Supreme Court Ruling on Sex Industry Relief Payments Sparks Controversy

On June 16th in Tokyo, lawyers representing an escort service that had sought equal eligibility for government aid addressed reporters. The author expressed deep disappointment regarding the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the government's exclusion of the sex industry from COVID-19 relief payments.

The Supreme Court's ruling, delivered on June 16th, determined that excluding sex-related businesses from emergency cash benefits, designed to alleviate the pandemic's economic impact, did not violate the Constitution. The lawsuit originated from a Kansai-based company operating a "deribarii herusu" service, which dispatches sex workers to clients' locations rather than operating from a physical storefront.

The court's conclusion was that such work "poses a risk of undermining the dignity of workers," and therefore, did not warrant public financial support. This view was supported by a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court’s First Petty Bench. The author argued that the ruling would have been more acceptable if it had cited concrete examples of worker dignity violations, rather than relying on an abstract "risk" without tangible evidence.

The author questioned the logic behind the ruling, suggesting that if the work truly undermined dignity, it would be a stronger argument for a complete ban. Prostitution is explicitly prohibited in Japan for violating human dignity. However, delivery health services are legally permitted under the "Fueiho," which regulates various nightlife and sex-related businesses. Despite operating within this legal framework, delivery health businesses were singled out based on vague and subjective reasoning.

The author cited a blunt remark from then-Finance Minister Taro Aso during Diet deliberations on the COVID-19 relief payments, who questioned why these businesses were treated differently, given they pay taxes. Aso also noted that many bureaucrats lacked sufficient experience with the sector to answer this question. The author agreed with Aso's assessment.

The author concluded that the Supreme Court ruling appeared to endorse the idea that some professions are inherently more "humble" than others, questioning whether the judgment itself undermined human dignity. The plaintiff's words at a news conference resonated with conviction and truth.