Legacy That Needs to Be Passed on – Article 24 of Japanese Constitution

One of the recent hottest political issues in Japan is definitely the amendment of the Constitution proposed by the Liberal Democratic Party ("LDP") of Japan and people’s focus is mostly on Article 9. I completely agree with the “renunciation of war” and am against any amendments to the article. I cannot see any reason for the amendment no matter what other countries want Japan to do, even if they are our allies. I understand the historical uniqueness of the birth of the Constitution (some saying that it was forced by the U.S.), but we have to thank them for such peaceful constitution and determine whether to amend it based on not how it was established "back then," but what is in it and whether or not we "now" want to keep it.

But I have another concern. Why do people give so little attention to Article 24? So, let's compare the current and proposed amendment of Article 24.

Current

"Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.
With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes."

A proposed amendment

(The underlined parts are proposed additions and the cross out word is a proposed deletion. Please note that as the proposed amendments are only in Japanese, revisions were translated into Japanese by the author of this blog.)

"1. The family shall be respected as the natural and fundamental group unit of society. The members of a family shall support each other.

2. Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.
3. With regard to family, support for dependents, guardianship, marriage and divorce, property rights, inheritance, and other matters pertaining to relatives, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes."
The LDP also says as follows in their Q&A:

"Q19
How were the article for family matters changed?

LDP’s answer

Family is a significantly important existence for society, but it has been said recently that family bonds are becoming weak. Considering this, the addition of a new provision regarding family, Article 24, Clause 1, that “The family shall be respected as the natural and fundamental group unit of society. The members of a family shall support each other.” was proposed. For the drafting of the first sentence, Article 16, Clause 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights was also referred to."

Hmmmmmmmm? Are these revisions based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter the “Declaration”)? OK, if so, let’s see Article 16 of the Declaration.

"Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (Underlined by the author.)
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Whaaaaaaat the hell are they saying? Are they saying that they want to add a new clause based on Article 16 of the Declaration while revising another clause to reduce rights of individuals in contrary to exactly the same article? Do they think that we agree to anything if it is the GLOBAL STANDARD without actually reading it? Or are they insane or just forgetful? I would rather want to believe that they are forgetful even if they are one of the ruling parties. Or do they think that we, Japanese, don’t speak English and so won’t find about this?

If so, I have to talk about this with as many people as possible before a referendum will be held. Otherwise, we will live again without noticing in the pre-war period when rights of a family, community or state are more valued than those of an individual and women with many children are awarded.

Whether or not we are going to throw away the legacy built on those who sacrificed their lives during the war will be seen this year.