【大門実紀史】国旗損壊処罰法案　憲法法理ほぼ解体　参考人が危惧　2026.7.14【国会質問】

#Mikishi Daimon's Questioning: House of Councilors Cabinet Committee - Expert Witness Testimony on the Bill to Punish Damage to the National Flag From "Akahata" Newspaper Constitutional Law Principles Almost Completely Dismantled: Expert Witnesses Express Concerns over Bill to Punish Damage to the National Flag On the 14th, the House of Councilors Cabinet Committee held expert witness testimony regarding the Bill to Punish Damage to the National Flag. In their statements, Professor Masahiko Kinoshita of the Kobe University Graduate School of Law stated that it violates the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, while Professor Motohiro Hashimoto of the Chuo University Faculty of Law expressed concern that it directly contradicts the principle of legality under Article 31 of the Constitution, which states that it must be clear what acts are punishable by criminal penalties. In his questioning, Japanese Communist Party member Mikishi Daimon pointed out that Germany and Italy, which have laws to punish damage to the national flag, rejected the fascist concept of the state after the war and established national flags under new constitutions, and that the underlying idea is that insulting the national flag is a desecration of the post-war constitution and democracy. In Japan, since the Hinomaru flag has been used since before the war, the Japanese Constitution and the national flag are not linked, and public sentiment varies. The speaker stated that "the way each country links its constitution and national flag is different," and asked the expert for their opinion. Mr. Kinoshita agreed, stating that in countries like Germany, the national flag is linked to democracy and republicanism, and "the crime of damaging the national flag exists within that constitutional order." Mr. Daimon cited Mr. Kinoshita's statement in his opinion statement that if the bill is deemed constitutional, "it would be necessary to almost completely dismantle the constitutional principles concerning freedom of expression," and asked whether it could be said that some political parties are "trying to destroy the constitutional principles" for political reasons. Mr. Kinoshita agreed with Mr. Daimon's point, stating that "in that sense, it's the same as amending the constitution." He expressed concern that in the future, arguments will be made for the constitutionality of laws even if the legislative facts and protected legal interests are ambiguous.