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.
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.
The two - party system that is possible in Japan would be better if the Liberal Democratic Party was split into two - the opposition party would not become the ruling party.
Democratic government described as a nightmare
How much power should be given to the opposition party
What should a two-party system look like?
Republican policies and Democratic policies
Two-party system with the ability to govern
In the run-up to the House of Councilors election, when considering a two-party system that is possible in Japan, the media immediately talks about the need to develop an opposition party to compete with the Liberal Democratic Party, but based on painful experience under the previous Democratic Party administration, Japanese people are fed up with that story. Former Prime Minister Abe described the Democratic Party of Japan as a "nightmare government."
The Democratic Party of Japan, which gave up power after three years, subsequently fell apart and fell apart, but Japanese voters still had high expectations for the party, even for a certain period of time, when it came to the surprise of a party that split into pieces due to divisions among its ranks. He was appalled and regretted being appointed to the national government. So what is the current political party support rate? The opposition party only has an approval rating of around 5% at best. (Reference: Public opinion poll | Nippon Television)
I even wonder how much time we need to spend in the Diet against such an opposition party in the name of democracy. They were elected in their constituencies, but as a political party they can hardly be considered to represent the people.
Despite this, they do whatever they want under the pretext of monitoring the ruling party, and their activities only end up stalling the Diet by asking questions no different from those of weekly magazine reporters. .
Is it really possible to have a two-party system in Japan? There is an opinion that it is not true democracy if there is no change of government, and that is probably correct. However, the most serious problem is not that there is no other political party in Japan capable of managing the government other than the Liberal Democratic Party. So when will the opposition party grow? This year marks 77 years since the end of the war.
I've been saying for some time that it would be a good idea to split the Liberal Democratic Party into two, but most people give me strange looks. But guess what? The Liberal Democratic Party has a wide range of swings from left to right, which means it is a party with a wide range of defense. That is why it continued to be the ruling party for a long time after the war.
And in the last Liberal Democratic Party presidential election for Reps. Kishida, Takaichi, Kono, and Noda, a section of the public did not miss that this structure was clearly appearing and disappearing, but the media did not report on this structure.
Former Prime Minister Abe developed Abenomics in an effort to ease regulations, lower corporate taxes, improve the competitiveness of companies, raise gross output, increase employment, and induce inflation. Using the United States as an example, the policy will likely be more Republican.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he would energize the middle class, and has advocated for growth rather than distribution, which is a rather left-wing position, which in American terms could be called a Democratic Party-like position.
In other words, this would be fine. The Liberal Democratic Party could be divided into two major parties, the right and the left, and the people could decide which policy is needed now, taking into account the domestic situation at the time, and then change the government. This is a healthy two-party system. What is currently taking place as a competition between factions within the Liberal Democratic Party will be exposed to the vote of the people by separating it into a political party..
Even though the Liberal Democratic Party already covers a wide range of policies from both the right and the left, opposition parties that stray outside of that range are often talking about policies that are not realistic in the first place. We have experienced this under the Democratic Party administration. What became strange was that they tried to leave the matter to the opposition party under the pretext of a two-party system. The problem is that the opposition parties have a modest number of seats.
The government cannot be entrusted to any party other than those that have the ability to become the governing party. No matter what ideals or ideologies, if they are imperfect planes, they will crash.
It may no longer be true that opposition parties support a healthy democracy. What is needed is a political party with the ability to take charge of the government and be responsible.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency, and it is not clear what the basis is - a basis that assumes various things is necessary.
Taiwan emergency is Japan emergency
Japan confirms security coverage of Senkaku Islands
Taiwan first claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
Sea defenses are extensive
The Taiwan Strait is a sea lane in East Asia
The Chinese government reacted sensitively to former Prime Minister Abe's online participation from Japan at a symposium held in Taiwan, where he said, ``Taiwan's emergency is Japan's emergency.'' Thinking about this matter, Japan and Taiwan do not have a military alliance to defend Taiwan, so it would be difficult to realize it in that sense. The U.S. law regarding Taiwan relations is extremely ambiguous regarding the participation of the U.S. military in the war.
Former Prime Minister Abe was particular about whether the Senkaku Islands were within the scope of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and received assurances from Mr. Trump, and later in a telephone conversation with President Biden, former Prime Minister Suga confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
The Taiwanese emergency is a Japanese emergency that seems to have no basis in many legal and treaty terms, but if you think about it, the Senkaku Islands themselves seem to be the key to it.
In the first place, Taiwan was the first country to claim sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands. Three months later, China claimed the claim. Since China calls Taiwan its own territory, what belongs to Taiwan belongs to China. It seems like he made his point in a hurry.
If China were to invade Taiwan, it would logically be considered an invasion of the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan. In other words, the conditions for Japan-U.S. security and the activation of the right of collective self-defense are in place. I cannot believe that former Prime Minister Abe would pay baseless lip service.
Another theory is that defense in battle at sea will cover a wide area, and that Japan's remote islands near Taiwan will also be involved in the battle. In this case as well, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies, and if Japan enters the war, the U.S. military may also participate.
The Taiwan Strait is an important sea route for transporting oil and natural materials to Japan. If China were to take possession of this area, Japan would be in a situation where it would have a stranglehold on the sea route through which it supplies resources. Some are claiming that this is an emergency in Japan.
In any case, China has declared in advance that the Chinese military will not turn the waters off northeastern Taiwan, including the Senkaku Islands and other remote islands of Japan, into a combat zone, and that the Taiwan Strait will be maintained as before after the invasion of Taiwan. The question is, what will happen if this happens? Still, there needs to be a basis for invoking the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
Japan received a warm welcome at the Bandung Conference. Gratitude from each country for colonial liberation.
Shunichi Kase, Counselor for Foreign Affairs, attended the first Asian-African Conference in 1955, which was attended by 29 countries, and described the reactions of each country at the time as follows:
People from both Africa and Asia welcomed the event with comments such as ``Thank you for coming'' and ``Thanks to Japan.'' The Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which established Japan's brave fight for the peoples of Asia and its significance, shines in history. If Japan had not issued the Greater East Asia Declaration and made the liberation of the Asian peoples the purpose of the war, or if Japan had not sacrificed and fought for Asia, we would still be under British control. It remained a colony, a Dutch colony, a French colony. Today's Asia exists because Japan made great sacrifices and fought bravely for the Asian people. That's what it meant.
People from both Africa and Asia welcomed the event with comments such as "Thank you for coming" and "Thanks to Japan." If Japan had not fought with such sacrifices, we would still be a colony of England, France, and the Netherlands. The Greater East Asia Joint Declaration, which established Japan's brave fight for the peoples of Asia and its significance, shines in history.
The Asian-African Conference was held as a place for the Asian and African countries that gained independence one after another after the war to unite in mutual recognition of national self-determination.
Ten principles for peace adopted at the first conferenceFundamental human rights and the United Nations Respecting the purpose and principles of the Charter
Respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries
Recognize the equality of all human beings and the equality of all nations, large and small.
Do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries
Respect the right to individual or collective self-defense under the United Nations Charter
Do not use collective defense for the special interests of great powers. Also, do not put pressure on other countries.
Do not jeopardize the territorial integrity or political independence of other countries through invasion, threat of invasion, or use of force.
International disputes are resolved by peaceful means
Promote mutual benefits and cooperation
Respecting justice and international obligations
Korea always says they represent Asia, but they don't represent .
Quad's strategy is geopolitically rational; simply dispersing the Chinese military will give it an advantage.
China causing border problems in all directions
Military expenditure is just the total amount
Regional dispersion reduces military strength by half
Chinese encirclement should be strengthened
China has long borders and its strategy should be to engage in peaceful diplomacy with neighboring countries, but for some reason the opposite is true for that country. In that respect, the United States is smart and has formed a North American alliance with Canada and Mexico, and among the countries with which they share borders, I think Russia is the only hostile element.
China is so selfish that it is happy to make enemies in all directions, but Quad is outwitting them. Comparing military expenditures by country is helpful, but it is on a different level from practical ability.
In large countries, military power is dispersed. Will Yunnan's soldiers and tanks be able to participate in the fighting in Fujian? Even if it is counted as military expenditure, it is not a real military force.
If Japan, the United States, and Taiwan cooperate in the event of a Taiwanese emergency, many Chinese forces will head there, but what will happen if the Indian army invades the Kashmir region during that time?Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines will suppress the Spratly Islands. be able to.
South Korea's geographical advantage in the Quad lies in its operations in the Northeast, but Moon Jae-in seems unable to understand this at all. In the event of a Taiwanese emergency, it would be a good idea for countries with border issues with China to close their borders one after another.
