EDITORIAL | Government Owes Eugenics Victims Apology and Compensation

The Supreme Court has ruled that a defunct postwar eugenics law was unconstitutional. Therefore, the court said, the government has the responsibility to compensate individuals who were forcibly sterilized when the law was in effect from 1948 to 1996. 

The decision was handed down in response to a government appeal of a lawsuit seeking damages against it. Victims who had been forced to undergo sterilization filed the case. 

Under the former law, the victims had been forced to undergo medical procedures due to genetic disorders, physical, or cognitive disabilities, or mental illness.

A Constitutional Violation

Specifically, the former Eugenics Protection Law aimed to prevent the birth of "undesirable offspring." It thus flagrantly violated Article 13 (individual respect) and Article 14 (equality under the law) of Japan's Constitution. Considering that the "greatest violation of human rights in the postwar period" was conducted under the aegis of the law, it was the only proper decision for the court to make.

Hiding behind the statute of limitations under the Civil Code would have been a gross violation of the principles of justice and fairness. Such a course of action would have curtailed the victims' claim for damages. For the government to avoid responsibility, even 20 years later, would be unforgivable. 

Apologize to the Victims

Approximately 25.000 individuals underwent sterilization under the Eugenics Protection Law. Among them, 16,500 had not consented to the procedure. The Japanese government must now sincerely apologize to all victims. It does not matter whether or not they had consented or were plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Moreover, it must immediately adopt measures to provide relief. 

A female victim living in Miyagi Prefecture filed the first lawsuit with the Sendai District Court in 2018. Thereafter, a number of similar lawsuits were initiated nationwide. 

In April 2019, the Diet passed a special law to provide a one-time lump sum payment of  ¥3.2 million JPY (about $20,000 USD) to each victim. Moreover, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued an official apology that admitted the law had caused "great suffering." However, neither the compensation nor apology was sufficient. 

Despite that, the government continued to oppose these lawsuits. It said it did not owe the victims any further compensation since the statute of limitations had already expired. 

Additionally, it argued that to treat those who had seen their human rights violated under the law as an exception would set a bad precedent. That, it claimed, would seriously destabilize law and order. 

Rejecting Discrimination

Turning a blind eye to the pain and mental agony of the victims constituted an "unacceptable violation of the principle of good faith as well as abuse of their [individual] rights," the Supreme Court said. 

It has in effect demanded that the government account for past mistakes. But it has also demanded correction of the position the government clung to. That did not change until the decision was announced on July 3, 2024. 

The old Eugenics Protection Law remained in effect for a half-century from shortly after the end of World War II. It ended when the current Maternal Health Act was amended in 1996. However, discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities reflecting eugenic thinking have not disappeared.

This thinking surfaced in the cruelest possible form in the Sagamihara Attack of July 2016 in which a man murdered 45 seriously disabled individuals. His justification that "disabled people only bring misery" found many sympathizers on social media. 

Each and every Japanese should display courage and resolve by confronting this discrimination and rejecting it. 

RELATED:

• A Year After Sagamihara Killings, Victims Have No Names to Be Remembered By
• BOOK REVIEW | Kingdom of the Sick: A History of Leprosy and Japan, by Susan L. Burns
• [Bookmark] COVID-19 and 1300 Years of Pandemic Politics in Japan: What Can We Learn?
  
  

(Read the editorial in Japanese.)

Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun