Tokyo's Shibuya, Shinjuku join hands to tackle Halloween crowds

Waste of effort and time. Why don’t they do this for masuri festivals when people are drunk as skunks walking around the neighborhood. Shibuya is frankly boring anymore and shinjuku is filthy. All for nothing.

The mayors of Tokyo's Shibuya and Shinjuku wards said Monday they will work together to curb street drinking and rowdiness over this year's Halloween period amid a rise in overseas tourists.

The foreign correspondenta were probably chuckling at this pathetic political theater.

Then make a curfew.

Do a lockdown.

Ban public drinking nationally, at all those rowdy cherry blossom parties and matsuri too .

Manner posters are a sign of weakness.

Ikebukuro will see more Hallowing party goers.

over this year's Halloween period amid a rise in overseas tourists

Is the problem linked with inbound tourists. If not, no need to mention it.

My country does not have such restrictions. When some events do happen like that, the city staff does clean the streets the following day. Can’t Japan do the same, as they do it for matsuris ?

Have either of these two guys heard of Times Square in New York? How many thousands of people go there for New Years Eve. I'm pretty sure there is drinking going on during the countdown celebration. Just organize it, and let people have fun, not take the fun out of everything.

Have either of these two guys heard of Times Square in New York? 

They more than likely have. But they are probably thinking more closer to home for example the Seoul Halloween crowd crush

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Halloween_crowd_crush

Face it, the Halloween action in Shibuya has had it's day

I for one won't miss it

Shinjuku Ward Mayor Kenichi Yoshizumi, left, and Shibuya Ward Mayor Ken Hasebe are a sad reflection of mismanagement in office, unable or unwilling to understand the essential need to employ smart alternative solutions.

Those public spaces, especially Halloween, New Year, Christmas, weekends, could serve as a positive means to welcome, roll out that red carpet, in fact facilitate a means to bring a sometime forgotten ignored marginalized youth generation together, essential to combat depopulation.

A means to promote romanticism.

It is a shameful narrow mindset, irritating sneering exaggerated conformity, an over bearing adherence to an enforced puritanical orthodoxy.

Obsessive behaviour, a refusal to fully review alternatives

Excellent, down with the clowns..

Press Conference: Shibuya and Shinjuku Join Hands Against Overtourism and Halloween Street Drinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icaui3bibqA

What an appallingly negative message, scroll to 7:40

Drinking on the street has led to environmental damage including loud noise and littering,

Gimmie a break, more "environmental damage" is caused the other 364 days of the year in Shinjuku and Shibuya than on Halloween alone!

Stop shoveling the BS and just come out with it. You are annoyed that you have to pay to clean up the mess. Figure out a way to funnel everyone to a central location, make it into an "event" and promote the hell out of it. Ya'll make some serious cash no doubt!

The biggest problem with Halloween in Japan is that there is no "one spot" for people to get together to have fun, like other festivals.

These fellas look like an absolute bundle of laughs. Why not facilitate rather than try to shut down one of the area's largest grassroots events?

Waste of effort and time

The article makes it perfectly clear that this is not the case, last year it had a very strong effect as desired.

Why don’t they do this for masuri festivals when people are drunk as skunks walking around the neighborhood. 

How many reports have you seen of troubles because of traditional festivals in Shibuya and Shinjuku?

Do a lockdown.

Hyperbole to demonstrate your own point lacks merit?

When some events do happen like that, the city staff does clean the streets the following day. Can’t Japan do the same, as they do it for matsuris ?

If the locals don't see a benefit on holding the events why would they have to do it and clean up afterwards?

Just organize it, and let people have fun, not take the fun out of everything.

Or not, and let the people have their fun elsewhere. It is not like they are going to other wards to forbid things.

Shinjuku Ward Mayor Kenichi Yoshizumi, left, and Shibuya Ward Mayor Ken Hasebe are a sad reflection of mismanagement in office, unable or unwilling to understand the essential need to employ smart alternative solutions.

Not really, they are simply choosing the alternative that the locals want, even if you personally would like them to choose differently. No mystery here about who is the one that decide what to do.

*It is a shameful narrow mindset, irritating sneering exaggerated conformity, an over bearing adherence to an enforced puritanical orthodoxy.*

Not an argument, they are enforcing what the locals want, without any puritanical factor being involved, that is just an imaginary problem you like to pretend is happening here. The simple financial factors are more than enough to explain the ban.

Figure out a way to funnel everyone to a central location, make it into an "event" and promote the hell out of it. Ya'll make some serious cash no doubt!

Make a cost/benefit analysis and submit this to the local governments involved. I mean, it is easy to have no doubts from a terribly superficial look without having to think about security, safety, organization, etc.

The biggest problem with Halloween in Japan is that there is no "one spot" for people to get together to have fun, like other festivals.

Understandable since it is not really a tradition in Japan until recently, and clearly indicate the benefits you think are there are not enough to justify someone taking care of the nuisances, dangers and costs.

It is not a Japanese celebration but and invasive species. Like ponds are dried and invasive species are removed, do the same with Halloween.

Why don't we ask the young people what they want? It's their country too, isn't it?

If we are going to go this far, ban the drinking and large crowds at Hanami events in certain areas. It really makes it hard to enjoy the blossoms when there are drunken people all over.

Why don't we ask the young people what they want? It's their country too, isn't it?

Because then you can impose their will about what the locals want? What if we ask young people if they want to party at your house every day?

virusrex,

The photo is toe curling, negative, not a single positive sentence,

The narrative to politicize, trample over quote, 150 people were killed in a crowd crush that occurred on Oct. 29, 2022, in Seoul's Itaewon entertainment district, proven to be a failure to manage access to a area recognised for its steep narrow confined entertainment district.

Is a gross macabre misrepresentation of the facts.

A deluge of sanctimonious melancholy, personified

An opportunity to offer a alternative, a smart positive solution is beyond these two incompetents.

Resign, move over,

Lets bring in public private partnership organisational teams, recruit directly from the local hospitality industry.

If we are going to go this far, ban the drinking and large crowds at Hanami events in certain areas. It really makes it hard to enjoy the blossoms when there are drunken people all over.

I assume you know why this will never happen!

The photo is toe curling, negative, not a single positive sentence,

Not a single part is an argument that refutes the ones that clearly show your position is not valid.

Is a gross macabre misrepresentation of the facts.

Yet you fail to argue any misrepresentation, just call it that way, as if that was enough to prove it. In reality not identifying any part in the sentence that is misrepresented proves the opposite.

A deluge of sanctimonious melancholy, personified

Still not an argument, and a claim already debunked. The locals don't want the problem, nothing sanctimonious nor melancholic about it.

An opportunity to offer a alternative, a smart positive solution is beyond these two incompetents.

That is understandable the moment you fail to prove there is a realistic alternative that don't come with more complications and expenses. It is like someone saying that there are a 100 places more suitable for public halloween parties in Tokyo than Shibuya and Shinjuku... but can never name any of those places.

Lets bring in public private partnership organisational teams, recruit directly from the local hospitality industry.

You mean the ones that profit much more from having people drink and eat in their shops than in the street? how many have you found saying that they would be happy to take responsibility from organizing those events? I mean, the local hospitality industry is precisely the one that the local government is representing here.

They need to overtly tell Japanese people this. There is this weird overt hypocrisy of pointing towards foreigners for this mess, but look at any video and you know the fact that it’s Japan, and it’s almost always young Japanese people who’ve never left the house going nuts on this day.

Normal people were going out for drinks and checking out the costumes. Then you get a bunch of the kids who have never been to a party before being influenced by their internet image of a huge party on the street loosing their mind and the situation creates itself based on assumption over reality.

Its so weird they a hundred other counties having Halloween celebrations don’t have this issue but Japan… hmm

Halloween is lame anyway. Just an excuse for people to forget about their miserable daily lives by dressing up and getting sloshed.

Japan will be covered in signs and everyone would need to photoshop them out of their pictures.

Because then you can impose their will about what the locals want? What if we ask young people if they want to party at your house every day?

I'm keen.

In Kochi Halloween, Christmas, New Year it is a time to fully take advantage of outdoor spaces for themed events.

Fireworks, family orientated, yes wine and food, invite friends.

For Girls/Guys to congregate together to grow relationships.

virusrex, I cannot believe comprehend your despondency.

virusrex, I cannot believe comprehend your despondency.

The arguments used are the ones that clearly disprove your claims. When you give up trying to argue against these arguments and instead reduce yourself to make personal attacks you are also implicitly accepting you could not refute any of them, so you instead begin calling names as if this in any way made those contrary arguments disappear.

They don't, the position of the local governments is still justified by prioritizing the wishes of the local people above some supposed better option that you want to think must exist.

I understand the frustration with the mess but kind of feel like a little wild socializing once in a while should be okay. Those of us with no interest won't go. Those who like it will go.

The Seoul equivalent of Center Gai has food stalls all down the middle. It also has a banner across the street saying "just hand your garbage to any stall". I don't understand why Japanese are so incapable of dealing with garbage. The rest stops on expressways, which are very expensive to use, have big signs moaning about people dropping off too much garbage. If the highway authority is short of funds, it should employ fewer amakudari.

That said, there are lots of issues around Halloween. Japan may have a rep for cosplay, but is poor at providing spaces for folks to get changed or apply makeup. The standard solution is to use the toilets in a department store, basically freeloading which messes them up and obstructs the stores' regular customers. I get the impression folks riding the trains in full costume is not welcomed either (from what cosplay events say).

virusrex

I don't do, approve, succumb to personal attacks, such behaviour is deplorable.

Subject matter first foremost every comment.

I am simply enquiring into your reasoning logic,

It is a friendly gesture, nothing more.

To understand your position.

I am sincerely sorry you feel I am making a personal attack, I can assure you that is not the case at all.

My country does not have such restrictions. When some events do happen like that, the city staff does clean the streets the following day. Can’t Japan do the same, as they do it for matsuris ?

I don’t get why they can’t learn to make this benefit everyone ? It could be one of the biggest events in Japan. People love cosplay, people love Japan , why not just make it happen. This place ceases to amaze me sometimes.

 It could be one of the biggest events in Japan. People love cosplay, people love Japan , why not just make it happen. This place ceases to amaze me sometimes.

Please stop trying to impose something to this country. This is an American "event" that does not match with the Japanese culture. And it does not seams that they want it (see the article).

This is an American "event" that does not match with the Japanese culture.

Actually it's an Irish/Scottish event.

What Japanese culture? If you are talking about miserable old oyajis, maybe, but it matches with many, many young Japanese people.

It's not a legal ban as it's not legal.

Just a pathetic request.

Enjoy yourself and be safe when partying and enjoy a drink, outside - if you want.

It was only a matter of time. Next will be banning street drinking everywhere.

It was a charming point to wander around sightseeing with a few drinks in hand from conbini's along the way. But yeah...just like other countries some people can't do things peacefully, so it prohibited for all.

If the Japanese were keen, they'd do a 'Yokai' festival in Obon and celebrate their own culture. But then again, many people i meet don't even know their own culture. Hahaha!

Put beer in your coke can !

Arrest the few youngsters that will make rowdy actions, as in any other major event if needed.

Shibjuku and Shibuya want the cake and eat it.

Using fear about a Seoul event which has nothing in common to deter people to enjoy together.

So hypocritical but no surprise from oyajis.

Be alive and modern sometimes !

I don’t get why they can’t learn to make this benefit everyone ? It could be one of the biggest events in Japan.

The problem is not that they can't learn how to make this work, but that they are not interested in having it on the first place, if the locals are not interested there is no point in forcing the event onto them.

I'm keen.

You can probably begin distributing flyers in Shibuya and Shinjuku from now then to let people where you can host them.

It's not a legal ban as it's not legal.

Is as legal as the one last year, and since it was successfully implemented then probably it will also be this year as well.

Enjoy yourself and be safe when partying and enjoy a drink, outside - if you want.

In any of the places that have not made evident their displeasure with people doing that.

Shibjuku and Shibuya want the cake and eat it.

Definitely not, neither localtion have said they want the meagre economic benefit but not the problems, dangers and nuisances of the event, they want it to be hold elsewhere, the good and the bad together.

And the whole point is that people want to have their fun without any hassle or complications, so saying that they can still do that as long as they do it in a complicated way is self defeating.

Using fear about a Seoul event which has nothing in common to deter people to enjoy together.

Multitudes in uncontrolled crowds? that is plenty in common. To avoid having the same tragedy it is necessary a big investment on safety measures and deal with many other problems that the locals simply don't consider worth the effort. So instead of just letting crows without providing safety they choose to restrict the event so people will do it safely wherever the locals are interested in providing that.

It's as legal as the one last year, and since it was successfully implemented then probably it will also be this year as well.

Yes, which has no legal basis. Mayors cannot create laws in Japan.

You can follow an ordinance or request - if you want.

But you don't have to.

Bullies can threaten you and you can do what they say, but it has no legal weight if you don't.

Just doing what someone outside of their jurisdiction is doing or trying to say you must do, against your wishes - is pandering to bullies.

Hence a request is not a Law.

Furthermore, no penalties are able to be legally enforced by any of these kinds of requests.

In fact a police officer or security guard is opening themselves up to harassment claims in trying to enforce, which in essence, are harassment requests of others, for people just going about their daily lives under the Law.

Here is how Laws are made in Japan: https://www.clb.go.jp/english/process/

You can follow an ordinance or request - if you want.

But you don't have to.

Looking at the results of last year people do it.

Bullies can threaten you and you can do what they say, but it has no legal weight if you don't.

Just doing what someone outside of their jurisdiction is doing or trying to say you must do, against your wishes - is pandering to bullies.

Not bullies, locals that do not appreciate people going to their ward to do something when explicitly telling them it is not desired. Bullies would be the ones that go to your place to make a party even when you explicitly you tell them you don't want them to. In this situation you are on the part of the bullies.

Furthermore, no penalties are able to be legally enforced by any of these kinds of requests.

Yet they are effective, which again has to do with people being there precisely because there was no complication with partying like that, an appeal that is lost even without jail or fines involved. The same desire to avoid this kind of trouble is what brought people to Shibuya and kept them away last year.

In fact a police officer or security guard is opening themselves up to harassment claims in trying to enforce, which in essence, are harassment requests of others, for people just going about their daily lives under the Law.

How many claims were made last year? none? that completely defeats the argument.

Kaowaiinekochanknaw

Maybe you are a lower or something but in Japan you are a guest. You better obey the rules or you will not stay long here.

Looking at the results of last year people do it.

This fails to prove that it's a Law.

Yet they are effective, which again has to do with people being there precisely because there was no complication with partying like that, an appeal that is lost even without jail or fines involved. The same desire to avoid this kind of trouble is what brought people to Shibuya and kept them away last year.

Again. This fails the argument that it's a Law.

Maybe you are a lower or something but in Japan you are a guest. You better obey the rules or you will not stay long here.

Thankyou Wasabi for your advice and concern.

So-called "manners" are one thing. - Nobody needs to obey them, if they don't agree with them. Especially if rhey make no sence and are coersion from bullies.

Laws are different. People need to obey them for visa status.

I have been here long enough to know the difference.

This fails to prove that it's a Law.

It does not need to become a law, that is the point. As long as it has the desired effect there is no problem and it was effective last year so it is reasonable to expect the same this year.

The only one that thinks it needs to be a law to be effective is you, and you have not argued how this is the case, specially since it was not a law before either yet it was successful.

So-called "manners" are one thing. - Nobody needs to obey them, if they don't agree with them. Especially if rhey make no sence and are coersion from bullies.

Buillies are again those that want to impose their presence and problems to the locals even when they are openly told that they are not well received. A big hint is that bullies are the ones that make an appeal to their ability to act offensively and without manners when going to a place well knowing they are harassing the locals by doing it.

Send in the clowns….

Instead of organizing it as an event, in a location where they can control the crowds, sell permits for the food trucks to sell food and drinks, use the money from permits to pay for public toilets, and garbage cans.

Also Local town groups can sell food and drinks like they do at O-Edo bon festival and raise money.

Edo O-bon, A festival where heaps of people are drunk watching people in costumes dance around. Sounds pretty much try same. Also it is very noisy, but no one shuts it down. This year it had a LOT of tourists too. They sold out of all the booze!

I have attended the O-Bon festival for 25 years, and love it.

They could make a Halloween event that makes money and fun for everyone! But no…. Just be a party pooper!

virusrexToday 02:51 pm JST

The correct answer is that Yes, it is a Law. Or to be more accurate, a Legal Act. As an ordinance, it doesn't have the rank of statute, and its effects are limited to the wards enacting it, but it does have legal effect and changes your legal rights and obligations even if a penalty is not specified.

The first effect is that Japanese tend to be deferential to authority. If the government declares clearly what's right and wrong, many (as many as 75% in this case) Japanese will just obey even if it's not what they want to do or even if they think the rule is as absurd as school rules about black hair.

The second effect is how it affects the police. In declaring what's right and wrong, it decides the "correct" police response in case of any dispute between a Halloweener and a local. Without this law the police may indeed fear harassment. The law clears him of that - in fact it tells him he needs to press the Halloweener to desist. While violating the ordinance does not have direct legal penalties, if the Halloweener fails to comply he runs the legal risk of violating the criminal prohibition for interfering police in their duties.

The third effect is how it affects the outcome of any civil lawsuit, again because of the declaration of right and wrong.

Both measures do not carry penalties.

So what's the point?

Plod: You! Stop drinking!

Yobbo: No!

Plod: Okay then

It's a total waste of money and effort.

So what's the point?

It affects the conduct of the people, and for that you can read the comment posted 30 minutes before yours.

If the whole point of the event is that people can go and drink without worries and troubles then the simple fact that the ban is in effect eliminates this scenario in Shibuya and Shinjuku, so people that want to have this kind of fun can go to any other place where they are not continuously asked to stop drinking. It worked last year, it is simply much more likely to work this year as well.

I can understand the city officials actions. Over consumption of alcohol by the Japanese at venues and in public is a big problem in Japan. I was at an Oktoberfest event in Kobe on Saturday. By 8pm some Japanese had passed out or vomited on themselves and the tables. One drunken man had decided to go topless and tried to take selfies with the unimpressed staff.

Virusrex

While I generally agree with 95% or so of what you write (thanks for being a voice of reason on Covid, etc etc.) on this one, I don't really see it the way you do.

You keep repeating things like

The locals don't want the problem

Do we have any data on that? Yes, I know how it works, they elect an assembly, the assembly votes, they represent the people, so in that sense yes. But are there any opinion polls on that?

Now I would make a distinction between Halloween and the new ban now. Halloween, ok, after the truck incident years ago, was clear that something had to be done. Interesting that Hasebe said that they tried with Yoyogi park, but that of course people want to take their picture with the scramble crossing and center gai, so go there anyway. Makes sense, hard to move it. And makes sense to try to get rid of wild "Halloween in Shibuya". (Actually it might be easier to just get rid of the scramble crossing, that's what attracts tourists to Shibuya in the first place, build an overpass, covering the whole intersection, put Hachiko up there too and be done with that)

But the rest of the year? Now I'm not in Shibuya in the evening all that often, but I really haven't noticed any big difference in public drinking (or in general, except of course Yamashita Koen where now you feel on a different planet if you're over 25 years old) compared to 20 years ago. The mayor in the FCCJ press conference said street drinking in center gai increased from 250 per day one year ago to up to 721. After the ban on the weekend 217. That's per day and to be honest I don't really see the problem even with the higher number. Do the locals? Specifically the businesses in center gai and the people that walk through going home? Not the person living in Sasazuka,

To me the ban seems pretty pointless, it's a solution to a non-existing problem. Or a very very minor problem.

Overtourism? First, overtourism in Japan in some cases could also be called "underservice".

On Halloween then I would guess the vast majority of foreigners that go to Halloween are residents. 1) Japanese 2) Foreign residents 3) Tourists With tourists likely increasing the longer it goes on. But when years ago I was forced to walk through center gai by a bunch of my wife's japanese friends, that wanted to see the zoo on Halloween, the vast majority were Japanese, that was unlikely to change. The connection to overtourism is very weak I think.

Street drinking in general. 2/3 foreigners Hasebe said, on some weekdays Japanese the majority, of course the data since the ban is basically non-existent and not very representative, he never really makes clear if he's talking averages, maximum etc. either. And yes, that's probably in large part tourists. But again, 721 people drinking on a street in a day, I fail to see the problem. They are loud? Center gai IS loud. Shibuya IS loud. The trash? Underservice, I don't think there's a law against trash cans on the street, I don't think they couldn't divert some of these great silver jobs that patrol the street with anti-smoking signs, check for illegal bike parking to trash bag changers. The tourists drinking block the street? First part of center gai is basically pedestrian, don't see the big problem. But yes, can happen, but it's not like Shibuya is the perfect place for speed walking anyway, if it's not public drinkers it's people taking pictures, high school students hanging out.

As for Shinjuku and Halloween. 3000 people came, IMO that would be no problem. But can understand that they don't want to get it started, this year 5000, next year 20'000 etc. The trash, Kabukicho is the last place in Japan that can complain about trash really. Ok, is cleaner than it used to be 25 years ago, but still. But can see they don't want to see it grow, makes sense. So block now.

So while I understand the Halloween issues, the yearlong drinking ban to me looks like an overreaction to a not really existing problem. And when Hasebe says that he wants to ask the Japanese government for a national ban on street drinking, sorry, that's just absolutely idiotic. Yes, used to live in Meidaimae, Friday evenings coming home used to be a hurdle course, in front of the station step over collapsed Meiji students and their puke, but in general public drinking in Japan simply isn't a problem. Conbini close to where I live has the occasional people, group of friends, couples in their 50es, almost any demographic really, sitting on nearby benches enjoying a cold beer in the 95% summer evening humidity. They don't bother anybody, puzzling that they prefer the humidity to the nice air conditioning at home, but as long as I'm not forced to join...The idea to forbid stuff like that is just idiotic. And it really wouldn't solve any problems with drunkeness, that do exist, either. It's not like if you get drunk in a bar you're then calmer on the way home.

Argh, wrong quote above, the following shouldn't be quoted, my comment.

Do we have any data on that? Yes, I know how it works, they elect an assembly, the assembly votes, they represent the people, so in that sense yes. But are there any opinion polls on that?

Lame.

Ah the old “foreign tourist” trope….the majority of people out on the streets at Halloween are young Japanese.

kabukicho has a real cheek….THIS is what they are clamping down on in their seedy AF area?!?

But the rest of the year? Now I'm not in Shibuya in the evening all that often, but I really haven't noticed any big difference in public drinking (or in general, except of course Yamashita Koen where now you feel on a different planet if you're over 25 years old) compared to 20 years ago.

The locals obviously are in the place continuously, and they are the ones saying this is a problem, but you think that someone that is not even there that much have a better idea than them about how serious it is? that makes absolutely no sense. The local government is representing the locals, specially those directly affected, it defies logic that your argument is now that they should do things according to how you perceive things and not them. Have you seen any report about the local business complaining the local government is doing something that they disagree with? no. That is because this is not the case.

To me the ban seems pretty pointless, it's a solution to a non-existing problem.

This is more indicative of lack of empathy than an actual lack of a problem. The locals are the ones that support the measure, they obviously think there is a problem even if you, completely on the outside can be free from it. They have a problem, enough to make the local government do something about it.

Overtourism? First, overtourism in Japan in some cases could also be called "underservice". *

The locals have a problem with specific actions by the visitors, so they ban these specific actions. They have no need or desire to accommodate things to allow the visitors to engage in public drinking since it brings no benefit for them, so why pretend they have to do it? It is not underservice when the site is not offering that service and it is just making that clear.

Street drinking in general

And ban in general, for everybody no matter from where they come. The action itself is problematic not from where is the people doing it, so the action is the one being prohibited. You keep trying to see the problem as if the locals were obligated to do anything, that is not valid. The measure obviously is going to make people avoid going to Shibuya and Shinjuku to drink on the streets, that is not a problematic side effect but actually the objective of the measures.

So while I understand the Halloween issues, the yearlong drinking ban to me looks like an overreaction to a not really existing problem.

We have two sides on this, on one side is the local government that we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population (since that is the general situation and there is no source that contradicts this assumption) on the other hand we have you that have limited experience on the problem. It should be very clear which side actually knows if this is a problem or not.

And when Hasebe says that he wants to ask the Japanese government for a national ban on street drinking, sorry, that's just absolutely idiotic.

Why? he is free to do it, specially when he sees benefits when doing locally. If as you say this is not a problem except on certain locations it will not result in a national (or even Tokyo only) ban, but for all anybody knows there are a lot of localities where it is actually a problem and the petition gain traction because the problem was there all along, just not recognized.

It's not like if you get drunk in a bar you're then calmer on the way home.

But then someone else can be made responsible for letting the costumers reach this state, making it more difficult for people to get drunk out of their wits

This is only going to benefit dealers in illicit substances. The mayors seem to be unaware of Tokyo's growing drug problem. At least alcohol is legal.

Over consumption of alcohol by the Japanese at venues and in public is a big problem in Japan

I narrowly escaped some projectile vomiting on the Yamanote line a couple of weeks ago.

TBH, Virusrex, my sympathy is with the Halloweeners as well. A democracy is more than a 51-49 race where the 51% gets all their way and the 49% loses everything.

At least 60,000 people want this event. Most of them are Tokyoites because only the most dedicated would go hours by train just to partake in a Halloween event. That's nearly the population of a ward (OK, it's the smallest ward, Chiyoda, but still). However, they are dispersed all over the millions living in Tokyo, so in no place do they control a ward. Does that mean it is right that their views (or events) are effectively suppressed?

If Tokyo had no wards, and 60000 people petitioned the Tokyo Metropolitan government to hold a one-night event, don't you think the Metropolitan government should try to grant the request, just as it would be expected to for a demonstration or protest? It's even probable the people of Shibuya would agree in the abstract (since we are trained to have democratic values from young), as long as it is held Anywhere but Shibuya.

And when it grants the request, one spot or another would be "assigned" the event and thus suffer its holding. Perhaps the assignment would even be made based on the preferences of the Event Holders. But I think few would say it's wrong of the Tokyo government to answer the pleas, even if one area had to suffer for a night (just as it would suffer for a protest).

So, why should the presence of regional autonomy lead to a situation where these 60,000 people would be shafted, because any ward can flaunt its "autonomy" to ban the same event?

Constitutionally, this case bumps into Article 13 (right to happiness) and Article 19 (concerning assembly - this is still an assembly, you know). One reason we have a constitution is so that the majority doesn't just roll over the minority in voting, and a dispersed minority isn't forced to congregate into one ward just to have an inch of real say. I'd thus argue it is an abuse of discretion on the part of the ward level governments, even if we agree they had popular support on this specific point rather than them being chosen because they were the least disgusting of the candidates.

The English is pretty prominent on those signs. Target audience and usual scapegoat.

The locals obviously are in the place continuously

Actually they are not, since most of them leave the area where the ban now is in place as well. Or do you have any data suggesting that there's people who are in center gai and surrounding areas 24/7?

> The local government is representing the locals, specially those directly affected,

The first part I mentioned in my post myself, good to see you agree. There was no need to repeat it though, since I made it clear that I was interested in data or opinion polls by actual residents, businesses in the area. Not their representatives.

This is more indicative of lack of empathy than an actual lack of a problem.

Not necessarily. That's just your interpretation.

The locals are the ones that support the measure, they obviously think there is a problem even if you, completely on the outside can be free from it. They have a problem, enough to make the local government do something about it.

Again, are you aware of any opinion polls on Halloween and street drinking in general that shows that the people, not their representatives actually have a problem with it? I'm not aware of any, but then I haven't looked for it long and Japanese reading skills aren't all that great either anyway. You keep stating with certainty that they have a problem. Why should we take your statement, that of a completely unaffected outsider, as representing the residents/businesses in the area? You're right, we shouldn't.

> The locals have a problem with specific actions by the visitors, so they ban these specific actions. They have no need or desire to accommodate things to allow the visitors to engage in public drinking since it brings no benefit for them, so why pretend they have to do it? It is not underservice when the site is not offering that service and it is just making that clear.

We're still in that circle. The claim that the locals have a problem with it at some point needs to be supported by some evidence. I'm not claiming there isn't, but as an outsider I don't feel comfortable simply assigning the locals an opinion. As you do.

The claim that public drinking brings no benefit btw is highly doubtful as well. Don't forget you're an outsider too, just because you claim something without substantiating it doesn't make it true. I can see benefits from public drinking to the local economy. Outsider? Yes, but interestingly enough I can see the same benefits where I live, not an outsider.

The measure obviously is going to make people avoid going to Shibuya and Shinjuku to drink on the streets, that is not a problematic side effect but actually the objective of the measures.

Obviously? In an answer to "street drinking in general". Do people now go to Shibuya and Shinjuku specifically to drink on the street? Or do they enjoy a drink on the street when they are there anyway? If it's the latter then what you just wrote is utter nonsense. Your phrasing implies Shibuya has no problem with people drinking on the street as long as they don't come to Shibuya for that purpose. I can assure you, even as an outsider (like yourself) that this isn't the case. This answer btw is indicative of a lack of understanding of what the measure is for. It's not there to have people not come to Shibuya to drink on the streets, but to have people not drink on the streets in Shibuya. Different things. Please inform yourself a bit before commenting.

> We have two sides on this, on one side is the local government that we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population (since that is the general situation and there is no source that contradicts this assumption) on the other hand we have you that have limited experience on the problem. It should be very clear which side actually knows if this is a problem or not.

Just between us, from outsider to outsider so to say, the whole "you're an outsider so you don't know" smells like avoiding the actual arguments or opinions of the other side. As stupid as my opinion might be, not being a resident of center gai (does that even exist) doesn't invalidate it. 721 people a day drinking in public to me simply doesn't seem a problem, instead of telling me "your opinion doesn't count" you could have told me why you think it is, or why you think the people of Shibuya think it is. Or simply disagree and tell me I'm an idiot. All more honest then "outsiders don't count".

As for "we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population". That's a bit of a slippery slope, since then every decision by democratically elected parliaments gets the same treatment. It's what the people want. Western governments not doing enough against global warming? Can't criticize it, it's what the people want (We're all stake holders? Well, only people that can't vote in any national elections then are allowed to criticize those decisions, since we can and hopefully do vote in our elections and then have to accept that our opinion is the one that's being implemented.) Tax hike? It's what the people want. State funeral for Abe? It's what the people wanted. Helmets on bicycles? It's what the people want (but weirdly enough don't do)

Why? he is free to do it, specially when he sees benefits when doing locally. If as you say this is not a problem except on certain locations it will not result in a national (or even Tokyo only) ban, but for all anybody knows there are a lot of localities where it is actually a problem and the petition gain traction because the problem was there all along, just not recognized.

Being free to do it doesn't mean it's sensible. I am free to pee beside the toilet at home, but it certainly would be idiotic and far from sensible. I wasn't commenting on his right to do it, but on how sensible it is. And stand by it's idiotic.

Second sentence, do you have an actual quote where I said that it's not a problem except for certain locations? No, you don't, so kindly refrain from changing what I said.

For all anybdy knows there are a lot of localities where it is a problem? After telling me quite a few times that as an outsider I don't really know what's going on, now you claim it's a problem in a lot of localities? I assume you're an outsider in all of them, except maximum 1, so ehm, well, some consistency? Applying your (weak) logic from the Shibuya example, since all those other localities DON'T have a ban in place, the non-ban represents the wishes of the people (we can validly assume according to you) so there actually are NO other localities except Shibuya where it is a problem.

> But then someone else can be made responsible for letting the costumers reach this state, making it more difficult for people to get drunk out of their wits

No idea if that's the case in Japan. And being drunk out of their wits btw is not forbidden, that I know, it's the behaviour when drunk that can be illegal. The same behaviour would also be illegal if you're completely sober. But, I dare to claim without any data, becomes more likely when you're drunk.

Apologies for still not being able to make the quotes properly, half my comments in quotes. Someday I'll learn. Maybe.

Clarification on overtourism: The 2 mayors bring that up, I (as an outsider) just question how much Halloween actually has to do with overtourism and come to the conclusion: very little.

Just outlaw Halloween altogether as a non-desirable event.

A democracy is more than a 51-49 race where the 51% gets all their way and the 49% loses everything

But this is not an issue of democracy since the people that decided to support the ban are the locals, and the ones against it are visitors that don't even vote locally.

 Does that mean it is right that their views (or events) are effectively suppressed?

When their views are against the views of the locals this is justified, they are not being forbidden to party everywhere, just in this specific way in these specific locations. What if 60K people wanted Shibuya to turn into a Chinatown? or a Pachinko paradise? or an Otaku-mecca? would that be enough to impose those views on the locals that disagree? obviously not.

If Tokyo had no wards, and 60000 people petitioned the Tokyo Metropolitan government to hold a one-night event, don't you think the Metropolitan government should try to grant the request, just as it would be expected to for a demonstration or protest? 

By trying of course this would include finding a place that is not against this event, not imposing it on a location that is explicitly against it. then again there are wards in Tokyo precisely for this purpose, to reflect the views of the locals instead of only a general imposition from the city.

So, why should the presence of regional autonomy lead to a situation where these 60,000 people would be shafted, because any ward can flaunt its "autonomy" to ban the same event?

Simple, because these people want to impose their will on the locals, which is precisely why the autonomy is there in the first place. Nobody is banning the 60k people from partying elsewhere.

Constitutionally, this case bumps into Article 13 (right to happiness) and Article 19 (concerning assembly - this is still an assembly, you know).

Anybody is free to contest the ordinance on those grounds, but do you actually think it would change anything? it seems much more just a flimsy argument for the sake of arguing without any actual basis for this to actually result in any change.

Actually they are not, since most of them leave the area where the ban now is in place as well.

So you think people leave their houses all night because they can't party all the time? do you understand what is the mean of "locals" here?

since I made it clear that I was interested in data or opinion polls by actual residents, businesses in the area. Not their representatives.

Yet you assume the opinion must be different from what their representatives are saying, which again makes no sense. The representatives are there for a reason, and without an obvious declaration they can be validly assumed to reflect the opinion of the locals, yet you blindly assume this must not be the case just because it is the only argument you can make, this remains baseless.

The claim that public drinking brings no benefit btw is highly doubtful as well

Compared with drinking in the local establishments? definitely, what argument can you bring that demonstrate that buying one-cups at the convini is at least as profitable as ordering cocktails or glasses of wine in the restaurants? the situation is really easy to understand and logic clearly indicates street drinking is not the profitable option for the locals.

Just between us, from outsider to outsider so to say, the whole "you're an outsider so you don't know" smells like avoiding the actual arguments or opinions of the other side.

How do you know anybody else but you are an outsider? there is a huge difference between you openly accepting you have very little understanding of the situation (something that can be used as an argument against your postion) and thinking this must apply to everybody else as well, specially when the arguments are purposefully made so my place of residence becomes inconsequential. The representatives being a valid (of course) representation of the interests of the locals is a logical assumption that requires evidence of the contrary.

721 people a day drinking in public to me simply doesn't seem a problem

But for the locals it is, to the point of making an ordinance against it. When your argument is "to me it is not a problem" you are making a false appeal to authority as a local.

As for "we can validly assume represent the wishes of the local population". That's a bit of a slippery slope, since then every decision by democratically elected parliaments gets the same treatment. 

Which is precisely the role of a representative. You think this is not the case as normally, genrally is? then you can present evidence of complains and declarations of the public saying their local government is acting against their interest. If not, then that "the representatives are representing" is a valid assumption.

Tax hike? It's what the people want. State funeral for Abe? It's what the people wanted. 

Terribly easy to find articles even on English where the people complain about this, so can you find anything where the locals in Shibuya and Shinjuku do the same about this measure?

For all anybdy knows there are a lot of localities where it is a problem? After telling me quite a few times that as an outsider I don't really know what's going on, now you claim it's a problem in a lot of localities? 

That is not a valid interpretation, the obvious one is that without evidence to indicate one thing or the other both could be possible, nothing in the quote says there IS a problem in a lot of other locations, just that it is possible and that support for the ban could actually make it happen.

No idea if that's the case in Japan.

It makes as much sense as making an ordinance to ban people from drinking on the streets, It is not "illegal" yet it can be banned.

I think the best thing to do is just outlaw fun. These people clearly don't like others having fun.

@virusrexToday 07:45 am JST

But this is not an issue of democracy since the people that decided to support the ban are the locals, and the ones against it are visitors that don't even vote locally.

And I'm saying that the visitors don't have a real local in this case. Though their numbers are significant, they are dispersed such that they don't have a "local" where they dominate - a sad reality of many minorities.

When their views are against the views of the locals this is justified, they are not being forbidden to party everywhere, just in this specific way in these specific locations.

Here's the reality - it's probable that if really given their druthers, no ward within Tokyo has the predominance of Halloweeners necessary to really like the idea of holding the event. Again, this is not unusual for small minorities, and the question is whether we just hide behind the shield of "regional autonomy" and let them be oppressed.

Once we shift the Overton window such that it is "OK" to ban these events on parochial considerations, the incentives greatly shift in favor of other wards to ban the event on the same pretexts.

What if 60K people wanted Shibuya to turn into a Chinatown? or a Pachinko paradise? or an Otaku-mecca? would that be enough to impose those views on the locals that disagree? obviously not.

I'd point out you've named examples that represent permanent, year-round burdens. Can we compare at least apples to apples? Can't you come up with a one-day-per-year burden that you think I might recognize as somewhat analogical to our present situation yet would agree is too great a burden to impose?

By trying of course this would include finding a place that is not against this event, not imposing it on a location that is explicitly against it

I'd actually disagree here, and again I turn to assemblies and protests. It's probable no location really wants to have that protest, and yet it would be assigned to someplace. Should we really be rewarding the least tolerant ward by deliberately avoiding the assignment of an undesired assembly on the loudest opposer? (In reality, that's what Metropolitan would probably do because it doesn't want an un-necessary dispute, but that's not the same as it being necessarily right).

I agree that regional autonomy is to give localities at least some kind of defense against excessive burdens. At the same time, in using their authorized rights the regional autonomy must be aware that it is still part of a larger whole, and that means it has to take on some burdens that might not be so good for them, but in the interests of the larger whole - even if it is not about something like money but something like allowing the citizens the fun of their choice, at least when it is once a year.

Simple, because these people want to impose their will on the locals

A factor that's present in an assembly of any significant size.

Here's the reality - it's probable that if really given their druthers, no ward within Tokyo has the predominance of Halloweeners necessary to really like the idea of holding the event. Again, this is not unusual for small minorities, and the question is whether we just hide behind the shield of "regional autonomy" and let them be oppressed.

Generalizing to every level, why have countries then? If a billion people want the international language to change? who are the rest to deny them that wish, right?

Oppression is not what happens when a location refuses to accommodate visitors that want to do something that the locals disagree with, oppression would be to force the locals to accept disadvantages just because some number of people feel they have to have fun in a certain way no matter how much they importunate the location.

Once we shift the Overton window such that it is "OK" to ban these events on parochial considerations, the incentives greatly shift in favor of other wards to ban the event on the same pretexts.

When the reasons are valid and justified they are not pretexts, it is simply that this particular event comes with important costs, complications and risks, so people feeling entitled to force the event to a location are confronted with the reality that if the local people are not interested nor see a benefit in doing it they can refuse to accommodate them and this is fine.

I'd point out you've named examples that represent permanent, year-round burdens.

Yes, because it makes it easier to understand why the argument makes no sense. As long as the local population consider the event unjustified it does not matter if it last one hour, one day or 100 years, they are in their right to say they are not interested.

I'd actually disagree here, and again I turn to assemblies and protests. It's probable no location really wants to have that protest

When you are trying to make an equivalence between the right to protest and the right to have fun in a very specific way you are obviously grasping at straws.

 in using their authorized rights the regional autonomy must be aware that it is still part of a larger whole, and that means it has to take on some burdens that might not be so good for them, but in the interests of the larger whole

And you can try to convince the locals to become more altruistic and sacrifice themselves for the fun of people that want to drink on the streets, but if you can't then the only available alternative is to accept they are in their right when refusing to host the event. You can't force them, you can't convince them? then look for another location where you can do that or accept the event is just too disadvantageous and people can have their fun in a way that don't require forcing themselves to the locals.

A factor that's present in an assembly of any significant size.

And it is much more difficult to justify when the purpose is to have fun in a very specific way.

@virusrexToday 03:06 pm JST

If a billion people want the international language to change?

They would be outvoted by the billions who prefer to stick to English. But if a BILLION people want international organizations to create versions of documents in their language, I'd say they have a very strong case.

Oppression is not what happens when a location refuses to accommodate visitors that want to do something that the locals disagree with

It is when as a result of that "refusal" said visitors (and as I've said, on a broader level they are locals - those 60000 are mostly not Shibuyans, but most are likely to be Tokyoites) don't get to do their event anywhere. It's choosing to be deliberately blind to say that the Shibuyans only banned access to their particular ward and not notice how if every other ward does so, then there will be no place to hold it.

When the reasons are valid and justified they are not pretexts

What are those reasons? It'd be a sad world if all cultural events are judged purely on whether they can bring in net cash income (we pay taxes to governments to fund those programs that are not necessarily commercially profitable), and if you have to look to another country for safety incidents, your justification is thin to the point of being a pretext.

As long as the local population consider the event unjustified it does not matter if it last one hour, one day or 100 years, they are in their right to say they are not interested.

This makes it way too easy for the majority to deny the minority the events they want. It's not hard to come up with at least a few cheap excuses to deny any event.

When you are trying to make an equivalence between the right to protest and the right to have fun in a very specific way you are obviously grasping at straws.

A way which is an assembly, and thus Constitutionally Protected. I'd point out the constitution makes no explicit distinction between political and non-political. And without saying freedom must be unlimited, if you can't have an assembly once a year, then do you really have freedom of assembly at all?

(I'd also point out case law concerning freedom of assembly generally frown on putting said assemblies out in the boonies. Freedom of assembly includes freedom to choose where to have it.)

At best, any privileges given to political assemblies merely mean authorities like Shibuya must be even more deferential. They might need to let that 60,000 man assembly stand for a week or a month, rather than a day, before starting to think what they can do to disperse it. That's not the same as saying they can use the excuse that the assembly is "non-political" to suppress it entirely.

=

Finally, I don't see it only as a matter of locals vs non-locals, but as a battle between the Rights of Doers and Non-Doers. Japan heavily slants towards the rights of the non-doers. For example, when my apartment neighbor starts piano, I can hear what he is playing quite clearly. I don't even think about complaining about him because it's his Right. Meanwhile, in Japan, piano-players get paranoid about noise leakages that only show on instruments and buy a soundproof enclosure that costs as much as the piano itself.

I think Japan needs to prioritize the rights of the Doers more, and that Non-Doers need to learn to tolerate the rights of the Doers to enjoy themselves - preferably to the point they won't feel they are tolerating anything at all. This latest move is thus a step in the wrong direction, and is frankly worrying.

Yet you assume the opinion must be different from what their representatives are saying, which again makes no sense. The representatives are there for a reason, and without an obvious declaration they can be validly assumed to reflect the opinion of the locals, yet you blindly assume this must not be the case just because it is the only argument you can make, this remains baseless.

And here's the whole problem. I don't assume the opinion of the locals must be different from what the assembly decided. I'm fully capable of distinguishing between my opinion, which I posted, and the opinion of the locals. Where I asked for something to substantiate your assumption. It's you that seems to have trouble to make that distinction, opinion and assumption, not me. It's you that have repeatedly stated with absolute certainty that the locals saw a problem, the representative took action, reflecting the wishes of the locals. Without ever providing any evidence for it, in whatever form. Your whole argument is based on this assumption. I'm asking for evidence. You, as an outsider, since you made that a topic, and here's where your outsider status comes into play despite your attempts to keep it out of it, make an assumption about the locals opinion. You have the exact same information I have (an assumption, true) but unlike me you confidently assign the locals an opinion. I'm asking for evidence for that claim.

If you want to know what I assume, you could just have asked: You didn't I'll still tell you: Halloween I actually assume that the locals support the "no Halloween campaign". For the general street drinking I'm much less confident in my assumption, but assume that the majority is in the "oh well, I don't really care, but why not ban it" camp. A rather low importance topic for most of the locals. (Which since you seem to be unsure about what is means, I'm not) My assumption is that it's a top down decision as well not a reaction to a widespread grassroot movement that demanded it, but a top down decision (possibly influenced by some complaints) that is now supported by a majority. A majority that wouldn't be upset if the ban wasn't there either.

But my assumption is rather irrelevant to the discussion, which is about your unsubstantiated claim, that's what the whole (pointless since you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence for your repeated claim) discussion is about.

> what argument can you bring that demonstrate that buying one-cups at the convini is at least as profitable as ordering cocktails or glasses of wine in the restaurants?

I don't need to bring any arguments for that. Because you went from "no benefit" to "at least as profitable". Goalpost moved, intellectual honesty missing.

there is a huge difference between you openly accepting you have very little understanding of the situation (something that can be used as an argument against your postion) and thinking this must apply to everybody else as well, specially when the arguments are purposefully made so my place of residence becomes inconsequential.

I never said I have little understanding of the situation. As a matter of fact I think I have a better understanding of the situation than you have. I said I have little first hand experience at night in Shibuya and accept that I can't be regarded as the ultimate authority on that. First hand experience, not understanding of the situation. Different things. Your status as an outsider (assumed outsider) becomes a topic the moment you fail at making your place of residence inconsequential, which is the moment you assign the locals a position without being able to back it up. Either by data, or to a much lesser degree by claiming to be a local. (Which actually doesn't make you an authority on what the other locals think) Which is all I'm really asking. Show me the opinion polls or evidence supporting your claim, which is the cornerstone of your whole argument.

> That is not a valid interpretation

For once you're right. Not a native English speaker, somehow I took "for all anybody knows" as meaning the same as "as everybody knows". Right only on that sentence though, disagree with the next one again, but will let it be.

Your whole argument is basically circular. There was a problem in the view of the locals, the assembly acted. So it's the right decision. How do we know it's the right decision? Because the assembly acted, and it acted because the locals saw a problem. If that's the whole argument, nothing more, then the basis of that argument, the locals had a problem with it, needs to be supported by some evidence. And they are the representatives, so we can validly assume the represent the opinion of the locals doesn't cut it, if that's the center piece of the argument. Without that evidence, you're whole argument becomes worthless.

They would be outvoted by the billions who prefer to stick to English

But you said they have to be accommodated, after all Shibuya's population would outvote the participants in Halloween but you still argue they should be forced to hold the event.

It is when as a result of that "refusal" said visitors (and as I've said, on a broader level they are locals - those 60000 are mostly not Shibuyans, but most are likely to be Tokyoites) don't get to do their event anywhere. 

Which clearly indicates who are the ones oppressing people (or at least trying) to impose their convenience to them just to have fun in a precise way.

What are those reasons?

Inconvenience, complications, expenses, etc. Deaths have happened when authorities just let a similar event develop without all the proper infrastructure. After all if it was so simple as money it would be trivial to find a convenient place, but it is not.

A way which is an assembly, and thus Constitutionally Protected. 

As long as justified, and having fun in a certain way is a terribly weak justification, which is likely why nobody challenged the measures last year or the new ones either. If it was so clear it would be impossible to imagine none of the participants would be interested in making this argument.

That's not the same as saying they can use the excuse that the assembly is "non-political" to suppress it entirely.

Nor it means that any purpose can automatically justify the assembly as you like to assume.

Finally, I don't see it only as a matter of locals vs non-locals, but as a battle between the Rights of Doers and Non-Doers.

When the whole problem is the doers imposing the activity in the location of the non-doers it is perfectly valid to consider it a matter of locals and non-locals.

I think Japan needs to prioritize the rights of the Doers more, and that Non-Doers need to learn to tolerate the rights of the Doers to enjoy themselve

And you are free to try to convince the locals, but if not successful then the only positive attitude to take is to accept this can be asking too much.

I actually assume that the locals support the "no Halloween campaign". 

Yet your arguments are based on this assumption being false, which of course is an illogical position to take when it is the rule and not the exception and you have no evidence of this being false. If you assume the representatives represent, then there is no argument about now knowing what the represented people actually want. It comes with the assumption.

I don't need to bring any arguments for that. Because you went from "no benefit" to "at least as profitable". Goalpost moved, intellectual honesty missing.

It requires only a tiny bit of common sense to understand that not-profitable clearly means compared with the alternative. People throwing trash to the street could be considered "profitable" as well because someone is going to be paid to do it, but it would make no sense. No goal post moving, just assuming normal, usual, common sense.

I never said I have little understanding of the situation. As a matter of fact I think I have a better understanding of the situation than you have. I said I have little first hand experience at night in Shibuya and accept that I can't be regarded as the ultimate authority on that.

Which is obviously little understanding when compared with the people that are enacting the measures and those that implicitly support them as actions of their representatives. You are confronting your personal opinion even when you are not in the location that much at the time the problems happen, which would completely explain why you don't consider it a problem while the locals clearly do.

Your status as an outsider (assumed outsider) becomes a topic the moment you fail at making your place of residence inconsequential, which is the moment you assign the locals a position without being able to back it up. 

Again completely wrong, assuming the representatives (which clearly say this is a problem) actual represent the locals is not illogical nor difficult to justify, anyone can use these public declarations to say what is what the locals want or not, it would not matter if the person lives in Alaska or in the center of Shibuya, the argument "The locals say..." is validly based on public declarations of the representatives.

Your whole argument is basically circular. There was a problem in the view of the locals, the assembly acted. So it's the right decision. How do we know it's the right decision? Because the assembly acted, and it acted because the locals saw a problem.

There is nothing circular about that, When the problem is local, and the measures are decided by the locals without imposing anything on other places then that is perfectly valid. Replace the problem with anything else and the logic still holds. You are just repeating the same process forward and backwards.

An example of circular reasoning is always forward "the decision is right because it was taken by the locals, and the decision can be proved to be done by the locals because it was right" which obviously nobody have said in this case.

The fact is that if you don't like this ruling, feel free to speak against it at the next Shibuya City or Shinjuku City council meeting- or campaign against it at the next city elections.

Or go to Osaka, where I believe they have a strong and festive street festival.

Dealing with a bunch young, fundamentally harmless, drunks one night of the year. So many cities in the West would be happy to swap their problems those of Tokyo.

Virusrex, the back and forth with you "dismantling" my arguments (by changing what I say, by putting words in my mouth at times, not understanding what an opinion is (it's not an attempt to force somebody to do something). brings nothing, so I'll refrain from quotes (also because I seem unable to them properly) and just post a probably last anwer. Probably.

Your argument basically is: The locals wanted the ban, the representatives implemented it. So the decision is right. Locals demand, representatives follow their lead. And with that you then regard every additional individual opinion as irrelevant. (If you're consistent, both supporting and opposing, both local and of outsiders.)

Did I get your argument right?

The problem then is: If that's the whole argument, then the point you have to prove is that this is what the locals wanted. You claiming it isn't enough. You seem to feel "the representatives did it, there's no (widespread) protests by locals" is enough. I don't. If a whole argument depends on that part being right, I need more to accept that. More wasn't provided.

You seem happy with your conclusion, happy to ignore the obvious gap in your circular argument (why is it right? Because that's what the locals wanted. How do we know that's what the locals wanted? It was implemented, so that must be what the locals wanted). Ok, can't change that. But in the end with this absolutist attempted "impersonal" analysis of the situation you close yourself off from exploring other options, it's unnecessary since what is done is right, from seeing something between right and wrong, from seeing an issue from different points of view and from learning new information. That's why in the end you failed miserably in the discussion with Kazuaki Shimazaki. He brought forward interesting points. You just rephrased the same unproven absolutist claim (locals want it like this) over and over and of course couldn't help yourself and misrepresented what Kazuaki said too. In the end I'm still on Hasebe's side on Halloween in Shibuya, but Kazuaki surely made some very interesting points. Unlike you.

Virusrex, the back and forth with you "dismantling" my arguments (by changing what I say, by putting words in my mouth at times, not understanding what an opinion is 

Your comments are still here for anybody to read, no change, no putting words in your mouth, no misunderstanding about what an opinion is. The problem is that you wanted to impose your personal opinion over what the locals have to say, even when you recognize you have much less knowledge of the situation than them and by pretending that a very forced interpretation of a common sense use of what importance profit would have when comparing drinking on establishments and on the street.

Your argument basically is: The locals wanted the ban, the representatives implemented it. So the decision is right.

The locals wanted the ban, the representatives implemented it, it does nothing to affect people outside of the location (that can still have their fun in their preferred way as long as they can find a place that is interested, which according to you is very simple). That makes the measures justified, that the measures also prevent outsiders from imposing themselves on the locals is also an important factor.

And with that you then regard every additional individual opinion as irrelevant. (If you're consistent, both supporting and opposing, both local and of outsiders.)

No, when you want to impose your personal opinion as if it had the same value or even more than what the locals consider a problem and try to use that as an argument that is what becomes irrelevant. If you have a problem in your house and are trying to do something to solve it, anybody in the world can say that is not a problem, even if they have absolutely no knowledge of that problem. But using those uninformed opinions as arguments to "prove" you should not act on that problem? that makes no sense.

You seem happy with your conclusion, happy to ignore the obvious gap in your circular argument (why is it right? Because that's what the locals wanted. 

See? you have to imagine something I have not said to force a mistaken claim of a circular argument. I already proved this claim is false, to be true it has to be always on the same sense "the decision is right because it was taken by the locals, and the decision can be proved to be done by the locals because it was right"

The decision is right because it pertains to a location so it should be decided by the locals, and it does nothing to infringe on the rights of other people except on the situation happening on that location. The decision is right because it is being taken by the affected people.

That's why in the end you failed miserably in the discussion with Kazuaki Shimazaki

No failure either, when the argument ends up being "Tokyo should not have wards so people can be forced to act on the will of minorities" or "Protesting police abuse and being able to get drunk on the street are the same time and should be protected the same" it is obvious the arguments are no longer serious.

You just rephrased the same unproven absolutist claim

Because you have nothing to disprove this very valid generalization was false, the representatives represent the will of the people unless you can prove it is not the case, you have not proved that, so the assumption is valid. Why abandon a perfectly valid assumption when you could not refute it?