Because he inherited the mess and had to deal both this horrible document and the remainer traitors in his party.
It's not actually possible to be a traitor to Boris Johnson. He has shown no loyalty to his colleagues - that's over the whole course of his career - and he has done nothing to earn any.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
It is not the deal I would have liked to see, but it is way better than May's disastrous surrender document.
If her so-called surrender document was disastrous and Johnson's isn't, why is May's document the basis for Johnson's? The vast majority of the new document is literally the same wording as the old document.
"Guardian analysis shows less than 5% of the original deal has been renegotiated":
3 ( +3 / -0 )
So Farage and I agree no deal is better than this deal.
If Farage wanted to be part of that decision, he should have got himself elected to Parliament, instead of opting for the easier choice of spending 20 years as an absentee MEP.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Nissan is confident this plant will be a successful operation, Brexit or no Brexit.
The plant is successful already, and has been for 3 decades. The question is whether it will continue to be successful, and Brexit is likely to be the main factor in that. A no-deal Brexit (haven't you been an enthusiastic supporter?) is the outcome that business and industry particularly dreads.
Nissan's most recent opinion on the issue: "Nissan Europe 'unsustainable' in no-deal Brexit"
Nissan has made clear multiple times that it is absolutely reliant on imports from Europe, and that anything which causes significant delay to the seamless operation they currently enjoy is a threat to their business, and could force them to reconsider manufacturing in England. And that's just what they think of an orderly negotiated Brexit, not a no-deal Cummings-Johnson clustershag Brexit.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
As someone argued before the British government voided a British ISIS bride's citizenship since she had another nationality to fall back on...and they simply didn't want her back.
Bangladesh has publicly stated that Shamima Begum is not a citizen, expressed by the Foreign Ministry as follows: "She is a British citizen by birth and has never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh." They have further stated that she would not be permitted to enter their country. The British government's action is under legal challenge, and may not have been legal if it does in fact constitute rendering Begum stateless. The Bangladesh government interpretation is that she is not a dual citizen at all. The British government interpretation is that she is either a national of Bangladesh by default or is eligible to apply for nationality. A legal ruling on statelessness is likely to hinge on whether or not she is a national of Bangladesh by default.
She's probably not the best example of the drawbacks of dual nationality.
More common are incidences where Japanese mothers have faced divorce in another country so they flee back to Japan with their dual national kids. The French husband can argue his children are French nationals and that a French court ruled the wife has lost custody in absentia...but that won't cut any mustard in Japan.
Japan's actions in this regard are not based on an interpretation that the child's foreign nationality is invalid. Japan actually recognizes, and in no way attempts to forbid or suggest it is illegal, that many children acquire another nationality at birth or during childhood (this is mentioned in the Nationality Law and it specifies acquisition of foreign nationality up to twenty years of age).
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@The Long Termer
once you renounce, you are no longer a dual national, or a citizen of the US.
Renouncing a non-Japanese nationality to the Japanese authorities has no effect. In the eyes of the country of that nationality, the Japanese procedure has no legal standing. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about that. It's a matter of jurisdiction, and the Japanese fully understand that as well.
As you cannot lose a foreign nationality merely by announcing it - in writing or otherwise - to the Japanese authorities, you do not thereby become "no longer a dual national" either. Dual national can simply be defined as a person who holds two nationalities. So if you hold a foreign nationality in addition to Japanese nationality, you are a dual national no matter what is stated in the kokuseki sentaku todoke (国籍選択届) that has been filed. It is only by taking additional steps with the authorities of the country of the foreign nationality that the dual national would shed that nationality. If they opt not to take any action, they remain a dual national.
read what samit basu posted
(i.e. "The dual citizen has already begun the process of renouncing her U.S. citizenship.")
All that tells me is that Osaka has (more accurately, may have, assuming the news story referred to isn't yet example of garbling this issue) opted to rid herself of US nationality, something that she can only do by filing whatever needs to be filed with the US authorities. Every dual national (with some rare exceptions) has the right to offload one of their nationalities. So what?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
@The Long Termer
You cant just make up the law to suit your own purposes or feel good intentions.
No, but you could try reading it. Then you have a fighting chance of understanding what the law actually says and what it doesn't.
You cannot be 2 different nationalities in Japan, once you reach the age of an adult.
As I have already described, that's exactly what happens to Japanese dual nationals who file a declaration of choice (to continue with Japanese nationality). After filing, you are still a dual national, right there in the presence of the officials.
LOL. Then why even have the law in the first place????
The law is the Nationality Law. It addresses a range of issues concerning nationality. Pretty much every country has a nationality law.
The particular section you're talking about provides a rapid mechanism for a Japanese dual national to shed their Japanese nationality, voluntarily and on the spot. If you want my own opinion on why, I'd say that by compelling dual nationals - this "coming of age category" primarily consists of Japanese people with one non-Japanese parent, so they are people of "mixed blood" - to make a choice, and by dangling immediate renunciation of Japanese nationality in front of them, it is a way of cementing into law the notion that they don't fully belong; in brief, it's discriminatory. They can still choose to remain Japanese, and I would be unsurprised if far more than 50% do so, but that's beside the point.
That section of the law is there because it makes it easy for dual nationals to lose their Japanese nationality without actually forcing them to. People who share your opinion would probably have a better understanding of this process if they realized that every aspect of making the choice (other than the requirement to file in the first place) is voluntary. Hence the weak wording and complete lack of detail on giving up the non-Japanese nationality. Because that's voluntary too. This whole section is legal sleight-of-hand, and it's not the way it is by chance or by oversight.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Thank God, now we can all have peace.
You're going to need it.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
To clarify. Japan DOES NOT allow for dual citizenship. I know that in a lot of cases people who have dual nationality accept Japanese citizenship but then don't relinquish the passports for the other country. Japan usually only sends a polite letter asking you to destroy your other passport and never follows up on it.
Apart from the fact that no such letter is sent, destroying your passport wouldn't cancel your nationality, any more than destroying your marriage certificate would cancel your marriage. It's a passport; it's not your nationality.
(The Long Termer)
She cannot however be both a Japanese citizen and American at the same time, while being legal, in Japan.
By having two nationalities, she is a dual national by definition. But that status is not in itself illegal in Japan. While in Japan, she is treated as a Japanese national, not an American national, and her legal rights are those of a Japanese, not more nor less. In America, she is legally deemed an American national rather than Japanese because she is known (for now) to hold American nationality. Whether a country does or does not recognize dual nationality works out much the same way: in the country of your nationality, you cannot produce an additional foreign nationality as a means of evading legal responsibilities or of gaining legal rights not otherwise available to you.
The law doesn't require proof that dual citizens gave up their citizenship. It simply says that they have to.
Being pedantic, it doesn't even say that. This is what it does say (my bold):
"A Japanese national who has made the declaration of choice shall endeavour to deprive himself or herself of the foreign nationality."
Once again in reference to dual citizenship in Japan. According to the Japanese law you can only have one citizenship.
Nowhere in the law does it say that, or anything equivalent to it.
So in Naomi's case, I assume she denounced her US citizenship, or if not, she made a decision that violates Japanese laws.
You've misunderstood the process. The Nationality Law required her to make a choice (and she complied).
She had to file one of two notifications. One automatically results in the loss of Japanese nationality: 国籍離脱届 (kokuseki ridatsu todoke). The other, 国籍選択届 (kokuseki sentaku todoke) "declaration of choice of nationality", is, despite the neutral title, a declaration that the applicant chooses Japanese nationality. It contains wording about abandoning foreign nationalities which has no legal jurisdiction over those nationalities, and no effect on them. The applicant is just as much a dual national after filing a kokuseki sentaku todoke as they were before filing it. To put it in even simpler terms, when you file a declaration of choice of nationality, you walk in as a dual national, and you walk out again as a dual national. That is literally as the law has designed the process, so her decision, performed as legally required, cannot possibly "violate Japanese laws".
5 ( +8 / -3 )
Also, video showing the MTR stations were vandalized after they have been closed (who could get in there?)
People intent on breaking in. Have you paid no attention at all to the tactics of the vandals?
Here's a video from a live stream that went up tonight (Apple Daily). Take a look at the timestamp (HK local time) for 20:30, just after the 40-second mark. Your question is answered.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I saw a video called 'full footage'. Nothing clear and cut. No clear beginning. Lots of obvious action not in the camera's angle. Not the same as yours ?
Doesn't sound like it. I'm not putting a direct link to something like this up, though. You'd need to locate it yourself. I've provided enough information for those who want to find it. The words Full Footage were not intended by me as any proof of validity, only as a way to locate the video I'm talking about. It has a few extra seconds before the New York Times one kicks in (from when it starts to when the police officer is knocked down is 36 seconds), and so it can be seen that the attackers, including the one who was shot, were originally further away and across a road.
I gave that information to address the mendacious claim - yours, as it happens - that these attackers were being pushed violently. In actual fact, they spotted their target while they were walking forwards, ran at him, and then ran after him as he tried to get away, and laid about him while he was on the ground.
Around the shooting scene no less than 9 officers can be seen in a circle of less than 10 meters. They appear at some point as the camera moves. Isolated ?
Evidently it needs repeating that the attackers were originally much further away. They started off some distance down the street, a main road about six lanes wide. If you're curious, it's Tai Ho Road, has a concrete central divider with waist-high metal barriers. They had to cross the metal barrier first, and then some went between the buses while others went along the road-facing side of one of the buses and round the back of it. That's how they reached the pavement which the police were on, further down the street at a corner. The protestor who was later shot, carrying a blue shield, can be seen as he emerges around the back of the bus. Those double deckers are a minimum of 10 metres long (up to almost 13 metres); you can get an idea of the distance to the cops both from the buses and from the shop fronts facing the street they crossed.
Basically, they had to pass at least three shop fronts (some of the attackers were even further back) before they can get within hitting distance of any cop. The first cops at the corner would be the ones you say "appear at some point". The cop who was isolated became separated from them (or was standing apart) and ends up, as people are striking his shield with poles, retreating past a post box - by this point, he's cut off from assistance - and then round the concrete bed/shrubbery area, and off Tai Ho Road into the side street. Where he's knocked down is behind the officers that were standing at Tai Ho Road, about three shops down, and they come straight in to rescue him, with one of them shooting an attacker.
To be brutally frank, that's part of the risk of attacking a cop in this particular manner, and they took that risk willingly. The one who was shot is extremely lucky not to be dead. He should consider himself so.
And despite some apparent confusion in this thread, he is an adult as of turning 18. As such, he gets the right to drink alcohol, vote in Hong Kong's rigged election system, and a ton of other stuff, and he is also fully responsible legally for any crimes he commits, and will be tried or prosecuted as an adult. It has long been that way in Britain, it was long that way in pre-handover Hong Kong, and it has always been that way in post-handover Hong Kong. Hong Kong people have no misunderstanding on this point.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The "group" left their house with metal rods and went to chase a policeman that was out to get breakfast ?
Or they were in the middle of a street battle with an army of armured and armed cops/soldiers pushing their group violently?
They crossed a multi-lane wide road with a vertical concrete divider, so they had to clamber over that, and were still at least 10 metres away from the police officer they attacked. When he was isolated from other officers, they saw an opportunity, chased him, and ran him down. Where he hit the ground was very far away from where they had started.
If you have any respect for the truth of what actually happened, you can see the video posted by Hong Kong Free Press under the title (partial) "Full Footage". It's as I described.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
nd, I suppose after police already detained a protester and yet a group of them still rush in to kick and hit him is a minimum and reasonable force as well.
With a hammer and a wrench? That's up to them, but the police are armed, and people who attack them in the way this group did will have to take their chances. Officers would use just about any level of force to rescue one of their people in trouble.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You cannot say it is danger to life when someone use similar weapon to attack you and yet when you hit someone with same weapon it is just minimum force.
I can say that the officer who was knocked down and beaten by multiple attackers with metal weapons was in danger, and if they'd succeeded in removing his helmet, he'd have been in grave danger.
The attackers made their choice, which was to isolate and set upon a victim. It didn't go their way. The consequences are theirs to live with; as "soldiers" they are obliged to accept them.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
When police hit protester with a batons and breaking their bones, it is called minimum force. When a protester hit a fully geared police with a stick, it is called life in danger.
It was a group of protestors. 15 of them (NY Times report) who approached and chased down the officer, at least five involved in the actual attack, which was with metal rods, a hammer, and a pipe wrench. One of the attackers had his hands under the lower edges of the officer's helmet and was pulling on it. Everything described here is visible in the video.
So we're talking about a lot more than a stick, and if they'd got the helmet off, as they were probably trying to do, he wouldn't have been fully geared either.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I was expecting this. Why was everyone else stunned?
Why do you suggest they were? The headline calls it a "stunning blow for Johnson". Which it is.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Citizens of HK are, in fact Chinese citizens, just as citizens of Texas are US citizens.
Terrible example. That's not how it works. Texas has no separate status from the US, any more than its neighbouring states do. But Hong Kong does have a separate status from China and its provinces. There's an international border between Hong Kong and Guangdong, a fact of life that is pretty hard to avoid for anyone who spends time in Hong Kong, and certainly for anyone who has crossed it, either intentionally or otherwise.
"Citizen" is not a very useful word in considering how the people of Hong Kong stand in relation to the People's Republic of China. They are not citizens of the PRC at all (but they are citizens of Hong Kong); and given the complex colonial and refugee history of Hong Kong, many Hong Kong citizens and permanent residents aren't Chinese nationals either. Of those who are, Chinese nationality for people from Hong Kong and Macau actually has a separate status from the Chinese nationality of people in the PRC. If it sounds confusing, that shouldn't be too much of a surprise: there's a strong element of squaring the circle about it all.
Anyone who genuinely believes that Hong Kong and the status of its people is simple is deluding themselves; and anyone who genuinely believes that they are simply citizens of China, or simply Chinese nationals, as you suggest, is also plain wrong.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
Gandhi was full of useful tips on how to overcome oppression. They had an unfortunate tendency to involve submitting to mass-murder, embracing the death of millions (or in the following case - bolding mine - hundreds of millions):
"When the position is examined in terms of non-violence, I must say it is unbecoming of a great nation of 400 millions, a nation as cultured as China, to repel Japanese aggression by resorting to Japan’s own methods. If the Chinese had non-violence of my conception, there would be no use left for the latest machinery for destruction which Japan possesses. The Chinese would say to Japan, ‘Bring all your machinery, we present half of our population to you. But, the remaining 200 millions won’t bend their knee to you’. If the Chinese did that, Japan would become China’s slave."
His suggestion (1938) for Jewish resistance to Nazism was very similar:
"[S]uffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep."
He also suggested mass-suicide as a response, in comments to Louis Fischer. After the war, he saw nothing to regret about that:
"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions."
So while you're correct that Gandhi did achieve Indian independence, it's clear he doesn't actually have useful solutions to violent oppression. He was even sufficiently deluded that he wrote to the British government after the fall of France suggesting that they "call it off", and informing them that "Hitler is not a bad man."
Basically, he had atrocious judgement, and was willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the service of it.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
There's a lot of difference between rising seas and flooding created by storm damage - Climate has been changing centuries, don't be conned by those that are pushing an agenda that is no more than Socialism in disguise.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Raising crops for cattle and livestock food is fat worse on the carbon footprint than if we grew enough crops to sustain a plant based diet.
"We" being agribusiness.
Vegans consume no animal products including dairy
Consequently they consume other things in its place, which are just as likely to have been produced in ways that are not benign for the environment.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
it's a criminal offense not to have your alien card now resident card on you 24/7
Indeed it is, but sometimes you have to live a little.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
The agreement is to return HK back to China, and everyone has to honor it, as simple as that.
Then perhaps you should read the text of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and of the Basic Law, and you might have a better understanding of Hong Kong's status and the rights of Hong Kong people. Both are written into the Joint Declaration. You'd sound less uninformed if you knew what was in it.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Democracy? Let Japan have it, and China has peace.
History isn't with you there. Japan has had democracy for 70 years. Over the same period, China hasn't had peace: it had a brutal civil war, and in the post-1949 PRC era, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the Tiananmen massacre.
You probably don't remember Tiananmen - you'd likely be a touch less sure of yourself if you did.
You underestimate Hong Kong people, though, if you think they'll be mentally enslaved as easily as you were.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Posted in: Why do some people mock others' taste in music and dismiss groups that they don't like as being crap and having no talent, etc, as if they were an authority or arbiter on musical excellence? See in context
Because so often it is technically substandard, and therefore deserving of the harshest criticism. For example, lots of really popular J-Pop bands "sing" in unison, rather than in multi-part harmonies, with limited vocal range.
Limited vocal range is not a disqualification. Billie Holiday had very limited vocal range and a far from perfect voice, but was one of the greatest singers of the 20th century, partly because of how she sang, and partly because of what she performed and recorded. She connected with audiences, critics, and other musicians, and still does, almost 100 years after she first recorded. Sinatra (who as it happens was renowned for technical proficiency) was an outspoken admirer; he considered her a genius and the most important influence on his own music.
You can find technical shortcomings in a vast amount of recorded music. Musicians are often skilled at turning their technical limitations into something unique and really worth hearing: if you can't be open to the sounds considerably short of technical perfection, you have no Joy Division, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, The Who, Tom Waits, or Bob Dylan. But you do have Joe Satriani.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Europeans having been ruled by centre or left wing governments for decades....
Now there's a phony generalization
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
"The question is: what has Cummings got up his sleeve?" said a former Conservative adviser. "He is one of the smartest people I have ever worked with. He thinks several steps ahead, thrives on chaos and has sat in a bunker for three years thinking about this: so what is he going to do?"
Lose control of Parliament in record time. All part of the plan no doubt.
Cummings may well be "one of the smartest" people the unnamed adviser has ever worked with. That doesn't necessarily make him particularly smart, or, crucially, someone able to turn ideas into reality. His first encounter with parliament, a disastrous week for the Prime Minister, suggest that Cummings can't see further than the end of his own cock.
If his website is any indication of his intellect, he fancies himself considerably smarter than he actually is.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You are welcome to have a look at "Antivaxxers in The US Have Finally Stopped Gaining Ground, Study Suggests" in Science Alert.
It does nothing to bolster your assertion that "The effect of information skeptical of vaccines, whether true or false, is being greatly exaggerated for the sake of profits."
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The article and you and Virusrex all fail to make a solid case for censorship.
I'm not obliged to.
But I am curious if you have any evidence for the claim that you chose to post in this thread. Virusrex asked you. I asked you. That's twice.
Do you have any?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
HK has no electricity, no water, paid no tax, all offered free by the mainland
9 ( +9 / -0 )
People like you always scream for data to prove things so obvious, no one ever complied data for.
What you said isn't obvious, it's just an unsupported assertion. You were asked to support it, and (not bad for someone who complained about censorship) balked at the first opportunity. That doesn't suggest it's obvious, it suggests that you're using exactly the same ultra-lazy tactic resorted to by people with a conspiracy theory to sell, and that like them, you're not being honest.
Can you provide some evidence to back up what you said: "The effect of information skeptical of vaccines, whether true or false, is being greatly exaggerated for the sake of profits."
If you can't, or, as tends to be the case with vaccination "skeptics", your evidence is gathered from the cesspool, then it's not really obvious, and more importantly, there's no reason to assume that it's true.
1 ( +2 / -1 )