Latest news with #YutoYoneda
Asahi Shimbun
15 hours 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.
Asahi Shimbun
3 days ago
- Business
- Asahi Shimbun
Top court ruling denying benefits to sex industry draws outrage
Lawyers representing an escort service that has sought equal eligibility for government aid speak to reporters in Tokyo on June 16. (Yuto Yoneda) Lawyers and legal scholars blasted a Supreme Court ruling that said excluding sex-industry businesses from COVID-19 relief payments does not violate the constitutional principle of equality under the law. Upholding lower court rulings, the decision, delivered on June 16, effectively ends a lawsuit filed by an outcall escort service based in the Kansai region and marks the first time the top court has weighed in on the constitutionality of such exclusions. The ruling said the sex industry, if not properly regulated, could undermine public order and morality, potentially 'harming a respectable environment.' Therefore, the top court said, it was reasonable to exclude escort services from the benefits because such businesses endanger workers' human dignity and should not be supported with public funds. A representative of the plaintiff company described the ruling as the worst possible outcome for the industry, adding that it could potentially drive honest businesses out of the sector. 'This decision does not protect our human rights,' the representative said, holding back tears. The company had applied in September 2020 for 2.96 million yen ($20,000) in pandemic relief grants, including a rent assistance program. But the government rejected the application. In the lawsuit, the company argued that it had operated legally under the law and had been unfairly and irrationally excluded from the aid, despite suffering economic losses due to the pandemic. However, four of the five justices agreed that the government's decision to deny relief funds to sex businesses was not unconstitutional. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Mitsuko Miyagawa, a former lawyer, stated that legal sex-industry businesses are distinct from illegal prostitution and that denying aid contradicted the intent of the relief programs. 'There is no rational basis for excluding the sex industry,' she said. 'The decision is unconstitutional.' The plaintiff's side was also infuriated with the ruling's argument that the sex industry endangers workers' human dignity. The plaintiff emphasized that not all individuals in the sector are forced to work there. 'The dignity of individuals who choose to work in this field of their own free will has been denied by the majority opinion,' said Michiko Kameishi, an attorney for the plaintiff. 'It's infuriating.' According to police data, more than 33,000 sex industry businesses, including outcall services like the plaintiff, were registered across Japan in 2024. Yuki Tamamushi, a constitutional law professor at Nihon University, said the top court effectively endorsed the government's moral judgment that sex work is improper. 'The court's reasoning that sex work could harm workers' human dignity is insufficient to justify the ruling,' Tamamushi said. In contrast, the professor praised Justice Miyagawa's dissent, saying it offered a persuasive and detailed critique of the unequal treatment and could help spark a broader national debate. 'This case plays a significant role in highlighting how the nation should treat its sex industry,' he said.
