Court rules Tokyo's directive forcing teachers to stand up for Hiromaru and sing Kimigayo as unconstitutional

Japan Press Service Co., Ltd. is the only news agency providing information of progressive, democratic movements in Japan

Court rules Tokyo's directive forcing teachers to stand up for Hinomaru and sing Kimigayo as unconstitutional

In a landmark ruling, the Tokyo District Court on September 21 decided that a directive the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education had issued to instruct teachers to stand up for the Hinomaru and sing Kimigayo at school ceremonies is unconstitutional and illegal.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education has reprimanded a total of 345 teachers on the grounds that they rejected school principals' orders based on the board's directive issued on October 23, 2003 forcing teachers to stand up and sing Kimigayo. Claiming that the board's measure is unjustifiable, 401 teachers jointly filed this lawsuit.

Presiding judge Namba Koichi pointed out that the board's directive as well as the subsequent school principals' orders "not only infringe on the independence of education but oblige teachers to promote one-sided theories and ideals onto their students." He said the directive is tantamount to an "improper control" of education by the administration which is prohibited by Article 10 of the Fundamental Law of Education.

The judge said it is a historical fact that Hinomaru and Kimigayo had been used as symbols of the ideology of the Japanese empire and militarism. He acknowledged that forcing teachers to stand up and sing under threat of punishment violates the freedom of thought and conscience, and is thus unconstitutional.

Recognizing that teachers have no obligation to stand up, sing Kimigayo, or play the accompaniment, the judge ordered the board not to punish teachers for their refusal to stand up. The court ordered the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to pay 30,000 yen to each plaintiff in compensation for the mental damage they had suffered.

Following the victory, plaintiffs and their supporters in front of the court shouted in celebration. The defendant lawyers group issued a statement, saying, "This is an epoch-making ruling in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of such actions, in that it straightforwardly states the importance of the freedom of thought and conscience." The group's sub-leader Sawafuji Toichiro said, "This ruling shows how important the Fundamental Law of Education is!"

On the same day, the All Japan Teachers and Staff Union (Zenkyo) issued a statement highly appreciating the ruling, saying, "This ruling will contribute to putting a brake on the move to violate and adversely revise the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education."

Japanese Communist Party Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly Members Group Chair Watanabe Yasunobu said in a statement, "The Tokyo Board of Education and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government under Governor Ishihara Shintaro must accept the ruling, refrain from appealing to a higher court, and withdraw the illegal directive."

The Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education's directive and disciplinary actions against teachers have in effect made teachers even refrain from teaching about freedom of conscience and forced students to follow the directive. Thus, the board's measures have anticipated the adverse revision of the Fundamental Law of Education that will compel students to display their patriotism as a basic objective of education.

Now that the incoming Abe government is giving top priority to enacting the education bill to replace the Fundamental Law of Education in the extraordinary Diet session, the Tokyo District Court ruling is of great significance.
- Akahata, September 22, 2006

* * *

Based on the Tokyo District Court ruling, the plaintiffs, defense lawyers, and their supporters filed petitions with Tokyo Metropolitan Governor Ishihara Shintaro and Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education Chair Nakamura Masahiko demanding that the board retract the directive and disciplinary actions and that the board refrain from appealing the decision to a higher court.
- Akahata, September 23, 2006