Struggle against Legal Discrimination on Women

Grand Bench of the Supreme Court concluded the argument on the case in which female plaintiffs required compensation for their damage caused by discriminative articles in Civil Codes on Wednesday. Although the first and second courts dismissed their appeals, it is obvious that the provisions are obsolete. The Supreme Court will make decisions on those cases for the first time in its history as soon as the end of this year.

Article 750 of Civil Code determines that “a husband and wife shall adopt the surname of the husband or wife in accordance with that which is decided at the time of marriage. Against the provision, five women in Tokyo filed a lawsuit demanding Japanese government ¥6 million for their mental pains. They argued the provision, coercing change of surname, was violating the Constitution of Japan, which guaranteed the people respect for individuals or gender equality.

One of the plaintiffs, Kaori Oguni, made an argument in the Grand Bench. “When I called my married name, it seemed to be calling someone else,” told Oguni. When she supported writing her client’s living will as an administrative scrivener, her client required her signing with her legal name. But, the client could not identify her, because her husband had very rare surname. “I want the Judges to understand that it is painful to lose one’s existence with marriage,” told Oguni in the press conference about her belief in identity between surname and personality.

The defendant argues that maintaining surname is not an indispensable right for an individual and the article does not harm gender equality as long as it allows choosing one of the two names of the couple. Behind that reasoning, there is a conservative recognition that choosing one name maintains integration of family.

But, Civil Code has further discriminative provision. Article 733 says “a woman may not remarry unless six months have passed since the day of dissolution or rescission of the previous marriage.” While its purpose is to determine the father of baby, if a pregnancy was recognized after her divorce, the article has been criticized as discrimination to all women.

In an argument to the Supreme Court, a representative lawyer for a woman plaintiff emphasized unconstitutionality of the article. The woman was pregnant just before the divorce with her ex-husband, who had been repeating domestic violence on her. Her children could not have any family register, which meant no existence in Japanese society.

Since it may affect fundamental value of the Japanese, the Supreme Court will have to make a difficult judge. But, it is sure that modern Japanese think surname to be nothing guarantees family integration. Technology can determine a child’s father. Traditional disadvantage of woman has to be eliminated.