Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
2022-09-23
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Opposition party members developing their own theories
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article ４, Paragraph ３, Item ３３ states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article ７ of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
Clearly answered questions in the Diet
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article ４, Paragraph ３, Item ３３ of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
Opposition parties' opinions should be at the level of approval rating
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about ６% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about ５%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around ５% to ６% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
The media mass-produces inequality in speech
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
In the history of the world, I have never heard of a country changing its flag because it won or lost a war. Britain and France have been at war many times, but did Britain, which won the Anglo-French War, demand that the French flag be changed? On the contrary, there is no idea that such a thing would become a point of contention in post-war processing. South Korea persistently demands that Japan abolish the Rising Sun flag, just as Germany abolished the Hakenkreuz flag.
A national flag symbolizes the country. The disappearance of a national flag means the disappearance of that nation. The Rising Sun Flag is the internationally registered flag of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force. Calling for the abolition of that flag is the same as calling for the abolition of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. Is South Korea claiming that it wants to go to war with Japan? If this is not the meaning, then the perception of what a ``flag'' is is too different internationally.
South Korea always equates the Rising Sun flag with the Hakenkreuz, and claims that since the Hakenkreuz, the symbol of Nazi Germany, has been abolished, the Rising Sun flag should also be abolished. Hakenkreuz is the party flag of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and there is a history of it being used as the national flag. There is no Nazi party now, so there is no Hakenkreuz. That's simply the story.
Unless Japan disappears, the Japanese flag will not disappear, and unless the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force disappears, the Rising Sun flag will not disappear. In the first place, the Rising Sun Flag is a flag that has been passed down culturally, so it will not disappear even if it has nothing to do with the Self-Defense Forces. No country will abolish its flag at the request of another country.
There is only one country in the world calling for the abolition of the Rising Sun Flag. That country is not at war with Japan.
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.
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.
Abe's state funeral reminded him of the greatness of the deceased - the breakaway from the post - war regime has truly begun.
People who have remained at the center of conversation
This is the end of the anti-Abe faction
Escape from the post-war regime
Former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral was held on the 27th. Looking back on this issue now, I was convinced today that this was also former Prime Minister Abe. At the same time, I felt sad, wondering if I was really saying goodbye to former Prime Minister Abe.
After Mr. Abe was shot, there was an uproar over whether or not to hold a state funeral, but the tone of the crazy people who opposed a state funeral was exactly the same as the one that was being waged during Mr. Abe's time as prime minister. Ta. Ironically, it may be thanks to the ridiculous anti-Abe people that even after Mr. Abe's murder, we still had the opportunity to support former Prime Minister Abe until today. However, what were their achievements?
Personally, if I think about former Prime Minister Abe's most important accomplishment, it is that he brought all of the Japanese people to the entrance or exit of the task of breaking away from the post-war regime.
He was probably the first Japanese prime minister to firmly declare that the Japan-Korea issue is over. What was the meaning of the joint visits to Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima with Mr. Obama? What prompted the reorganization and proposed the Quad framework for the purpose of the U.S. Seventh Fleet's existence is already a shift to a new Asia-Pacific regime. What does UN reform mean? The United Nations is the postwar regime itself. He even took on the challenge of making that change.
What the Japanese people have regained is their pride as Japanese people rather than the economy. That's thanks to Shinzo Abe.
