Livelihood v. Equality:A Comparison of Visually Impaired Massage Law in Taiwan and Korea

生存與平等:台灣與南韓關於視障按摩業法律之比較

台灣與南韓均制定了視障者獨佔按摩業的法律以保障視障者的工作。這兩個國家的憲法法院都對相關法律作出裁判,其判決理由與判決結果都不同。南韓憲法法院的論述著重在對於生存權的描寫,而台灣憲法法院則著重在平等權。兩種論述都指出另一種論述的限制,也都無法完全處理視障者所面臨的議題。視障者似乎必須在獨佔按摩業並侵害其他人權利與利益的完全保障,與缺乏可靠社會福利的獨立中作出選擇。既有法律論述的不足或許可以歸咎於欠缺視障者的聲音,本文主張生存與平等的兩難源自對於「殘障者」與「普通人」的二元想像。經由區分「損害」與「殘障」,殘障者的社會模式意味者,如果社會規範、環境與結構上的困難能夠被移除,殘障者仍能追求生活規畫與諸多不同的職業選擇。加拿大判決Eldridge v. British Columbia即描繪社會模式如何使法院發展出更實用的論述,以重新考量視障者的境遇。奠基於這種社會模式下的實質平等論述,更能妥適保障視障者與其他身心障礙者的利益,而不至於過度侵犯他人權利。

Taiwan and Korea enacted the massage monopoly law in order to help the visually impaired pursue jobs. The constitutional court in each country reviewed the case and reached opposite conclusion on different grounds. Whereas the Court in Korea provided a scenario of livelihood, the Court in Taiwan developed a scenario of equality. Each scenario provides reflections on the limitations of the other; neither could fully address the issues faced by the visually impaired. The visually impaired seem to have to choose between the full protection of monopoly law at the expense of other people's rights and benefits, or self-dependent without reliable social welfare. The discontent of existing legal discourses may be attributed to the absent voice of the visually impaired. This note argues that the dilemma between livelihood and equality stemming from the prevailing binary thinking between the disabled" and the normal." By distinguishing impairment from disability, the social model of disability indicates that people with impairment are also capable of pursuing life plan and various careers if the obstacles in social norms, environment, and structure can be removed. The Canadian decision in Eldridge v. British Columbia illustrates how the social model may facilitate the courts to develop more useful rationale to reconsider the situations of the visually impaired. With the discourse of substantive equality based on the social model of disability, the interest of the visually impaired and people with other physical and mental impaired can be better served without excessively infringe the rights of others.