Japan does not have laws that comprehensively prohibit discrimination, punish acts of discrimination, and, at the same time, provide relief to victims. For example, laws asking social care for daily lives and social involvements for disabilities are relatively well developed, but there is no punishment for discriminatory treatment and verbal violence, and no consideration for victim recovery. Often, discriminatory statements are affirmed by ‘freedom of expression.’ Alternatively, the convenient term ‘custom’ denies a finding of discrimination.

The Government encourages women to enter society, but finds it difficult to punish acts that hinder this. It is similar to discrimination against persons with disabilities, which is prohibited, but discriminatory acts go unpunished as a result. Because of a lack of common law, cases must be appealed up to the Supreme Court. This is costly, time-consuming, and an ordinary people. Civil trials are expected to be even more difficult for victims.

There is a short law on Buraku discrimination, the Law on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination. The law only states that it is the responsibility of the State to eliminate discrimination, that it is important to consult the parties concerned, and that education is important. It does not aim at affirmative action in the sense of establishing a legal framework prohibiting discrimination, nor does it oblige central and local governments to take measures against unemployment, education and housing. In short, it is a law of principle that excludes any budgetary measures to give concrete form to the law. Despite this law, government bureaucrats say the Buraku are virtually non-existent.

As it is an ideological law, it cannot prohibit, for example, the act of uncovering whether a person is a Buraku through background checks. It cannot prohibit the sale of books listing the locations of the Buraku by name. It took nine years for a publishing company called Jigen-sha to be sued for selling such publications and for the sales to be found to be in breach of the Constitution. The owner of Jigen-sha continued to film videos of the Buraku of the country without permission and upload them to online video sharing platforms, as well as the book. They published houses, nameplates, cars, cemeteries, and public facilities in 386 locations across the country, inciting discriminatory practices by asking people to go and see the Buraku. Such acts are a violence that benefits the business of background check, reproduces discrimination and strikes a blow to the Burakumin’s mental health. It is a violence that sometimes results in the loss of life. However, there are no legal norms to stop it. At present, all that can be relied on is ‘conscience’ that may or may not exist among our nationals.

Burakumin suffer damage that they would not have had to experience if they were not Burakumin, due to convenient interpretation by the state. They are in a state of exception. The Burakumin is a set who, as citizens, belong to the state and its society but are not included in it. I do not believe that law is a panacea. However, first of all, I believe that the state should legally define Buraku discrimination, solemnly declare it prohibited, stipulate penalties for discriminatory acts, and declare that it is responsible for the restoration of damage and honor.

Unfortunately, however, there are some researchers on Buraku issues who say that such laws encourage discrimination. Certainly, an anti-discrimination ethic takes precedence over the law. Nevertheless, it would be a contradiction in itself to demand ethical hostilities from people whose ethical standards have been loosened. Therefore, at the very least, we would like to see a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination, so that there is no need for a legal system that requires constitutional decisions to be taken to the Supreme Court.