h031313: Nitta, Yuko [CGS NewsLetter 001]
"The local volunteer Mitaka citizen group is currently making a tentative plan of City Ordinance of Equality of Both Sexes. This ordinance aims to make a society where both men and women can equally demonstrate their individuality and it includes an Anti-Domestic Violence and an Anti-Sexual Violence Clause. In February, some students from ICU Gender Legal Study Group participated in the group's conference and discussed the tentative plan with other members.
The agenda of this conference was "whether Anti-Domestic Violence Clause should contain the language "men's violence against women In the first tentative plan, Domestic Violence is defined as "physical, sexual or emotional violence from men against women between intimate relationship such as husbands and wives or couples." And also the ban domestic violence states "No person shall behave domestic violence in any occasion between men and women including husbands and wives." They were clearly intended only for violence from men against women between heterosexual couples. And there was a sharp conflict between two opinions. One group with progressive approach claims to delete the word "men's violence against women" so that the regulation can cover homosexual couples. The other traditional group however insists on maintaining the word as the current tentative plan in order to enforce the protection of women.
First opinion pays more attention to sexual minorities and suggest replacing the word "men's violence against women" with "violence in any intimate relationships" But second opinion critically argue that the regulation without clear notice "men's violence against women" may weaken the deterrent effect of domestic violence from men to women, which was the original purpose of the clause. Surely from the historical point of view, domestic violence has been behaved from men towards women and most current victims are still women. Especially lawyers who have been involved with women's issue, anti-domestic violence activists and women who are actually suffering from sexual discriminations all emphasizes the importance of the clear notification of the word.
Since Basic Law for Gender-Equal Society was established by the nation, many local governments are now trying to make their own ordinances of sexual equality. And just like Mitaka city, whether Anti-Domestic Violence clause should be intended only for heterosexual couples or should also cover homosexual couples is a huge discussion in many places. Under the present situation, most ordinances are intended only for heterosexual couples, however some cutting-edge ordinance, which aim to protect also gays and lesbians also exist. But they are suffering from a hard backlash. For example the ordinance established in December 2003 in Miyakonojyo city is being criticized as it can create a liberated zone of gays and lesbians in the city.
Whether a sexual equality ordinance should aim only the equality between men and women or go even a little further and protects gays and lesbians is a huge question. I originally assumed that protection of sexual minorities should be the legitimate purpose of the ordinance, however as the conference proceed and got to understand how important and crucial the protection of women is, I understood the difficulty of this delicate argument. Here is the huge dilemma. Can we discard the homosexual couples in order to rescue the women who are most suffering? Can we say "protection of women for a meantime"? It can be said that gays and lesbians are weaker and more oppressed presence than women. Do they not need any protection? Can we neglect some people's human rights in order to protect the others? As a student of ICU, I faced this crucial question and I am still searching for the answer."