[Feature: Disability and Society] A Blind Lawyer Speaks on the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities

Eleven years have passed quickly since I became a lawyer.

During this time, I have been involved in over 400 consultations and cases across civil and criminal law, and I have gained a certain level of confidence in my work. However, each case always contains its own unique new problems, and no matter how much experience I gain, I never truly "get used to" the work of a lawyer.

First, I would like to talk about the daily techniques I use to perform my duties as a blind lawyer.

One of the indispensable tools for my current work is PC screen-reading software. Using this, I read (listen to) documents such as complaints that my assistant has digitized using a scanner, and I conduct research on judicial precedents and create documents. Occasionally, when I let other lawyers or staff listen to the voice of the reading software, they are sometimes surprised by its speed.

Support from the dedicated assistant provided by the office is also essential to my work. For example, from desk work such as converting printed documents into text data that I can read (listen to) using a scanner, or explaining charts, graphs, and photos that are difficult to digitize in words, to accompanying me to interviews and trials for criminal cases and helping with research for reference materials, the assistant supports my work in various situations and works with incredible versatility.

Currently, many of the cases I handle are difficult to process and involve significant mental pressure.

However, it is also true that I feel a sense of reward and fulfillment in my daily work. I believe this is because I am now able to embody, in my own way through my work, the feelings I had when I first admired the profession of a lawyer and decided to pursue that path myself.

I lost my sight around the 6th grade of elementary school due to congenital glaucoma. It was a sensitive time, and for a while after that, I struggled with a strong complex regarding my disability and went through a period where I could not have hope for the future.

However, when I was in junior high school, I happened to pick up a book titled "Butsukatte Butsukatte" (Colliding and Colliding) written by Yoshiki Takeshita, the first person in Japan to pass the bar exam using Braille. This was my turning point.

The image of Mr. Takeshita depicted in the book gave me hope that no matter how difficult the situation, it is possible to carve out one's own path as long as one does not give up—something I had thought was lost along with my sight. It also gave me the goal of wanting to become a lawyer myself someday.

Many people come to my office for consultation because they feel it is difficult to live in current society for various reasons and have lost hope. Some are habitual suicide attempters, and it is not uncommon for someone to say during a consultation, "I just want to die, Counselor." It is by no means easy, but for me, the true essence of being a lawyer is to lighten the burden of such people even a little through legal knowledge and experience.

Sometimes, after a case has settled, someone might say, "Meeting someone like you made me want to try my best again," or I might receive a letter from a man in prison saying, "Since you were so helpful to me, I decided to do Braille transcription as part of my prison work." At such times, I feel a little happy, thinking that I might have been able to hand over the hope I received from Mr. Takeshita's book in a different form.

By the way, next I would like to talk a little about my hobbies. I love traveling abroad and have visited about 12 countries so far, including Europe, America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Traveling abroad makes me realize once again that Japan's barrier-free infrastructure in transportation and public facilities is very advanced from a global perspective. For example, in almost every city I have traveled to, equipment to help visually impaired people walk, such as acoustic signals and Braille blocks, was almost non-existent, with a few exceptions like the West Coast of the United States.

While I think it must be very difficult for visually impaired people to go out alone in such cities, I am also often surprised by how low the "barriers of the heart" are in other countries.

I once went skydiving in Guam. I applied at the reception desk with my heart pounding, wondering if a totally blind person could do it, and received a cheerful reply: "No problem! Everyone with disabilities is jumping." It was as if to say that even people with disabilities enjoy "dangerous play."

Also, this happened at a hotel in Hamburg. The shapes of the bottles for shampoo and conditioner were all the same, so I couldn't distinguish them by touch. When I called the front desk for help, a male housekeeper came shortly after and said, " I've put a rubber band on the bath gel, a large clip on the shampoo, and a small clip on the conditioner. How is this?" He then took my hand and let me confirm each bottle.

In Japan, however, I am often troubled by these "barriers of the heart." I have been refused entry to an apartment because "it's dangerous if a fire starts," and when I tried to enter a coffee shop with my wife, who uses a guide dog, I was told, "Even if it's a guide dog, you cannot enter with a dog," making us drink "bitter tears" instead of coffee.

In April 2016, an important law was enacted that changes the lives of people with disabilities in Japan. That is the "Act on the Promotion of Elimination of Discrimination on the Basis of Disability," abbreviated as the "Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities." Below, I would like to consider what kind of society it is where people with and without disabilities live together, focusing on the introduction of this Act.

(1) "Everyone is different, and everyone is good"

In many laws, the beginning describes why the law was made and what its purpose is. Article 1 of the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities also states: "By promoting the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability, (omitted) to contribute to the realization of a society where all citizens coexist while respecting each other's personality and individuality without being separated by the presence or absence of disability."

Legal language is often difficult to understand and usually just gives you a headache, but Article 1 of this Act is quite a fine piece of writing that warms the heart, reminiscent of Misuzu Kaneko's famous poem: "The bell, the bird, and then me; everyone is different, and everyone is good."

(2) Two Pillars for Eliminating Discrimination

As for the methods to eliminate discrimination, two major pillars are presented.

The first pillar is to prohibit administrative organs such as the state and private business operators from engaging in unfair discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities. The second pillar is to require administrative organs as a legal obligation, and private business operators as an obligation to make efforts, to provide "reasonable accommodation" to persons with disabilities. I would like to explain each pillar below.

(3) Prohibition of Unfair Discriminatory Treatment

The Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities targets administrative organs and private business operators and prohibits "unfair discriminatory treatment compared to persons without disabilities on the basis of disability" (Article 7, Paragraph 1 and Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Act).

According to the basic policy shown by the Cabinet Office, unfair discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities here means violating the rights and interests of persons with disabilities without "justifiable grounds" by (1) refusing to provide goods, services, or various opportunities on the basis of disability, (2) limiting the place or time of provision, or (3) imposing conditions that are not imposed on persons without disabilities.

The key point is "justifiable grounds." Even if you differentiate or refuse to provide services to a person with a disability, it will not be unfair discriminatory treatment if there are "justifiable grounds" for that differentiation or refusal. However, if you differentiate or refuse services without "justifiable grounds," it is considered unfair discriminatory treatment prohibited by law.

So, when can it be said that there are "justifiable grounds"? According to the basic policy, "justifiable grounds" exist when the purpose is objectively legitimate and the differentiation or refusal is unavoidable in light of that purpose. In other words, it is a violation of the law to differentiate or refuse services based on prejudice or assumptions, but such treatment is permitted if anyone would agree that it is unavoidable.

For example, in my case, as mentioned earlier, I was refused an apartment because "it's dangerous if a fire starts," and I was refused entry to a coffee shop with my wife who was with a guide dog because "guide dogs cannot enter."

I believe the background to such differentiation and refusal is the awareness that "a visually impaired person might cause a fire if they use a gas range" or "it must be unhygienic if a guide dog enters a shop." However, in reality, there is no objective data showing that visually impaired people have a higher risk of causing fires than sighted people, and guide dogs are kept clean by users who pay constant attention, so in some cases, they are even more hygienic than an unkempt human. Therefore, since there are no "justifiable grounds" for such differentiation or refusal, it constitutes unfair discriminatory treatment of a person with a disability. The Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities has thus established that one must not differentiate or refuse services based on assumptions or prejudice.

However, when differentiating or refusing a person with a disability, there are cases where one does not realize it is based on assumptions or prejudice. What becomes important is the dialogue between people with disabilities and people without disabilities. People with disabilities must make persistent efforts to communicate what they can and cannot do, while people without disabilities should perhaps think once more through dialogue whether there is a "barrier" in their own hearts.

(4) Obligation to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

As another pillar of measures to eliminate discrimination, the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities stipulates that administrative organs and private business operators should provide reasonable accommodation in response to requests from persons with disabilities (Article 7, Paragraph 2 and Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Act). Reasonable accommodation here refers to assistance, improvement of facilities, provision of auxiliary means, changes to rules, etc., performed to ensure substantial equality for persons with disabilities, provided that such provision does not impose an undue burden. For example, the Cabinet Office's basic policy lists the following as examples of reasonable accommodation:

1. Consideration for the physical environment, such as providing a portable slope over a step for wheelchair users or picking up and handing over products displayed in high places.

2. Consideration for communication, such as using written communication, reading aloud, sign language, or explaining using easy-to-understand expressions.

3. Flexible changes to rules and practices, such as adjusting break times according to the characteristics of the disability.

Since reasonable accommodation is a new concept, many people may still not quite understand it even after reading this far. Therefore, I will explain reasonable accommodation a little more.

First, let's think about various types of consideration in society.

In this society, many considerations are already in place so that things most people cannot do do not cause trouble. For example, many Japanese people cannot understand an English speech. Therefore, it is taken for granted that English interpreters are provided at international conferences.

However, while consideration is naturally provided when there are many "people who cannot do it," in current society, consideration is not naturally provided when there are few "people who cannot do it." In the previous example, even if English interpreters are provided at a conference, it is not common for sign language interpreters to be provided for hearing-impaired people.

Reasonable accommodation is when society provides consideration in response to a request from a person with a disability who needs it, in cases where consideration is not currently provided naturally because there are few "people who cannot do it," so that even people with disabilities can participate in society equally with people without disabilities.

Next, I will explain the relationship between reasonable accommodation and barrier-free infrastructure in public transportation and other areas.

Barrier-free measures, such as installing elevators and Braille blocks in public transportation like stations and public facilities like hotels and theaters, are carried out to improve convenience for an unspecified large number of people with disabilities. In the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, this is positioned as "prior improvement measures."

Reasonable accommodation is what is provided based on the request of an individual person with a disability to remove the inconveniences that still remain after conditions have been prepared as much as possible through these barrier-free efforts.

In this way, to remove the barriers standing in the way of people with disabilities, both barrier-free efforts to improve convenience for an unspecified large number of people with disabilities and reasonable accommodation, which is detailed consideration tailored to individual needs, are indispensable; they are, so to speak, the two wheels of a cart.

I believe that by making reasonable accommodation mandatory for administrative organs and private business operators, a common foundation has been created for mutual dialogue between people with and without disabilities regarding methods to solve the difficulties faced by people with disabilities.

I hope that from now on, constructive dialogue will be born between people with and without disabilities everywhere in society, and that through that dialogue, methods to change society will be discovered, and Japanese society will move in that direction.

When I was a child, I used to play a game with a friend where we would start digging holes from both ends of a sand pile to make a small tunnel through it.

Society will not change immediately just because the Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities was created.

However, there is no doubt that we now have the tools to dig holes in the various barriers existing in society from both sides—people without disabilities and people with disabilities—through the method of dialogue.

There will be various frictions at first. But I am sure that a new horizon never seen before lies beyond the tunnel. First, it begins with people with and without disabilities approaching each other step by step through dialogue.

By the way, when I think about the social participation of people with disabilities, I think of Major League Baseball. Until not so long ago, it was thought that Japanese players could not compete in the Major Leagues. However, after pitcher Hideo Nomo challenged the Majors in 1995 and succeeded, Japanese players began to enter one after another, and now many players, such as Shohei Ohtani and Masahiro Tanaka, have become the core of their teams.

In truth, the ability of Japanese players might have reached that level long before Nomo went. But it didn't happen because most people didn't think so. I feel that the relationship between people without disabilities and people with disabilities is like the relationship between the Major Leagues and the Japanese baseball world before Nomo went to the U.S.; the side without disabilities does not yet well understand the abilities of people with disabilities, and the side with disabilities also thinks they cannot compete in the "Majors" with their own abilities.

Therefore, I want the side without disabilities to give opportunities to challengers with disabilities, and I think it is important for the side with disabilities to have the courage to take a step forward. People inevitably tend to be captivated by the magnitude of what they have lost and forget how many possibilities still remain at hand. But if those possibilities can be made to bloom, that person themselves will become a precedent, and society's awareness of people with disabilities should also change.

I would like to end this essay with the hope that in the near future, a day will come when people with and without disabilities can play together with all their might while stimulating each other on the same field called "society."