JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-1
nigelboy
Not this John Thompson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thompson_III
Posted in: U.S., Chinese basketballers brawl during Biden's China visit
-1
nigelboy
That's why I qualified my statement with "usually" with a Prime Minister being one of the exception since he/she is basically required to attend the Peace Ceremony.
There are PLENTY of Japanese who are against politicians visiting the Yasukuni Shrine for the actual attendance of these politicians is a clear example.
Posted in: Japan marks 66th anniversary of World War II surrender
-4
nigelboy
He wasn't charged with "A" (Crimes Against Peace)
One of ChopriCana's point that you (among others) miss is that there is a perceived notion that "A" is the most heinous of the crimes when the punishment corresponding to the charges say otherwise.
You will notice that those who are convicted of "A" only did not get the death sentence. In addition, Matsui Iwane wasn't even convicted on "A" charges but were handed a death sentence for B/C crimes.
Hence, the so-called "controversy" is not the "enshrinment of A-class criminals" as western media points out but the enshrinment of the 14 "Martyrs of Showa at the Tokyo Tribunals".
Posted in: Paying their respects
-2
nigelboy
Not good with numbers so I'm going to leave that alone.
However, if these two guys intent was to honor just the war criminals, they can do so by going to their respective "Ohaka"お墓.
For instance, Hideki Tojo's ohaka is here
http://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/park/format/index071.html
Posted in: Paying their respects
-1
nigelboy
ChopriCana
I don't think Nobusuke Kishi is a good example simply because he was arrested but never indicted. A better example would be Mamoru Shigemitsu, a convicted A-Class criminal, who later on became a foreign minister where he paved way for Japan's entry to the United Nations.
Posted in: Japan marks 66th anniversary of World War II surrender
-2
nigelboy
It's difficult FOR YOU because you're under the impression that those Japanese who acknowledge A-bombs are the same people who don't acknowledge Asian vicitms of Japan's wartime agression.
It's a false assumption.
For example, people who attend Peace Ceremony in Hiroshima usually don't set foot in Yasukuni or vice versa.
Posted in: Japan marks 66th anniversary of World War II surrender
0
nigelboy
Stupid comment. The said case falls under compulsory jurisdiction under contentious case in which Japan and Australia agrees to abide by the ICJ decision. You're not reading, again.
Japan is more than willing to take this to the court. It's Korea that's refusing. You're not reading, again.
Apparently, Korea does take it seriously to a point where Korean government issues a counter note verbale. It's an official correspondence no matter how you want to twist it.
You're not reading. It's sent every year. http://www.chosunonline.com/news/20050321000051
Japan doesn't need to strengthen her claim for Korea's claim is already weak. If three unknown lawmakers can't visit a territory recognized by Japan as that of Korea (Ulluengdo) because of security concerns or considers their presence as "nuisance", it basically is stating that Korea is a immature nation as a whole.
Since when did Japan refused to take Korea to court over Dokdo? How about NEVER.
When Korean government officially states at any time they want to settle this matter in the court is when you can claim that Korea is not afraid to go to the court.
Posted in: 3 Japanese lawmakers give up and return home from Seoul
0
nigelboy
I believe SK disputes the claim through their protests and actions, most notably by the recent action to prohibit three lawmakers from entering Korean soil. As for Senkaku, since Japan administers the island, shouldn't China be the ones suggesting it settle the dispute through ICJ? This hasn't taken place. Now why would that be, I wonder? (Think hard, smith)
Posted in: 3 Japanese lawmakers give up and return home from Seoul
0
nigelboy
Not upset. I was laughing at the Korean reaction to all this. And it appears that your Enka hero didn't even apply. The other two that you mentioned was denied entry not based o political beliefs. (as SamuraiBlue proved)
Posted in: S Korea may put right-wing Japanese on entry ban watchlist: Yonhap
-3
nigelboy
I could of swore Australia filed a suit against Japan in ICJ.
I'm sure Japan is more than willing to draft a special agreement once Korea agrees to take this to ICJ. As I noted above, the said request is relayed via note verbale to Korea on an annual basis.
Posted in: 3 Japanese lawmakers give up and return home from Seoul
-1
nigelboy
Thanks for the info Amerijap.
So to summarize,
The city basically wanted ALL of the confirmed victims to be honoured at "20 Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims" However, the Korean group built their own separate memorial outside the park. (1970).
"The location of their site gave visitors to the memorials and some--but not all-- resident Koreans the perception that Koreans were being alienated from Japanese society even after the war" so they petitioned the city to move it within the park.
Then, the cityy told the originators that the said memorial should contain North Korean victims as well. However, the originators rejected this idea but moved it within the park anyways. (Hence, it's still called Kankokujin Genbaku Giseisha Reihi).
Posted in: Remembering
-1
nigelboy
Can you be specific? If the issue of "politics of memorializing" is the procedure and the red tape involving separating the victims based on race and ethnicity, you're still not answering the central question which is "why do the Koreans needing a separate ceremony?"
Posted in: Remembering
-4
nigelboy
You're not answering his/her question.
"No offense but why do the Koreans NEED a separate ceremony?"
Posted in: Remembering
-3
nigelboy
Isn't that obvious? By not signing the declaration, Korea, as a nation, does not recognize ICJ's jurisdiction in any disputes. If Korea is not scared, they should have no problems signing the declaration.
Korea illegally occupies the island. Japan had repeatedly asked for Korea to solve this matter via ICJ.(diplomatic correspondece to this request sent to Korean counterparts on an annual basis). Korea ignores it but on numerous occasions, they tend to react their displeasure every time Japan touches the issue of Takeshima (textbook, defense papers, etc.) thereby basically acknowledging that there is a dispute. Meanwhile, countless energy, effort, and money is spent on promoting the island ("Dokdo is ours" campaign, expansion of the heliport, failed attempts to grow vegetation, 39 unnessary people residing on the islands, etc) when all this could be settled by winning ICJ. By winning the ICJ case, Korea can proudly claim that "Dokdo" is in fact theirs with a World approval seal while at the same time "sticking it to Japan". It's a win-win situation!!!
Posted in: 3 Japanese lawmakers give up and return home from Seoul
-2
nigelboy
I think it's evident that your example is a poor one since in all likelihood, the man didn't even apply.
If in fact he did apply, he apparently fits in one of the categories I linked above. If that's so, his political beliefs had nothing to do with it.
Posted in: S Korea may put right-wing Japanese on entry ban watchlist: Yonhap
-6
nigelboy
Good question.
There are Koreans(about 2,300) listed on 原爆死没者名簿 (List of names who died as a result of Atomic Bomb) since they started compiling the list 1952. It's just that the Korean civic group wanted to build a separate monument memorial 慰霊碑 for themselves even though they were already honored at the main monument memorial "20 Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims"
For those who are unidentified (70K), they are honoured here.
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseumj/tour/ireihi/tour09.html
Posted in: Remembering
1
nigelboy
Fail. I often wonder where you get your distorted view from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyngmanRheeLine
Posted in: China calls Japan defense comments irresponsible
-1
nigelboy
Because he didn't apply for it.
If the visa was denied, they simply return his passport without the visa stamp. The article states that he had the application in his posession.
Posted in: S Korea may put right-wing Japanese on entry ban watchlist: Yonhap
0
nigelboy
It states that when the embassy refused to issue him a visa, he turned violent, the embassy told him to come back tomorrow, and then he tore up the application. "His" account sure seems fishy since he had the possession of the application. This means he didn't even apply for it yet. Perhaps the embassy stated that they could not issue him the visa that day, told him to come back tomorrow, then he went ballistic by tearing up the application.
In any case, Japan's list of reasons to refuse entry of a person are linked below.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%8A%E9%99%B8%E6%8B%92%E5%90%A6%E4%BA%8B%E7%94%B1
In summary, you got to be one messed up person to be refused entry.
Posted in: S Korea may put right-wing Japanese on entry ban watchlist: Yonhap
-3
nigelboy
You're not reading. Furthermore, you lost the argument.
The reason I brought up compulsory jurisdiction is because as I had mentioned previously, there are two ways in which Korea and Japan can settle this matter via ICJ. The first is a special agreement between Korea and Japan in which both parties agree to the jurisdiction. This was refused by Korean government in the past. Hence, the other alternative is for Korea to declare themselves as a nation to sign the declaration whereby they have no choice but to appear in ICJ if Japan files the suit.
I'll make it simple for you so that even a junior high student could understand.
"This declaration does not apply to disputes which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to refer for final and binding decision to arbitration (i.e. Permanent Court of Aribitration) or judicial settlement (i.e. other Permanent International Court organs).
Get this straight. Not all judicial settlements come from ICJ. Is that so hard to understand?
This, along with similar verbiage used by other countries, is essentially stating that if both parties have agreed to settle this matter **other than ICJ **beforehand, you don't bring the same dispute over to ICJ.
Then what's the rationale for advertising overseas that "Dokdo is ours"?? As I stated previously, a third party person who knows little about the subject will assume that "Dokdo is not yours". The statement, in essence, is advertising to the fact that their is at least a dispute to begin with.
If these Koreans want to "stick it to Japan" and are confident with their claims, they would be encouraging their governments to take this matter to ICJ to end this nonsense.
Posted in: 3 Japanese lawmakers give up and return home from Seoul