nigelboy's past comments

  • -3

    nigelboy

    You are the one constantly bringing up the supreme court and trying to make us believe that it stands above the will of the people.

    No. We're talking about this security bill in which the final determination in regards to it's constitutionality is that of Supreme Court.

    It is THE inherent legal concept the whole bill was drafted around, it is mentioned in almost every official document explaining the bill, Abe frequently uses it and you have been using the term to justify the bill here more then once, so are you trying to fool us?

    You're the one that brought up the fact that the term is vaguely defined or artificial which I agree. What I'm pointing out is the fact that the said bill specifies the expansive role of the SDF and the constitutuionality regarding this. The supreme court, if it comes to a point on the ruling of this bill (when it becomes a law), will not decide the constitutionality of the dynamics of 'collective self defense' for the reason that each state has implemented their own which for instance, includes the ability to aid an ally without any prerequisites and hurdles that the current security bill has to go through.

    You put it simply but it sounds really obscure and surely not like any kind of legal category.

    I hate to break it to you but as it stands under the current law, SDF cannot aid an ally despite the fact that it would jeorpadize the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of the Japanese citizens.

    I suppose you are talking about one of the scenarios Abe was trying to explain in a TV show recently by using cardboard houses and firemen. It was funny to see how Abe got tangled up in his own arguments when people start asking what if questions. He didn't even fully understand the meaning of those odd allegories that were used in the model.

    Yes. I would have to say that the guests were 'insulted' and started going off in tangents about, for instance, who starts the fire.

    In reality, who cares? Do you honestly want the Japanese government to ignore the flames which is about to close in on Japan's house simply because the Japanese government is questioning who and how the fire was started?

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -10

    nigelboy

    You know, I was kinda' thinking that too. Thanks for coming out with that thought. Lets hope other world leaders got the memo before Fuji TV originally broadcasted it

    ???? Did you miss the news about Abe and Kishida going around the world notifying them what they're intentions in regards to the expansion of the security bill?

    http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/crx7601/imgs/6/9/6945e07d.jpg

    Posted in: Abe mocked on Twitter over use of props to explain security bills

  • -7

    nigelboy

    What a silly attempt to shore up a faulty framework. Think first! How does American's "house" catch on fire in the first place? Do really want Japan to resort to arson just because big brother says so?

    Who cares how America's "house" catches on fire? If not put out, Japan's house and the residents inside catches on fire so why not try to put out the fire?

    Arson?

    It's simply amazing that people claim they don't fully understand the bill and yet offered a really dumbed down analogy (personally I think he did it to ridicule the naysayers) and then get offended and starts to complicate the issue even more.

    Posted in: Abe mocked on Twitter over use of props to explain security bills

  • -2

    nigelboy

    I believe your understanding of the supreme courts role is not accurate. While the supreme court is the highest institution to interpret the constitution, it is not able to make or revise it. The constitution is a document that has to reflect the will of the people and in a democracy the people have the ultimate say on the constitution. That is why there is a compulsory referendum and the supermajority rule for any change.

    You mentioned this security bill. Please stop shifting goal posts.

    Because it would allow the SDF to engage in various kinds of warfare that are only vaguely defined by the artificial term "collective self-defense", and in case that there is no direct attack on Japan and its people, which would require some form of self-defense to survive, this would amount to "... the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes", which is clearly prohibited in article 9.

    More proof that you haven't read the bill. The term 'collective self defense' in of itself is not used in this bill for the exact reason you pointed which is it's vagueness. What it does however, to pout it simply ,is to aid an ally under attack and if not done so, would jeorpadize "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of the Japanese citizens.

    Because the majority of Japanese citizens believe that the current proposed legislation is unconstitutional and it is the constitution of the Japanese people, not Abe's or the LDP's constitution.

    Because 'majority' think so is a very weak argument.

    Because almost all experts and scholars share the above view of the unconstitutionality of the legislation.

    That's another weak argument hiding behind these so-called experts and scholars who also believe the current SDF is unconstitutional.

    My interpretation, and that of a majority of the Japanese people, is that it was achieved at least partly due to the existence of and by large also adherence to article 9.

    As addressed earlier, that's because you treat the Cold War like it was an oral debate, never even contemplating the real threat that could of changed the landscape of Japan as we know it today.

    I wonder if you have thoroughly read the legislation because I don't think there is any terminology in it that restricts anything to "near Japan". Maybe you would like to make it look like "near Japan" to have it at least somehow linked to "self-defense".

    我が国と密接な関係にある他国に対する武力 攻撃が発生し、これにより我が国の存立が脅か され、国民の生命、自由及び幸福追求の.権利が 根底から覆される明白な危険があること"

    I doubt this would occur in 'far Japan' but even if it did, why not?

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -5

    nigelboy

    You call it "without amending", though most people clearly perceive the bill as violating the constitution. And you and Abe may not like the idea, but it is the people who are (or better should be) the supreme authority in regard to the constitution.

    No. It's the Supreme Court that has the ultimate decision.

    And to keep on claiming that people are not well informed (or misinformed by "left-wing media") is pure arrogance and just shows that your reasoning does not reason enough.

    It's perhaps because you scream 'unconstitutional' without offering why you think so.

    The problem here is that LDP arguments for revising the constitution have not been convincing and Abe's stance is not credible in the eyes of a majority of citizens. Be a credible leader, provide convincing arguments, go through the due process and revising the constitution surely can be done.

    Sure. But people are content on the status quo and are completely oblivious to how this status was achieved in the first place. To move people into such direction cannot be achieved through 'convincing arguments' but are achieved as a result of actual misfortune.

    Abe has not done much to hide his aggressive backward-looking nationalist agenda and that's what people don't like in relation to security legislation. They voted him because they hoped he could fix the economy with bold measures, but apparently the people believe that his resurrecting Japan vision in relation to any kind of military action can be really dangerous for the country.

    I'm now convinced that you have not read the security bill.

    Anyway, to stick with the content of our discourse, please give us your kind definition of how exactly Abe's deterrence without "threat of force" works here. Maybe you can provide us with a completely new perspective for how to realize global peace "with armed forces, but without threat of force".

    Why is aiding an ally, who is defending near Japan, considered a threat of force??

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -4

    nigelboy

    I have read the security bill and that's why I'm against it. There are no compelling reasons put force in the bill that would justify such a drastic policy change like the one proposed.

    I seriously doubt for your previous posts relating to these type of threads doesn't even touch it. C'mon now.

    Even when explaining the bill it becomes clear that a revision of the constitution was the main aim of the measures and just because that was not possible the constitution needs to be bended (to put it carefully).

    And?? Instead of amending the constitution to allow full fledge collective self defense, the cabinet chose the lite version without amending the constitution. So what? Is amending the constitution some sort of taboo in a global sense?.

    Surely the bill is about deterrence and that is exactly why people question it. The deterrence Abe is talking about is clearly a step towards the "threat by force" that the constitution doesn't allow for.

    And you stated that you read the bill? How do you come up with this nonsense that even the Japanese left wing nuts wouldn't even use?

    Abe had plenty of opportunities to explain his bill and contrary to what some posters here want to make us believe citizens were closely listening, but his arguments have been anything but convincing.

    Actually, he did a pretty good job if you watched the deliberations. It's just unfortunate that the issue of constitutionality became a central issue considering that these scholars also believe that the current SDF is unconstitutional.

    The same kind of arrogance towards the people that made Abe's popularity drop so drastically in such a short time.

    It's not arrogance. It's what was initiated last year and was stated in the manifesto in the last election.

    Unfortunately the citizens have't been lazy enough to just swallow the shallow reasoning in the video and there is an even more entertaining parody now that gets more views then the original:

    I don't know how anyone could compare cold war data and proclaim everything is ok when it's the reinterpretation of the prior governments during the cold war era that made the current status quo which many (including the animated girl on the video) arrogantly take it for a given.

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -3

    nigelboy

    Which they did not fill by forcibly removing people from their homelands and setting them to work in slave-like conditions. Again, that was German and Japanese policy; no-one else in the 1940s did that. And even if they had, your argument would still be whataboutery.

    You're doing it again. Using again "slave" when this was simply about conscription of labour during this time. Please.

    No. The 'and others' means other nationalities as well as Korean - referring to the Chinese, SE Asians, and western POWs who were also subjected to the same treatment. Including the U.S. POWs in the story we're commenting on.

    It's Japanese since the sentence was followed with the 'policy of requisition'. Please.

    I've already acknowledged that. What you're failing to explain is why that means Koreans don't deserve recognition for their treatment. You need to face the fact that many Koreans suffered as forced labourers under Japanese rule and stop trying to obfuscate and play it down. The Japanese government acknowledges it happened, why can't you?

    Yes. Force labour under the policy of requisition which was essentially a duty of the citizens. No specific recognition to a specific group is necessary. Who does this? Please.

    Posted in: Japanese company apologizes to U.S. POWs for WWII forced labor

  • -2

    nigelboy

    Abe’s Coup in Seven Simple Steps

    I stopped reading at number one for it was the DPJ candidate that won on four of the top five voting disparity districts.(aka ruuuuurrrallll)

    The writer's not too bright but that's common with these western 'journalists' who try to write about Japan.

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -15

    nigelboy

    Kind of thought it was funny for I saw it as mocking the opponents for not understanding such simple concept.

    House America and House Japan. Next door neighbors. Fire=military attack of the opposition. Fire fighters (water)= defense. If House America's fire isn't contained, it surely spreads to the next door neighbor, jeopardizing the lives of the residents in there.

    Before, Japanese fire fighters can only extinguish if House Japan catches on fire. Stupid rule to begin with, hence the revised rule.

    Posted in: Abe mocked on Twitter over use of props to explain security bills

  • -1

    nigelboy

    no matter how China did it right there seems to be an implication of something else

    Posturing? Perhaps just use it as a helicopter pad.

    Posted in: Japan demands China halt oil exploration in part of East China Sea

  • -3

    nigelboy

    As for the other 46% who suffered from it during the aforementioned period, and I'm guessing they're all kids

    You guessed wrong. By a mile.

    http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/heatstroke/pdf/270721-sokuhouti.pdf

    Posted in: 6,165 treated for heat exhaustion in week to July 19

  • -1

    nigelboy

    nigelboy, where did it say that China recognized the median line?

    You're right. It's just a 'coincidence' that dozens of these platforms are built on the edge of the Chinese side of the median line.

    Sigh.

    Posted in: Japan demands China halt oil exploration in part of East China Sea

  • -3

    nigelboy

    Reading the ardent sophistry of "collective self-defense" proponents here we can easily understand why common sense tells us there is something wrong with Abe's "collective self-defense".

    Actually, I tend to believe that you haven't read the security bill and the explanation put forth in the cabinet report that was issued last year.

    From the beginning the whole security legislation was such a blatant attempt to deceive people that one can only be astonished by the impertinence. Being the result of Abe's failed attempt to revise the constitution it is more then obvious what the legislation aims at and to believe people will buy such a constitutional revision via the backdoor was naiv.

    If deception means Abe had planned that most citizens are just too lazy to read the contents of the report I mentioned earlier, then I would tend to agree. But then again, if that was a case, he wouldn't go about explaining it on TV (with pictures that a person with basic educational background would understand) just this past Monday so there goes that theory.

    The only deception I see are the left wing media and the people like yourself who blindly follow such nonsense of this alleged 'alterior' motives of Abe.

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -3

    nigelboy

    Not in the 1940s. Germany, Japan, and who else? List them.

    United States and Britain. When able body men go fighting wars, there's a gap in the work force.

    The Japanese delegation to UNESCO recently acknowledged that the number of Koreans brought to Japan as forced labour was large - and that was only with respect to the handful of Japanese sites on the World Heritage bid list; there were many more such sites in Japan, in Korea, in China, in Sakhalin

    The delegate qualified it with 'and others' just to appease the Korean delegate counterparts. It's the same tactic used during the preparation of the Kono Statement.

    And of course, the statement follows with

    And continues,

    .."And that during World War II, the government of Japan ALSO implemented its policy of requisition."

    Face it. It's the Japanese themselves who were subjected the most by a far margin with this policy and again, I repeat, Koreans aren't any special other than the fact that they voice it the loudest.

    Posted in: Japanese company apologizes to U.S. POWs for WWII forced labor

  • -3

    nigelboy

    There are plenty of ways that individuals can help avoid the risk of heatstroke, and symptoms to look for. As for the other 46% who suffered from it during the aforementioned period, and I'm guessing they're all kids -- STOP HAVING SPORTS EVENTS ON DIRT FIELDS IN THE PEAK OF DAY! I know sending them off to 'club' is cheap babysitting in Japan, but there needs to be someone who can say 'no' when it is ridiculously hot and sunny outside.

    Probably not. Based on the June figures, the second largest number was adult between 18-64.

    http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/houdou/h27/07/270722_houdou_1.pdf

    Posted in: 6,165 treated for heat exhaustion in week to July 19

  • 0

    nigelboy

    LoL- when you say "in that area" . . It's very vague. The bottom line is agreement or no agreement- what is Japan going to do here?

    Nothing probably.

    The important factor here is that China does recognize the median line which in of itself is basically admitting that Senkaku is part of Japan.

    Posted in: Japan demands China halt oil exploration in part of East China Sea

  • -1

  • -3

    nigelboy

    M3M3M3

    Yes, I understand. That's what I mean when I ask whether (ordinary) self defence and collective self defence are the same thing. You summed it up perfectly. (but I assume you meant to say can't where you wrote can in the last sentence first paragraph?)

    Yes. I meant 'can't".

    But I do not understand why you place 'ordinary' with parenthesis for in this day and age, a combination of individual self defense and collective self defense (Bilateral Security Agreements, ANZUS, NATO) is best described as 'ordinary'.

    And another thing that Kazuaki Shimazaki touched to is duty of the government to protect Article 13 and Article 25. The proposed security bill is not a full blown 'collective' self defense we are accustomed to but Abe cabinet carefully worded that they will act in aid of the ally if there is an immediate danger to jeorpadizing "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of the Japanese citizens.

    "我が国と密接な関係にある他国に対する武力 攻撃が発生し、これにより我が国の存立が脅か され、国民の生命、自由及び幸福追求の.権利が 根底から覆される明白な危険があること"

    So no. I still don't see how this added security bill will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court given the fact that the precedent had already ruled on the 'right of self defense'.

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

  • -5

    nigelboy

    For being forced into slavery under the law you have yourself acknowledged existed.

    Like I stated, it's requisition policy during the war in which many under Japanese were subjected to most whom were Japanese themselves. Don't know why there is a need for apology for such policy was quite common during large scale war.

    So if you acknowledge that happened why is it so hard to apologise for it? Whether it was 600 people or 600,000, I'm sure they would appreciate an apology as much as the U.S. POWs appreciated their apology from MM. And 600,000 - 700,000 is the number I find in every source I can find; I'm not inflating anything. What number do you believe it was, and do you think an apology should depend upon how many people suffered?

    See above. I made my point not to compare them with POW's. The number I find is "ごく少部分である" which is few or statistically insignificant.

    "..1939年末現在日本内地に居住していた朝鮮人の総数は約100万人であつたが、1945年終戦直前にはその数は約200万人に達していた。

     そして、この間に増加した約100万人のうち、約70万人は自から内地に職を求めてきた個別渡航と出生による自然増加によるのであり、残りの30万人の大部分は工鉱業、土木事業等による募集に応じて自由契約にもとづき内地に渡来したものであり、国民徴用令により導入されたいわゆる徴用労務者の数はごく少部分である。  しかしてかれらに対しては、当時、所定の賃金等が支払われている。"

    " During the latter part of 1939, the number of Koreans residing in Japan was approximately 1 million but at the end of the war, the number reached 2 million.

    During that time which the increase was about 1 million, approximately 700,000 came to Japan on their own volition seeking jobs and natural increase (birth), 300,000 came via advertized recruitment and contract work most of which involved mining, manufacturing, and public works. Therefore, the Koreans who were subjected to 'requisition' was just a few. They were paid designated wages.''

    Exerpt from Asahi Shinbun 7/11/1959 (based on Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

    Nonsense. At that time, only by Nazi Germany and Japan; I refer to using them as slave labour.

    Now I see where you are getting at. Any requisition/conscription policy done by Japan and Germany (bad guys) as slave labour.

    Nothing special about it, as I already said. Again; how do you explain away the Koreans who were used as slave labour in Korea itself before the law was passed to conscript & deport them to mainland Japan, and how do you explain those who were taken to Manchukuo and Sakhalin? Third time I've asked; you don't have an explanation, do you?

    What is this 'explanation' you seek? You are essentially attaching a word 'slave' when it comes to what Koreans did without any back up whatsover. What is it that I need to explain about these Dekasegi workers during war time?

    For the same reasons that the U.S. POWs in the story 'whined'; because they were forced into slavery and haven't yet recieved an apology, and because there are people such as yourself in Japan who refuse to even acknowledge them (though you do appear to know that it happened, and take the tactic of downplaying and obfuscating

    You're the one that's overplaying by incorporating the 'slavery' in regards to the Korean labour without any back up whatsoever.

    Posted in: Japanese company apologizes to U.S. POWs for WWII forced labor

  • -2

    nigelboy

    I agree, but again, the question is whether self defence and collective self defence are the same thing. You say yes, I say no. It looks like we have to wait for the court to clarify this because if the Constitution forbids it, it doesn't matter what treaties Japan has signed or what inherent powers are recognised in international law, its not allowed. I don't actually have a strong opinion about collective self defence one way or the other, I just don't want Abe to drag Japan into lawlessness.

    I think you are confused. There are two types of self defense which is individual and collective. The court decision simply stated 'self defense' and therefore did not specify which. If the court interpreted that the right of self defense is inherent and concludes that it does not violate, there is no reason to believe that it can include the proposed collective self defense as well.

    One thing that's not covered is that the main opposition parties, mainly DPJ and Isshin, are not against the concept of collective self defense with the latter submitting their own bill while the former had stare that they are ready to submit anytime. Since the bill is now submitted to the Upper House, there are disagreements among DPJ members whether to team up with the Communist Party/Social Party to defeat the bill. The reason for the inner disagreement is that JCP and SDP position is that the current existence of JSDF is unconstitutional.

    Posted in: Abe defends security legislation

View all