The Lebanese bloggers wrote about a wide variety of topics this week making it difficult to cover them all in just one summary. This week’s weblog covers topics like the upcoming Lebanese presidential election, the Winograd Report regarding the Israeli July 2006 war on Lebanon, Lebanese agricultural products, Syrian workers, freedom of speech and freedom to blog in the Arab world, resistance to colonialism and the implications of being a leftist in Lebanon.
Although this summary attempts to cover as many interesting blog posts as possible, others are still left out because of lack of space and time. So always check back as more blogs and topics are surveyed each week.
On the Presidential Election:
Riemer Brouwer reviewed some of the contradictory articles in the local newspapers and tried to make sense out of them:
Three interesting newspaper stories came out during the last few days regarding the next Lebanese president. As usual, they all contradict each other, so it’s up to the blogosphere to make sense out of them.
Blacksmith Jade set up a draft list of general questions which can be tailored to each presidential candidate and called on fellow bloggers to help finalize them with the purpose of directing them at prospective candidates to get their positions on topics like constitutional and institutional reform and outlook, a new electoral law, foreign and defense policies, economic and development policy etc.
R at Voices on the Wind contends that the current president is one of the factors causing the current political paralysis in the country:
While it may be true that there we will see some level of perpetuation of the political paralysis in Lebanon even after Lahoud's term is over, it is also true that Lahoud himself has been an exceptional obstruction. Moreover, it is true that with the coming end of his term, Lebanon has to potentially deal with a new crisis stemming from the very divisive issue of electing a new president.
On the Winograd Report:
The committee set up by Israel to investigate the war waged against Lebanon published its report or what was called the Winograd Report. Although parts of the report were not made public, this did not stop the Lebanese from analyzing and discussing its implications. Among them was MFL who wrote a lengthy analysis on the report and on the issues that lie behind the violent conditions in the Middle East as a whole:
But this situation is different, it took a Zionist commission to convince the Israelis they were wrong to attack Lebanon, not for “virtuous reasons” rather to avoid more military disasters. Israel, that claims Hezbollah caused the destruction of Lebanon, was in fact their troops shooting and bombing almost the whole of Lebanon. Israel could have resorted to diplomacy, and political pressures. Instead, they slaughtered 1300 Lebanese, and more are getting killed by the remaining horrific cluster bombs. Worse, the Red Cross confirmed that Israel was using banned weaponry, also to be denounced by Anan himself, but the US argued that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Angry Anarchist wrote that the issue of the ex-member of Knesset, Azmi Bishara is related to the Winograd report too:
The Azmi Bishara plot thickens… I have come to increasingly view the whole affair as one that is not unrelated to the Winograd commission and attempts to quell domestic dissatisfaction by busying the public with a case of treason, against an Arab citizen to make things marketable of course. This enables the authorities to play on the feelings of the Jewish citizens especially that the July war brought to the forefront fresh divides between the Arab and Jewish communities, along with accusations of mass-treason against Arab citizens, levelled by their Jewish counterparts. Azmi Bishara seems to be the scapegoat, and his framing not only serves a public opinion purpose, but also could be related to new policies to be adopted vis-a-vis the Arab community in light of the increasing strain it places on the authorities in the domain of demographic challenge (or perceptions thereof).
On Lentils and Olive Oil:
Diamond explains the relationship between the name of lentils (the ones we eat) lenses (the optical thing used to see):
Lenses are so named because they resemble lentils - not the other way round. English, French, and Spanish (lente/lenteja) all derive their lens/lentil words from the Latin.
What surprises me more is that Arabic, which has no Latin roots, also describes lenses as lentil-like.
In Arabic, the word for lentil/s is 3adas, عدس.
The word for lens is 3adasa, عدسة.
Olive trees are planted and cultivated in most parts of Lebanon. Olive oil enters into almost all of the recipes of the Lebanese cuisine. Rami Zurayk has a post on a new book on olive oil called “Green Gold”
It is a swift introduction to Lebanon geared toward a readership of outsiders and a counterweight to the country's international media profile as a war-torn basket-case. It is a story about farmers and rural food producers. It's a journalistic account of sustainable development and a personal narrative of discovery and deep affection. It is a cookbook, a beauty guide and a how-to reference on the process of harvesting olives from start to finish. It is a source book for those interesting in organic products…
On Syrian Workers in Lebanon:
Golaniya brings up the topic of the attacks carried out by some Lebanese against some of the Syrian workers in Lebanon as the result of the political tensions over the past few years.
With all the difficulties I am facing right now in at the time being as a Syrian who proudly speaks her Syrian dialect, Syrian workers' misery is tragical. Their lives are in danger each time Lebanon loses one of its personals. Cowardly enough, it is not the Syrian with deep pockets, students and business men, whom are subjective to this form of racism but it is those who are poor and also victim of its own government, Syrian government; the Syrian workers.[…]
There is no committee, international or local, that follows the Syrian workers' special politicized case in Lebanon. While there is an international tribunal that investigates the murder of one man, 20 Syrian workers were reported dead and no human rights organization has broken the silence and speak of the violations of both Syrian and Lebanese regimes.
On the Freedom to Blog:
Bloggers in some Arab countries, supposedly friends of the west and the USA, are being jailed and silenced by their governments. Jeha discusses this phenomenon in this blog post:
Spare a prayer for Alaa Abd El-Fatah, Zouhair Yahyaoui, and countless other Arab bloggers who were trying to inform the world as to the true nature of our countries. It is not over, even when they’re out of jail; Zouhair paid his courage with his life, released from prison after much mistreatments, and Tunezine is now silent. Countless others have risen and will continue to rise.
Before the leaders of the “Free World” go on to meet those “leaders” of ours, spare a few thoughts for those of us who try and exercise that most basic of human rights; staying safe while trying to taste the fruits of freedom.
Should the “Free World” forget them and continue to sustain or harbour the enemies of our freedom, then the “Free World” better change its name…
… And the “Free World” can then learn to accept its sorry fate, as more 9/11’s are visited upon them; the more you give in to authoritarian fanatics, the more they want. Those who need to be convinced of this truth will never understand it.
For them, an Ostrich might as well replace that American bald eagle.
For Arab bloggers who try to remain anonymous, it is getting harder to do so by the day. In Lebanon, some subtle changes appeared lately; it may be that the leash is getting ever tighter, and would have been more so were it not for the diverging agendas of the country's rival services.
The “New Middle East” looks eerily familiar, far too much like the old; Condy Rice's “birth pangs” may actually prove to be the pains that herald the agony of a dream as history's second chance fades away…
On Resilience and Anti–Imperialism:
Serene explains why what she calls the colonial occupation of the Arab world is a bad idea:
But walk in the Arab world, and you will see, that though we are tired, we are not down. And we won't be any time soon. It just doesn't work that way.
That is the way that all areas of the world, all peoples strive, to overcome colonisation. And colonisation, like everything else, dies. People, the very essence of what it is to be human, conspire to find hope in some way or another, and you can see that struggle, written in the faces of millions.
For God's sake - just listen to dabke. Just watch it. Dance it - try it - and then face oppression.
The imperialists chose a bad spot to try and occupy - as imperialists most always do.
It's a moment, and though the fight is for the most part invisible, it is there. Meanwhile, in other places, it really is quite visible, but the media works very very hard to cover it up, even, by simply being a part of those benefiting from empire, unwittingly.
On being a Lebanese Leftist:
Finally, Bech explains are the implications of being a leftist in the confessional Lebanese
Being a leftist, is engaging above all in cultural issues. It is through the creation of meaning that oppression manifest itself. Paradoxically enough, although being a leftist is often equated with being a materialist and being concerned with the modes of production, social inequalities, etc. I think nothing of that can be understood without taking a close look at what bars some people to rise up and change the status quo, or to just follow different identification processes to arrive at new social realities. What better example to take here than Confessional Lebanon where specific ways of defining one's self along a sect has tamed a truly popular uprising. Of course, sectarian divisions exists because it pays to be sectarian, meaning that clientelistic ties makes it easy for various players to keep constituencies happy (by bribing them). And vice versa, any individual who needs something is much better going to the local sectarian leader in order for it to be done.
It's my birthday and I do not have the time to put in a full report this week. But the stories are interesting and are important. So I must tell you about them…
Condolences
First, my sincere condolences go out to 24 Steps to Liberty whose cousin was stopped by militias and murdered.
If you read no other blog post this week, read this one…
Chikitita takes another of her rare trips out of her house. This time to run an errand travelling across the lines of the various battlefields that are the different neighbourhoods in Baghdad.
Blogs
Marshmallow26 watches TV and compares the American reality TV shows to their Iraqi equivalents. Yes, there is even an Iraqi eqivalent of “Extreme makeover home edition”. Where the TV show renovates a house damaged by a military operation…
Fatima tells the stories of her family and friends after the ordeal of the kidnapping and eventual murder that I reported last week…
I Don't know what to call Baghdad
Also you must read…
Video Blogs
Just watch this one. Alive in Baghdad follows some of the results of the spate of mortars and rockets hitting homes in Baghdad.
Hometown Baghdad, a video blog from, you guessed it, Baghdad has been enjoying some popularity lately. The even made the front page of the Times of London.
Politics
Want to know what is going on? Follow these links to get an idea…
Things are never black and white. And there are good and bad in everything. The Shaqawa discusses the militias.
Raed has another scoop. Now most Iraqi parliamentarians want the US to set a timetable to leave.
Al-Ghad reports on Sistani's latest statement on the draft Oil Law and finds him at odds with Dick Cheney.
Iraq the Model says it is a rough time but they are not panicking.
Hammorabi wonders about the imminent failure of the Americans in Iraq.
Blog Iraq discusses a new law passing through the Iraqi parliament that gives each member $200 a day just for lunch. Hmmm.
And Finally…
After being named the “Most Sectarian Blog Ever” - The Shawqawa responds in typical Iraqi style… He invites his new visitors for tea and coffee.
The last week was by all means a black week for Syrian liberties and human rights. Following the sentencing of the prominent lawyer and human rights activist Anwar al-Bunni to five years in jail for “spreading hostile information and joining an illegal political group.” The regime's crackdown on Syrian dissidents continued even stronger, Dr Kamal Labwani was sentenced to life time in prison with hard labor [charges were “undermining national security”], which was communed to 12 years. Ironically, at the very same time, President Bashar al-Assad was giving his speech to the newly elected parliament, a mere 15 minutes away from the State Security Court where all the political prisoners are put on trial. In that same session the parliament rubber stamped its first duty, the nomination of the president for his second term in office, which will be decided in a referendum later this month.
And just as I was writing this roundup, news arrived from Damascus about activists Michel Kilo and Mahmoud Issa, who were sentenced to three years in jail. The veteran activists were convicted of “spreading false information, encouraging sectarian strife and weakening national sentiment.”
It is by far, the worst crackdown on civil liberties and activists in the country since 2001, when the authorities cracked down on what has since been called “Damascus Spring”.
Earlier last week, the prisoners of conscience at Damascus Central Prison ['Adra Prison] sent a public statement, and a letter to the world, following the sentencing of Anwar al-Bunni. The Syrian blogsphere republished the letter in many of its blogs to spread the word, and help rally support for their cause…
Taken from Fares' Free Syria writes:
We are prisoners of conscience and opinion in Damascus Central Prison, lawyer Anwar Al Bunni, writer Michel Kilo, Dr. Kamal Labwani, activists Mahmoud Issa, and Faek Al Mir, and Professor Aref Dalila who could not be reached as he spends his sixth year in solitary confinement. After the sentencing of lawyer Anwar Al Bunni on 24 April 2007, we would like to say thank you and greet our families, friends, and all the people, groups, committees, organizations, associations, parties and political assemblies of Arabs, Kurds and Assyrians in Syria and the Arab world. We thank and greet the official representatives, countries, media and websites that support us by protesting our trials and arrests, and denying the accusations against our colleague Anwar Al Bunni.
The sentencing of Labwani for 12 years, was especially shocking because of its harshness as well as the inhumane conditions Dr. Labwani has been kept in.
Abu Kareem of Levantine Dreamhouse says:,
Yet when will the Syrian people reach their limit? What is it going to take to light a fire under our collective Syrian asses? Until that happens, the Labawnis, Kilos and others, courageous individuals willing to speak truth to power will remain easy targets to a paranoid, tyrannical regime.
Rime Allaf, writes about the heavy price of civility, and notes that the Syrian regime is most vicious against its own people when it is comfortable, and relieved from external or internal pressure. Contrary to the common excuses that many bring out, that the regime is cracking down on dissidents to face up to international pressure without internal nuisance.
Indeed, it is a mistake to conclude that the regime acts more harshly when it is under pressure; on the contrary, it is never so severe as when it has the time to “take care” of its citizens.
During the so-called Damascus Spring and the ensuing Damascus Winter, pre-9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, when today’s March 14 leaders were singing the praises of Syria’s entire ruling class and bowing to representatives big and small, when the nouveau régime was thought to be full of promise and Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and other EU leaders couldn’t wait to take Bashar Assad under their wing, when George W. Bush was mostly concentrating on his own turf, this was the period when Syrian civil society activists were harrassed and arrested, including two prominent MPs who had their parliamentary immunity revoked. Syria was not under pressure then, but this did not save Riad Seif, Mamoun Homsi and Aref Dalila.
There also is a very vibrant and informative discussion in the comments section of that post.
We will stay in politics, but we move to yet another grave concern to every Syrian, The occupied Golan Heights. Since the 1967 six-day war with Israel, and consequent occupation and annexation, the Golan Heights has been the main influential cause of Syrian politics. Returning the Golan Heights is one of the few things no Syrian government had been able to shake from the heart of Syrians.
But since the War on Terror was brought up, the Peace Process has almost been put on the back burner, and so has the Syrian dream of skiing on the slopes of Mount Hermon.
The Golan Heights will always find its way to any posting about Syria's future. Philip I from Via Recta, brings the Golan back into focus as our collective aim…
Israel has been exploiting her war victory and occupation of the Golan for 40 years. Economically, the Golan has yielded enormous benefits in agricultural produce, tourist receipts and clean water. A peace deal based on a gradual but complete return of the Golan to Syria over 20 years, without destruction of existing infrastructure or compensation on either side, is both possible and feasible. Both sides must see opportunity in promoting peaceful coexistence and regional economic cooperation, but also a serious and constant danger of armed conflict and possible defeat if they fail to make progress.
Rime Allaf again, has a very different approach to the so-called Peace Process…
Some analysts have since argued that the Syrian regime is only interested in its own survival (a point which certainly holds merit) and that it would use negotiations with Israel and engagement with others merely as a means to an end – the end being its longevity and security. As long as the Syrian regime is engaged and negotiating, goes the logic, it escapes the pressure of the Hariri investigation and tribunal, amongst others.
There are some flaws in these arguments. For one, it is simplistic to imagine that the Syrian regime would only prefer the status quo to peace with Israel; on the contrary, there is merit to the case that the retrieval of the Golan Heights would give the regime renewed legitimacy, and a popularity which would allow it to ride a wave of acceptance for many years. In fact, this seems to be validated by the very generous concessions the regime seems willing to give just to rekindle the peace process. While this could be purely tactical, given Israel’s public refusal to give back the land it occupied in 1967, the regime is clearly prepared for a scenario of peaceful relations.
And to close off, back to Abu Fares, and his cry against censorship…
I have previously expressed my dislike of and disagreement with a few blogs on political grounds. However, blocking them is wrong and nobody has the right to do so. I have made that choice on my own and refused to read them long before Blogspot was blacklisted. I feel exactly the same about pornography and “morally” questionable material. I would not go purposely on a quest to find pornographic sites. However, I stand by their right to exist and the right of any adult to browse these sites till he or she drops. Is it not strange that in a city like Dubai, where soliciting the services of a prostitute is as easy as ordering a pizza by phone, internet sites are blocked because of their morally unacceptable content? What about the other Arab countries from where I keep getting hits everyday on a long gone post about Fairuz. Through search engines and from behind firewalls, these maverick browsers were looking for a “smooth ass”. Who has the right to deny these poor souls their right to see an ass? I have previously made a joke about this particular incidence but now I repent.
Early last week on May 3rd, amid widespread debate and discussion on the topic, Japan celebrated the 60th anniversary of its constitution. The anniversary comes at a time when Japanese citizens and their government are re-evaluating the role of their current constitution and debating its uniquely pacifist nature. With Japan increasingly engaged in combat operations overseas, notably in supporting American operations in Iraq, the existence of the country's (ostensibly purely defensive) Self-Defense Forces (SDF, in Japanese Jieitai) has come into question time and time again. The problem, for those unaware of the situation, is that the existence of the SDF, and the assertive role it is playing internationally as well as domestically, run contrary to the war-renouncing spirit of the current constitution as enshrined in its preamble and ninth article.
To recap, here is Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan:
第九条 一 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する。
ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
二 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
While Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and the Liberal Democratic Party have long proclaimed it their goal to revise the Constitution, and in particular Article 9, the Japanese people are divided on the topic. A survey conducted by Mainichi shimbun indicated this month that 51 percent of respondents favoured revision of the constitution. However, another poll by Asahi shimbun published at around the same time put the Mainichi figure into context: asked about the pacifist Article 9, 49 percent of respondents said they wanted to keep it intact, versus 33 percent who wanted it changed. An indication of the level of support for Article 9 was evidenced last week in a Constitution Peace Day March held in Tokyo's Yoyogi Park, which reportedly attracted 10,000 people.
On May 7th, shortly after Constitution Day, Japan's national broadcaster NHK aired a program on the history of the constitution and on the question of constitutional revision. Responses of bloggers to this program give some indication of the split in opinions among the Japanese population.
Blogger Tabibito writes:
7日、NHKで「憲法9条を語れ」と言う番組を放送していました。この中で9条を改正するべきだと言う人の声として、「話合いに応じない国がある。そう言う国に9条は無力だ」と、またある人は「非武装、非戦といっても国民が守られる保証がない、攻めてきた相手から国民を守る為に戦わなければならない」と。そして31歳のフリーターの男性は、自分たちが置かれている現状を変えるために、9条を変えるべきだと行っている。この男性に9条が改正されたら「軍隊に入りますか」と言う質問に、「バイトをするより待遇がよければそれはそれでいいのでは」と答えている。男性は戦争に行くと言う事の意味を深く理解していないようです。
On May 7th, NHK broadcast a TV program called “Talking about Article 9 of the Constitution”. In this show, people supporting revision of Article 9 said: “There are countries who will not respond to dialogue. Article 9 is powerless with respect to such countries.” Other people said: “Even though they are unarmed and non-combatant, there is no guarantee that citizens will be protected. When we are assaulted by our opponents, to protect the citizens of this country, we need to fight.” Next, a 31-year-old man, a freeter, said that to change the circumstances in which they are in right now, Article 9 should be changed. When asked the question, if Article 9 is revised, “Would you enter the military?”, the man replied: “If I was treated better than I am at my part-time job, then it might be good.” It seems that he doesn't really understand the meaning of going to war.
「話合いに応じない国」があるから軍隊が必要だと言っているが、武力を背景にした交渉では何も解決されない。米国はベトナム戦争では撤退を余儀なくされ、イラクでは撤退することもできず、泥沼状態に陥っている。
他国から攻められた時は国民を守る為に軍隊は必要だと言っているが、自衛の為の戦いは現憲法で認めている事なのです。そのために憲法を改正する必要がないのです。
They say that because there are “countries that do not respond to dialogue”, a military is necessary, but negotiation backed up by force does not resolve anything. America withdrew from the Vietnam War out of neccessity, now it can't withdraw from Iraq and the situation is descending into a quagmire.
They say that a military is necessary to protect this country's citizens when another country wages war on us, but fighting in the name of self-defense is permitted by the current constitution. No constitutional revision is needed for this.
現憲法では他国を武力攻撃する事を禁じていますが、攻撃された場合は自衛の為に戦う事を認めています。ようするに先に手を出す事はできないが、売られた喧嘩は買うことができるのです。
安倍首相が目指す憲法9条改正は、この売られた喧嘩を買うのではなく、先に手お出す事ができるように、憲法9条を変えようとしているのです。
The current constitution prohibits armed attacks against other countries, but in cases in which Japan itself is attacked, it permits the use of force for self-defense. Basically, while it is not possible to throw the first punch, if somebody picks a fight with you, you can respond.
The constitutional revision which Prime Minister Abe is aiming at would change Article 9 of the Constitution to make it possible to throw the first punch, not only respond to an attack.
これは米国からの強い要望によるものです。日米同盟と言う名の下で米軍が武力行使をする時は一緒に戦争に参加してくれと言うことです。米国兵が死んでいる時、日本の自衛隊も一緒に血を流してくれなければ困ると言うことなのです。
安倍首相は、国際貢献の為にとか世界平和の為になどと言って、憲法9条は時代の流れにもつともそぐわないものの一つだと言っていますが、日本の憲法は諸外国からは高く評価(米国以外の)されている平和憲法なのです。
This is in response to strong demands from the American government. In the name of the U.S.-Japan alliance, when the American military exercises its use of force, Japan must join the war. When American soldiers die, the Japanese Self-Defence Forces must also spill their blood.
Prime Minister Abe says that, in terms of Japan's international contribution and in terms of world peace, Article 9 is very unsuitable to the trend of the times. However, Japan's constitution is highly praised by foreign countries (with the exception of the United States) as the Peace Constitution.
米国と共に戦争する事は平和の為になることにはならないのでは。安倍内閣は自衛隊の兵力の維持をどうするつもりで居るのでしょうか。現在は公募により兵力を維持していますが、他国へ戦争に行くとなると命の遣り取りと言うことです。
募集による兵力維持は難しくなるでしょう。そうなると国民に対する入隊の義務化と言うことになるのでは、安倍首相は教育制度の中でボランテアの義務化と言うことを強調しています。そして憲法に愛国心を明記すべきだと考えているようです。これは自衛隊入隊義務化の準備なのでは。この先にあるのは国際貢献と言う名目での徴兵制度の導入と言うことなのでしょう。
我々は次世代に戦争と言う産物を残すべきではないと思うのですが、貴方はどちらを選択しますか。
Waging war with the United States will not bring peace, will it? What does the Abe cabinet intend to do in order to maintaining the level of troops in the Self-Defence Forces? At the present time they are maintaining the level of troops through open recruitment, but when Japan goes to war with another country, then they start dealing with people's lives.
It seems that maintaining troop levels based on recruitment will become more difficult in the future. If this happens then it will become mandatory for citizens to enlist, so Prime Minister Abe is emphasizing, within the educational system, making volunteer activities mandatory. And also, it looks like he is thinking about including love of country in the constitution. Isn't this just preparation for mandatory enlistment into the Self-Defence Forces? I wonder if, under the pretext of Japan's international contribution, a draft will then be introduced.
I do not think that we should leave behind this legacy of war to the next generation. Which would you choose?
In a post called “What is this Peace Constitution?”, another blogger minamikawa-taizo expresses a very different sentiment:
NHKのクローズアップ現代で憲法の特集をしていた。仕事の関係で冒頭部分しか観られなかったが、仕事の関係でなくとも最後まで観たかどうか分からない。
というのは冒頭に「平和憲法」というふりがあって、憲法第9条の戦争放棄の条文に触れ、世界各国から賞賛されている憲法であると訴え、その後に阿倍さんの改憲スピーチが入るという仕掛けだ。
On the NHK TV program “Today's Close-up” there was a special feature on the Constitution. Because of work I was only able to see the opening part of the show, but even if I hadn't had work to do, I'm not sure that I would have watched it until the end.
I mean, they opened the show with the pretense of talking about a “Peace Constitution”, mentioned the clause renouncing war in Article 9 of the Constitution, claimed that the Constitution is praised by all countries across the world, and after this inserted [Prime Minister] Abe's speech. This was the gimmick that they used.
とっぱなから改憲反対の姿勢を打ち出し、国民投票法案が審議されていることに触れ、その後、改憲反対論者である井上ひさし氏と子ども達のティーチインにつなげている。
これのどこが気に入らないか?まず平和憲法という表現だ。戦争放棄をうたっているのだから平和憲法には違いないのだが、それを即、改憲の動きに繋げるとあたかも改憲論者はすべて平和に反対で戦争をしたがっているように聞こえてしまう。
Right from the beginning, they came out with a position against constitutional reform, they mentioned that the referendum law for ammending the Constitution is being discussed, and then, right after that, connected this to a teach-in between Mr. Inoue Hisashi, who is against constitutional reform, and a group of children.
Which part of this don't I like? First, they use the expression “Peace Constitution”. The constitution renounces war, so there is no mistake that it is a Peace Constitution, but by basing the show on this, and by connecting it to the movement to revise the Constitution, it sounds to me like they are implying that advocates of constitutional reform are all against peace and want war.
世界中を探しても平和を否定する憲法は存在しない。どの国の憲法もその国にとっては平和憲法なのだ。
「戦争放棄」これも戦争を放棄して家族や子どもを守られるなら理想的である。
だがもしも日本が攻撃された場合に「戦争放棄」ということは「無条件降伏」を意味する。
You can search all over the world, but constitutions that renounce peace do not exist. The constitution of any country is, for that country, a peace constitution.
“War renouncing” — if it also renounces war, and protects families and children, then this is ideal.
However, in the case in which Japan is attacked, “renouncing war” takes on the meaning of “unconditional capitulation”.
改憲=戦争という見方はあまりにも短絡的である。現在の憲法9条の精神を引き継ぎ、現実に起こるかも知れない危機に対応しうる憲法を持つことは可能だ。
日本国民として憲法を変えることが出来る権利を確保することが何故いけないのか?永久に変えることのない憲法こそ一種のファシズムではないか。
The view that “constitutional revision equals war” is very shortsighted. It is possible to have a constitution which carries over the spirit of Article 9 of the current constitution, and yet also accommodates for crises which may in reality occur.
What's wrong with assuring that, as citizens of Japan, the people have the right to change the constitution? A constitution that can never be changed is a kind of fascism, is it not?
まず憲法を変えることが出来る国民としての当然の権利を手にすることに賛成し、その上で方法論を議論すべきなのに、改憲につながる国民投票そのものに反対し、イザとなれば国民の生命を脅かされかねない「平和憲法」を守ろうとする意図が理解出来ない。
Japanese people should firstly agree to letting citizens have their natural right to have their say in changing the constitution, and then should debate the methodology of constitutional revision. However, these people [supporters of the current constitution] oppose the national referendum itself and are trying to protect this “Peace Constitution”, which, under certain circumstances, could potentially threaten the lives of the citizens of this country. I cannot understand the big idea behind this.
Finally, yet another blogger, Sira-san, gets to the heart of the problem, pointing to the general lack of understanding among Japanese people about what the word “constitution” actually means:
現在、安倍総理を中心に憲法改正についていろいろ議論されている。 新聞・テレビなどの世論調査でも、賛成だの反対だのと意見は分かれている。 こういった世論調査を見ていていつもいつも思うのだが、国民はどれだけ理解して答えているんだろう。 今回の【憲法】についても、国民は日頃からほとんど関心は無いし、憲法をどれだけ理解しているのかも大いに疑問だ・・・とは言い過ぎかな? ならば問いたい! 憲法ってナニ? 法律との違いは? こんな単純な質問でさえ、正直言ってどれだけの人が答えられるのだろうか。 この質問の答えとして、憲法とは日本国の歴史・文化・伝統を基にした国家の規範である・・・とか。 法律の法律・・・とか。 確かにいろんな答え方があるとは思う。 しかし、一番わかり易く答えるなら・・・【法律】は国民が守るもの、【憲法】は国民を守るもの・・・とするのはどうだろう。 もう少し付け加えるなら、時の為政者や国家権力のあやまちや横暴から国民を守るのが【憲法】と言えるのではないか。 だから、法律は国会議員が作ることが出来るが、憲法は国会が発議はできるが、決めるのは国民投票により、国民が決めることになっている。 現在、国民投票法案についてもめている。 実は、現憲法は国民の過半数以上の賛成で憲法改正が出来るとなっているが、その具体的なルールは定められていない。 国会ではまさにそのルール作りをしているということだ。
Currently, various arguments are being made about revision of the Constitution, with Prime Minister Abe taking the lead. Public opinion surveys in newspapers and on television show that there is a divide in opinions between those who are for revision and those who are against revision. I always wonder when I read these kinds of public opinion surveys about how much people understand when they answer them. These surveys about the “Constitution” as well, people do not normally have much interest in this topic, and I have a lot of doubts about how much they actually understand the Constitution… or is that saying too much? I want to ask! A constitution, WHAT is it? Is it different from laws? Even these very simple questions, I wonder how many people can answer them. As an answer to this question: the Constitution is a set of rules for the country based on Japan's history, culture, traditions… and so on. Laws for laws… and so on. Certainly I think there are many ways to answer this question. However, if you want the simplest answer… the “Laws” are something that the citizens must obey, while the “Constitution” is what protects the citizens… how is that? Adding a little more to that, I suppose that the “Constitution” is what protects the country's citizens from the errors and the tyranny of policymakers and government power of the time. Therefore, laws can be created by Diet members, but, while the Constitution can be proposed in the Diet, it is decided by the citizens through a national referendum. Currently, there is a lot of fuss about the ammendment to the national referendum law. The truth is that, although the Constitution can be revised if at least half of Japanese citizens agree, the citizens cannot set down the specific rules. The rules are precisely what are created in the National Diet.
Dr. Haleh Esfandiari is the Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. She is a 67-year-old Iranian-American who came to the US over 25 years ago.In early May, Dr. Esfandiari received a call from the ministry suggesting she “cooperate” (i.e., confess), an offer she declined. On May 8, security forces took her away to Evin Prison, though she has not been formally charged with any crime. Evin Prison is notorious its harsh treatment of political prisoners.The “Free Haleh” campaign has been initiated by the American Islamic Congress in conjunction with Ibn Khaldoun Center in Cairo, the Initiative for Inclusive Security in Washington, and the Kuwaiti Economic Society.
Ghomar Asheghnaeh[Fa] has published several interesting photos of International Book Fair in Tehran. The blogger says some Lebanese publishers were offered free places by Iranian authorities.He adds in this Book Fair there were no place to sit down or rest.
Ester,an Iran based blogger, wrote in MidEast Youth that “the [Iranian] law is invasive and vague, which is why it is so easy to break. As one friend says, “The law is so arbitrary that you can become an activist quite by accident.” The very ease of breaking the law in Iran means that nearly all adults are guilty of something. Imagine that. Granted, most people who will find themselves under scrutiny are public intellectuals, labor leaders, minority rights leaders, fallen government employees, and self-proclaimed activists, but the message is clear: life is insecure.”
Pacific Empire comments on the arrest and detention of a Fijian businessman by the Fijian army. The army suspects that the businessman was writing anti-government posts. Fijian army took over the power last December in a coup. “Some had high hopes for this coup. But truth was the first casualty, as always”. The detained person has since been released.
Mangosauce comments on the latest cyber-crime law that promises severe punishment to people who try to access banned video site YouTube. YouTube was banned by Thailand for refusing to remove videos that ridiculed the Thai king.
Nimbupani interviews Herryanto Siatono, a developer in Singapore who “a social book-bookmarking site that also mashes up Amazon and Singapore National Library (NLB) catalogue information”
Details are Sketchy links to a conversation where the country manager of a leading brand name in garments hints at why garment manufacturers visit a local market famous for fakes and pirated goods in Phnom Penh whenever they run short.
Vutha comments on some of the issues that are holding back Cambodia's youth- the high cost of internet access and lack of work opportunities after they graduate.
Old Man's Blog is happy that more and more people in Brunei are eating out. “am glad for these changes. Brunei is growing up. The people of this wonderful place are growing up. We are venturing out. We are living our life more openly.”