M3M3M3 comments

Transgender people in Japan point out they have long discreetly used restrooms matching their gender identity, without incident.

Of course there were fewer problems when the only trans who dared enter women's bathrooms were those who could credibly pass as women (ie. the person in the photo)

The problem is that once you enshrine these things into law, you can't limit them only to those who can pass as women. Any man claiming to be a women will have the right to enter women's spaces.

If Ghosn had simply stayed in Japan to face justice, he would likely have been convicted and released by now. Instead, he's serving a life sentence as a prisoner of his own pride and ego.

@EFD

The Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty for one. Iran is a party but has been ruled in non-compliance.

The IAEA (or any signatory to the NPT) is free to express an opinion on Iran's compliance with the NPT, but these are simply opinions, not judicial determinations. Opinions on Iran's compliance or non-compliance vary widely, even among experts in the West. There is no mechanism in the NPT to rule on whether a nuclear program is legal or not.

UNR 2231 for another.

You seem unfamiliar with the content of resolution 2231. Rather than making Iran's nuclear program illegal, it does the exact opposite. It repeals all previous UNSC resolutions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for agreeing to the terms of the JCPOA. As it stands, Iran's nuclear program is not facing any UNSC sanctions. It's as legal as it gets.

Replacing inefficient oil and gas power plants with nuclear energy is a legitimate and rational goal for Iran. It makes financial sense to export these commodities rather than burn them unnecessarily.

The UN security council’s (of which China and Russia are both permanent members) resolutions make it illegal.

Which resolutions?

in addition to its illegal nuclear program

How exactly is Iran's nuclear program 'illegal'?

@TaiwanIsNotChina

Your Taiwan analogy is completely irrelevant. The PRC broke off from the ROC (Taiwan).

Again, your theories concerning the succession of states under international law are entirely misconceived. A revolution which replaces an existing government with a new government does not amount to declaring independence from the existing state or creating an entirely new state.

If your theories were correct, where does it leave Ukraine after the 2014 Maidan revolution? Is Zelensky's Ukraine not the successor state of pre-2014 Ukraine? Is it an entirely new state? Where is the "old" Ukraine and is Viktor Yanukovich still the president there? Clearly, it's nonsense with no basis in international law.

@rainyday

If the US ever tries to annex Kosovo or Taiwan I’lll be the first to criticize them the same way I criticize what Russia is trying to do.

Please clarify your position because it's not at all clear. If Crimea had held it's referendum, unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, but remained an independent state allied with Russia (but never formally annexed by the RF) you would support this unilateral independence in the same way you support unilateral independence for Kosovo and Taiwan? Is it only the formal annexation by a third country that you oppose?

And as there was never any other legal mechanism for undoing this, it belongs to Ukraine.

Strictly speaking, you're correct. The problem is that many of those trying to hold Russia to this strict application of international law are also the first to insist that the same rules shouldn't apply to Kosovo or Taiwan. You can't have it both ways. Decades of hypocrisy and double-standards have completely eroded the norms you are trying to rely on.

The way this 'miracle drug' actually works is simply by suppressing appetite. It's the ultimate admission that obesity is caused by stuffing too many calories down your gullet. If it were really genetically slow metabolisms or thyroid problems that caused obesity, the drug would have a very different mechanism of action.

Neither party seems particularly serious about gun control. At the very least, states with Democrat super-majorities could easily pass legislation making illegal firearm possession punishable by 20+ years in prison,... but they don't, for reasons.

It's interesting how so many are focused only on the lack of criminal charges. Wealthy and powerful perverts have been preying on the young and vulnerable for sexual gratification since the dawn of time. The fact that they do not pass laws criminalising their own bad behavior is hardly a reason to excuse them. Does the lack of criminal charges mean that the public has no right to be outraged?

Why is the nurse’s gender of importance?

Because it offers a plausible explanation for the conduct. A career in nursing is outside the norm for Japanese men. A man who is willing to transgress social norms in his choice of occupation may be more open to transgressing social norms in other ways.

If the nurse were not male, would it be mentioned?

No, because it would not be useful information.

Transforming your society for the benefit of big business is rarely a good idea.

Don't quite follow the logic of that one...

You claimed that doing something legal (ie, paying for non-disclosure) can become illegal if done to influence the outcome of an election. I'm asking where you draw the line on that, because nearly every action taken by a candidate during an election is done with the intent to influence the outcome.

In any case, this is the actual law:

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

As you can see, the means must be inherently unlawful.

if the books are cooked, then that will be plain to see - and prove...

I'm not sure you understand the problem. Even assuming the books are cooked, it doesn't matter because falsifying business records is a misdemeanor which is (unless the judge allows it) past the statute of limitations. The falsification of records must have been done with the intent of committing some other crime for Bragg to succeed. Everyone is now desperately looking for this other crime but nothing seems particularly convincing.

Paying off a porn star is not a crime... Paying off a porn star to influence an election is

Using the same logic, a rich politician who wears a plaid shirt and jeans on the campaign trail could be accused of 'defrauding' voters into thinking he's a regular guy.

The NY law is likely unconstitutional unless confined to the classic legal definition of fraud. Whatever you think of Trump, you have to accept that Bragg's case is weak and speculative.

@Peter14,

A disgrace that Israel attacks at will, where ever it likes and gets away with it scot free.

Do you know who shields Israel from international sanctions and allows them to get away scot-free? If you need a hint, ask this guy:

The reality is the US defends the free world, as much as it galls those who hate it. If not for America the world would be a hostile anarchy of wars and invasions everywhere. -Peter14 25/03/2023

A common rhetorical tactic of Putin supporters online is to accuse the West of hypocrisy in criticizing the invasion of Ukraine.

A rhetorical tactic or a legitimate argument? If the largest military power on the planet consistently refuses to abide by international law as it ruthlessly pursues its geopolitical interests, why would competing powers disadvantage themselves by sticking to the rules? The US has done more to erode international law than any other state, with the Iraq invasion being just one of many examples.

Very happy to see this. Without ASML’s and TEL’s latest technologies, China will never be able to catch up.

This is wishful thinking. The limiting factor of commercial semiconductor development has always been financial risk rather than pure technical knowledge. There are very few secrets in the semiconductor industry where every innovation is meticulously documented in patents. The question is not whether China can produce equally advanced semiconductors (they definitely can with enough money), but whether those chips can be exported globally due to patent infringement.

Until now, Chinese industry has had no incentive to join the semiconductor race because its consumer electronic brands are not globally competitive. The risk of a chip embargo is that it gives the Chinese government an incentive to invest billions into an advanced semiconductor industry which didn't previously exist.

Like most of the schemes that our politicians come up with, I expect this one to also backfire spectacularly in 5-10 years.

Likely the single person who most supports to US presence (alongside European partners) is Assad.

I seriously doubt that. The US occupies the most oil rich and agriculturally fertile parts of Syria which account for most of the country's pre-war GDP. The US is stealing the resources and sending them to the Kurds in Iraq (fueling more ethnic resentment and seeding future conflicts in the region).

Even without fines, I suspect police will still have the right to stop anyone without a helmet to remind them of the law. That will likely include an ID check for foreigners.

@wallace

It is Putin's intent to destroy Ukraine's culture. He said so.

I must have missed this. If you have a direct quote at hand, I'd be very interested to read it.

International law dictates what types of crimes constitute an act of genocide. These acts are exhaustively listed in the Genocide Convention, adopted in 1948. The legal definition of genocide has not changed in 75 years and is accepted by and applicable to all states worldwide.

The biggest problem with invoking the Genocide Convention is the difficulty of proving intent. Putin doesn't appear to be targeting Ukrainians for simply being part of the Ukrainian national/ethnic group. He is targeting a subset of Ukrainians who are opposing Russia's actions in Ukraine. He's not targeting Ukrainians who support him. Ultimately, he's seeking the destruction of a political faction rather than a national or ethnic group as such.

To illustrate the distinction, Hitler had genocidal intent because he sought the destruction of the Jews as Jews regardless of any other salient characteristic such as whether they voted for him or not.

The ICC has issued it warrant against Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of the population (children) and the unlawful transfer of the population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation .

For a war crime, not genocide.

Unlawful deportation of children without genocidal intent = War Crime, Art. 49 Fourth Geneva Convention

Unlawful deportation of children with genocidal intent = Crime against humanity, Genocide Convention.

@TaiwanIsNotChina

If they are in the process of rounding up children, yes they do. If they aren't rounding up children they have a responsibility for those children to be able to leave safely with their parents.

I don't understand what you mean. We're mainly talking about children who were in state care homes when the war broke out (with some exceptions such as the stranded summer camp children). If a child with living parents was put into state care because they were physically or sexually abused or neglected or abandoned, it's not as simple as handing them over to the first person who can prove that they are a biological parent.

Doubtful this is a legitimate concern. They were all under Ukrainian responsibility before Russia trashed the place, so they can return to Ukrainian responsibility to be sorted out.

Well, the Geneva Conventions require all civilians be returned to their homes at the end of the conflict. But if we want to reunite some of these children before then, it's going to require some additional effort and cooperation.

@wallace

They are not allowed to force transfer the children/civilians to Russia which is considered an act of genocide. This is why the arrest warrants have been issued.

Article II of the Genocide Convention lists the forcible transfer of children of a group to another group as one of the acts which may amount to genocide if it is done with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. "

The Geneva Conventions do allow for the transfer of children provided certain conditions are met (see Art. 49 from my previous comment). In its arrest warrant, the ICC has not alleged any genocide or any crimes under the Genocide Convention. If you believe a genocide is occurring, I respect your opinion but I think the evidence presented so far is unconvincing (and the ICC seems to agree).

All Ukrainian children should be given back. The Russians need to verify nothing. They are all Ukrainian citizens.

Whether we like it or not, Russia is the legitimate authority in the occupied territories according to the Geneva Conventions. They are under no obligation to round up and return all children to unoccupied areas of Ukraine as long as the war continues. You're also assuming that all of the children are Ukrainian citizens (and I don't doubt that most of them are) but you need to establish and verify this before you start handing back children to foreign governments. Russian citizens and people of other nationalities also lived in eastern Ukraine prior to the start of the war. Every case needs to be carefully examined.

@TaiwanIsNotChina

That doesn't mean they can be removed from Ukraine, though, least of all to Russia.

That's the starting point but article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also contains exceptions that allow for the evacuation of protected persons (children) outside of the occupied territory for security reasons and military necessity if "for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement". That's a pretty broad exception and Russia clearly thinks it applies in this case. Given the death, destruction and collapse of basic services in eastern Ukraine, it's not entirely unreasonable, is it?

We can argue that it might have been preferable to move the children somewhere else (ie western Ukraine), but that doesn't make the evacuation to Russia an unambiguous war crime.

Article 49 - Deportations, transfers, evacuations

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-49

If only there were some international organization that could have helped. Or maybe dozens of neutral countries.

Have any international organizations offered to assist Russian authorities with their investigations? What has the reaction of the Ukrainian government been to cooperating with Russia? I'm genuinely curious if this has happened.

@wallace

The children should have been handed over to the Ukrainians.

Under the Geneva Conventions, Russia is responsible for the civilians in the territories they control. There is no obligation to transfer children to the custody of the Ukrainian state.

That said, I think there should be some legal mechanism to reunite children with living parents or extended family, but this is difficult without cooperation from the Ukrainian government.

First, the Russian authorities need a way to verify that a person claiming to be a parent or extended family member is actually who they say they are (and not a child trafficker). Then, they need access to records explaining why these children ended up in state custody (in order to avoid returning them to unfit parents or abusive homes). It's not a quick and easy process even in peacetime.

Civilians should not be removed from their country.

Ideally, but war is rarely ideal. I suppose Russia could have kept all the children in Ukraine by building a large refugee camp along the border, but the question is whether putting kids in camps for the duration of the war is in the children's best interest. I don't think it is.

@ClippetyClop

I don't think anyone denies that orphans are being moved out of the warzone, particularly in areas where civilians have fled and food/medical supply chains have largely collapsed.

The question is whether it's being done with the requisite genocidal intent to constitute a war crime. It seems far from obvious that this is part of some nefarious plot to rob Ukraine of future generations, particularly when most of these children come from the ethnically Russian east.

In any war, the occupying power becomes responsible for the safety and care of orphans and other wards of the state. They can’t just leave these children without guardians/education. The decision to move them to Russia is probably justified on the basis that not many people in a warzone are looking to adopt an orphan.

A diplomatic solution is now effectively off the table and we're a few seconds closer to midnight. Whatever you think of Putin and the war, this was an incredibly reckless and unnecessary intervention by the ICC.

That sounds pretty right-wing-extremist-conispiracy-theory-like. You sure about that? Did you actually read that somewhere, or is this your right-wing-extremist hypothesis?

"As early as 2027, the United Kingdom and the United States plan to establish a rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and up to four U.S. Virginia class submarines at HMAS Stirling near Perth, Western Australia"

https://au.usembassy.gov/aukus-joint-leaders-statement/

Like it or not, Afghan society will probably still be around in 200+ years, long after our own modern secular societies have either collapsed or become unrecognisable. Religion might be harsh on the individual, but it's beneficial for the survival of the group.

Just as I predicted last year, the plan now calls for US crewed and commanded subs to be stationed in Australia from 2027, at Australia's expense. This is what AUKUS was always about and where it will stay.

The locally built submarines promised in the 2040s and 2050s will likely never set sail. They will either be axed by successive governments, cancelled by future financial crises, or made redundant by some unforeseen anti-submarine countermeasure such as underwater drone swarms etc.