course are much more measured, calm, and academic:
I think the problem is closer to the inverse, when women are so overindoctrinated into the feminist ideology they don't even realize when they are asking for privileges (they seem to think they are rights). When someone tells them how much of a privilege they are really asking for, they get all self-righteous and call their opponent a mysogynist. Even the possibility that they are at least Not White does not enter their imagination.
Such as now. It would perhaps be a nice thing for a man to ask a woman. I'll roll with that. However, that somehow morphs into women getting the de facto right to imprison males for 5 years or more because they suddenly decide they "hadn't consented", or hadn't repeated the expressions of consent enough times, and so on. Instead of finding alternate constructions that might satisfy doubts, all is said is "Please trust us, we don't lie (that often)."
-1 ( +0 / -1 )