TV & Radio
５ 未決勾留日数の算入 被告人両名につき，刑法２１条
６ 執行猶予 被告人Ｂにつき，刑法２５条１項
７ 訴訟費用 被告人Ａにつき，刑事訴訟法１８１条１項ただし書（負担させ
Schwarzenegger signs, vetoes gay rights bills
California governor Aronold Schwarzenegger continued sending mixed messages to LGBT Californians when he signed into law three gay-positive bills but vetoed another.
On Thursday the Republican governor signed into law a bill that would make it more difficult for defendants to use the "gay panic" defense. The brutal 2002 murder of transgender teen Gwen Arajuo spurred the new legislation, called the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act.
"The enactment of this bill will help keep bias and hatred out of our courtrooms," said the bill's author, Democratic assemblywoman Sally Lieber, in a statement. "All Californians—regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or ethnicity—should be treated fairly by our criminal justice system."
Schwarzenegger also signed a bill that encourages equal treatment of gays and transgender people in political campaigns. The measure, called the Fair Employment and Housing Act, amends the voluntary pledge signed by candidates and campaign committees to fairly treat LGBT people.
The third pro-gay bill Schwarzenegger signed was the Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006, which will change housing laws to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Safe Place to Learn Act was vetoed by the governor. The bill would have strengthened existing state law by clearly prohibiting the bullying of LGBT students in California schools.
"Some California schools are choosing to ignore the current law prohibiting discrimination and harassment of LGBT students, and to veto a bill that would help enforce that law is shameful," said Geoff Kors, executive director of the gay advocacy group Equality California, in a statement. (The Advocate)
Schwarzenegger Signs 'Gay Panic' & LGBT Housing Bills, Vetoes School Bias Bill
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
September 29, 2006 - 3:00 am ET
(Sacramento, California) California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Thursday night making it more difficult for defendants to us the so-called 'gay panic' defense.
The bill grew out of the brutal slaying of transgender teen Gwen Araujo in 2002. At the trial of three men accused of punching, gashing, choking, tying up and strangling the 17 year old attorney's claimed their clients had panicked when it was discovered by two of the men with whom Araujo had sex that she was born biologically male. The three were convicted but it took two trials.
The Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act directs the Office of Emergency Services to create training materials for district attorneys on best practices to address the use of bias-motivated defense strategies in criminal trials. The bill also requires the Judicial Council to adopt a jury instruction that tells jurors not to consider bias against people because of sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics in rendering a verdict.
"The enactment of this bill will help keep bias and hatred out of our courtrooms," said Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D-San Jose) who authored the bill. "All Californians - regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or ethnicity - should be treated fairly by our criminal justice system."
The law was praised by Araujo's family.
"Since my daughter was killed, my family and I have spent literally thousands of hours working hard to make sure that California is a state where everyone is respected and treated fairly," said Sylvia Guerrero. "The Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act will really help us in our work."
Schwarzenegger also signed the Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006 which will standardize various California housing laws to specifically state that discrimination is prohibited based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex - including gender identity, marital status, sexual orientation, familial status and source of income.
"This bill significantly improves housing protections in California, while also affirming our state's role as the national leader in civil rights protections," said Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) the bill's author.
Additionally the governor put his pen to a bill encouraging fairness in political campaigns. The measure amends the voluntary pledge signed by candidates and campaign committees to include the groups and characteristics covered in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including sexual orientation and gender identity.
But in a move that infuriated LGBT advocates Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill aimed at curbing bullying in California schools.
The Safe Place to Learn Act would have strengthened existing state law prohibiting anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) discrimination and harassment in public schools.
"Some California schools are choosing to ignore the current law prohibiting discrimination and harassment of LGBT students and to veto a bill that would help enforce that law is shameful," said Geoff Kors, Equality California executive director.
"The governor is ignoring the needs of students who are teased and bullied because they are or are perceived to be LGBT. The governor claims to have spent most of his life fighting discrimination and teaching children about tolerance, yet he has vetoed every bill he has seen that would do just that."
Schwarzenegger in a statement said existing law was sufficient, something the bill's author, Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) disputes.
"The facts are that LGBT students are more likely than their peers to use drugs or to be victimized by violence, more than twice as likely to seriously consider suicide, and over three times more likely to carry a weapon to school or stay home because they feel unsafe," said Levine.
A survey conducted by the California Safe Schools Coalition found that students who are harassed based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity are more than three times as likely to report missing at least one day of school in the last 30 days due to feeling unsafe; are twice as likely to report depression and seriously consider suicide; and are more likely to have low grades, be victims of violence or use illegal substances.
Earlier this month Schwarzenegger vetoed a school bill that would have prohibited any negative portrayal of gays in textbooks and other instructional material. (story) The bill was an amended version of an earlier one that would have mandated the teaching of LGBT history in state schools that Schwarzenegger warned he would veto.
Last year Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California. (story)
Sydney Morning Herald
A faint banzai for Shinzo Abe
September 28, 2006
SHINZO ABE gained an overwhelming mandate from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to become Japan's new Prime Minister, but there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for him at home or abroad. Rightly so. Mr Abe is, at 52, the youngest Japanese prime minister of the postwar era, and is clearly intelligent, charismatic and articulate. But he has taken office in a resurgence of old-style powerbroking between his party's notorious factions, rather than a repeat of the election-winning prowess of his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.
In most democracies, Mr Koizumi's sweeping election win in 2004, which restored the Liberal Democratic Party's majority in the Diet, the Japanese parliament, would have kept him in office well into the future and intensified his economic reforms, which famously included a start on privatising the huge postal savings bank. Instead, after setting the completion of the postal reforms far off in 2017, Mr Koizumi rested on his laurels as his departure date - preset by party rules - loomed.
The first test for whether Mr Abe can translate internal party clout into electoral success will be in upper house elections next year. In policy terms, however, he represents a swing back to Japanese-style macho politics after a period when Japan seemed to be getting in touch with its feminine side, so to speak. That shift was symbolised by the likelihood that a female monarch would follow the present crown prince - but that prospect has vanished with the birth of a prince. Japan has also seen the rise of a new economic model - derived from the floating world of anime, manga comics and techno-pop - in place of the old one based on stagnating manufacturing and construction. Japan appeared to be escaping a sterile political and social syndrome that had threatened, among other things, a drastic population decline. It is to be hoped Mr Abe will not let the Government slip back into the grip of the old lobbies, which would see Japan's huge wealth, in the post office and pension funds, continue to be sequestered for obsolete industries and dubious projects in concrete. But the signs are not good, with his cabinet stacked with mostly older supporters, hallmarked by social conservatism.
It will be in foreign policy that Mr Abe produces fireworks. He has declared his intention to mend relations with Asian neighbours but stands on a "patriotic" platform that most Chinese and Koreans would see as reactionary. This includes veneration at the contentious Yasukuni Shrine, and explicit subscription to its apologetics for past militarism. Along with enforcing patriotic symbols in education and blocking reform of gender discrimination, the agenda sits uneasily with another declared policy of restoring Japan to "normal" status. This involves removing the limits on self-defence in Article 9 of the postwar constitution and lifting Japanese participation in military operations with the United States. This shift also embraces Australia and India as new strategic partners for a "democratic" axis in Asia, so its darker nuances will affect us. For Australia, which counts Japan as its biggest trading partner and has invested big in studying Japan, this is a time to stay interested and to do our best to nudge the Japanese in a benign direction.
Who’s Afraid of Shinzo Abe?
Article Tools Sponsored By
By YOSHIHISA KOMORI
Published: September 30, 2006
LAST Tuesday, Japan’s Parliament elected Shinzo Abe as its youngest prime minister since World War II. Some critics in Japan have called him a “hawkish nationalist,” but in fact, he — like the nearly 80 percent of Japanese also born after the war — has merely been shaped by democracy.
Mr. Abe in particular was also influenced by the course of Japan’s alliance with America. In 1960, the 6-year-old Shinzo Abe sat on the lap of his grandfather, Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, while thousands marched outside demonstrating against the first full-fledged security treaty between Japan and the United States. It was Nobusuke Kishi who guided Japan into the treaty, and opposition was fierce. Mr. Abe recalls that his grandfather remained calm while explaining to him that teaming up with America would be the best course for the Japanese people.
Forty-six years later, few Japanese would deny the wisdom of the alliance or the benefits it has brought Japan. The experience also taught Mr. Abe the value of having a long-term vision and the will to see it through.
Mr. Abe, as a junior politician, was catapulted from relative anonymity to national popularity by principled challenges to the status quo. In the early 1990’s he challenged the government by investigating the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea and supporting the efforts of their families to bring them home. Later, he was among the first Japanese political leaders to criticize China on issues of democracy and human rights.
In the wake of 9/11, Mr. Abe led the parliamentary effort to authorize cooperation with the United States’ war on terrorism. On all these issues, he initially encountered significant opposition within Japan, but ultimately won strong support from the majority of Japanese.
A significant part of Japan’s baggage over the last 61 years is related to its activities in China during the war. Although Japan accepted all judgments of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and other regional war tribunals, and signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, China in particular has aggressively pushed viewpoints that inflate and contradict those judgments. For years, Japan’s government stayed quiet to avoid denunciations of “whitewashing.”
Mr. Abe, while openly acknowledging and expressing remorse for Japan’s wartime mistakes and atrocities, was among the first politicians to question government silence on these escalating emotional and uncorroborated claims, and to point out that Japan’s postwar prime ministers have formally apologized to China more than 20 times for Japan’s wartime transgressions. Mr. Abe has said one of the new government’s priorities is improved relations with China, but noted that “it takes two to reconcile.” He looks forward to a China that can accept today’s democratic Japan.
For most of the postwar era, the Japanese sense of national identity was suppressed and condemned inside Japan. The flag and national anthem were kept out of schools and expressing pride in Japan was deemed “dangerous.” No one denies this was a result of the tragic and reckless war into which Japan’s misguided government had plunged the country.
But it went too far. Now, without forgetting the lessons of history, and with popular support, the government is swinging the pendulum from its post-war extreme toward the center.
The “hawkish nationalist” label has been adopted by some members of the Western press who seem uncomfortable leaving behind the 20th century and acknowledging Japan’s solid democracy, and likely derives from Mr. Abe’s willingness to tackle yet another postwar taboo: constitutional reform.
The Abe government’s plan to revise the Constitution is intended to fill gaping holes in national security. The postwar Constitution drafted by the American occupation authority imposed appropriate constraints meant to prevent Japan from rebuilding as a military power, but these constraints now impede legitimate national defense and peacekeeping activities.
Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, sent to Iraq as international peacekeepers, could not engage in combat under the Constitution; they had to be protected by Dutch and Australian forces. Nor could Japan help if America were attacked anywhere except on Japanese territory. North Korea’s recent missile launches over Japan, and China’s military expansion, including violations of Japan’s airspace and territorial waters, have only heightened the national feeling of vulnerability and now drive public support for constitutional revision.
Adhering to his grandfather’s advice, Mr. Abe will keep Japan’s future defense firmly within the framework of its alliance with the United States. Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, will find the popular new prime minister thoroughly modern and straightforward, and a trustworthy friend.
Yoshihisa Komori is the Washington correspondent and editor at large for the Japanese daily Sankei Shimbun.
New York Times
September 30, 2006
Rhode Island Couple Wins Same-Sex Marriage Case
By KATIE ZEZIMA
BOSTON, Sept. 29 — Same-sex couples who live in Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts, a Superior Court judge here ruled on Friday.
The judge, Thomas E. Connolly, ruled that because Rhode Island did not prohibit same-sex marriage by statute or in its Constitution, same-sex couples were allowed to marry in Massachusetts under state law.
“No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage,” Judge Connolly ruled.
The Massachusetts attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, said he would not appeal the ruling. Rhode Island’s attorney general, Patrick Lynch, said the marriages would not be valid in his state.
“This ruling does not authorize same-sex marriages in Rhode island, and it does not mean that Rhode Island will recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts,” Mr. Lynch said in a statement. “Only the Rhode Island legislature or a Rhode Island court can decide if same-sex marriage is valid in Rhode Island.”
Same-sex marriage was legalized here in 2004. But until Friday, only residents could be granted marriage licenses because of a 1913 law that prohibited the state from performing marriages that were not legal in the couple’s home state. The state’s highest court upheld that law last year after same-sex couples from six states challenged it.
The court ruled that same-sex couples from Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire could not marry in Massachusetts because same-sex marriage was expressly prohibited by statute in those states.
The court left the door open for residents of New York and Rhode Island, but the New York State Court of Appeals ruled shortly after that that same-sex marriage was not allowed under state law. With Rhode Island being the only state with no express prohibition of same-sex marriage, two Providence residents, Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, appealed.
“After a very long engagement, we are thrilled to be able to marry and provide our family with the legal protection and social recognition we deserve,” Ms. Becker said Friday. “As the parents of two wonderful young children, our desire to marry has always been with them in mind. We want them to feel their family is as worthy as any other.”
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case, applauded the ruling.
“At last the fence of discrimination has been removed at the border of Massachusetts and Rhode Island,” Michele Granda, the lawyer who argued the case, said in a statement. “Loving, committed Rhode Island couples can now affirm their relationships in the most public and respected way our society knows.”
Thousands march to demand better rights for gays, lesbians
More than 5,000 gay rights activists took to the streets of Taipei in a carnival-style parade Saturday to demand fair treatment for the island's estimated 1 million gay residents.
Shouting slogans and waving rainbow flags, the activists marched through downtown Taipei to a center where four lesbian couples were wed.
A pastor from Tong Kuang Light House Presbyterian Church conducted the ceremony, which Taiwan gay author Hsu You-shen and his U.S. partner Gray Harriman hailed as a great leap forward for gay rights on the island.
Hsu, 56, married Harriman in Taiwan's first gay wedding in 1996, which was attended by some 400 people.
"At that time only friends attended our wedding. But this time, there are not only friends and relatives, but also public figures like scholars, lawyers and legislators," he told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
"This shows that the gay community is more united and homosexuals have less fear of exposure," he said.
Saturday's gay pride march was the fourth held in Taipei and was organized by gay rights groups with backing from the city government.
Activists from China, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore took part in the parade.
Homosexuality is a taboo subject in Asia, where many people consider it an illness or abnormality, but in recent years Taiwan has shown greater acceptance.
In 2000, President Chen Shui-bian told two visiting US gay rights activists that being a homosexual was not a sin or an illness.
At Chen's instruction, Taiwan drafted a Human Rights Basic Law which abolishes the death penalty and legalizes gay marriage.
It the law is passed, it will make Taiwan the first country in Asia -- and the fifth in the world after the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada -- where gays can marry.
© 2006 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa
更新日期:2006/09/30 14:20 記者:記者邵冰如/台北報導
chicagotribune.com >> Editorials
Mozart and Islam
Published September 30, 2006
Earlier this week, a leading German opera house stirred a fuss by pulling the plug on its planned production of Mozart's "Idomeneo." Officials decided that a scene in which the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad is placed on a stool, along with those of Jesus and Buddha, was too risky. They'd received an anonymous threat last month and, fearing the wrath of insulted Muslims, yanked the opera from their schedule.
That decision angered many Germans--and not just opera fans. Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, the country's top security official, called the decision "crazy." German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned against "self-censorship out of fear." There were growing demands--including from some prominent German Muslim leaders--that the opera reinstate the performances.
Stung by the criticism, officials of the Deutsche Oper in Berlin announced Thursday that they may reinstate the production, if police can provide adequate security.
If there were some huge public event at stake--the Olympics, a political convention--the reaction would be swift and certain: We will not back down to terror threats. But it may be a series of smaller events--such as one scene in an opera in Germany--that determine if the modern world quietly buckles to the threat of terrorism.
No doubt the opera managers who made the decision were peering fearfully over their shoulders at what happened earlier this year, when some in the Muslim world reacted violently to a series of satirical and insulting cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper. More recently, Pope Benedict XVI ignited similar fury over a speech in which he cited a historical reference to Islam as "evil and inhuman." Maybe the opera managers recall that author Salman Rushdie had to live under an Islamic death threat for years because of a book he wrote.
In the face of a threat, they asked the director to cut the scene. He rightly refused. So the opera was canceled. That was a terrible mistake. The point of the scene, after all, was not gratuitous; it was that "all the founders of religions were figures that didn't bring peace to the world," a lawyer for the director said.
Self-censorship to mollify those who would practice violence in the name of Islam is self-defeating. Canceling an opera--or any other public event--bolsters the radicals' belief that the West can be intimidated and eventually defeated.
It's understandable that Deutsche Oper felt a threat to the safety of its players and patrons. It looks now that it will respond in the best way possible, by confronting that threat rather than succumbing to it.
Art offends some people. Books offend some people. Music offends some people. Newspapers offend some people. People choose to read or not, to listen or not, to go to the opera or not. Those choices cannot be made for them by those who are intent on doing battle with Western culture.