Main Entry: claw hammer
Function: noun
1 : a hammer with one end of the head forked for pulling out nails
2 : TAILCOAT

and a term, “trailcoat”, has the meaning below.

Main Entry: tail·coat
Pronunciation: -”kOt
Function: noun
: a coat with tails; especially : a man’s full-dress coat with two long tapering skirts at the back

The article 19th of the constitution gives all people in Japan to enjoy their freedom of thoughts and belief. This can never be intervened by any restricstion as long as it remain inside of the people.

The matter is whether it is possible to put constrains over the freedom of thoughts and belief that are expressed outside of a person. This is also protected by the Article 21st of the Constitution, but this protection has certain limitations compared to what the article 19th proctect.

Regarding to the PM’s visit over Yasukuni Shrine, it is a freedom of thoughts that are expressed outside of a person. I am sure no one objects about this.

The naxt matter is if that of the public servant or a person who holds the public office can be constrained more than that of the private citizens. The Supreme Court of Japan says, that public servants’ rights can be constrained more than that of the private citizens on certain occasions such as rights to act collectively like “Strike” in Sarufutsu case.

However, in the Sarufutsu case, the matter was the conflict between the article 28th (right of workers to organize) and the article 21st. This canse cannot fully apply to a case of Yasukuni Shrine.

About the Yasukuni Shine, the Supreme Court sees that a matter before it is the Article 21st (freedom of Expression), the Article 20 (Separation of Religion and Politics). The courts adopt the similar measure of “Lemon Test”. The court consisters the act of a public office can be sucular purpose, the effect of the act can encourage or discourage certain religion, and can be an excessive entaglement. This tree steps can be considered comprehensively.This is called, “Purpose and Effect” Measure.

The Osaka High Court says that the PM’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in the past violated this measure since his way of visiting was more religious purpose(his way of praying such as paying sacred Shinto tree branch), and his visit accumulates a lot of attention to a Yasukuni Shrine and encourage its religious belief. As the assumption to apply this “Purpose and Effect Measure”, the court foud that the way of Koizumi’s visit such as using his official car, wearing a claw hammer, and writing down his name on the notebook of the Shrine is done as his official work.

So, this time, Koizumi paid attention to 2 things. One is not to be considered as his official work by wearing his usual suit inseatd of a claw hammer. The second one is not to be considered as religious purpose but secular purpose by walking the usual street to the Shrine that are publically open, and not writting down his nane on the notebook of the Shrine.

Considering these points, I think Koizumi did very well no matter how much Korea and China criticize his visit. I think all the matters in this issue in Japan is whether his visit is a violation of consitutional law. Korea and China’s demand cannot be inculde to a matter of constititonal review.

I am also quite surprised that how much PM Koizumi paid attention to the court opinion of the Osaka High Court. I was afraid if he would have ignored the opinion of the court, but clearly, he really paid attention to it. So, I do not think that his visit this time should not be criticized too much from non-legal aspects since his freedom to visit is protected by the constitution with constrains of the Article 21 (limitation of Freedon of Expression) and the Artcile 20 (Separation of Religions and Politics).

Japan COULD give in and try to get along with those two governments by caving, but for what purpose? To keep trade flowing? No way. Trade will flow irrespective of whether Koizumi goes to Yasukuni or not. But those governments, particularly China, need Japan to serve as a scapegoat, and if it’s not Yasukuni, then it’s textbooks, and if not that, it’ll be something else.

Japan will be a laughing stock if it continues apologizing for something it’s already corrected and for which NO APOLOGY IS NECESSARY - Japan has apologized on numerous occasions, has lived by its peaceful constitution, has established a free and open society, has contributed to the peaceful development of the global economy, all the while cooperating with its East Asian neighbors – what more can it be expected to do? Stop one guy from visiting a war memorial??? Come on, it’s a BS complaint, and Koizumi knows it.