Minister: “Who Cares If Freedom of Speech is Curtailed”

beako-loli-ban

Japan’s Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, 鳩山 邦夫 / Kuni Hatoyama, has expressed his contempt for such inconsequential matters as freedom of expression if they get in the way of protecting the children.

Speaking in favour of even harsher laws against underage porn, he had this to say:

“It must all be banned. Compared to the benefits of freedom of expression, preventing the human rights violations caused by underage porn is far more important – who cares if freedom of expression is massively curtailed.”

His statements are consistent with his political record, where he has long pressed for a western style lolicon witch-hunt.

The statement was made personally in response to a question posed in the Diet, though this is hardly reassuring considering his post (he has also previously been Justice Minister).

For such a senior political figure to show such ignorance of the essential principle underlying all liberal societies seems to indicate the extreme lack of approval Rozen Aso and his cabinet enjoys may not be unwarranted…

Even more disturbingly, he has long been a strident voice for the revision of Japan’s Constitution, on the basis that it is an American “imposition”. Doubtless Japan would find itself with a very different constitution were he the writer.

He might also be recalled as the politician responsible for imposing fingerprinting on non-Japanese entering Japan, when he made a curious statement claiming “a friend of a friend” knew an Al-Qaida terrorist involved with the slaughter at Bali, and had been warned off going there.

Via Asahi.


    Post Comment »
    115 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by BuggyBY
    13:04 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I seriously hope this remark will get him removed from his post as soon as legally possible. It's far worse than Yanagisawa calling Japanese women "baby-making machines" in 07.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:42 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I don't know if I'd call this particular remark worse, but I agree. Seeing how things are in Japan politically right now, I'd expect him to resign or get kicked out in a couple of weeks anyway. Even Mr. Dollfag Prime Minister probably won't last past this year, if that.

    Comment by SilverTide
    08:40 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hilarious. This is the place where children become adults at age 20. Next step, no porn with people under age 20. Then after that, no porn at all.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:27 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Compared to the benefits of freedom of expression, preventing the human rights violations caused by underage porn is far more important – who cares if freedom of expression is massively curtailed"

    When did freedom of expression stop being a fundamental human right?

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:45 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You're talking about a country were porn is censored with pixels and black bars. Don't forget it.
    Seems "freedom of expression" has never been a priority in Japan.

    Comment by soloista
    03:00 23/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Just wait. We are heading into the Second Dark Age, with curtailment of rights and expression as the crux.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:37 01/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse. The police and children’s welfare groups report a growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in websites advertising this sort of explicit material.

    Police and children’s welfare groups are concerned that these images could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:52 21/12/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Banitol 455mg.

    When shit hits the fan, and you can't just waive it all, BANITOL.

    Recommended in the treatment of head-demanding angry pedophobic or feminist mobs, severe and prolonged exposure to foreign cultures.

    Dosage:
    1.83 mg/kg Child (1 - 14yrs)
    5.90 mg/kg Adult

    And remember kids, 15 will get you 20.
    WINRARS DON'T DO DRUGS! (They usually become inFamous as an heroes, before having discovered drugs).

    Avatar of misterchef
    Comment by Riot Gear
    01:12 23/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow,intriguing remarks!I only hope that this problem will be solve as soon as possible.Children has the right for human protection too.Not only in Japan.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    06:06 23/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You forget to mention the rights of imaginary children, their right for protection is much more valuable than that of children in 3rd world countries, you know.

    Comment by Dai
    16:15 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Kuni Hatoyama...I heard of the guy through research reports on govt. but never thought he'd make a remark on this issue. The whole lolicon thing isn't the matter that kinda ticks me off, more or less, it's his remark about Freedom of Expression in GENERAL. Not to mention I've read he's got some bad reputation around him in some cases, like snapping to a reporter who called him "Grim reaper" after an execution issue in japan. Yup, he ain't lasting long.

    Comment by Fonzer
    20:40 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I don't see why ban 2d lolis in japan,i mean it's their culture of drawing XD.
    Normaly every country would ban 3d real lolis.As sometimes you can also have computer generated unreal 3d lolis.
    And country like japan should have their own opinions about laws and stuff and not try to pick them up from others.

    Anyway i do like how spain acts with everything about sex,porn,hentai and all there XD.
    Hope you don't have 2d lolis banned there

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:08 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So when people say lolicon keeps pederasts on a leash, they are saying they are pederasts that won't doubt on raping a child if lolicon is banned?
    Sick.

    And then they dare say lolicon harms nobody. lol.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    06:41 23/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Distorting the statements of others won't prove your point, but what you're saying makes no sense anyway. If people who like lolicon are dangerous but don't touch real children, and suddenly start doing it when lolicon is banned, then what harm has lolicon ever done?

    a ... people who like lolicon are dangerous
    b ... people who like lolicon rape a child
    c ... lolicon is available
    d ... lolicon is dangerous

    Your axioms:
    a ^ c -> !b
    a ^ !c -> b

    Your claim:
    |= (a ^ c -> !b) ^ (a ^ !c -> b) => d

    This can be proven wrong by simply providing an interpretation (assigning logical values to logical variables) that is not a model for this formula:

    a=1, b=1, c=0, d=0

    (1 ^ 0 -> !1) ^ (1 ^ !0 -> 1) => 0
    (0 -> 0) ^ (1 ^ 1 -> 1) => 0
    (0 -> 0) ^ (1 -> 1) => 0
    1 ^ 1 => 0
    1 => 0
    0

    As you can see, your claim cannot be derived from your axioms. In other words, you're drawing false conclusions. Simple as that.

    Oh wait, I forgot. Moralfags don't care about science.

    Avatar of Miroku74
    Comment by Miroku74
    02:27 25/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    /owned

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:34 01/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I was ASKING if that is what they mean BECAUSE I've read people saying that sort of things.

    Don't get all ad hominem against me.
    I'm not a moralfag or whatever.
    Thanks a lot for the mathematic bullshit, like real life worked that way.
    I WAS ASKING, and judging from your personal defensiveness, I already got my answer. THNXBAI.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    09:14 01/03/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Look, you made it sound like people who say that lolicon prevents pedophiles from touching real children would not hesitate raping a child should lolicon ever be banned. You put this as a question, but it sounded to me like you were already convinced of this, and still does even after re-reading your post several times.

    But oh well, to give you an answer: No, I don't think anyone meant to imply that. I don't know how you even got this idea. Neither here nor anywhere else have I ever read something that would suggest such an interpretation.

    But even if there are people out there who think this way, my point still stands: In no way does this make lolicon dangerous. It's the people who are dangerous, not lolicon.

    On a purely scientific note: Of course real life doesn't work that way. But that's only because no one can provide a system of axioms that accurately models real life. If this was possible, all we'd have to do to find answers for, well, everything is to query a computer with logic software installed. I merely used logic because I was bored and to point out that your argumentation (or what I misunderstood to be an argumentation) is flawed, not to prove that lolicon is harmless.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    07:17 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Those who prefer security at the expense of freedom, deserve neither!"

    Avatar of arokan
    Comment by Arokan
    Comment by Anonymous
    01:57 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    wow... they have the time to give attention & protection to things which doesn't exist and target those who are actually not doing any harm and put the blame on people and citizens who has lower civil status by simply saying they're the root of all the problem...

    is this their idea of what "security" should be? not letting a tiny problem be as long as its visible? clean the tiny stain on the front and ignore the blood splattered right at the back. they can't even stop those real big time criminals, terrorists, rich people who rob those who are having financial problems without a care just to make themselves richer, people who actually kidnap innocent children, mercilessly taking their organ for black marketing.

    some idea on how to fix the global economic crisis huh? ...or just some bastard who wants to win the popularity contest... sick f*ck

    Avatar of Kip
    Comment by Kip
    01:56 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This eerily reminds me of an article I just read at Wired magazine that says the US may try to keep a record of activity from every IP for up to two years!

    How it works is like when a government agency can track someone's calls, see how long they called, to whom, when, how many times, etc, but this legislation would be the equivalent to listening in on the call too. O_O;

    Avatar of Kip
    Comment by Kip
    01:58 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Because the government can't ALREADY listen in on our calls, I mean to say...
    <__> <_<

    Comment by blade2577
    02:22 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    That was Sarcasm, however they can as much as they can search your house, they need a permit (something like a search warrant) for a specific IP. They can't just track all IPs

    Comment by Halconnen
    21:54 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Lol.

    Same situation in Germany, starting 2009 everything is logged.

    Thing is, police and some other governmental organizations can probably get at the logs without needing a permit from court.

    Comment by Vanamonde
    07:11 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They use computers and filters to select people of interest. THEY know all all. You have been warned.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    They already do this throughout the EU...

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:51 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Logins are logged along with the IP you obtain and for how long you used that IP. Online activities aren't logged (that would probably generate impossibly large logfiles).

    Avatar of Kip
    Comment by Kip
    08:38 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not that I think it is possible... yet, but that is the gist I get from this article, that your searches, webiste visits, etc can all be logged.

    Avatar of Kip
    Comment by Kip
    03:20 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wired - Feds Propose Storing Internet User Data for 2 Years:
    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/feds-propose-st.html

    The reason? Child pornography.

    Avatar of Palmtop Tsundere
    Comment by Palmtop Tiger
    03:52 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    As the Patriot Act has shown us, basic rights can be ignored in the name of terrorism, or in this case, child pornography. And the masses will be unopposed to this because "your not a terrorist/pedophile, are you?"

    Comment by Mia
    05:09 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's called the US PATRIOT act. It violates the first and fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:42 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    so he wants to ignore one of the basic principles democracy was founded upon.
    talk about going backwards.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:46 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    http://i41.tinypic.com/1zntsie.png

    Oh my, hope I don't get sued for this CP I'm DRAWING.

    Avatar of tingle
    Comment by tingle
    01:59 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    protect 3d lolis, this can be done by making pedos use up all their sperm on 2d ones.

    Avatar of Chris
    Comment by Chris
    13:52 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Tingle is genius, prove me wrong!

    Avatar of Michio
    Comment by Michio
    Avatar of muteKi
    Comment by muteKi
    04:19 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Just check the studies done!

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:32 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    ''He might also be recalled as the politician responsible for imposing fingerprinting on non-Japanese entering Japan''

    So this is the asshole that did that. Nothing good can come from people like him.

    Avatar of Miroku74
    Comment by Miroku74
    01:18 23/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    George W Bush gave us the Patriot Act and Homeland Security and all the abuses of power which came with it, but that didn't stop people from re-electing him again for another four years ><.

    Fucking sheep. They'll follow anyone who promises to keep them safe (even IF it's an illusion of safety), even if that person/group abridges their Freedoms to do so. Never comprehending that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE PLACE (in practice).

    Comment by ein
    09:31 20/06/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    No place is safe, only safer.

    Avatar of repure
    Comment by repure
    01:30 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    hmm...unicef is nowhere to be found in this favorable moment?

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:58 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Freedom of expression != Freedom of speech.

    Comment by HCKPRo
    00:34 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    When the hell did people start confusing drawn images with tangible, real things? It's pretty dangerous to tell a people that you can't write about something, can't draw something, can't even THINK about something, because you think it is wrong.

    I think we call all agree that actually doing sexual things with a living, breathing child is wrong. But drawing a picture?

    Comment by pus2meong
    00:47 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    When comes to stupidity, whoever got money and power will rule.

    Unless Japan got minister/politician who willing to fight this Hatoyama guy opinion, what we all can do is, hoping, praying, and if everyting got worst, a strike/demo will occure XD

    Comment by WondrousWizard
    01:48 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    If that happen, we just have to send an atomic bomb on his house. As for an excuse, let's just say : I'm sure he had some massive destruction weapons in his house! LOL

    Avatar of Michio
    Comment by Michio
    02:05 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    LOLI WUT

    Avatar of Bokusatsu Tenshi
    Comment by XSportSeeker
    04:25 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nuclear launch detected

    Comment by blade2577
    02:18 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    If I recall correctly the current prime minister while not a lolicon supports manga/anime and basically otaku. So there might be a chance that he'd respect 2d loli.

    Avatar of muteKi
    Comment by muteKi
    04:13 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I only saw mention of "child porn" and it wasn't clear from the article if this referred to porn that involved actual children or if it was just drawn lolicon imagery?

    One is defensible, one isn't really.

    Avatar of Michio
    Comment by Michio
    04:44 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Now that you mention it, I don't see lolicon anywhere either.

    And I can't read the asahi page. >__<

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    Nobody said he was talking about 2D loli (he seems unlikely to make any distinction though). Almost everyone here jumped to that conclusion themselves. The point is he sees freedom of expression as worthless compared to the business of moralistic laws.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:26 22/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Almost everyone here jumped to that conclusion themselves."
    And then they dare say they don't confuse lolicon with real porn, demagogues!





    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments