EDITORIAL: Sendai court’s ruling on forced sterilization raises questions

The Sendai District Court ruled on May 28 that the old Eugenic Protection Law of 1948, which forced sterilization of disabled people, violated Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen's "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The plaintiffs, two Miyagi Prefecture women who were sterilized as teenagers, sought damages from the government.

The Diet and the government must take this verdict seriously and take the necessary steps as soon as possible.

Although a law was passed late last month to provide lump-sum payments to victims of the 1948 law and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a statement apologizing to the victims, that is hardly enough.

The presiding judge defined the right of individuals to decide whether to bear children and raise them as "the source of happiness," and concluded that the 1948 law is null and void.

Before anything, the Diet must deal with the fact that it was responsible for the unanimous passage of this law, which grievously violated human rights. Specifically, the Diet needs to make its position crystal clear by adopting a resolution to acknowledge its responsibility and apologize to the victims.

The law for the payment of lump-sum compensation mentions "reflections and apologies" in its preamble. And the use of "we" as the subject of the sentence there raises the question of who this "we" stands for, and victims and their supporters have rightfully criticized the vagueness of the wording of the law.

Another task that must be undertaken is a thorough examination of what has transpired to date. A third-party panel of experts should be appointed in keeping with the wishes of the victims, and it is the Diet's responsibility to establish a framework for these activities.

By the time the 1948 law was revised in 1996, about 25,000 people had been sterilized.

As the executor of the law, the government's most pressing task for the time being is to ensure that all victims are duly compensated. This also entails apprising the victims who, because of their disabilities, are unaware of their own victimhood.

One thing we cannot accept about the May 28 ruling is that even though the court severely denounced the unconstitutionality of the 1948 law, it did not order the government to pay damages to the plaintiffs.

The court let the Diet and the government off the hook all too easily by stating, "Since what sort of compensation system to adopt is left to the discretion of the Diet, the necessity (of awarding damages to the plaintiff) was not definitive."

However, human rights organizations of the United Nations have repeatedly urged the Japanese government since 1998 to take the necessary legal steps to compensate victims of forced sterilization, and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has asserted the same.

And in 2004, then-health minister Chikara Sakaguchi told the Diet that this was an issue requiring attention.

Given these facts, for the court to cite the Diet's "discretionary power" in absolving its responsibility is tantamount to forcing the victims to pay for the negligence of politicians. Surely, this is not right, nor can we say that the judiciary is fulfilling its mission of keeping the legislature and administration in check.

In short, the ruling has raised serious doubts.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs are going to appeal. We will be closely watching the high court's handling of this case, as well as developments in other district courts that are currently examining similar cases.

Lest we repeat the folly of discriminating against certain individuals and violating their dignity, there are still many lessons our society should learn from this case.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 29