Latest news with #FirstPettyBench
Asahi Shimbun
a day ago
- Business
- Asahi Shimbun
VOX POPULI: ‘They pay their taxes,' and yet no COVID relief for sex workers
Lawyers representing an escort service that has sought equal eligibility for government aid speak to reporters in Tokyo on June 16. (Yuto Yoneda) I was deeply disappointed by the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the government's decision to exclude the sex industry from COVID-19 relief payments. In its June 16 decision, the top court ruled that the exclusion of sex-related businesses from eligibility for emergency cash benefits—introduced to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic—did not violate the Constitution. The lawsuit had been brought by a company based in the Kansai region that operates a so-called 'deribarii herusu' (delivery health) service—a type of business that dispatches sex workers to clients' homes or hotel rooms, rather than operating from a physical storefront. Put simply, the court concluded that such work 'poses a risk of undermining the dignity of workers' and therefore does not merit public financial support. This view was endorsed by a majority of justices—four out of five—on the Supreme Court's First Petty Bench. Had the ruling pointed to concrete examples of workers' dignity being violated—such as, 'your employees suffered such and such specific harm at the hands of customers'—it might have been easier to accept. Instead, the judgment rested on an abstract and hypothetical 'risk' of such violations, offering no tangible basis for its conclusion. If this kind of work truly undermines the dignity of those engaged in it, that would be a compelling argument for banning the business altogether. Prostitution, for example, is explicitly prohibited in Japan on the grounds that it 'violates human dignity.' In contrast, delivery health services are legally permitted under the 'Fueiho'—a comprehensive regulatory framework that governs a broad range of nightlife, entertainment and sex-related businesses. And yet, despite operating within this legal structure alongside establishments such as cabarets and nightclubs, delivery health businesses are singled out and treated differently based on vague and subjective reasoning. It's a policy stance that is difficult to justify. 'They pay their taxes appropriately—so what the hell makes them any different?' That blunt remark came from then-Finance Minister Taro Aso during Diet deliberations on the COVID-19 relief payments. Crude and characteristically unfiltered as ever, Aso's words hit the mark this time—I found myself nodding in agreement. 'There are plenty of bureaucrats who haven't had enough experience with this sector to answer this question,' he added. Japan is said to have more than 18,000 types of occupations. Yet this Supreme Court ruling appears to lend official approval to the idea that some professions are inherently more 'humble' than others. 'Isn't it this very judgment that undermines human dignity?' The plaintiff's words at a news conference rang with conviction—and truth. —The Asahi Shimbun, June 20 * * * Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture.
Japan Today
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
Top court rejects claim dual nationality ban is unconstitutional
Japan's top court has rejected an appeal by a Japanese-born U.S. citizen challenging the constitutionality of the country's ban on dual citizenship, finalizing lower court rulings. The decision by the Supreme Court's First Petty Bench, dated Monday, was on a claim that Article 11 of the Nationality Law, which stipulates the loss of Japanese nationality upon voluntarily acquiring a foreign nationality, infringes on the right to self-determination. The Fukuoka District Court turned down the initial claim in 2023, noting that the law was appropriate and was not beyond the scope of discretion. The Fukuoka High Court also supported the first decision last year. According to the ruling, the woman acquired U.S. citizenship in 2004. She applied for a Japanese passport in 2017, but her application was rejected the following year on the grounds that she had lost her Japanese nationality. © KYODO
The Mainichi
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Mainichi
Japan's top court expected to rule excluding sex industry from COVID grants constitutional
TOKYO -- Japan's Supreme Court is expected to finalize a decision upholding the constitutionality of government regulations excluding a business in the sex industry from eligibility for COVID-19 grants, which the plaintiff argue violates Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality under the law. The Supreme Court's First Petty Bench, overseen by Justice Mitsuko Miyagawa, decided May 26 to set June 16 as the date for its ruling on an appeal by a sex business operator. Because the court will not hold the oral arguments necessary to review the high court's decision, the two lower court rulings -- which found the exclusion constitutional and rejected the business operator's claims -- are expected to stand. The plaintiff is a so-called "delivery health" company in the Kansai region that dispatches sex workers. In September 2020, the company applied to the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency for a 2-million-yen (about $14,000) sustainability grant and about 1 million yen in rent support, citing decreased sales due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the applications were denied under the exclusion regulations. The company then sued the government for a total of about 4.5 million yen ($31,600), including 1.5 million yen ($10,500) in damages in addition to the two grants. In the lawsuit, the government argued that sex industry businesses, which provide temporary sexual gratification for a fee from customers, "contradict the sexual moral standards shared by the majority of citizens," and that it was inappropriate to support such businesses with public funds. In June 2022, the Tokyo District Court ruled that the exclusion "is based on reasonable grounds and does not constitute discrimination, and thus does not violate the Constitution," dismissing the business's claim. The Tokyo High Court's October 2023 appeal verdict acknowledged that while public values regarding sexuality are diversifying, there remains a negative mindset toward publicly recognizing sex-related entertainment businesses. It concluded that the government's decision to exclude such businesses from eligibility for grants because of the difficulty in gaining the understanding of taxpayers was "not unreasonable and did not exceed the discretion of the administrative agency," upholding the district court ruling.
