BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Language and subjectivity

“Blasphemy” is a very subjective term. The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed referred to above were regarded by many as blasphemy, but to others they were a form of incisive commentary. (Badkhen A. 2006). Side proposition seems content to trigger a prosecution for blasphemy based on ideas of offence that might be confined to only a very small group of religious believers. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to determine how wide spread a sense of offense must be before a comment moves from being insulting to actively blasphemous. Zororastrian, Bahai and Yezidi religious communities exist in vanishingly small numbers in the UK, but members of each of these faiths have been subject to continual historical persecution. Should their experience of victimisation entitle them to more robust protection than the (relatively) large and wealthy Anglican church? Similarly, should the size of these communities mark them out as vulnerable, and deserving of some sort of legal advantage that allow them to more easily access the protection of anti-blasphemy laws? Religious groups can often become divided over the correct response to attacks and crises. If the guiding principle is what the recipients of a certain type of speech will find offensive, that will vary widely from person to person even within the members of a certain religious group. Legal responses to this conundrum would run the risk of appearing to be arbitrary and failing to properly represent the diversity of views within a religious community. Further opportunities for division and dissatisfaction may also arise during the process of making a complaint and assisting the prosecutors pursuing it. Cases will, necessarily be heard in public and will require participants to repeat the slanderous and controversial statements that caused such offence, possibly spreading them amongst a wider audience. The public nature of court cases may even make them attractive to individuals who wish to draw attention to offensive views linked to particular religions. This is problematic, because it would fail to provide guidance to citizens with respect to what the law requires of them. Blasphemy prosecutions would offer only the most cursory and indirect forms of redress to alleged victims of blasphemy. Moreover, discussions over the handling of blasphemy prosecutions would likely produce division with religious communities. Many believers might be reluctant to see the blasphemous statements that caused an official offensive reaction repeated in court.
Oppression within religious communities

While it is true that blasphemy laws could be open to misuse, this is also true of many other laws that are currently overseen by the state. Liberal democratic legal systems operate safeguards to ensure that laws cannot be abused or used for purposes at odds with fundamental democratic freedoms. On the whole the majority of countries around the world are fair and liberal place that maintain strict separation of judicial, legislative and executive competence. Their courts are capable of recognising vexatious claims and ensuring equality-of-arms between the state and defendants through mechanisms such as legal aid.  In totalitarian nations such as those described by the opposition if blasphemy laws did not exist, authoritarian states would simply find different ways in which to censor that which it deems unfit. In China where religious freedom is severely curtailed, free speech remains subject to significant limitations. It is misleading, then, to associate the intrinsic failings of a political system with a law that might attract opportunistic litigants. On the whole blasphemy law in liberal nations would be handled in a fair judicial manner.
Every nation should be allowed to respect its war dead

If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war.[1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does. [1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment, http://www.env.go.jp/garden/chidorigafuchi/english/
Freedom of religion

If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada.[1] [1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3677206.stm
Visits sour relations

The visits to the Yasukuni Shrine are mostly taken by the PR China and the Koreas as an opportunity to complain and bring up old wounds. Simply stopping visiting Yasukuni is not going to solve the fundamental problems in relations between these nations – disputes over Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima and Pinnacle Islands/Senkaku/Diaoyu or provide the demanded apologies over Japan’s World War II conduct which in any case when offered tends to be rejected as not enough.[1] Ultimately foreign relations between nations do not have to be linked to history; many countries put conflicting pasts behind them. If the other countries of North East Asia wanted good relations with Japan they would simply ignore these visits. [1] AP, ‘China dismisses Japanese apology for war aggression’, USA Today, 22 April 2005, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm
Makes Japan look militaristic

It is silly to argue that visiting a shrine makes a country look militaristic. Of course in most cases militaristic symbolism and militarism goes hand in hand but this is not the case here. Japan by its actions is not militaristic and no amount of visits to shrines will make it so. Japan is committed to a pacifistic constitution; Article 9 states “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.”[1] Despite flashpoints with all its neighbours only 25% of the Japanese public want to increase Japan’s defense capabilities – although this is rising.[2] It is notable that he Yashukan itself accepts that its position on the war is a challenge to the mainstream Japanese opinion.[3] [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html [2] Hayashi, Yuka, ‘As Tensions Rise, Pacifist Japan Marches Into a Military Revival’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2013, http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-279614/ [3] Yoshida, Takashi, ‘Revising the Past, Complicating the Future: The Yushukan War Museum in Modern Japanese History’, Japan Focus, 2 December 2007, http://www.japanfocus.org/-takashi-yoshida/2594
Separation of Church and State

The ruling in this case, as in others, was equivocal as it considered the problem to be that the visits by then Prime Minister Koizumi were in an official capacity. Koizumi put his name down as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi which the court considered made it official.[1] If the visits had been considered to be in a private capacity it would have been ok. Most cabinet ministers when visit emphasize that they go in as private citizens not as state ministers. [1] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4
Every nation should be allowed to respect its war dead

Every nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state.[1]   [1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/06/maos-birthday
Freedom of religion

Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century.[1]  Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish.[2] [1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035 [2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey, http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/oliver-cromwell
Is a domestic matter for each individual

The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”.[1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government.[2] [1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013, http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/dozens-of-politicians-expected-to-visit-yasukuni-shrine [2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607
Honouring war criminals is wrong

It is wrong to honour war criminals whose actions resulted in the deaths of thousands – or if you count the responsibility for the whole war in East Asia millions – of lives including the lives of Japanese citizens. The results were horrifying criminal acts. If Yasukuni is at all about remembrance then these individuals should not be enshrined and politicians certainly should not visit. Even Emperor Hirohito – Emperor during the Second World War – was opposed to their being enshrined. After the enshrinement of the war criminals in 1978 he stopped visiting the Yasukuni. He is quoted by Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita in his memoirs “At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba [the chief priest before the enshrinement] acted cautiously” However he questioned “What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son [the chief priest at the time of enshrinement], who is the current head priest? Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since.”[1] [1] ‘Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals’, The Japan Times, 21 July 2006, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2006/07/21/news/hirohito-visits-to-yasukuni-stopped-over-war-criminals/#.Ugz2DZKkrr4
Visits sour relations

The visits by senior Japanese politicians to Yasukuni are clearly a major issue in international politics that damages relations between Japan and its neighbours, particularly the People’s Republic of China and the two Koreas. Whenever ministers visit there is a round of recriminations this is often accompanies by cancelling discussions and visits as in april 2013 when South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se cancelled his visit.[1] South Korean President Park Geun-hye notes “If [Japan] does not have the courage to face its past and does not take an attitude of taking care of its partners’ pain, it will be difficult to establish trust to proceed toward the future.”[2] Diplomacy is about trust, Yasukuni undermines it. Even attempts to minimise damage by sending representatives, as done by Prime Minister Abe in August 2013, does not help repair relations with China responding “It does not matter in what form or using what identity Japanese political leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine, it is an intrinsic attempt to deny and beautify that history of invasion by the Japanese militarists”.[3] The only option is for all ministers to steer clear of the shrine and avoid sending offerings. It is not in Japan’s national interests for them to go. [1] ‘Seoul cancels summit over Yasukuni visits’, The Japan Times, 23 April 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/23/national/seoul-cancels-summit-over-yasukuni-visits/#.Ug4_3ZKkrr4 [2] ‘S. Korea’s Park: Japanese politicians hampering citizens’ efforts to promote trust’, The Asahi Shimbum, 15 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201308150089 [3] Mead, Walter Russell, ‘China & Korea Condemn Japan over Shrine Visit’, The American Interest, 15 August 2013, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/15/china-korea-condemn-japan-over-shrine-visit/
Makes Japan look militaristic

Ministers and MPs visiting Yasukuni makes Japan look much more militaristic than it really is. There are two reasons for this. The first is the class A war criminals who should not be honoured as it appears to be honouring their militarism. The second is that Yasukuni itself has an overt political mission that essentially promotes such militarism. In the Yasukuni’s museum the Yashukan Japan’s wars are portrayed as wars of liberation from Western colonialism and fights against bandits and terrorists[1] – exactly the same justifications used in World War II itself. The museum, and its close ties with the shrine, display the unreconstructed view that Japan was the victim of the Second World War not the aggressor. When politicians visit the shrine they are showing their support for this interpretation. This could be solved by making the museum much more balanced; admitting that Japan started the wars they were involved in, information about the massacres such as at Nanjing, and about some of the other horrors perpetrated such as the ‘comfort women’ and unit 731. [1] Kingston, Jeffrey, ‘It’s time Japan acted to end the war over Yasukuni Shrine’, The Japan Times, 14 August 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/08/14/commentary/its-time-japan-acted-to-end-the-war-over-yasukuni-shrine/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_ord=2
Separation of Church and State

In most modern democracies there is a strict separation of Church and State. This is the case in Japan just as in the United States of France. The constitution states “No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority” and bans the use of public money on any religious institution.[1] Lawmakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, visiting the Yasukuni shrine break this principle.[2] The constitutionality of visits has been challenged before and was ruled to be in violation of article 20 of the constitution (quoted above) by the Osaka High Court in September 2005.[3] Clearly no state should have senior members of the executive regularly breaking its own constitution. [1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html [2] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035 [3] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4
Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion

Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve. In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue. Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made. In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.[1] [1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations. http://industrialrelations.naukrihub.com/importance-of-collective-bargaining.html
Collective Bargaining is Especially Necessary in the Case of Natural Monopolies

Many public industries exist as public industries because they are natural monopolies. For example, rail travel, which is often public in Western Liberal democracies, is a sector in which it makes no sense to build multiple railway lines across the country, each for a different company, when one would simply be more efficient. A similar case can be made for things such as public utilities. As such, these sectors often only have a single, often public company working in that sector. In the case where there is a monopolist, the workers in the sector often have no other employers that they can reasonably find that require their skills, so for example, teachers are very well qualified to teach, however, are possibly not as qualified to deal with other areas and as such will find difficulty moving to another profession. As such, the monopolist in this area has the power to set wages without losing a significant number of employees. Further, in many of these industries strike action will not be used, for example because teachers have a vocational, almost fiduciary relationship with their students and don’t wish to see them lose out due to a strike.[1] [1] “Monopoly Power.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
Collective Bargaining is a Right.

Collective bargaining is a right. If the state allows freedom of association, individuals will gather together and exchange their ideas and views as a natural consequence of this freedom. Further, free association and free expression allows groups to then select a representative to express their ideas in a way that the individuals in the group might not be able to. In preventing people from using this part of their right to assembly, we weaken the entire concept of the right to assembly. The point of the right to assembly is to allow the best possible representation for individuals. When a group of individuals are prevented from enjoying this right then it leads to those individuals feeling isolated from the rest of society who are able to enjoy this right. This is particularly problematic in the case of public sector workers as the state that is isolating them also happens to be their employer. This hurts the way that people in the public sector view the state that ideally is meant to represent them above all as they actively contribute to the well being of the state.[1] [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1
Collective Bargaining is Not a Right

Collective bargaining is considered a right because of the great benefit that it provides. Specifically, whilst freedom of association might not allow people to be privy to the negotiation process, when a large enough group of people form together and make a statement regarding their opinion, it is profitable for those in power to listen to them. Collective bargaining in this situation is a logical extension of that. Given that public sector workers are intrinsic to the continued success of the state, it thus makes sense that the state gives them a platform to make their views in a clear and ordered fashion, such that the state can take them into account easily.[1] Further, the knowledge that such a right exists causes unions to act in a way which is more predictable. Specifically, a right to unionise with reduce the likelihood that state employees will engage in strike action. Under existing union law, groups of employees are able to compel a state employer to hear their demands, and to engage in negotiations. Indeed, they may be obliged to do so before they commence strike action. If the resolution were to pass, associations of state employees would be compelled to use strikes as a method of initiating negotiation. Under the status quo, strikes are used as a tactic of last resort against an intractable opponent or as a demonstration of the support that a union official’s bargaining position commands amongst the Union’s rank-and-file members. [1] Bloomberg, Michael. “Limit Pay, Not Unions.” New York Times. 27/02/2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/opinion/28mayor.html?_r=1