Brawling for Law: a Day in the Diet of Japan

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

We who care about constitutional law may be fascinated to see the violence (if that is the correct word) erupting this week in the Japanese Parliament.

Is it about the Budget? Is it about terrorist laws that cause a loss of civil liberty? Is it about same-sex marriage? No. It is about peace. Wow. Or maybe it is about constitutionalism itself.

In 1946 under the guidance of the occupying power, Guess Whom, the constitution of Japan was written and came into effect the next year on May 3. Below I will quote the relevant sections of the constitution, the ones that talk about the need for non-belligerence — and the method of changing the Constitution.

After that I will provide an abridged quote from a 2010 parliamentary speech by Mr. Yukihisa Fujita who raised questions about the 9-11 attacks on the US. Finally I will provide the Washington Post’s editorial reaction thereto.

Constitution of Japan

Preamble…[R]esolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, [we] do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. …

We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time … and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace…We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.

We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations.

We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals …

 Article 9. 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.

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.

Article 96. Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum….

Article 98. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation …

Article 99. The Emperor, …members of the Diet, judges, and all other public officials have the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution.

Japanese Skepticism about the 9-11 Attacks

Two parliamentarians are known to have expressed doubts “from the floor” about 9/11. One is Laurent Louis of Belgium (born 1980),  the other is Yukihisa Fujita of Japan (born 1950). Louis also spoke against his country’s sending troops to Mali. He has subsequently has lost his seat in Parliament. We can presume that it was easier for Fujita to speak out, based on Japan’s explicit valuing of peace, or should I say, disapproval of war. This is an excerpt from his 2010 speech. He is a member of the Upper House.  Note: the speech is carried in English on Youtube.com.

Mr Fujita:

I would like to ask about the suspicious information being uncovered and the doubts people worldwide are having about the events of 9-11. …There were more than 80 security cameras at the

Pentagon but they have refused to release almost all of the footage. A block away from the WTC, a building collapsed 7 hours after the WTC buildings were attacked. This is a 47-story building that

fell in this manner (He drops and object to demonstrate), in five or six seconds. This building falls like something you would see in a Kabuki show. Also it falls while keeping its shape. Remember it was not hit by a plane.

I would also like to mention the put options. Just before the 911 attacks, i.e., on September 6th, 7th and 8th, there were put options put out on the stocks of the two airlines United and American.

There were put options on Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest WTC tenants. Somebody had insider information.

Finance Minister Fukushiro Nukaga:

I know there have been reports about the points you raise. So we made it obligatory that people provide ID for securities transactions and for suspicious transactions to be reported and we made it a crime to provide money to terrorist organizations.

Mr. Fujita:

I would like to ask finance specialist Mr. Asao to tell me about put options. Could a few terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan carry out such a sophisticated large scale set of transactions?

Keiichiro Asao:

I understand put options are a deal to sell stocks at a fixed price. In this case someone must have had insider information to carry out such transactions because nobody could normally predict these airlines would have their planes hijacked. So, I believe this was certainly a case of insider trading.

Mr. Fujita:

We need to ask who the real victims of this war on terrorism are. I think the citizens of the world are its victims.

The Washington Post, on March 8, 2010, informed the American public of that interesting event, sarcastically:

“A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy

YUKIHISA FUJITA is an influential member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan. As chief of the DPJ’s international department and head of the Research Committee on Foreign Affairs in the upper house of Japan’s parliament, to which he was elected in 2007, he is a Brahmin in the foreign policy establishment of Washington’s most important East Asian ally. He also seems to think that America’s rendering of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is a gigantic hoax.

Mr. Fujita’s ideas about the attack on the World Trade Center, which he shared with us in a recent interview, are too bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus to merit serious discussion. He questions whether it was really the work of terrorists; suggests that shadowy forces with advance knowledge of the plot played the stock market to profit from it; peddles the fantastic idea that eight of the 19 hijackers are alive and well; and hints that controlled demolition rather than fire or debris may be a more likely explanation for at least the collapse of the building at 7 World Trade Center, which was adjacent to the twin towers.”

Peace!

— Mary W Maxwell lives in Adelaide. She discusses constitutionalism at length in her new book, Fraud Upon the Court, which Amazon is selling today at $7 USD.