The House of Representatives has started...

[buttobi]

discussing a bill concerning the amendment of the CP laws

If this bill is passed, possession of CP will be restricted/prohibited.

You can watch the video recording the discussion
http://www.shugiintv.go.jp/jp/index.php

click English on the right at the top
click 26th June
click Judicial Affairs (Std)
choose the player setting and click set

 

[buttobi]

The definition of CP is at issue as expected.

Chakuero(erotic non-nude) is repeatedly mentioned and one House member claims the definition should be altered so that there should be no loophole for chakuero.

One House member is examining with drawings the new definition proposed by another party. Might be interesting to those members who don't understand Japanese.

http://www.shugiintv.go.jp/jp/index.php
in Japanese

click 26 th June
click the second link that says 法務委員会
click the fifth link from the top 葉梨康弘(自由民主党)
start the video around 8 minutes 20 seconds from the beginning

 

[SdeO]

Statements by Hanashi Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party):
-If the person looks young and is wearing a school uniform, we’ll interpret it as child porn.
-If one of the boys in Johnny’s show a nipple, it’s child porn too.
-The police good natured people, so they won’t force confessions and
create cases where there is miscarriage of justice.:evillaugh:
Statements by Hosaka Nobuto (Social Democratic Party):
-Manga, anime, and other artistic material should be exempted from child porn. rance:
Statements by Maeda Masahide (Tokyo Metropolitan University Professor in Criminal Law) :
-Tightening censorship regulations is the current trend in the world,
Japan should do the same too. :...:
Statements by Agnes Chan (Japan Unicef ambassador)
- People under the age of 18 do not need to make swimsuit photo gravures,
it should not be allowed for people to buy, keep, or view it. :coldsweat:

Summary of the conference held on the 26th of June:
Japanese
English

 

[Sakunyuusha]

That's not so surprising.

(1) Unicef is a largely American-interest UN body and their mission is to save the world's children. Since Americans view the age of adulthood as being 18 years of age, it's no surprise that the Unicef spokesperson would say what she did. "People under the age of 18" is another way for her of saying "children." You may disagree that they're children just because they're under 18, but that's not the point. The point is, she's saying "Children do not need to make swimsuit gravure photos." This is 100% in keeping with American ideals, and I'll repeat that Unicef is a very American body of the UN. As the Japan Unicef ambassador, what do you expect her to do? Side with the host nation (Japan) or side with her employer? I very much doubt "Agnes Chan" is Japanese (I know, I know, don't say it -- Chinese-American, hah, beat you to it ), so I don't think she's going to want to embrace Japan over Unicef. ^_^;

(2) The professor is correct about the trend. It's disheartening to hear him say that Japan should do it too, but even if he didn't say it that's exactly what the government is already doing in the first place: hence this very meeting! He was called as an expert testifier by the very people who he endorsed in his testimony. It was just a showy pat on the back by the politicians and nothing more. He's probably one of the representatives' buddies and that dude called on him "for the sake of the Party!" to come and provide his expert opinion.

(3) Nobuta-san is on our side. Too bad we're probably going to lose. [/pessimist]

(4) The LDP is doing exactly what daredemonai has been talking about -- making sweeping generalizations which the SDP cannot challenge without the LDP turning it against their attackers. For example, the LDP says "if the person looks young and is wearing school clothes, it's no good." If the SDP asks how young is young, the LDP can retort, "Why? Are you worried your stash of porn might soon be made illegal? " Even though the SDP guy may have no porn at all, the LDP can make any attack backfire -- which means the SDP will be too scared to lift a finger, which in turn means the law is going to pass with minimal opposition, and it's going to be a sweeping reform with long arms that reach far and wide. :\

 

[Axandra]

If the person looks young and is wearing a school uniform, we'll interpret it as child porn. - Hanashi Yasuhiro, LDP; People under the age of 18 do not need to make swimsuit photo gravures, it should not be allowed for people to buy, keep, or view it. - Agnes Chan, UNICEF (emphasis mine)

In other words: wrap it up, boys and girls, the thinkpol is just around the corner and you don't want to be accused of any thoughtcrime now, do you?

... Fuck me!

 

[buttobi]

Agnes Chan's speech was dramatic with reports of child prostitution in Thailand and Philippines. The whole conference was very well scripted.

It's kinda funny she was an idol singer that sold her innocent "lolita" look. She was seventeen in the following video.:surprised:
[youtube]7qdXyWJl6sY[/youtube]

 

[bigjoeyboy]

-If the person looks young and is wearing a school uniform, we’ll interpret it as child porn.

Wouldn't that include school yearbooks?

 

[SdeO]

It's kinda funny she was an idol singer that sold her innocent "lolita" look. She was seventeen in the following video.:surprised:

Oh! she was not bad.:virtuous: LOL.

(4) The LDP is doing exactly what daredemonai has been talking about -- making sweeping generalizations which the SDP cannot challenge without the LDP turning it against their attackers. For example, the LDP says "if the person looks young and is wearing school clothes, it's no good." If the SDP asks how young is young, the LDP can retort, "Why? Are you worried your stash of porn might soon be made illegal? " Even though the SDP guy may have no porn at all, the LDP can make any attack backfire -- which means the SDP will be too scared to lift a finger, which in turn means the law is going to pass with minimal opposition, and it's going to be a sweeping reform with long arms that reach far and wide. :\

They are just trolling! :destroy:
But I better be prepared for the worst-case scenario. :giveup:

 

[j00ed]

Wouldn't that include school yearbooks?

Theoretically speaking, all family photos from your random beach trip could be considered child porn. If you want to, you can interpret pretty much anything as erotic. I think the Coca Cola logo is sexy. No, really, look at those curves...
On the other hand, nobody said the new laws were smart. Such minor 'holes' will not slow down the righteous feminists though! Right? They are fighting the Good Fight after all.

Ah, this entire business is getting unbelievably irritating and tiring...

 

[daredemonai]

Well, I've watched only a portion the clips, but I'm relieved to see that there is some intelligent discussion, and particularly an acknowledgment of the difficulty of phrasing such laws.

For what it's worth, I am in favor of outlawing simple possession of CP (providing the law provides a decent definition!), and 100% opposed to legal bans on drawings, written fiction, or other forms of expression that do not involve actual children. As Edano of the DPJ said, "Whether manga or anime should be restricted is a matter that should be a separate issue, since this proposal is aimed at protecting children from abuse

Oh, and here's a direct link to the session in question:
http://www.shugiintv.go.jp/jp/video_lib3.php?deli_id=39900

 

[italianbrute]

Japan is already quite a safe place for children, even given the discrepancies between reported crime and actual numbers, which can apply to all nations. Tightening censorship laws will not likely help at all, if not make the problems worse. Of course freaks like Agnes Chan won't rationally think this through. Seriously, she should be campaigning to get Japan more involved with Africa where children are r***ing every goddamn day there.

Not to mention that I'm sure whatever new laws gets passed will be abused and used on the very children they were meant to protect. You know, like how it is in the US currently. The old laws were fine, just needed some fine-tuning, not a layer of garbage where it just seems to do much more harm than good and if these new laws get overturned it could end up taking some much needed laws with it.

 

[buttobi]

According to the new definition of CP proposed by Democratic Party,

First of all CP should be renamed as something which describes children's figures involved in sexual conduct and so on, that is:

1 something which describes children's figures involved in the acts of intentionally touching other persons' genitals or the acts of other persons touching children's genitals

2 something which describes children's figures whose genitals, anus and nipples are intentionally highlighted

One DP member referred to the dental floss swimwears and see-through swimwears non-nude girls are wearing and the new definition would illegalize these things since girl's genitals and nipples are intentionally highlighted by them.

 

[Sakunyuusha]

Bad: "intentionally touching"
Better: "sexually intentionally touching"

I know law-writers aren't fond of adverbs which modify other adverbs, but come on, people! "Intentionally touching," seriously?

Furthermore!

Best: "sexually intentionally touching" *AND* "with direct intent to sexually stimulate the audience."

Otherwise, we're going to say that photos or films which depict acts of sexual abuse against children (e.g. the film I Know My First Name Is Stephen) are pornographic as well.

I know that the lawyers agree with me. I'm not trying to be pedantic. I'm just saying this because, for better or for worse, 21st Century Western law is so much so based upon "the letter of the law" and this means that innocent people will be found Guilty of phantom crimes unless the law is amended to be much more precise in its wording.

For God's sake, you cannot ban and should not ban educational media which vilify abduction and sexual molestation of minors (like the film I mentioned) simply on the basis that such films, necessarily, contain implicitly sexual scenes.