Johnny’s WEST Junta Nakama’s statements are waves “I wonder if it’s like this on TV in Kansai now …” –wezzy ｜ Wezzy

From Johnny’s network

Johnny’s WEST’s Naka Board aired Nov. 7 “Tell me! Comments made on” News Live Justice Mikata “(ABC Asahi Broadcasting) are asking for pros and cons.

In “Mikata of Justice” of that day, the debate in the Diet on the issue of the refusal to name an academic conference was resumed, but Junta Naka, who was asked to comment, said so.

The reason may need an explanation, but I can only tell that person (good). I think it is okay if you expose the reason why people get sick. Personally I think I should explain it to 6 people>

On the other hand, there were pros and cons on social media. While opinions posted by internet conservatives agree that “he really is” and “Johnny is smarter than academics and politicians”, fans said “I thought Junta-kun was smart.” “Don’t you understand the problem so much?” “I think now it’s like being on TV in Kansai, but I can’t accept comments at academic conferences.” “Junta Naka, I don’t know if you are busy studying. However, there are also negative reactions such as “I have no comment.”

In the middle, he said, “It would be strange if everyone would enter if they were chosen.” However, in 1983, the Council Education Committee responded to the revision of the Japan Academic Conference Law, and the Prime Minister’s Office at the time said. The Secretary of General Affairs said: “It is a recommendation system only for the form, and those who are recommended by the academic society will not refuse, we will name only the form as it is.” There is a strong view that the Kan administration should go through a corresponding process if it reverses this legal interpretation.

Additionally, the six academics who declined to be named this time have made critical comments on important bills from the Abe administration, such as the Specific Secret Protection Bill, the Security Bill, and the Security Bill. conspiracy in the past. Isn’t it because of the criticism? “The reason for this opinion is that the Kan administration has not made clear why it refused to appoint the six people, and the parliament has always responded inconsistently.

If the issue of refusal to name is publicized as is, researchers will not be able to make statements contrary to the intentions of the administration in the future, and there is the possibility that academic freedom will be impaired. To avoid this, the Kan administration must show not only the six people, but also the people, the specific reasons for declining the appointment.

1 2