I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
![世界初の人種差別撤廃]()
World's First Anti-Racism Bill - Proposed by Japan, a Permanent Member of the League of Nations.
I wonder if Japan appears in world history around the time of the Sino-Japanese War. The world took note of the great accomplishments of the eastern island nation, and the West, which had considered China a great power, came to call China the ``sleeping lion.''
The next great achievement was the Russo-Japanese War. Heihachiro Togo, who won the Battle of the Sea of Japan, was featured on the front page of newspapers around the world, and is said to be the first Japanese person to be featured on the front page of a newspaper around the world. After that, Japan rose to the forefront of the world and became a permanent member of the League of Nations in 1919.
In 1919, Japan became the first country in the world to propose a bill to eliminate racial discrimination at the United Nations. Already during this period, Japan objected to the West's domination of Asia. Former Foreign Minister Nobuaki Makino criticized the racial discrimination caused by Western countries' colonies in various parts of Asia. (Nobuaki Makino: second from the left in the front row of the photo)
This is the world's first international organization to introduce a bill on the elimination of racial discrimination, with two representatives from France and two from Italy in favor, 11 from Greece, the Republic of China, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slovenes and Japan, and the United Kingdom against it. ・There were 5 people from the United States, Poland, Brazil, and Romania, so there was a majority in favor.
Many Japanese people think that the elimination of racial discrimination is a concept developed from the West, but in fact, it was Japan that first called for the elimination of racial discrimination.
At the time, Britain was abducting black people from Africa and trading them as slaves to the Americas. America used black slaves to grow cheap agricultural products and export them to countries around the world. The American representative argued that this was a no-go because it was not unanimous. Is there such a thing as a principle of unanimity among the 16 members?
Makino once objected, saying that the bill could be passed by majority vote, but the bill was rejected in accordance with the principle of unanimity in the United States, which was already a superpower at the time. This was nine years after the annexation of Japan and Korea and 22 years before the start of the Greater East Asia War.
South Korea continues to say that it was discriminated against and deprived of by Japan, but Japan was fighting in international organizations on a completely different scale. The annexation of Japan and South Korea and the annexation of Taiwan are assimilation policies that are completely different from Western-style colonies. Assimilation policy means that the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese living there have equal rights and are subject to the rule of law.
The Greater East Asia War was a war between Japan and the white countries that ruled Asia, based on the idea that all Asian countries should maintain their independence and co-prosperity. The Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere concept was not something that suddenly appeared on a whim.
Korea claims that it suffered racial discrimination during the annexation of Japan and Korea, but it seems that they do not really understand what racial discrimination at that time meant.
![東條英機の遺言から見]()
Greater East Asia War as seen from Hideki Tojo's will - Who is a war criminal? Judgment at the Allied Tribunal of Victorious Nations
At the end of the war, Japan surrendered unconditionally and faced trial by the Allied powers. This trial was based on the Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal, which was created based on the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. The Charter of the Far East Military Tribunal was dated January 19, 1946, so the rules were created completely after the end of the war, and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal on which it was based was dated August 8, 1945, just one week before Japan's surrender. It was signed in London by the four Allied nations: Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union. In other words, it is a complete ex-post facto law, stipulated for class A-C war criminals, and was created to judge Japan.
Excerpt from Hideki Tojo's will
When I think back to the beginning of the war, I feel truly heartbroken. Personally, I feel comforted by this execution, but my domestic responsibility cannot be atoneed for with death. However, as far as international crimes are concerned, he maintains his innocence. I bowed down before power. As for me, I will go to the prison satisfied with my domestic responsibility. However, it is truly unfortunate that he was responsible for his colleagues, and that his punishment was extended to lower-ranking officers. I deeply apologize to His Majesty the Emperor and the people.
The peoples of East Asia should forget what happened this time and cooperate with each other in the future. East Asian people should have the same rights as other ethnic groups, and should be proud of being a colored race. I cannot help but respect Indian judges. This made him feel proud of the East Asian people.
American leaders have made a huge mistake. What happened was that Japan, the barrier to redness, was destroyed. Manchuria is now a base for redness. The division of Korea into two is the root of the troubles in East Asia. The United States and the United Kingdom have a responsibility to provide relief.
The non-retroactivity of law is one of the basics of modern law, and new laws cannot adjudicate cases that occurred before the law was enacted. Moreover, two days before the signing of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and the next day on Nagasaki.
![統一教会問題は政教分]()
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
![2024自民党総裁選]()
A summary of impressions of the numerous candidates competing in the 2024 Japanese LDP presidential election
As the LDP presidential election draws near, candidates are coming forward one after another. Ishiba Shigeru, Kobayashi Takayuki, Hayashi Yoshimasa, Takaichi Sanae, Kono Taro, Koizumi Shinjiro, Aoyama Shigeharu, Mogi Toshimitsu, and Kamikawa Yoko (in no particular order) are some of them. Among them, Ishiba, Kono, and Koizumi are the ones who are frequently mentioned in the media, so perhaps they are the ones who are getting the media votes. Ishiba has little conservative thinking, such as accepting a female emperor or promoting separate surnames for married couples, and has a strong liberal tendency, so much so that some have mocked him and asked him if he should transfer to the Constitutional Democratic Party.
The issue of imperial succession has already been narrowed down to two proposals by a panel of experts: "a proposal for female members of the imperial family to remain in the imperial family after marriage" and "a proposal for adopting a male member of the former imperial family as a son in the male line." A report has been sent to the Diet. Since Prince Hisahito was born, there has been no consideration of a female or female-line emperor, and they are moving towards the idea of ??adopting a male in the male line. In response to this, the Speakers of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, as well as the leaders of each party, have gathered to hold discussions since May 17th, but even LDP members have ridiculed Ishiba's comments as being table-top-turning.
As for the separate surnames for married couples, one of the issues that was initially pointed out was that it would be difficult to change back to the maiden name in administrative agencies, financial institutions, and other procedures upon divorce, but the law has been revised to allow the use of maiden names without making any major changes to the family registry system, so I wonder if the discussion is a bit outdated, or if the comments are just for the media.
As for Takayuki Kobayashi, he is a conservative who supported Sanae Takaichi last time, but his way of thinking is almost the same as the late Abe and Takaichi, and as a result, I get the impression that he has less impact. In that case, Takaichi will likely be chosen, but as a young candidate, she may be a good candidate to reduce Koizumi's party member votes.
As for Kono Taro, he scrapped the Aegis Ashore deployment plan when he was defense minister, and in the last presidential election, he expressed opposition to the possession of enemy base attack capabilities, and as a result, he presented himself as a pro-China politician without even thinking about it, and I remember him suffering from severe burns all over his body, but he seems to be running, and it seems like his expiration date has already passed, and voters are getting tired of him.
I can't think of any notable achievements for Koizumi Shinjiro, and perhaps his popularity is due to his father's use of words that are conscious of the message he uses, but in any case, he seems unable to break away from his base of anti-nuclear power and clean energy. He is recommended by Suga, but I can't help but wonder if there are energy interests in Kanagawa Prefecture.
Mr. Motegi seems to have a clear mind, which is a good point, but he has mentioned local voting rights for foreigners several times, and I get the impression that he has a strong left-leaning tendency. Looking at Europe, many countries do not allow non-EU nationals to vote in local elections, and there are also cases where only certain non-EU nationals are allowed. Only Northern Europe grants voting rights to non-EU nationals. If we think about it this way, what kind of foreigners are in Japan? As for the proposal to grant voting rights to Chinese and Koreans from anti-Japanese countries, I have serious doubts about the logic that Europe is the model for.
As for Mr. Aoyama Shigeharu, I agree with his historical awareness, etc., and I would like to support him as a patriot, but the fact that he is a member of the House of Councillors is a problem. There is no precedent for a member of the House of Councillors to become prime minister and party president, and there is an inevitable contradiction in whether a member of the House of Councillors has the right to dissolve the Diet. There is no dissolution of the House of Councillors, and dissolving the House of Representatives means resignation, which means that all members are dismissed and lose their seats, but the Prime Minister remains a member of the Diet. He says he will "ask the people for their trust," but he will not be asked to run for the House of Representatives, so I hope he will switch sides and run for the House of Representatives.
I can't think of anything about Yoshimasa Hayashi or Yoko Kamikawa. I've heard that Hayashi is a pro-China member of parliament, and I have the impression that Kamikawa is a foreign minister who won't budge no matter what China does or says to him. It could be said that Kishida's side is putting up a female candidate as a rival to cut Takaichi's votes.
Takaichi has inherited the policies of the late Abe, and has further developed them. She will not talk about old-fashioned things like denuclearization, but will instead propose pioneering policies such as investment in fusion reactors and industrialization. It is also necessary to increase the inflation target to 2%. Currently, the yen is weaker due to the interest rate differential, but this is not due to the bill increase, it is simply the value of the yen falling. As a result, the inflation rate will be achieved and export competitiveness will increase, but unless the total amount of bills increases, it will be difficult for the face value of wages to increase. The Federal Reserve has already announced at the beginning of the year that it will lower interest rates at the end of the year, and if Trump becomes president, it is unclear whether the current situation will continue. If the interest rate differential decreases and the yen tends to appreciate, I would like to see the original inflation rate of 2% achieved by the bill increase. Regarding security, Takaichi clearly advocates investment in the military industry, and has a vision of imagining and nurturing new industries. She has the most concrete and strategic ideas.
