NO.019 A decision was made at the Sendai District Court in the former Eugenic Protection Law trial. Why wasn't it judged unconstitutional in violation of Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution? Do Japanese courts ignore Article 97? ・・・ Theme label: The purpose of establishing the Japanese Constitution is described in the preamble of the SF Peace Treaty. Japan's Supreme Court rulings that violate the constitution

In the former Eugenics Protection Law trial, a judgment was given in the Sendai District Court. In this trial, under the former Eugenics Act, people who were judged to have a high possibility of becoming a disabled child were forced to undergo infertility surgery without being aware of the person. It is a trial that asked for compensation. ... I raise questions about the judgment of the Japanese trial.

Since the ruling violates the right of individuals to pursue happiness, as defined in Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan, the Old Superiority Protection Act is unconstitutional and invalid. However, because it was over 20 years of civil law statute of limitations, it was a judgment that compensation was not permitted. ... Why did the judgment not go against the Constitution as a violation of Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan?

Respect for human dignity and respect for human character are not the most basic of basic human rights, or are they not the only ones to which basic human rights are established? It sounds like
Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan is a provision to guarantee the basic human rights universal to all humanity built up in history, to the Japanese people.

The former Eugenics Act is a law that violates universal human rights universally for all persons with disabilities, and it would be a violation of Article 97 more fundamentally than a violation of Article 13.
Why did the Sendai District Court not be sentenced unconstitutional as a violation of Article 97?
If parents are disabled and it is highly likely that their being born will be disabled, is it impossible for them to give new life to their born children?
If the born child is a disabled person, is it not forgiven the right to demand "I want to give me a chance to live"?
I think it is also a religious issue. Which life is allowed to be born, which life is not allowed to be born, or is it permitted for humans to judge?

Let's ask one question. The birth of cloned human beings has become an ethically large debate on a global scale. Here, is the human dignity respected for the clone human being born? Is the dignity of the clone human character respected?

If it is a nation whose fundamental principle is to respect basic human rights, isn't it a problem where the fundamental significance of the nation is questioned?

Such a fundamental problem has been left for over 20 years. Isn't this national responsibility what should be asked, I think so?

In order to correct this fundamental violation of Japan's fundamental existence, isn't it necessary to invalidate any laws contradicting this purpose? I think that is

I'm worried about what people in other countries with different religious climates look like. For example, I am concerned about what kind of judgment is made on what human beings are doing in regard to judgments that should only be made by God's authority.

Lastly, as a personal thought, I think that giving new life as much opportunity as possible to this world should be given the highest priority. ... by saying that within the limits that God can forgive.

The new life should be given the chance to be born as much as possible, and the born life should be given the right to live, and if there are obstacles for them, overcoming as much as possible. I think you should make an effort. It is more important than anything that a new life is born in this world.

The former Eugenics Law has long been regarded as not being a violation of the Constitution. Since the rights of individuals are to be used for public welfare, it seems to be concluded that forced infertility does not violate the basic human rights guaranteed in the Japanese Constitution.

Because it does forced infertility operation in order not to forgive being born itself. After the operation is over, you will be told, "You have undergone infertility surgery."

If a child born from a parent with intellectual disability suffers from intellectual disability and can not survive for that reason, I think that it will be inevitable.

However, the person thanked the parent who gave birth, "Thank you for giving birth," and "I may not be able to live for a long time, but I still want you to give me a chance to stay alive." May I hope?

Parents, as much as possible, may want their children to live as long as possible and to make every effort they can.
Is the right to make this choice unacceptable?

TOP Article
Message to Lady M



NO.306 Message to President Trump 41 ・・・ This is a war between all mankind and the coronavirus. The meaning of President Trump's declaration would be beneficial. The whole world will be able to implement projects that put all the will and power of the nation in order to overcome coronavirus infection. Keynes policy is needed. Many companies around the world are temporarily suspended. Many people are fired temporarily. People who have purchased products until now can no longer purchase products. The performance of companies that continue to do business deteriorates. This causes a recession. The government needs to hire the unemployed and keep paying them. The government orders the required number of respirators. If there is not enough production equipment, the government will expand.

NO.303 Message to President Trump 39 ・・・ Considerations as of March 17, 2020 Japan Time. Countries have jointly implemented maximum quantitative easing. The Fed has moved to a virtually zero interest rate. Entrepreneurs are not willing to use the investment funds provided. Stock prices fall because investors can't find investment opportunities. In the United States and Europe, entrepreneurs do not try to solve problems themselves. They wait for others to help them. Then, I propose Keynes's policy. The United States sets a national purpose and declares a state enterprise to achieve the purpose. Giving huge funds to the national business. If war, the US government could do this. This is a war between all mankind and the coronavirus. I suggest that Trump do this.

Link to Hatena Blog. Complement this blog・・・and, Japanese Version Letetter to White House at Google Blogger ,and My Linkedin