Japan’s new social security and tax number system, known as the My Number system, began Monday with authorities sending 12-digit identification numbers to every resident in the country to prepare for their use from next year, while public concerns remain over leaks and abuse of personal information.
From around Oct 20 to the end of November, 55 million households, both Japanese and foreign, are expected to receive by mail temporary cards notifying residents of their individual numbers to simplify administrative procedures for taxation and social security.
Recipients who choose to use the scheme can apply for ID cards at municipal governments to be issued from January.
Ministries involved held a meeting on raising public awareness of the system. A Cabinet Office survey showed that most people did not know the system as of July and August, and municipalities and businesses have been slow in making preparations, such as updating computer systems.
Starting from next year, employers need to collect and manage the numbers of their employees and their families and put them on tax withholding certificates and other documents.
My Number legislation was enacted in 2013 with the aim of enabling tax and other authorities to discover tax evasion and wrongful receipt of welfare benefits more easily while simplifying administrative procedures for residents as well.
People’s bank accounts will be linked to the numbers on a voluntary basis from 2018, while the government seeks to make it mandatory in the future to strengthen its tax collection efforts.
But concerns have grown over the government’s handling of personal information under the system after massive personal data leaks from the Japan Pension Service following cyberattacks in May.
The Japan Federation of Bar Associations and various consumer organizations have also raised concerns that the system would increase government surveillance over individuals and invade their privacy.
No honest, decent or moral young person would ever want to go nearHarvard University, a corrupt and decadent institution run by depraved perverts. Harvard women are particularly notorious for their shameless promiscuity — one Harvard girl boasted of her “freedom to have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on” — which is a major cause of sexually transmitted diseases in the Boston metro area.
Sex with Harvard girls is such a health risk it’s a wonder any man smart enough to get into Harvard would do it. Of course, most men who attend Harvard are gay, which may substantially lower their risk of chlamydia. However, some Harvard women still claim to be victims of rape:
The number of rapes reported by students at Harvard University’s Cambridge campus “nearly doubled” between 2013 & 2014, according to an article in school paper The Harvard Crimson. This alarming info comes via the new campus-security report from Harvard police, compiled as part of federal Clery Act requirements. But like so much related to campus rape numbers, this seemingly drastic increase isn’t nearly as alarming as some will make it out to be.
First, it’s important to consider concrete sexual assault numbers, which were still quite low. In 2014,33 instances of rape were reported to either campus police, university officials, or local law enforcement by students at Harvard’s main campus in Cambridge, and one rape was reported at Harvard’s Longwood campus. . . .. The number of rapes reported at Harvard last year is up from 17 incidents in 2013, and 24 in 2012.
But as Ashe Schow points out in the Washington Examiner, six of the 2014 rape reports — nearly 20 percent — were determined to be “unfounded,” i.e. “false or baseless.” This leaves us with just 28 credible rape reports at Harvard last year. . . .
In any event, with a population of about 21,000 students, Harvard University’s rape rate for 2014 was about 0.13 percent, or one in every 750 Harvard students.
The campus-crime report does not include a gender breakdown for rape victims, but let’s just assume for the sake of further extrapolation that all 28 were women. Roughly half the Harvard University student body is women. If we count both graduate and undergraduate students, that’s a rape rate of about 0.27 percent for female Harvard students, or one in every 375 Harvard women.
There are about 6,400 undergraduate students at Harvard, and about half are women as well. If we assume all the reported rape victims were undergraduate women — a not baseless assumption, considering only one incident of rape reported between 2012-2014 took place outside of a residence hall (though of course these aren’t exclusively undergrad housing) — that leaves us with a rape rate of about 0.88 percent.
In other words, this worst-case-scenario assumption means that about one in 114 female undergraduates reported rapes at Harvard last year.
You can read the whole thing. The fact that there were six false rape accusations — officially determined to be “unfounded . . . baseless” — at Harvard last year does not surprise anyone who knows anything about Harvard girls, whose dishonesty is as notorious as their promiscuity.
Still we must confront the shocking allegation that Harvard is now admitting heterosexual men who are willing to have sex with Harvard women despite the well-known risk of chlamydia infection.
This suggests either a serious mental health crisis in Cambridge, or else these Harvard students are using powerful mind-altering narcotics that deprive them of their capacity for rational thought. Perhaps they are getting high on ether. As a famous journalist once observed, “There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.”
Whatever the explanation, any man accused of having sex with a Harvard woman should plead insanity, because he would have to be completely unhinged to do something as crazy as that.
“These women may even enjoy being beaten at times as a sign of love and concern.”
“Beating women is a form of education”
It is permissible in Canada to openly advocate violence against women and girls who exist in a specific target set. While leading white feminists write op-eds about the Prime Minister’s haircut, brown women are dying from forced suicides and 14 years girls are told they are unclean. Rather than protecting or building a better future for women, most Canadian feminists have become the Handmaidens to those who advocate a future society founded on the oppression of women.
The Federal Court of Canada recently decided that the wearing of niqab at citizenship swearing in ceremonies is legally acceptable. This decision signed off by Justice Gleason is a concrete step forward in cementing the oppression of women into the Canadian mosaic. Henceforth, the oppression of women and violence against them becomes more acceptable, guilded as it is by a patina of legal respectability. Segregation, beatings, female genital mutilation and honour killings (or perhaps we can say ‘Gleason Killings’ or ‘Gleason Violence’) have become increasingly acceptable as proponents of extremist Islam reverse the shift towards equality for women back towards their systemic and ideological oppression of women and girls. There is nothing, of course, in the Qur’an that requires women to be totally covered in society.
Supporters and advocates of violence against women and girls are further enabled by those who willingly and methodically suppress women, especially brown women, who cry out at their suffering and pain. It is perhaps appropriate in the Canadian context to call these enablers ‘Handmaidens’ to the advocates of violence against women and girls. This seems appropriate, as the worst of the enablers are often women (read white women).
Violence against women is a core reality of Islamist extremism. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Khomeneists, ISIS, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Wahabbi all share the common ideological belief that women are to be controlled as property and they have limited rights. Killing women and beating them is acceptable if they fail to appreciate to their “proper place” in their society.
Here in Canada, Islamicist extremists regularly and openly advocate violence against women. Ironically, police department individuals interviewed for this story are clearly aware of issues such as ‘forced suicides’ (ie honour killings and murders) and they have taken their concerns to superiors. While the (mostly white male) police department leaders appear to be supporting their front line officers, political support above them appears to be virtually non-existent. Brown women, especially if they are Muslim, do not rate the attention of municipal and provincial leaders.
A series of journalists, editors, government bureaucrats, social workers, politicians, multiculturalists and so-called feminists play the role of hand maidens to those who espouse violence. Their silence (complicity) appears to be driven by their own political correctness and cultural relativism. Castrated by fear and barren of will, they are too timid, fearful and cowardly to address the issue. Those who do try to speak out are silenced by artificial outrage or fake cries of racism and Islamophobia.
The Call to Violence: Beating Women Educates Them, They Enjoy It and Sex With Nine Year Old Girls is Fine
Those who call for violence against women and girls are not secretive or shy about it. They quite willingly advocate violence against women in public and do it even when they know they are being filmed. Even the most senior and better-known among them run webpages dedicated to descriptions of how and when to beat your wife.
Sex with nine year old girls is perfectly acceptable, they argue, as long as the rules for temporary marriages are followed. In Canada, you can advocate pedophilia and the statutory rape of nine year old girls, as long as you come from extremist Islam.
more at http://tsecnetwork.ca/2015/10/04/a-tale-of-the-handmaidens-violence-against-women-in-canada/
It’s now been eight years since Shawn “Jay Z” Carter was first sued for allegedly lifting an Egyptian tune for his mega-hit “Big Pimpin.” On October 13, he is scheduled to defend himself at trial. But the proceeding is potentially being delayed over what Jay Z’s side frames as the other side’s “gamesmanship.”
In court papers on Friday, defendants told the judge they’ve learned that the plaintiff, Osama Ahmed Fahmy — the nephew of Baligh Hamdi, whose composition “Khosara, Khosara” is at the heart of the copyright lawsuit — won’t be attending the trial. They say they were noticed that Fahmy was experiencing a “medical condition” and that instead of appearing live, Fahmy’s testimony would come via a six-year-old deposition.
This isn’t acceptable, they say.
“Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour gambit is an obvious attempt to avoid cross-examination at trial,” states the defendants’ legal brief. “It should not be sanctioned by this Court.”
In the lawsuit, Fahmy is asserting that Jay Z, Tim “Timbaland” Mosley, EMI, Universal Music and others don’t have rights to use “Khosara.” The defendants argue otherwise, pointing to a licensing agreement with an Egyptian outfit that had worked out an arrangement with Hamdi’s heirs. Old deal work, as well as an interpretation of a licensing contract under Egyptian law, will be the centerpiece of the liability phase of the trial, which is why Jay Z’s lawyers want him to appear in court.
The defendants’ lawyers say they received a “note ostensibly from a doctor in Egypt, yet written in English. Shockingly, the note is dated September 13, 2015 — three days before the September 16, 2015 pretrial conference. It states vaguely that Mr. Fahmy has a heart condition, that he is ‘currently’ unstable and that he cannot ‘travel by airplane for long distance.’ The note indicates that the Plaintiff’s condition is longstanding — there is no indication of new or recent changes which affect his ability to travel.”
The defendants are accusing Fahmy’s side of “concealing” this information until the very last moment before trial. They want to delay the trial so they can have a chance to depose him, or in the alternative, preclude use of the six-year-old deposition.
The plaintiffs likely need Fahmy’s testimony to demonstrate he held onto the rights to approve of use of “Khosara.” If they can show this, plus demonstrate that “Big Pimpin” is a copyright infringement and not fair use of “Khosara,” the trial would move to a damages phase where there could be discussion of Jay Z’s revenue over the past 15 years since his hit came out. This includes his concert deal with Live Nation, which the defendants have likened to the secretive Coca Cola formula.