- cross-posted to:
- legalnews
- globalnews
- cross-posted to:
- legalnews
- globalnews
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/18439514
The ruling brings to an end a decades-long fight for justice by victims who were forcibly sterilised.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/oZMR0
You must log in or register to comment.
Damn, this article takes you places. First it talks about what happened in WWII, which is horrific, but not surprising. Then it says that the law wasn’t repealed until 1996 and because of that-
Forced sterilisations were most prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, during the post-war baby boom. Many of those forcibly sterilised had physical and intellectual disabilities, mental health problems or chronic diseases such as leprosy.
Physical restraint, anaesthesia and even “deception” were allowed for these operations, according to a government notice in 1953.
They interview someone who was just 12 when it was done to them.
The last in the US was in 1981, Oregon.
No, it was in 2020.
The last one so far
Texas wants to bring it back.
Fuck Texas
Yes, not the best things people have done in the name of their country.
- One of the government’s justification for the practice was “It was lawful at the time”. Now the Supreme Court ruled the law was never constitutional.
- The Supreme Court also decided that “statute of limitations” does not apply so plaintiffs can still seek compensation.
“It was lawful at the time”.
Curious if they would apply this excuse to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Afaik Germany doesn’t seek reparations for the Allied carpet bombings either
On the one hand, they got the Marshall plan, on the other hand, I’m sure they got off light themselves.
They got flattened at the time
“I wonder, what would the City Fathers of Hiroshima say?”
I was thinking the Japanese Supreme Court.
It was a starship troopers reference
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Although authorities claim the 8,500 other people consented to the procedures, lawyers have said they were “de facto forced” into surgery because of the pressure they faced at the time.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court also ruled that a 20-year statute of limitations could not be applied to compensation claims in forced sterilisation cases.
Lawyers had argued that the statute had meant that some victims, especially those who had been sterilised without their knowledge, had learnt of the surgery too late to meet the legal deadline.
Many of those forcibly sterilised had physical and intellectual disabilities, mental health problems or chronic diseases such as leprosy.Physical restraint, anaesthesia and even “deception” were allowed for these operations, according to a government notice in 1953.
“From here, I believe that the government must take a hard turn and move forward at full speed toward a full-fledged resolution,” said lawyer Yutaka Yoshiyama, who represented two of the plaintiffs.
It broke my heart," Yumi Suzuki, who was born with cerebral palsy and forcibly sterilised when she was just 12, told the BBC in a 2021 interview.The 68-year-old is among the 11 plaintiffs whose cases were brought to the court on Wednesday.
The original article contains 560 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Yeah, governments, employers, all who hold power over others love to say people voluntarily agreed. But this is what it means to be voluntold.
Cool, maybe California can follow suit?
