Supreme Court decision in NHK's receiving contract trial in December 2017
The Supreme Court ruling was reached in December 2017 in a civil trial in which a denial of receiving contract with NHK fought with NHK. A rejected subscriber to the NHK claimed that the Broadcasting Law violated the Constitution of Japan, which guaranteed freedom of contract.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Broadcasting Law was constitutional and rejected the claim of a subscriber refusal.
When I heard the news, I thought that Japanese democracy had committed suicide. The judgment of the Supreme Court is the precedent of all subsequent trials.
If the Supreme Court decides to ignore "respect for fundamental human rights." No matter what law the government enacts, the Supreme Court will rule that it is constitutional.
"People have to commit suicide bombing as a kamikaze against government-designated Japanese enemies, as ordered by the government."
For example, if such a law is enacted, the Supreme Court of Japan will determine this law to be constitutional in light of the current Constitution of Japan.
Two years have passed since this Supreme Court decision, but my decision has not changed.
Since that time, I have been thinking logically. Then, at that time, I was able to know what had not been known.
I learned that the history of the Constitution of Japan was described in the preamble of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
For details, please use article 001.
Here, the following is briefly described. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Broadcasting Law will not be limited to domestic issues in Japan.
The United States has instructed Japan on the enactment of the Constitution of Japan as part of the postwar World War II project. The purpose of this project was to prevent the repeated tragedy of World War II. The Constitution of Japan was drafted based on the Charter of the United Nations. The first draft is in English and is kept by the United States.
The procedure for amending the Japanese Constitution is stipulated in Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution. The interpretation of the Japanese Constitution should be based on the UN Charter. Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan is prepared based on Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations.
"A majority vote of valid votes" is not a requirement for a constitutional amendment by referendum.
The requirements for the constitutional amendment by referendum are as follows.
"At a minimum, a majority of all voters are in favor. In some cases, all voters are in favor."
This is the will of the United States and the United Nations. The United States and the United Nations will continue to monitor Japan. And at the last time they will take action.
The United Nations has continued to warn Japan. The UN Commission has pointed out the problems of the Broadcasting Law and has repeated resolutions calling for a revision of the Broadcasting Law.
The broadcasting law will violate Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan is a provision that guarantees to the people of Japan the basic human rights that humankind has established in history and that are universal to all humankind.
Freedom of contract, freedom of choice, and freedom of thought are all fundamental human rights universally guaranteed to all mankind. These basic human rights are guaranteed to Japanese people under Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan.
NHK subscription denials claim universal basic human rights to these human beings. This person does not support the philosophy of the Broadcast Law. This person does not choose the information that NHK broadcasts for his or her right to know. This person does not choose NHK as a means of guaranteeing his right to know. This person has refused to subscribe to NHK for these rights.
If the Japanese Supreme Court had respected Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution, the Broadcast Law would have been found unconstitutional. The Japanese Supreme Court ignores Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution. This is not limited to the NHK receiving contract trial.
I was in the Sendai High Court ruling in the Former Eugenic Protection Law Trial. The Sendai High Court ruled that "the former eugenics protection law violates Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees the right of individuals to pursue happiness."
The Sendai High Court did not rule that "the former eugenics protection law violated Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan, which guaranteed universal basic human rights for humanity." Why?
Let's return to the broadcasting law. I understand the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law based on the following.
"Japanese citizens have the right to know unbiased information, and it is the responsibility of public broadcasting to broadcast unbiased information. The public is obliged to bear the costs of protecting their rights. The cost of public broadcasting must be fair to all citizens. "
I read the NHK Supreme Court decision. The Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that the Broadcasting Law is constitutional, based on the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law.
Based on the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law as a basis for legitimacy, it is appropriate to force the conclusion of a subscription agreement, and the Supreme Court will rule that it does not violate Articles 13, 21 and 29 of the Japanese Constitution.
Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates that the basic human rights of individuals are respected as long as they do not violate public welfare. In other words, the Supreme Court of Japan has determined that the realization of the philosophy of the Broadcasting Law is public welfare.
The assertion of freedom of contract is part of the basic human rights, but the Japanese Supreme Court has ruled that it is not permissible to assert these basic human rights in violation of public welfare.
The meaning of the Japanese government deciding what is "public welfare."
So what does this mean? This ruling means the following:
"The definition of public welfare is the responsibility of the Japanese government." The Government of Japan decides what is public welfare and what is not public welfare.
Then, suppose the Japanese government has decided that "to attack and defeat the enemy of Japan in order to protect the sovereignty of the nation" is to realize public welfare.
Suppose that a law was enacted by the Japanese government to use the Kamikaze attack on Japanese opponents.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Japan will determine that the Kamikaze Act is constitutional in light of the current Constitution of Japan.
The current Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan does not allow citizens to claim the right to live against public welfare.
Even in the basic human rights that are universal to humanity, there is a constraint that "it is not against public welfare." However, the meaning of public welfare in basic human rights universal to mankind is completely different from what the Japanese government defines.
If we respect Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution, neither the basic human rights nor the public welfare can be defined by the Japanese government.
By ignoring Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution, the Japanese government defines basic human rights and public welfare.
When interpreting a law, the meaning of the words used in the text of the law must be clear. The Japanese government defines the words used in the law. This is the policy of the Japanese government.
There is the right to pursue happiness. "In the war, it is the happiness of the people to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Japan," the Japanese government defines.
The Japanese Supreme Court will rule that the Kamikaze bill is constitutional in light of the current constitution of Japan.
The current Japanese parliamentarians, regardless of the ruling and opposition, all assert this policy. The government decides what the people are allowed and what is not allowed.
All basic human rights granted to the people must be decided by the government and stated in the Constitution. All Japanese parliamentarians have asserted:
The Komeito party insists on constitutional amendment. Constitution is to add a new article to the current Japanese Constitution. For example, if environmental rights are newly established as one of the fundamental human rights, the Komeito argues that articles that guarantee environmental rights must be added to the current constitution.
The Komeito's policy is that all basic human rights granted to the people must be determined by the government and stated in the Constitution.
Again, we refer to the former Eugenic Protection Law trial. "The birth of a child who inherits the genetics of a person with intellectual disability is against public welfare." This was the philosophy of the former Eugenic Protection Law. So, this law was enacted.
The Sendai High Court ruled that the Old Eugenic Protection Law violated Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution, which guaranteed the right of the people to pursue happiness, probably because the government's definition of public welfare has changed.
If Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan had been respected from the beginning, the Old Eugenic Protection Law would not have been enacted from the beginning. Even if a child has inherited the genetics of a person with intellectual disability, it would be a basic human right universal for humanity to be guaranteed the right to live.
People with intellectual disabilities will also find that the chance to survive should be guaranteed. People with intellectual disabilities will also find that the chance to leave their offspring in the future should be guaranteed. We must be in a position to respect basic human rights that are universal to humanity.
Now, let's return to the background of the establishment of the Japanese Constitution. The preamble to the San Francisco Peace Treaty states that the enactment of the Constitution of Japan is a condition for the conclusion of this treaty and for Japan's accession to the United Nations.
Japan was recognized by the Allied powers for adhering to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and for striving to achieve the goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Japan's enactment of the Japanese Constitution was a declaration that it respected the respect for universal basic human rights for mankind.
This led to the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Japan's accession to the United Nations.
Then the United States and the United Nations should remember this. Article 97 of the Japanese Constitution was a declaration that Japan respects the fundamental human rights universal to humanity.
The United States and the United Nations should continue to monitor Japan's current disregard for Article 97 of the Constitution of Japan and the removal of this provision by amendment.
It is envisaged that the Supreme Court of Japan will be appointed as a war criminal in the United Nations War Court in the future.
In an NHK subscription contract, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that the Broadcasting Law was constitutional. Respect for fundamental human rights universal to all mankind has been denied. This ruling became a precedent.
In the future, the constitutional amendment of Japan is enacted. The current referendum law violates Article 96 of the Japanese Constitution. Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan must be interpreted based on Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The requirement for a constitutional amendment is not "a majority of valid votes."
Constitutional amendments made pursuant to the constitutional referendum law procedures are invalid. However, the Japanese Supreme Court may rule that the current referendum law is constitutional.
As a result, the constitutional amendment was realized, and as a result, Japan repeated the tragedy of World War II.
In this case, I think the Japanese Supreme Court will be tried as a war criminal in the United Nations War Court.