Photo/Illutration This eatery in Nagoya has a sign at the entrance that says, "We have reached our limit, but we are not giving up." (Masaki Yamamoto)

A civil law and medical expert says that even though not all dining occasions pose the same risk of coronavirus infections, some bars and restaurants that are safer may still feel compelled to close under a government request.

Shigeto Yonemura, a University of Tokyo professor who is also a medical doctor, raised concerns in the Diet about legal provisions targeting all bars and restaurants that do not cooperate with government requests to shorten business hours.

He appeared as an expert witness at the Upper House Cabinet Committee on Feb. 2 that was deliberating legislation to revise the special measures law to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the Infectious Diseases Prevention Law.

One provision would include fines for bars and restaurants that refuse to cooperate.

“There is the issue of whether all eateries and all opportunities to wine and dine pose the same degree of danger,” Yonemura said. “I believe there are dining occasions that could be considered dangerous as well as those that are not.”

He said the risk of infection would vary depending on how many people were gathered together as a group as well as the ventilation equipment and layout of the establishment.

Yonemura pointed out that a fundamental principle of Criminal Law was to only hand out penalties for acts that are clearly dangerous and that the principle also applied to administrative fines.

He said that if all eateries were targeted, those that have a low infection risk would feel inclined to temporarily cease operations to make the regulations effective and to gain the understanding of the public.

Yonemura also touched upon past Supreme Court rulings. He said while there was no need to compensate businesses that continued operating at high levels of danger, it was only logical that there was a need to compensate for the losses of businesses with low levels of danger who are cooperating with requests to shorten business hours.

He also raised doubts about the effectiveness of fines against individuals who refused to cooperate with studies to track infection routes to ascertain who that individual came in close contact with. He said such penalties would have the opposite effect in controlling infections and may lead people to avoid testing and refrain from visiting their doctor.

“I have doubts about whether it is appropriate to force people to divulge information related to their privacy while using the threat of penalties as the incentive,” Yonemura said.

Related News