Vaccine class action lawsuit initiated by bereaved families - Causal relationship between vaccines and tragedy to be explored on a global scale.
2022-11-30
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Vaccine group lawsuit finally begins
Families of people who died in Japan due to the coronavirus vaccine have started a class action lawsuit. It seems like it has finally begun. As the coronavirus spread throughout the world as a pandemic, vaccines spread as if to follow it. Used by almost all countries.
All vaccines are untested
The dangers of the vaccine, which had a significantly shortened testing period, have been known from the beginning. In Japan, a research team at Kyoto University discovered the phenomenon of vaccine fragments remaining in the blood and presented the findings at an academic conference. It can be said that the harmful effects of residual vaccine fragments on all immune-related reactions are unknown. However, its harmful effects have not been scientifically verified.
Under normal process, approval takes more than 10 years
The vaccine itself has not been tested or scientifically proven. It is a matter of course that the harmful effects have not been scientifically proven. Even if the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it is likely that the conclusion will be that the causal relationship cannot be determined. However, once this vaccine undergoes formal testing, the causal relationship may become clearer. It will take more than １０ years.
Life choices made around the world
This problem is similar to war in some respects. It is a collective truth that we turn a blind eye to the sacrifices of a few people in order to protect the majority of society. The world is enveloped in this collective truth, and it is also true that tragedies that appear to be caused by vaccines are occurring in every country. The WHO is also silent on this matter. Interpretations and solutions to this worldwide choice of life will probably be completely different depending on the country.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
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.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
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.
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.
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.''.
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.
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.
Is the party ticket issue the result of a sound whistleblower? In Japan, a spy paradise, you can do whatever you want.
The public prosecutor's office is said to be looking into the party ticket issue, but the main concern is the source of the leak. The original story is an article in the Japan Communist Party's Red Flag Newspaper dated November 6, 2022, but it feels strange that a specific group is being hit in a domino pattern like this. We have seen a pattern in the past in which scandals are discovered one after another within the administration, resulting in a decline in approval ratings. I always wonder who is leaking this.
Japan is said to be a spy paradise, but how many spies are there in Nagatacho? I have no idea how many people are from which country or from which country. Since GHQ was involved in the central government of Japan under trusteeship, some people say that by extension it has a thorough understanding of the system, and that the CIA and others continue to infiltrate and collect information. This is not to say that whenever problems occur in Japan, it is the work of spies, but rather that they could easily do it if they wanted to.
If another country is in charge of a scandal involving a Japanese politician, and it becomes inconvenient, should we leak it?
In China, I sometimes hear people say that Xi Jinping is a smart leader because he advocates eradicating corruption, but this is ridiculous. It can be said that the anti-corruption movement is what created Xi Jinping's dictatorship. Xi Jinping has monopolized real power by eliminating political opponents one after another on the grounds of corruption. In addition, no one can say anything because they have the public security thoroughly investigate corruption by all Communist Party members, have evidence gathered, and arrest any strange behavior. Corruption-free cases in China are rare, so it's like almost everyone is threatened.
From the perspective of these countries, it seems easy to infiltrate Japanese politicians' personal secretaries, public secretaries, accountants, etc. with intelligence agents. Is Japan already so suppressed in various areas that it cannot even enact an anti-espionage law? At the very least, there is no doubt that corruption is a no-no, but if espionage from other countries is allowed to do whatever it wants, it would be as if Japanese members of Congress were also held hostage.
It is necessary to solve the problem of political funding fraud, but if information management is sloppy, there will be no problem.
Notes, condolence telegrams, and messages of condolence from leaders of various countries regarding the death of former Prime Minister Abe (added sequentially)
We will only post articles by current and past heads of state, prime ministers, etc. I will omit things at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs level. Since condolences also include posts on SNS, they will be written as "notebook," "condolence telegram," and "condolence message."
President Biden [United States of America] (bookkeeper)"It's a loss, not just to my family and the people of Japan, but to the world. A man of peace and decency, you will be missed." li>
Former President Trump [United States] (condolences)``His assassination is unforgivable. It's not just an atrocity, it's a tremendous loss to the entire world.'' ``He was a great leader. "A tough negotiator." "He has worked tirelessly for peace, freedom, and the irreplaceable bond between the United States and Japan." "I hope that we will pay a swift and heavy price for robbing the Earth of a great being. I wish.”
President Putin [Russia] (condolence telegram)“Respected Yoko AbeRespected Akie AbeYour son and husband Shinzo Abe We would like to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Mr. An outstanding politician who led the Japanese government for a long period of time at the hands of criminals and left many achievements in the development of good neighborly relations between Russia and Japan. I had regular contact with Shinzo, where his great personal and professional qualities were in full bloom.My memories of this remarkable man are the same as his. will remain forever in the hearts of everyone who knew him.With respect, Vladimir Putin"
President Tsai Ing-wen [Taiwan] (colored paper notes)“Taiwan’s eternal good friend, your contribution to Taiwan-Japan friendship and to democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace around the world. Thank you.”
Queen Elizabeth [Commonwealth] (condolence address to His Majesty the Emperor)“Our family is deeply saddened by the sudden and painful passing of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It was clear that he loved him and wanted to strengthen his ties with Britain even closer than ever before. My deepest sympathies and sympathies go out to his family and to everyone in Japan."
Prime Minister Boris Johnson [United Kingdom] (Condolences)“Very sad news about former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.The global leadership he demonstrated during these unprecedented times is... He will be remembered by many. Our thoughts are with former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's family, friends and the people of Japan. Britain stands with you at this dark and sad time."
President Xi Jinping [China] (Condolences, Condolences)“On behalf of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, and in my own name, I would like to express my condolences to the untimely death of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. We express our ``deepest condolences'' and extend our condolences to Prime Minister Abe's bereaved family. "I once reached an important agreement with him on building Sino-Japanese relations that meet the requirements of a new era. I deeply regret his sudden death." "I will continue to work with the Prime Minister. We would like to continue to develop good neighborly relations and friendly cooperation between Japan and China in accordance with the principles established in the four Japan-China political documents.''
Prime Minister Modi [India] (Condolences)“I am shocked and saddened beyond words by the tragic passing of one of my closest friends. "He was a world-class statesman and an outstanding leader." "We met again on a recent visit to Japan and discussed many issues. He was as witty and insightful as always. I never expected it to happen.'' ``To express our deep respect to Mr. Abe, the nation will mourn on the 9th.''
President Phuc [Vietnam] (Book)“We deeply mourn Mr. Shinzo Abe, a leader of international renown and a great and dear friend of Vietnam.”
Former President Duterte [Philippines] (Condolences)``I feel extremely regretful and deeply saddened to learn of the untimely death of my dear friend, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.'' I join the people of Japan in mourning the death of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and condemn this senseless act of violence." "Former Prime Minister Abe was not only the first foreign leader to visit the Philippines after my presidential election, but he also visited Davao City. He was also the only foreign leader to visit my home in Japan.'' ``I will always feel that former Prime Minister Abe is close to my heart, and I will cherish the time we spent together.''
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong [Singapore] (condolences)``I just had lunch with Mr. Abe in Tokyo in May.'' ``I am deeply shocked and saddened.'' .”
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha [Kingdom of Thailand] (condolences)``He was talented, intelligent, and experienced,'' ``He played an important role in promoting friendly relations between the two countries,'' ``For many years, Over the years, he has worked to strengthen the relationship between Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).''
President Joko Widodo [Indonesia] (Condolences)“We offer our deepest condolences to the deceased former Prime Minister Abe.”
Prime Minister Hun Sen [Cambodia] (condolences)``I am deeply shocked and deeply saddened'' ``Mr. Abe was an outstanding figure who contributed to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Politician.''
President Yun Seok-Yeol [South Korea] (condolence telegram)“I would like to express my condolences to the bereaved family and the Japanese people for the loss of a respected politician who was the longest-serving prime minister in the history of Japanese constitutional history. I would like to express my condolences.'' → What does it mean to be respected? This sparks huge criticism within South Korea.
``Forever good friend of Taiwan
Thank you for your friendship with Taiwan and your contributions to democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace around the world.
Tsai Ing-wen 2022/7/11”
(Colored paper written at the time of condolence) pic.twitter.com/VZFcnd9hfQ? Taiwan in Japan 台北駐日経済文化代表処 (@Taiwan_in_Japan) July 11, 2022
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.
Trump was impressed by former Prime Minister Abe's presentation skills during his visit to Trump Tower - Strong friendship between Japan and the US leaders.
Former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower
South Korea with different objectives as usual
Specific explanation of Japan's contribution
Abe's presentation that impressed Trump
A strong friendship that only businessmen can understand
The impression is that the relationship between former Prime Minister Abe and former President Trump was that of businessmen. It is often thought that businessmen are in a relationship where they take advantage of others based on utilitarianism, but that is not the case in this case. Before Trump won the presidential election and took office as president, former Prime Minister Abe visited Trump Tower.
South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha tried to do the same thing in the next presidential election, but it appeared that South Korea was desperately trying to outdo Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe's objectives are completely different. Abe is said to have personally given the presentation at Trump Tower.
Mr. Trump did not have much knowledge about Japan, viewed the deficit on the U.S. side in Japan-U.S. trade as a problem, and questioned the cost sharing of the Seventh Fleet under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Mr. Abe appealed to Mr. Trump about Japan's position on that question. He explained how much Japan contributes to the American economy, and how Japan contributes to the stability of the Asian region, both in terms of location and cost burden for the Seventh Fleet.
Mr. Trump was a businessman, and Mr. Abe considered himself a salesman for Japan. Mr. Trump must have watched countless business meetings and internal presentations, but he was taken aback by Mr. Abe's proposal, calling it "great." This included the QUAD concept. When Trump later visited Japan, Abe locked him in a separate room and gave the presentation himself again.
There are many politicians and national leaders who have nothing to do with business, but Mr. Trump and Mr. Abe appear to have been formed through mutual understanding between businessmen. Business is about carefully calculating the other party's position, the other party's economy, and the development of both parties, making plans, sharing them, and implementing them. It is only natural that we should respect both parties who have sincerely faced this issue and put it into practice.
