This news is about the Supreme Court’s decision that excluding non-store-based sex industry businesses (such as delivery health services that do not have physical shops) from government COVID-19 relief payments is not unconstitutional.
Let me explain this in a way that’s easy for middle school students to understand.
What’s this about?
To help people and businesses struggling because of the coronavirus, the government created financial support programs called the “Sustainability Subsidy” and the “Rent Support Subsidy.”
However, people working in non-store-based sex industry jobs were excluded from receiving this support.
Because of this, people working in non-store-based sex businesses in the Kansai region sued the government, saying that this exclusion violated the constitutional principle of “equality under the law.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court decided that “non-store-based sex industry businesses are considered to possibly have a negative influence on the healthy development of minors (under 18) if not strictly regulated.
Supporting such businesses with public funds is not unconstitutional.”
In other words, the Court ruled that excluding these businesses from support is not against the Constitution.
There was also a dissenting opinion
Out of the five judges, one said, “Excluding these businesses and the people who work there from support strengthens the social impression that they are ‘inferior.’ Therefore, it is unconstitutional,” and expressed a dissenting opinion.
Key Points
- The government’s COVID-19 relief payments remain unavailable to non-store-based sex industry businesses.
- The Supreme Court judged that this decision is not unconstitutional.
- However, not all judges agreed; there was also a dissenting opinion.
Comments