Law is not permitted only in form of law but in its genuine reason for human right necessity, lack of alternatives and in its thoughtful design of endeavor to avoid or minimize damage or restriction on others' human rights or welfare from the law.

(Note: the following is all the same to what I wrote for my another blog "Diary with Biscuit")

Sunny [#IMAGE|S58#][#IMAGE|S3#]Saturday in my flat 

Wasedacho Shinjuku Tokyo Japan

Woke up in the morning around 7AM

Tweeted a while with anger against the most unintelligent,unconstitutional,anti-international human rights and unlawful "law" passed the parliament last night

Law should be a provision that intends and is designed to materialize human rights in a manner which avoids damages to other human rights and welfare of others. Law can be permitted to set minimum restriction on human rights and welfare of others only when the law is required for immediate of necessary to achieve a vital goal of materializing or protection of others' human rights and welfare only in a manner which is thoughtfully designed to avoid any damage or inconvenient restriction imposed on others' human rights and welfare.

Thus it should be emphasized that law only can be permitted to set minimum restriction on human rights only when the law is the only measure to achieve the goal of materializations of human rights without any other alternatives if less restriction on human rights and thoroughly grounded with thoughtfully crystallized the meaning of the law in its texts stipulating specific action to be punished and specific restriction imposed on a person of suspected to involve in action stipulated in the law.

In the law the JP gov passed last night does not clearly articulate what is the reason of arrest because "specific secret" is a black box in which only each minister of each ministry can decide and acknowledge.

Then no one can argue as to whether the reason why s/he is accused of , which is not deemed as any appropriate procedures to restrict on human rights or proper genuine law. 

This law won't clarify the meaning if "specific secret" in which the law ban to publicly reveal or release.

Then no one can argue or can be appropriately notified about the reason of arrest or charges.

The reason of restriction on human rights, which is jailed for 10 years!maximum, in relation with which announcement of which "secret" nor when the "secret" is designated as "specific secret" legally banned to be revealed cannot be notified at all at any stage of the course of criminal procedures. So anyone can be arrest and charged with 10 year imprisonment at most without knowing that what you writing on the internet is against the law you to be charged with although the JP Gov explained that the law would not arrest anyone who would not be in the position to become to know the status of the contents of under legal protection by the law of banning its revealing.

So practically at the moment the persons who found themselves in difficult situation are journalists and public servants who are in the position to become to know what is "specific secret" as knowing or believing that the contents to be publicly revealed for achieving human rights and welfare contribution.

If in a year this absurd "law" is to be having effect on, it would be ridiculous a  communication between police and some to be under arrest as follows:

A person accused by the law can be only informed like " you are under arrest because you are revealing "specific secret".If you ask a police " I am under arrest on the grounds...what I revealed?" " You cannot argue the contents what you revealed" "What!?Then your conduct itself is opposing to international human right provisions! Do you know that?!" "?!?!?!"

On this regards, the law the gov passed last night is utterly opposite to the very basic definition of law to be.