[Feature: Disability and Society] A Blind Attorney Speaks on the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities

Eleven years have passed quickly since I became an attorney.

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 an attorney.

First, I would like to talk about the creative ways I, as a blind attorney, perform my daily duties.

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

Support from the dedicated assistants provided by the office is also essential to my work. For example, they perform 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. They also support my work in various other situations, from attending interviews and trials for criminal cases to helping with research for reference materials; their performance is truly versatile and multifaceted.

Currently, many of the cases I handle are not without difficulty in processing, and they are all mentally taxing.

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

I lost my sight around the sixth grade of elementary school due to congenital glaucoma. Being at a sensitive age, I struggled for a while afterward with a strong complex regarding my disability and went through a period where I could not hold hope for the future.

However, a turning point came when I was in junior high school and 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.

The image of Mr. Takeshita depicted in the book gave hope to me—someone who felt that even my potential had been lost along with my sight—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. It also gave me the goal of wanting to become an attorney 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 already, Counselor." It is by no means easy, but for me, the true calling of an attorney is to use my legal knowledge and experience to lighten the burden of such people, even if only a little.

Sometimes, after a case has settled, someone might say, "Meeting someone like you made me want to try my best once more," or I might receive a letter from a man serving a prison sentence saying, "Since you were so helpful to me, I have decided to do Braille transcription as 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.

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

Traveling abroad makes me realize once again that the barrier-free accessibility of Japan's transportation and public facilities is very advanced by global standards. 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. While my heart was pounding as I wondered if a totally blind person could really do it, the response at the reception was a cheerful, "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 by 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 was once refused an apartment rental 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, we were told, "Even if it's a guide dog, you cannot enter with a dog," forcing us to drink "bitter tears" instead of coffee.

In April 2016, an important law was enacted to change the lives of people with disabilities in Japan. That is the "Act on the Promotion of Elimination of Discrimination on the Basis of Disability," commonly known as the "Act for Eliminating 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 an introduction to this act.

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

In many laws, the beginning describes why the law was created and what its purpose is. Article 1 of the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities states: "By promoting the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability, (omitted) it shall 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 wording is often difficult to understand and usually just gives you a headache, but I think this Article 1 of the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities is quite a fine piece of writing that warms the heart. It reminds me of that famous poem by Misuzu Kaneko: "The bell, the bird, and then me; everyone is different, and everyone is good."

(2) Two Pillars for Eliminating Discrimination

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

The first pillar prohibits administrative organs such as the state and private business operators from engaging in unjust discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities. The second pillar requires 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 Unjust Discriminatory Treatment

The Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities targets administrative organs and private business operators and prohibits "unjust discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities 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, unjust discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities here refers to infringing on the rights and interests of persons with disabilities without "justifiable grounds" by (i) refusing to provide goods, services, or various opportunities on the basis of disability, (ii) restricting the place or time of provision, or (iii) imposing conditions that are not imposed on persons without disabilities.

The key point is "justifiable grounds." Even if one differentiates against a person with a disability or refuses to provide services, it does not constitute unjust discriminatory treatment if there are "justifiable grounds" for that differentiation or refusal. However, if one differentiates or refuses services without "justifiable grounds," it is considered unjust discriminatory treatment prohibited by law.

So, in what cases 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, differentiating against persons with disabilities or refusing services based on prejudice or assumptions is a violation of the law, but such treatment is permitted in cases where anyone would agree that the differentiation or refusal is unavoidable.

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

I believe the background for 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 the 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 since users take constant care of their guide dogs, they are sometimes even more hygienic than some humans. Therefore, since there are no "justifiable grounds" for such differentiation or refusal, it constitutes unjust discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities. The Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities has established that differentiating against persons with disabilities or refusing services based on such assumptions and prejudice is not allowed.

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

(4) Obligation to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

As another pillar of measures to eliminate discrimination, the Act for Eliminating 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, and changes to rules carried out to ensure substantive 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 find it somewhat unclear. Therefore, I will explain reasonable accommodation a bit more.

First, let's think about various types of accommodation within society.

In this society, many accommodations are already in place so that people are not troubled by things that many people cannot do. For example, many Japanese people cannot understand an English speech. Therefore, it is taken for granted that English interpreters are provided at international conferences and the like.

However, while accommodation is naturally provided when there are many "people who cannot do it," in current society, accommodation 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 accommodation in response to requests from persons with disabilities who need it in cases where accommodation is not currently provided naturally because there are few "people who cannot do it," so that even persons with disabilities can participate in society equally with persons without disabilities.

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

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

Reasonable accommodation is what is provided based on the requests of individual persons with disabilities to remove the inconveniences that still remain after conditions have been prepared as much as possible through these barrier-free initiatives.

In this way, to remove the barriers standing in the way of persons with disabilities, both barrier-free initiatives to improve convenience for an unspecified large number of persons 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 persons with and without disabilities regarding methods for solving the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities.

I hope that from now on, constructive dialogue will be born between persons with and without disabilities everywhere in society, and that within that dialogue, methods for changing society will be discovered. I expect Japanese society to move in such a 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 for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities was created.

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

There will likely be various frictions at first. But surely, a new horizon never seen before must be opening up on the other side of the tunnel. First, it begins with persons with and without disabilities approaching each other step by step through dialogue.

By the way, when I think about the social participation of persons 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 pitcher Nomo went. But it didn't happen because most people didn't think so. I feel that the relationship between persons without disabilities and persons with disabilities is like the relationship between the Major Leagues and the Japanese baseball world before pitcher Nomo went to the U.S.; the side without disabilities does not yet fully understand the abilities of persons 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 chances to challengers with disabilities, and I think it is important for the side with disabilities to take a step forward with courage. People inevitably tend to be captivated by the magnitude of what they have lost and forget how much potential still remains at hand. But if that potential can be made to bloom, that person themselves will become a precedent, and society's awareness of persons with disabilities should change.

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