Odyssey(wow!) Blog of keitayamada

Google Blogger blog with messages for governments around the world. Summarize over 20 Google Blogger articles per article for Hatena's readers. URL Blogger blog. Japanese https://www.lettertowhitehouse.jp/ English https://www.mailtowhitehouse.jp/

Article 012 Carlos Ghosn leaves Japan and enters Lebanon ・・・ he dared to make this choice. Thanks to him, I was able to learn a lot about Japanese interrogation and trials.

He pointed out. "Attorneys are not allowed in the investigation of suspects by Japanese law enforcement agencies."


What has been the consequence of this? Until now, the Japanese people do not know when they will be caught by police. Anyone on a train commuting to work is suddenly suspected of molesting and arrested by the police.

During an inquiry at an investigative agency, a Procès-verbal document was presented and required to be signed. "If you sign this record, you will be released immediately."

In reality, when a person signs a Procès-verbal, the danger of ending his social life is greatly increased.

The person is dismissed from work or forced to retire.


If the person does not sign the Procès-verbal, the prosecution will continue for long periods of time, and his employer will decide to direct the person to retirement.


Japanese people are at risk of ending their lives when arrested by police.


"A lawyer will be present during an investigation by an investigative agency." If this were to happen, would the situation fundamentally change? I think so now.


Wouldn't a lawyer present at the interrogation guarantee the honor of the person? ... The person doesn't need to hire a lawyer at his own expense. In criminal trials, the state is obliged to hire lawyers for those who cannot hire a lawyer at their own expense.

A lawyer will be present if law enforcement agencies detain the person for interrogation. If the person is unable to hire a lawyer at his own expense, a lawyer hired by the state will witness the investigation.

Isn't that common sense in other countries?


If a person is detained for an investigation, he is not a suspect until charged. He is cooperating with the investigation as a good citizen. Then it seemed natural to think that the greatest care would be taken to protect the person's honor.


If ordinary citizens are suddenly detained by law enforcement agencies and are at risk of ending their social life just to be interrogated, it is only natural that lawyers be present to protect the honor of the individual. I felt like that.



Do people in other countries criticize Ghosn for leaving Japan and entering Lebanon in breach of bail conditions?

The treatment of Mr. Ghosn in the Japanese judiciary seemed extraordinary given the common sense of other countries. Mass media in other countries were surprised at the length of detention against Ghosn.


Japanese prosecutors failed to provide enough evidence to prosecute and convict him during common sense detentions in other countries.

Detention against him continued and prolonged, resulting in health problems. Has he been allowed to meet his wife for more than a year since he was released on bail?

He has continued to appeal to the court to change the terms of his bail, but was rejected. His lawyer states that his inability to meet his wife may be the reason he left Japan and entered Lebanon.


Prosecutors may not have obtained enough evidence to expect a conviction in the trial. The lawyers seem to be saying such a thing.

Is the prosecutor's intention to keep him bound indefinitely until he has enough evidence to win his guilt?


If he continues to follow the court's instructions in Japan, will he and his wife never be able to meet again?

I guess this is no different from abduction?


Because he was Carlos Ghosn, the attention of the mass media from all over the world came to him. The mass media all over the world seemed to be astounded by Japanese judicial methods.


In the mass media sense of the whole world, Carlos Ghosn's actions may look no different from those of Exiles seeking freedom and rights. I felt like that.

The Japanese will recognize that North Koreans leave North for human rights. It would not matter if North Korean defectors violated North Korean laws.

Exiles will not adhere to the law when they leave.


Carlos Ghosn is ready to throw away everything he got in Japan, right?


Because he is Carlos Ghosn, various things about Japanese justice have become apparent to us Japanese.

Many Japanese may have been treated the same way as Carlos Ghosn. Without Carlos Ghosn, no one in the Japanese would ever notice this.


Carlos Ghosn says that he now has free access to the mass media worldwide.

From now on, we may be able to know various things that we have never noticed before.


And the true appreciation of Japanese justice by the mass media around the world may become clear.


Finally, what I mentioned in article 010.


Article 010 Maybe the Japanese Supreme Court ignores Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution? ・・・ Assume the possibility of determining Kamikaze as constitutional under the current Japanese Constitution. In the NHK subscription contract, the broadcastin


In the Supreme Court ruling of the NHK receiving contract trial in December 2017, the broadcasting law was ruled constitutional. Isn't there few people who read the sentence and understand why it is constitutional?


Excerpt from the Supreme Court decision of the NHK Receiving Contract Trial.


"{2} Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the Broadcasting Act concludes a contract for the reception of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts, which is necessary for proper and fair collection of reception fees for the purposes of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Do not violate Articles 13, 21, and 29 of the Constitution as a provision for enforcement. "


 I understand the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law based on the following.


"Japanese citizens have the right to know unbiased information, and it is the responsibility of public broadcasters to broadcast unbiased information. Citizens are obliged to bear the costs of protecting their rights. The cost of public broadcasting must be fair to all citizens. "


The Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that the Broadcasting Law is constitutional, based on the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law.


Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates that the basic human rights of individuals are respected as long as they do not violate public welfare. In other words, the Supreme Court of Japan has determined that the realization of the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law is public welfare.

The assertion of freedom of contract is part of the basic human rights, but the Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that it is not permissible to assert these basic human rights in violation of public welfare.


The judgment of the Supreme Court is the precedent for subsequent trials. So shouldn't the reason for the ruling be stated, as is obvious to everyone?

Is the Japanese Supreme Court intentionally making a sentence that makes it difficult for ordinary Japanese people to understand?


I hope that Carlos Ghosn's trial will reveal many things in the future. With Carlos Ghosn entering Lebanon, the matter is no longer limited to domestic issues in Japan.

Many countries will treat Carlos Ghosn as the equivalent of an exile from Japan to Lebanon.

Many countries will respect the will of the Lebanese government more than Japan. Mass media around the world will be in direct contact with Carlos Ghosn without going through Japan.



Even if Japanese people try to manage the progress of the situation, they will be out of control.

I think various new things will be revealed to those who live in Japan. I hope we can know what we really need to know.