Japanese man tells U.N. forced sterilization at 14 ruined his life
A child victim of forced sterilization under Japan's now-defunct eugenics protection law said the surgery ruined his life, as he described his experiences at a U.N. event on disability rights Tuesday in New York.
"Because of the surgery, my life was thrown completely off course," the 82-year-old man, who uses the pseudonym Saburo Kita, said at the event linked to a United Nations conference on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Kita is a member of a group that won compensation from the government in a Supreme Court ruling in July last year. He was forced to undergo sterilization at the age of 14 after he was placed in a child welfare facility for alleged delinquents.
He chose to never reveal the surgery to the woman who later became his wife until just before her death, calling the incident a "painful secret."
The eugenics law, which was in effect between 1948 and 1996, permitted authorities to sterilize people with intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses or hereditary disorders without their consent to prevent the birth of "inferior" offspring.
According to government estimates, about 25,000 people in Japan were sterilized, 16,500 of them without consent, under the law often labeled the worst human rights violation in the country's postwar history.
In its ruling, the top court said the law was unconstitutional as it violated both the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the right to equality.
While the lawsuit brought hope to all victims, "It does not mean we can start our lives over. Surgery motivated by eugenics is a tragedy that cannot be undone," Kita said in his speech at the headquarters of the United Nations.
"I want to reduce the number of people who suffered the way I did -- even if it's just by one," Kita said.
After being unsure about what to do with his compensation payout, Kita's supporters urged him to use the money to deliver the speech at the United Nations.
After the event, Kita told reporters that he wanted to continue speaking about his ordeal to bring a deeper understanding of the suffering he and others experienced.
© KYODO
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
6 hours ago
- Kyodo News
Top court rejects appeal by doctor over euthanasia of ALS patient
KYODO NEWS - 30 minutes ago - 19:35 | All, Japan Japan's top court has rejected an appeal by a doctor convicted of consensually killing a woman with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a rare neurological disease also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, in 2019 in Kyoto, western Japan, finalizing his 18-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court's Second Petty Bench rejected arguments that found Yoshikazu Okubo, 47, guilty of aiding another's suicide would violate the constitutional right to self-determination. In Japan, euthanasia is not legally recognized. The Kyoto District Court in March last year sentenced Okubo to 18 years in prison for administering a lethal dose of a sedative to Yuri Hayashi, 51, judging that his actions were "not socially acceptable, as she was killed in such a short amount of time that it would prevent an adequate examination or confirmation of intent." The Osaka High Court in November upheld the lower court ruling. According to the ruling, Okubo conspired with former doctor Naoki Yamamoto, 47, to administer the sedative to Hayashi in her Kyoto apartment in November 2019 at her request. Okubo was also convicted of killing Yamamoto's 77-year-old father in 2011. Yamamoto was convicted of murdering his own father by unspecified means, for which he received a 13-year prison term. His sentence was finalized in 2024. Related coverage: Doctor's 18-yr term for consensual killing of ALS sufferer upheld
Yomiuri Shimbun
8 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Lawsuit Accuses Musk of Bribing Wisconsin Voters with Cash Prizes
Joshua Lott/The Washington Post Elon Musk speaks during a town-hall-style event in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on March 30. A Wisconsin nonprofit organization focused on fighting for fair elections has filed a legal complaint alleging that billionaire Elon Musk illegally bribed voters by giving out cash prizes this year in his attempt to help conservatives take control of the swing state's Supreme Court. The complaint, provided to The Washington Post by lawyers representing the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and two Wisconsin voters, claims that Musk, his America PAC and a Musk-linked entity known as United States of America Inc. violated the state's election law in 'a brazen scheme to bribe Wisconsin citizens to vote.' The complaint stems from actions of the Tesla and SpaceX CEO ahead of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this spring, when he handed out two $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters and when his super PAC, America PAC, paid registered voters $100 each for signing petitions and providing their contact information. State law, the complaint notes, bars offering or giving 'any amount of money over $1' to induce anyone to go to the polls, vote or vote for a particular person. The complaint, which was filed Tuesday, also claims the actions violated the state's prohibition on unauthorized lotteries. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the conduct broke state law and to bar Musk and the defendants from replicating such conduct in future Wisconsin elections. They are also asking the court to award damages 'to the extent supported by law.' Days before an event in Wisconsin where Musk handed out the $1 million checks, the state's attorney general, Josh Kaul, sued Musk and America PAC, arguing that the billionaire was violating a law that bars offering voters something of value in exchange for casting ballots. After a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing and an appeals court rebuffed his request, Kaul asked the state's high court to issue a temporary restraining order barring Musk and America PAC from further promoting Musk's visit to Wisconsin and making payments conditioned on voting. The justices on the court declined to take the case and did not explain their rationale. When Kaul's lawsuit was filed, Musk and his team portrayed the payments as rewards for signing petitions and serving as spokespeople – and not as compensation for votes. At the time, Musk was an adviser to President Donald Trump and oversaw the U.S. DOGE Service, a federal cost-cutting agency. America PAC declined to comment Wednesday on the new complaint. Musk initially said that the giveaway event and prize money would be open only to those who had voted early 'in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.' After legal scholars questioned the plan, Musk deleted an initial post about the event and then said it would be open to Wisconsin registered voters who signed a petition opposing activist judges. Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel for Law Forward – a public-interest law firm representing the plaintiffs in the latest complaint, said that one of Kaul's biggest challenges was the short timeline of his request. 'We're trying to create … accountability in a more regular timeline, in a way that gives the courts the opportunity to look at this more carefully and in a more traditional procedure for them, and we fully expect that the courts are going to do so,' Mandell said. The plaintiffs in the latest complaint are 'also in a different position substantively, because we know exactly what happened and how it unfolded, and we're asking the court to say this is not acceptable,' Mandell added. Musk similarly deployed high-value giveaways in swing states during the 2024 election, saying he would hand out $1 million daily in a lottery for registered voters who signed a petition as part of his super PAC's recruitment drive. The program also sought to give $47 cash incentives for valid referrals to registered voters in swing states. Despite legal efforts to stop Musk's tactics during the 2024 presidential campaign, a Pennsylvania judge said that prosecutors failed to show it was an illegal lottery, and he allowed the giveaways to continue through Election Day. Tuesday's complaint aims to prevent Musk and his groups from taking similar actions in Wisconsin in future elections. In recent months, Musk has sent mixed signals as to whether he plans to stay involved in U.S. elections. Trump carried Wisconsin in 2024, but Musk's preferred candidate lost the state Supreme Court race. In late May, weeks before his exit from the administration as a special government employee, Musk indicated that he planned to do 'a lot less' political spending going forward after having spent massively for Trump's campaign. But he said that could change if he saw 'a reason to do political spending in the future.' Musk then left his role overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency last month with the fanfare of a personal send-off by Trump and the presentation of a ceremonial key to the Oval Office. However, in the short time since his departure, Musk's relationship with Trump and many Republicans in Congress has soured, with the tech scion suggesting at times that he may seek political revenge against lawmakers who support the president's massive legislative priorities bill. Last week, for example, Musk wrote on X that 'a new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!' He also threatened to 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' by supporting the bill.
Japan Today
18 hours ago
- Japan Today
Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content
Minister Luiz Fux, left, Google Brazil's rapporteur, talks with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberto Barroso, during the court's resumption of social media regulation cases regarding online disinformation, in Brasilia, Brazil, Wednesday, June 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres) By MAURICIO SAVARESE and ELÉONORE HUGHES The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users, in a landmark case for Latin America with implications for U.S. relations. Brazil's top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding on how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence among teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic. Gilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass. The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official reportedly is Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian law. The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is André Mendonça and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be enacted. Mendonça said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that "holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.' Justice Flávio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were stimulated on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.' 'I think social media has not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he said. The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure. The current legislation states social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order. Public debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, Brasilia. Platforms need to be pro-active in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university. 'They need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge said. Wednesday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms. Rendering platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy. 'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to innovation. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
