EDITORIAL: Court ruling on anthem

The award-winning comedy "Utawasetai Otoko Tachi" (Men who want the song to be sung), written and directed by Ai Nagai, is set on the day of a commencement ceremony at a Tokyo high school.

The school principal is desperate to make sure that the ceremony will proceed according to the instructions of the board of education. But there are some teachers who are determined not to stand for the singing of the national anthem "Kimigayo" in defiance of the board's instructions. There is also a part-time music teacher who has been ordered to play a piano accompaniment to the singing of the anthem without being aware of the conflict.

They are all good-natured people but get exhausted and hurt in the struggle and find themselves caught in a bind.

In a ruling on the issue that provided inspiration for the play, the Tokyo High Court on Friday rejected all the requests made in a lawsuit by some 400 teachers and other staff members at high schools in the capital.

The plaintiffs asked the court to confirm that they and their colleagues have no obligation to stand for the anthem or play an accompaniment. They also sought compensation for the punishment they received for refusing to take such actions.

The high court overturned a lower court's ruling that said the Tokyo metropolitan government's instructions requiring school staff members to stand for the anthem and play musical accompaniment violated the Constitution, which guarantees "freedom of thought and conscience."

This is an extremely regrettable decision.

In a separate suit over whether ordering a teacher to play an accompaniment to the anthem violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that such an order is not unconstitutional.

Following the reasoning shown in the top court ruling, the high court argued that ordering teachers to sing the anthem or play an accompaniment doesn't amount to denying their individual views and thoughts about history and the world and therefore doesn't violate the Constitution.

The high court's argument shows no sign of sensitivity to the importance of protecting and tolerating as much as possible the values and principles individual citizens cherish and follow. The ruling sounds like simply preaching the gospel of conformity, citing the frivolous reasons that this is something which everybody does and that the plaintiffs are public servants. Is this acceptable?

We are not opposed to the hoisting of the national flag or the singing of the anthem at school ceremonies. But we have argued that using the threat of punishment to enforce these actions is going too far.

The judiciary should be different from the legislative and administrative branches of the government, where the rule of the majority is the basic principle. Its most important role in a democratic society is the protection of the human rights of minorities.

Both the Supreme Court and the high court should be criticized for abandoning their principal mission and thereby undermining the importance of their own institution.

In recent years, the number of teachers disciplined by the Tokyo metropolitan government over the matter has been declining.

That's because violators are punished by increasingly severer penalties--first a reprimand, then a salary cut and finally suspension. In addition, defiant teachers are denied opportunities for re-employment by the metropolitan government after retirement.

It seems necessary for us to reflect on the fact that school ceremonies are conducted according to the instructions of the metropolitan government only because of such threats and considerations of loss.

When a law was enacted in 1999 to give official status to the flag and anthem, then Education Minister Akito Arima told the Diet that the legislation would not change the professional duties of teachers.

Society must be vigilant for signs that the high court ruling may be promoting intolerance or stifling freedom.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 29