State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
2022-09-18
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Public opinion refutes the motive of the perpetrator
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Do politicians have freedom of religion?
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past .
VIDEO
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
In １９９９, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article ４, ３-３２ states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
Read it together
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.
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
After the tragic death of former Prime Minister Abe, Japan will carry out Abe's will and amend its constitution - calling for the unity of the Liberal Democratic Party.
Election activities, security issues
One SP for each former prime minister?
Other former prime ministers who have not been seen since leaving office
Mr. Abe continued his activities with light security
Restrict Korean sovereignty
What Abe wanted to achieve
Former Prime Minister Abe was killed by a bullet, and it has been difficult for him to sort out his feelings, but it seems that public opinion is starting to sort itself out somehow. The current situation is targeting the Nara Prefectural Police in the area where former Prime Minister Abe gave a speech. Naturally, if the police had questioned the perpetrator beforehand, or there was a gap of several seconds before the second shot was fired, I myself wonder why the SP could not have arrested him during that time. I also thought about it.
However, when we piece together information that has been reported, it appears that in Japan, after the prime minister retires, there will be one SP. It is speculated that the Nara Prefectural Police, who were in charge of the election speech that day, were providing security for normal campaign activities. And if you look at the video, you can see it in a 360-degree open state. It would be difficult to provide security in a 360-degree open space. If it is at least 180 degrees, it is limited to the front, left and right, but even then it seems impossible to completely defend with one SP and regular prefectural police.
In other words, does this mean that former Prime Minister Abe went to support candidates in the House of Councilors election in an environment where he could not defend himself even if someone killed him if he had that intention? Therein lies the essence of the problem. Normally in Japan, after a prime minister resigns, he is rarely seen, and his political activities are rarely reported in the media. I don't know if the reason is that security is getting thinner at each level, but that's what happened to successive prime ministers. Considering the danger to myself, that might be the normal thing to do. But Abe was different.
Former Prime Minister Abe's reason for resigning as Prime Minister was due to worsening of his chronic ulcerative colitis, but after getting better with medication, he began energetically supporting Liberal Democratic Party members for the future of Japan. He even created a YouTube channel and will be cheering for Liberal Democratic Party candidates in the House of Councilors election. This is despite the fact that they are only given the security mentioned above. Considering this, it can be said that Mr. Abe continued to enthusiastically engage in political activities even though his life was in danger.
I don't know where public opinion will conclude this issue, but my honest feeling is that this is a direct attack on Japan's democracy and an incident that has destroyed the spiritual pillars of the Japanese right. We cannot retreat even one millimeter against this attack. Former Prime Minister Abe is a politician. His earnest wish was to amend the Constitution. If we are to mourn his death, he must accomplish this.
South Korean say Japan is a democratic backward country without direct election of leader.Don't you know the parliamentary cabinet system?
Some Koreans say that Japan, which does not elect a leader in direct elections, is a backward democratic country.Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system.The choice of leaders is similar to that of Britain.Britain's ruling party leader is a candidate for prime minister and is elected prime minister by a majority of the House of Representatives.
UK adopts the same parliamentary cabinet system as Japan.The prime minister, not the president, is elected from Parliament.
Some Japanese misunderstand this, but it is only an internal election to select a leader when the LDP presidential election is held.If elected here, he will be elected prime minister with a majority vote in the Diet.The disclosure of the party's election is only due to the high demand.There is no obligation to disclose it.It is unclear how the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Japan became leaders.
Considering how Moon Jae In was elected party leader in Korea, the same can be said.Democrats, who saw Sanders' superiority in the 2020 U.S. presidential election as a failure to beat Trump, persuaded two other candidates to withdraw their candidates and unify them with Biden.It's not about factionalism, but it's about doing the same thing .The Republican Party unifies Trump, but the cause is unclear.In any case, this is just a matter for parties to decide.
This has nothing to do with direct elections, whether they are democratic or not.Both the presidential system and the parliamentary cabinet system are forms of democracy.The essential point is the difference about votes.Lawmakers are elected from one district and the prime minister is one of them.The president is elected by the vote of the whole people.In other words, the content of the vote is different.Based on this, the president has the power to make decisions without the approval of Congress, which is different from lawmakers.On the other hand, we can think of the need for a referendum to give the president privileged power.
To concentrate one's power is to give one certain dictatorship.Whether this is necessary or not is a choice in the form of national democracy.In countries where war and civil war are expected, radical power is often entrusted to the leader.
The presidential system is given great authority for direct elections.The parliamentary cabinet system is selected by parliamentary approval, so the authority is limited.
Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
High praise for maintaining dignity
How do future generations view it?
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
maritime defense Taiwan's defense is the defense of the Senkaku Islands and is synonymous with Japan's.If China maintains its maritime routes from Japan to Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, it will not be able to enter the Pacific Ocean and will only be able to develop strategies from the west.
Moon Jae In Korea is pro-China.Even if Korea joins forces with China, China will not actually be able to enter the Pacific Ocean.In this sense, Korea and Taiwan have different strategic meanings on Quad.
With this in mind, Moon Jae In is not flying around like a bat, but is moving in a way that you don't really understand if you don't say you're going to be left behind unless you don't actively participate in Quad.
