Theater Art - Kabuki

Theater Art - Kabuki

Kabuki is a traditional Japanese theater art. The word Kabuki is derived from the Japanese word kabuki which means avant-garde or bizarre theater. Kabukimono were youngsters who were rebellious and used to dress strangely. Because the kanji characters sing and dance, kabuki also means the art of singing and dancing. 

This work has been tampered with over a period of time. The kabuki which we witness now isn’t the same what it used to be before. The founder of this art was Okuni, who was a young lady who served a Shinto shrine named Lzumo Taisha. She gained attention by adapting a completely new dance form at the theaters at the dry river beds of Kyoto in the year 1603. Basically it started with only female artist who even did the role of men. The stories were based on the common people with a comedic twist. After the initial success Okuni was invited to show her performance at the royal court. Out of envy other troupes began adopting the same style of dancing and kabuki became a common style. The women involved in kabuki began entering prostitution so they were banned from performing further and men took over their place. The attention shifted from dance to performance. But the performance by the men also became salacious and they too started prostitution as a side profession and worked for both men and women customers. This affected the audiences which attended these performance they became ill-mannered and a fight used to break out over a young and handsome actor. This led to the imposing of ban on young male actors too.

Kabuki then became a field of art for matured men. These men put in more effort to bring up the reputation of kabuki. The men who performed the role of women were known as Oyama or Onnagata. Basically there were two types of role named Aragoto or rough style and Wagoto or Sakata tojuro. Yaro kabuki or men’s kabuki was the stylized version and Kyogen comic theater was a very influential factor as it was very popular then.

The kabuki artists wore detailed makeup. Aragoto character or the reckless warrior character has a pompous role with bright clothing and loud makeup. The style too is loud and exaggerated and involves more action.  On the contrary Wagoto is a more cultured role with decent dialogue delivery and gestures.

The Genroku period showed more interest in Kabuki arts. It had started to be performed in formal theaters. Chikamatsu Monzaemon was the first known playwright of kabuki and later on produced many other renowned works. His works revolved around tragic-romances where the lovers used to suicide in the end. Many followed this theme which forced the authorities to put a ban on such kinds of plays known as Shinju Mono. After few years of success kabuki was taken over by Bunraku or Puppetry. This was due to the increase in the number of Bunraku playwrights.

But after the defeat of Tokugawa Shogunate Empire in 1868 kabuki arts returned to it full form. Initially a kabuki performance was made in front of the king Meiji. It caught his interest at the first instance. Many kabuki theaters were brought up during that era.

During the World War II many theaters were lost during the bombing and a ban was levied on kabuki. But in 1947, the kabuki performances started again with the lift of the ban and once again began to flourish across the country.

Contract Formation

Contract Formation

Contract law is one of the most important area of the law that affects us all in our daily lives.  Although we seldom sign a written document, we go into shops daily, we travel on public transport, we park in parking lots - these are largely all contracts into which we bind ourselves to terms and conditions.  We may not be strictly aware of it, but we all participate in contractual obligations on both sides of the fence every single day.  It is therefore no surprise that the issue of when exactly a contract is formed is of the utmost importance in regulating commerce and life as a consumer.  Furthermore, how can we enforce our contracts, and what rights do we have under these contracts that we agree to almost subliminally day in day out.  In this article, we will look at some of the key issues surrounding contract formation, and general principles of the law on contract, which govern transactions we experience in our daily lives.

In general laymen's terms, we think of a contract as a detailed written document, and we understand that when we sign that dotted line, there's no turning back.  Actually, that's a myth.  Of course, there is definitely the possibility of receiving a written contract to sign, and indeed this would be legally binding.  However there is a very real possibility of being legally bound to a contract that you don't even realise exists.  A contract can be formed by way of simply verbally saying you agree to buy some item.  That is sufficient to bind you in law for most transactions, and on that basis it would be perfectly feasible to found a claim for breach.  Of course, the difficulty then arises in proving what was said, which is why in practical terms more often than not a written document is used for transactions of a substantial nature.  This avoids the problem of frivolous claims as to who said what and when such and such a term was agreed, which can lead to complications and lead to lengthy litigation

Contracts are generally formed at the concurrence of offer and acceptance.  That means when you make an offer to buy something, and it is accepted by the seller, that then forms a contract between the two respective parties to the effect of ownership will be transferred upon receipt of payment in consideration.  Usually all the vital terms of a contract will be stipulated previously, although many are implied in everyday situations, such as buying a newspaper or train ticket.  These terms would also be given practical effect by the court where it would be necessary to found a legal action, which is why they largely go unstipulated.  Additionally, the fact that very little litigation arises from these scenarios is another good reason for the lack of clarity necessary in small time contracts.  However, when it comes to more complex agreements, best practice dictates that writing is always essential to avoid problematic legal action.

Contract formation is critical, perhaps not so much on a small scale but almost certainly on a large scale with commercial property transactions and the like forming a fundamental part of commerce.  It is therefore pivotal that each jurisdiction develops its own considerations of precisely when a contract is made, in order to establish a pragmatic way to resolve disputes.  Naturally it is also important to maintain a cohesive structure to the law to ensure legal certainty, particularly in an area such as contract which is so vital to the success and growth of the economy, and which regulates such a large quantity of money.  By ensuing standard and structure, internally at least, it is possible to give the economy a fighting chance.  It is also in the best interests of everyone to harmonise laws with those of their trading partners, to ensure smoother transactions for the benefit of the economy on a wider scale.

Human Rights vs Civil Liberties in Europe

One of the most defining legal motions of the last hundred years on a worldwide scale is the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposed for the first time a codified standard of behaviour that all signatories must meet.  Although the document is referred to in a specifically European context, it is truly important throughout the world as a clear guideline for reference to matters on human rights.  But what about before the Convention - what were the protections for the citizen against encroachment from the authorities, and what recourse was there for grievances?  In this article we will look at the position of many European countries prior to the Convention and after, to highlight the change in legal position for the average citizen.

The European Convention of Human Rights codified a number of key human rights principles which were required to be satisfied by those that ratified it at law.  For monitoring the behaviour of the signatories, a European Court was established to hear grievances against member states, with the ability to air problems and effectively embarrass nations into compliance.  Since its inception, the court has been exceptionally successful in enforcing the provisions within the convention.  No one member state wants the embarrassment of a public trial, and therefore they bend over backwards to accommodate for the needs of the Convention.  Has it worked?  Well it has certainly massively overhauled the nature of private, criminal and public in almost every regard and this has lead to widespread disruption.  However, it looks almost undoubted that the European Convention on Human Rights is having a positive effect on the rights of the citizens across Europe, including in the wealthier nations.

Take the United Kingdom for example.  Prior to the European Convention on Human Rights, it was quite possible to detain a suspected criminal without judicial involvement - i.e. people could be deprived of their liberty almost indefinitely with no possible legal intervention.  This meant people didn't have to be told why they were being detained, and had no right to put forward a case to an impartial justice, reserved until the prosecutors decided to step in, and had enough evidence to do so.  For a country that boasts one of the world's strongest economies, and with a very high GDP, this is a shocking proposition, and one which has been remedied since the introduction in law of the European Convention.  The Convention has been loved and reviled in equal measures, and although it's had some tough challenges throughout its life span, it is slowly but surely changing the position for the citizen.  For the prospect European Union member state, it is an essential minimum, meaning those on the fringes of European recognition are striving with great result to meet the targets.  The larger, more developed nations are keeping on their toes and learning that they can't do as they please, and the European Court is making sure of that.  

Prior to the Convention, it was up to the people to rely on the provisions within their constitution for the protection of their rights, and this was very much a 'luck of the draw' scenario.  Some countries had excellent provisions, like Germany, where as others like the UK had abysmal records, mainly down to their lack of fundamental freedoms for the citizen.  Since the introduction and ratification of the Convention, these countries have all levelled upwards to create an environment that is ideal for the citizen, and aims to protect his rights whilst also protecting the interests of the state and the public at large.  The European Convention on Human Rights has certainly come along way, and it has brought the entirety of Europe, even those on the margins, together in a bid to improve living conditions and basic human rights for the ordinary citizen in the street.  As the decades come and go, only time will tell how effective it will end up, although from initial projections it is looking to have a positive impact for the people of Europe.

Children and Violence

Children and Violence

How far does violence extend, how do we determine exactly who is responsible for the violence that children are seeing on television and in music.  What about video games, who is taking the responsibility for the violence and awful things that, are occurring right before the eyes of the youth today.  Many politicians are looking to eagerly blame the media and entertainment industry.  Is that the correct place to lay the blame?  Perhaps parents are the people ultimately to blame.

More parents today than ever before are working longer hours just to stay afloat financially.  This alone results in phenomenal numbers of children being left with a television as the babysitter in charge of teaching right from wrong.  How does a child learn the difference between right and wrong, when their parents are nowhere to be found?  Where does the parents' responsibility to parent a child and the governments' right to parent a child merge?

Does the government even have a right to parent children?  Should the government be allowed to determine what is appropriate for all children to watch, or should that be ultimately left up to the parents to decide on their own?  There have been television shows, movies, musical artists, and even books banned because the government does not approve. 

Where is the line drawn in who controls what the children are watching?  Is it really up to the parents, or is it left to the children to decide on their own?  When did parents lose the ability to control what their child watches, and when did the parent become subject to the child's own opinion?  While some advances in technology have been wonderful, there is also much effort by the government to control what a parent does with their own child, and it is this more than anything that has caused controversy on a civil liberties basis. 

There have been several inventions and developments that are able to help parents monitor their children; from the v-chip to programs that log instant messenger programs.
These developments are great for the parents looking to monitor their child themselves, but what about the music industry.  Most parents are constantly told that the violence their child is exposed to is the fault of the music industry.  The blame is placed on the singers and producers for releasing the music. 

Much blame is placed everywhere but the parents for taking responsibility for their own children and determining what is best for them.  With politicians attempting to punish some area of the entertainment industry each time a national tragedy occurs, it puts a major crimp on the ability of parents to decide for themselves what is acceptable for their child and what is not.  Many are left to allow their child to choose from the options that are left, once the government has omitted the choices that are bad. 

Is this censorship, or helping raise children?  Many seem to think it leans heavily towards censorship, a place the governments should not be treading.  Many others tend to feel that it should be a high priority of the government to protect everyone from something that can potentially be bad, without even giving people the option to make their own decisions.

The issue as to what extent the government should intervene with the way in which we live our lives is hotly contested, and it works in a much larger circle than just the control of our children.  Should the government take a step back, and allow society to use its freedoms and powers for self regulation, or is there a need for intervention to ensure the greater good and justice for the welfare of society as a whole?  For the time being, it seems as though the most pragmatic approach relates somewhere in the middle, although it will be interesting to see developments in this area over the coming years.

Conservative vs. Liberal

Many people do not really understand the difference between a conservative and a liberal.  How do you really know which side of the spectrum you fall on?  In this article, we are going to explain some of the differences, so that as political figures are discussing conservative and liberal ideals you know exactly what is going on.  

The first side of the issue is the conservative side.  The conservatives tends to want to preserve things they way they are, for example they dislike change, and do not want things to change in the way the country is run, how people come into power, and how civil rights are handed out.  Conservatives appreciate in real terms the importance of building and maintaining the economy to the benefit of society as a whole.  Many conservatives are also considered to appreciate having an exclusive inner circle that controls the entire country, although in mainstream politics this is rarely a salient feature.

Many conservatives also live by the ideals that institutions that have been successful rather than dwelling on mistakes.  This has the effect of working towards improvement in efficiency, which is another key factor of Conservative thought.  Many conservatives do not think technology is our friend; they feel that technology should not be a part of government standards and ideas based on the inefficiency it brings.  Many conservatives are also very cautious people, which is reflected in the opinions and decisions of their politics.

Liberals on the other hand are very much different.  Most liberals are very open to change, almost to a fault; they do not mind the ideas of change as long as it is for a perceived good cause, even where there is no practical utilitarian upshot.  Liberals tend to be willing to take more risks than most conservatives are in the whimsical pursuit of change.  Most liberals are also very tolerant of behavior different from their own, as well as they are willing to open their minds to new ideas and concepts easier than the conservative counterparts.  Liberals also like to push for change without necessarily having a justification for their actions.

Liberals tend to be very progressively thinking people, whom are quite open to the new ideas of technology in terms of normal daily life, as well as in the role of assisting the government in managing the country to the best of our ability.  However, their emphasis on extreme individual freedom means a more distant form of governance that leaves society to regulate itself without much intervention.  This has led to numerous political and social problems for liberal governments across the world.

While there are some major differences in the two sides, there are also many people who fall somewhere in the middle.  Many people are able to pull their comfort zone from taking pieces of each side.  While some people are hesitant of change, they are able to accept change in order to make things better for everyone.  For example, women's rights were the result of change.  Many conservatives were against the ideals of women being allowed to vote.  On the flip side, some liberals are in favor of the legalization of drugs, and are wholeheartedly against government regulation in the way we live our lives.

While there are many differences in the ideals of the two groups, there is also a bond that forges from each side being determined to make life the best possible for the people in the areas with which they are concerned.  Neither side sets out to hurt the other side, nor the people they are responsible for helping.  There are times when the goals of both sides do come together nicely and result in wonderful progress for our cities, nation, and country as a whole.  Looking to the future, we can expect both sides to continue to change and progress as things change and the future becomes reality. 

Alienation of Assets

Alienation of Assets

In commercial terms, the world revolves around insolvency.  Insolvency is the process whereby one's entire patrimony (i.e. the totality of one's assets) is liquidated in order to satisfy his total debts that have grown beyond his means.  Insolvency procedures are problematic in that they mean liquidation of personal assets such as one's home and one's car.  Unfortunately there are few ways to avoid insolvency, which most normally occurs through poor judgement or 'bad luck'.  Fortunately, there are numerous ways in which the potential implications of insolvency procedures can be minimised to prevent loss of assets.  For the lay-man, this can involve certain minor legal procedures which could ultimately save a fortune.  For creditors, this can be particularly bad news.  In this article we will look at entirely legal ways in which you can potentially avoid losing assets in insolvency procedures.

If you are running a small business, or likely to do so in the next decade, you must act on the following immediately to protect your assets.  Alternatively, if you foresee yourself amassing significant unsecured debt in the coming years, you should also act similarly.  Allowing a ten year margin, which might seem a lot, will prevent any challenges on sequestration and ensure that the assets you have 'alienated' no longer form part of your estate.  The alienation ensures that the assets from which you will still benefit cannot be received by your creditors in consideration for any debts you accrue.

The first thing to consider is incorporating a limited liability company, or indeed several, within which to house your business operations.  Conducting your business through a company may mean more paperwork, but it also removes you personally from any liability.  Of course, your company can still be liquidated, but we will look at ways to avoid losing your business assets shortly.  If you choose not to run through a corporate body, there are still ways in which you can minimise the potential for losing your assets.

The biggest and most valuable asset most of us will own is our home.  It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the number one target for many creditors.  If you are married or living with a partner, there is no way you should ever lose your house in insolvency proceedings.  Provided you allow sufficient time (i.e. 10 years), you can transfer ownership to your partner, thus the asset no longer belongs to you.  You can then by agreement negotiate with your partner to continue living in the house, which for most will be a mere formality.  At the end of the day, you no longer legally own the house, but functionally nothing has changed.  Alternatively, you could assign your property by creating a trust in which you and your partner are the beneficiaries.  All you need is to involve a third party (potentially even your partner) as trustee, before you will have alienated the asset.  Again, functionally, you still live in the house, and it is still your home.  The only difference is creditors can't touch it should the worst happen.

If you choose to run a through a limited company, your first step should be to establish at least one other company, which will act as a holding company.  The holding company should then be made owner of all business assets, before effectively leasing back to the other company.  The effect of this is theoretical.  You own both companies, you own the assets, but should creditors attempt to attack your primary trading company, there will be no chance of losing your business assets.  The leasing agreement between the two companies will also be theoretical, and will only require minor accounting procedures to grant legal validity.  Provided you ensure your holding company avoids debt, there should be no problem in alienating your entire business patrimony.

There are a number of ways in which you can avoid potentially losing your assets in insolvency.  Why not consult a specialist legal adviser for further information specific to your jurisdiction to help ensure total protection of your entire means.

Animal Control

In America today, there are states that are actively pushing pet owners to be controlled by law.  States such as California are enacting laws in which pet owners are forced to spay or neuter their pets.  This is something that many are talking about as the answer to the pet over population problems.  Is this truly the answer?  Many prominent breeders are upset by this attempt to control the rights of individual pet lovers.  

What is the correct answer?  Should the states be allowed to force individual pet owners to do this?  What about the puppy mills that are operated in states all across the country, why is something not done to shut them down, rather than force individual breeders to have their breeding stock spayed and neutered.  Many do not realize that the sport of dog showing requires a dog in the show ring to still be intact; any sexually altered dogs are immediately disqualified from competition  

This essentially means, the sport of dog showing in California and other states following in their path is stopped.  The dogs in the state would be required to be fixed, with residents in the state either fixing their dogs, or a flux of residents would be moving from California and other cities with the same philosophy.  Is this really the solution to the over population problem?  Most cities have many unwanted animals in the pet shelters, yet there is always a fresh batch of animals coming in daily, therefore it is evident that some remedial action is required to solve the problem. However, as a nation of animal lovers, this seems hard to reconcile with the general opinion of society.  

How do we solve this problem?  Perhaps the answer is more low cost spay and neuter programs, offer this at a greatly reduced rate, or even free to residents of towns so that animals can be easily fixed that are not intended for breeding.  While this would be an expensive venture, it could easily cost less and do more good for the over population problem than requiring all pets be neutered and spayed.  

Some states are even looking to limit the number of pets that are allowed to be housed.  The limit is typically two dogs, with all other dogs forced to be rehomed to other homes.  This leaves the problem of owners being forced to give away dogs to homes that may not be able to handle, care, or ensure proper medical care.  Is this too far for the states to interfere in the rights of pet owners?  To what extent should the government intervene in the way in which we treat our animals?

When did the issue of pets become the business of the government and states?  While there are leash laws, they are intended for the safety of the pets, as well as the protection of society in general.  This is a law that was enacted by the states, which while it does limit the movements of pets it has good intentions that are actually plausible and rectifiable.  The required neuter and spay is something that can cause harm to a person's livelihood, as well as disqualify a dog from the show ring that could have otherwise been a champion dog. 

Is this the state's place to do so?  How far is too far before determining that the states have no right to tamper and meddle with the animals that are owned and properly cared for.  Should individuals who seek proper medical care for their pets be penalized?  Is this something that should have ever been brought up in the states as a requirement for all pet owners?  The issue of pet control is certainly hot at the moment, and it will be interesting to see the development of these issues in the coming months, years and decades as implemented measures are observed and their results monitored.