Job Discussion Forums

[kovac]

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=312353

It was a long un...whats your opinion ?

[stillnosheep]

No it's not the Civil Rights movement but racism is racism.

As for the ruling: "Yes Japan has signed up to a treaty making racism illlegal but that doesn't mean that this city has to actually take steps to outlaw it" (I paraphrase); hmm, sounds a lot like "Yes we agree it is wrong. No there are no penalties".

Anybody reminded of Nova and no-socialisation clause?

just a thought...

[kovac]

So often quoted...but the reasoning never explianed...

People oft quote the nova non fraternisation policy as an example of racism, civil rights , libetarian, etc infringement....

Many quote it..but what is the actual reason ? Many rumours abound....none I would even quote, they seem so ridiculous...dakedo...where theres smoke.....Does anyone have a definitive answer behind Nova's reasoning on this policy ?

With regards to Debitou...did he really have to go to that onsen ? was it his number one choice ? was his daily living impeached by it ? Was he diminished in civil stature as a human being to be refused ? Was his family prosecuted ? His children ostricised ? His sense of freedom diminished ? Was he outcast ? Tortured ? Forced into harsh living conditions ?

This guy has so much energy and for someone who is a naturalised Japanese citizen, he seems so "uncomfortable" with it...did he attain this status only to add more convictional right to his self martyrdom....? His energy would be better spent pursuing a vocation delivering rights to those who are truly without rights...so many countries still have civil and human rights atrocities.....http://www.amnesty.org/...it seems patronising to provide a link..but almost overlooked....

If the guy was so interested in mainting civil, human and non discrimination rights...why did he place it as a lawsuit requiring compensation...?

I myself had been involved in a discrimination lawsuit and despite being offered compensation, persisted in apology over monetary gain, which I attained. I was far more rewarded with acknowledgement and apology.

As some would say..."I can smell a kipper..."...Something just inst quite right about this mans endevours....He has the intelligence, language ability, cultural knowledge and audience to make a difference, despite this his website and endevours reads as an excercise in selfish, supidity ( I dont want to knock him...but, hes well educated..he should know better)

Despite this I find him an inspiration , only to achieve a similar level of aforementioned abilities and audience and to use them constructivly without a sense of admonishment upon Japanese people....might take me a while...but hope I wouldnt get egotistical or greedy on the way...admonishment or placaction of blame only breeds contempt and he should know this...

[PAULH]

Hi all.� I'm sending this to you from my home address as a preliminary email
(Friends, you may get this a second time tomorrow, as I am sending from an
older version of my Friends' List.� Apologies).

This is a preliminary report on the High Court Decision on the Otaru Onsens
Lawsuit.
Freely forwardable.� Version dated September 16, 2004

THE VERDICT
**************************
1)� ONSEN YUNOHANA
Yunohana Onsen's Appeal was rejected by the High Court, i.e., the bathhouse
would have to pay each plantiff 100 man yen (one million yen), same as
before.

All other legal arguments made in the District Court were essentially
affirmed, i.e. that "unrational discrimination" (discriminating "too much")
was illegal, not "racial discrimination" per se.�� Thus Court once again
avoided clear guidelines for litmus-testing other cases.

There is good news, however, in the sense that Yunohana's demand to have the
compensation reduced was rejected.� Otherwise, it would send a message to
future discriminators that it pays to appeal.

The Yunohana part of the case ends here, as the Supreme Court only hears
constitutional issues and will no doubt reject any further appeals.

**************************
2) CITY OF OTARU
My appeal against the City was rejected, for logic convoluted enough to have
me mulling the afternoon away.� It goes kinda like this.� Bear with me.

a) All of the arguments made by the District Court exonerating Otaru City
were affirmed, i.e. that the local governments have no absolute duty under
the UN Convention on Racial Discrimination (CERD) to pass a law in specific
against racial discrimination.� (see
<http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuithanketsu.html#25>)

In other words, despite what the CERD expressly says, whether or not to
create or pass a law is a political matter, and no law passed does not mean
that the government may be held culpable in court.� This activity is at the
discretion (sairyou) of the government.

The High Court's new spins were:

b) Under Civil Court Case Vol 39 No 7 page 1512 (this precedent might sound
obscure, but it is often cited), dated Nov 21, 1985, the State cannot be
held culpable for not creating a law.� (This refers to a case of a
handicapped person suing a local government for not creating a local
ordinance for barrier-free facilities.� Rejected.)

c) Although the CERD says, "Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an
end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by
circumstances, racial discrimination", this wording does give concrete
codification for how to pass a law.� Therefore it is merely a guideline,
something to shoot for, not a law to follow.

That's about it, really.

**************************

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS NEW PRECEDENT

Let me walk you through this.

The Court's argument, at its strongest, is about the separation of powers
(Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial).� The Court (Judicial Branch)
cannot force the government (legislatively) to make laws.� The Judicial
Branch can only enforce what the Legislative Branch creates.

However, the Japanese government stated to the UN in Oct 2001 (in its
response to UN criticism in CERD A/56/18 (2001), see
<http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html#UNmarch2000>)

==================================================
���� Item 4 (2) Article 98... of the Constitution of Japan provides that
"The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be
faithfully observed."� Therefore, treaties, etc. which Japan concluded and
published have effect as domestic law.� There is no express provision
concerning relation between treaties concluded by Japan and laws in the
Constitution of Japan, however treaties are considered to be superior to
laws.
==================================================

Which means that the CERD is a law, in fact superior to a law, especially
since Japan has no laws of its own which cover racial discrimination.

Therefore (and this High Court Decision recognizes this), if the government
were to make a law which contravened the CERD, and somebody took them to
court, the Judicial Branch could rule on this.� It would be, in the jargon,
"justicable" ("kihansei ga aru" in Japanese).

However, since there is no law (apart from the CERD, ahem), the Judical
Branch cannot rule.

Which means there is obligation to follow UN Treaty, but NON-ACTION is not
"justicable".� The Court cannot rule on the illegality of non-action.

Moreover, this ruling even goes so far as to say that individuals cannot sue
the State (something averred in the District Court ruling), because the CERD
does not cover interactions between individuals.� (This is to stop somebody
suing their neighbor because they called them an ethnic slur.� The defendant
must be an organization or a legal entity--such as a bathhouse.� Or the
government, nudge.)� Moreover, according to that abovementioned pesky 1985
domestic ruling, individuals cannot sue the government for non-action.

Hence, the government, which can take our taxes yet not be legally obligated
to protect our rights, is exonerated from doing anything.� Despite UN
Treaty, which has the force of law, but alas is not binding because it is
not properly codified.

That argument has not held water in other signatory countries to the CERD.
All other signatories, according to my lawyer, have codified laws to outlaw
racial discrimination and/or hate speech, which shows how exceptionally
irresponsible the Japanese courts are allowing themselves and the government
to be.

**************************

So will the Japanese Government ultimately take the step of passing some
laws, and limit its own precious discretionary power?

Not likely, and not just because there's nothing to punish them if they
don't.

Here's proof.� From the abovementioned Japanese government reply to UN
criticism (CERD A/56/18 (2001) in Oct 2001--I made sure the reporters at
today's press conferences got all these text excerpts and more in Japanese.)

==================================================
���� 5. (1) ... as it is obvious from the provision "by all appropriate
means" in Article 2 (1), legislative measures are required by circumstances
and are requested to be taken when the States Parties consider legislation
appropriate.� We do not recognize that the present situation of Japan is one
in which discriminative acts cannot be effectively restrained by the
existing legal system and in which explicit racial discriminative acts,
which cannot be restrained by measures other than legislation, are
conducted.� Therefore, penalization of these acts is not considered
necessary.
==================================================

Remember that this was written in 2001, long after the Otaru Onsens Case had
become a national issue.� Ostrich, meet sand.

The Japanese Govt also said in its first report to the CERD (1999) that if
there is a problem, take it to court:

==================================================
���� 4.� ...Furthermore, in cases where the rights of the people are
infringed, the Court can offer them redress.� (Article 32 of the
Constitution provides that "no person shall be denied the right of access to
the courts.")� (<http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html#1999>)
==================================================

Which is what we did.� Now the courts rule that the CERD is non-binding, and
those with grievances will have to endure a lengthy legal process (we were,
don't forget, turned away from Yunohana a full five years ago this Sunday),
taking each discriminator to court.� But never the government, mind, which
has both obligation and jurisdiction over these places?

On a final note, the Japanese Government, which signed the CERD in 1995, has
since argued to the CERD Committee (much to the UN's consternation--see
above websites for full text) that the CERD covers nobody in Japan anyway.
All of Japan's minorities (Burakumin, Ainu, and Okinawans are of the
Japanese race, and so don't need CERD coverage (2001, Item 2).� But
foreigners (1999, item 2), you see, don't get coverage either, because they
don't have the same rights as citizens.

So Japan, as a monocultural, monoethnic society (bullspit, but the Japan
Census refuses to survey by ethnicity, again to the UN's ire), has no racial
minorities which qualify.� (So what are Japan's international kids and I
then?� Chopped liver?)

**************************

That's it, then.� I've already announced to the press that I will appeal
this to the Supreme Court.

//////////////////////////////////////////

A FINAL WORD:� PROGNOSIS

According to my lawyers, Supreme Court Appeals are not something one
testifies at.� The Court (which gets about 10,000 cases a year but only
accepts about 300) will tell us within around seven months if they will not
hear the case.� The longer the wait, the greater the chance of acceptance.
Then they just contact you to say they will hand their decision down at this
time and place, so be there.� Very summary.

But this case is not small potatoes.� Today's decision was attended by a
multitude of supporters and all Japan's media (save the Weeklies and Nihon
Keizai Shinbun).� It was prominently featured on all local TV tonight (I
watched for a change), and will no doubt be in tomorrow's morning papers,
regional and national.� Hokkaido Shinbun even printed a large article
yesterday, prompting the public for this event.� BBC is calling tonight and
tomorrow morning for phone interviews, and we'll see how far the media
footprint extends.� My book on this case, JAPANESE ONLY (Akashi Shoten,
2004), goes on sale next month, October, In English this time (see summary
and preliminary reviews at <http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html>).� The
level of recent questions from the media indicates that reporters are
reading the Japanese version.

It's a long shot, but the revelations created by this case may raise enough
eyebrows to affect Koizumi's lobbying for Japan's Security Council seat.
One can hope.

Thanks for reading.� And for your support.� Bests, Arudou Debito in Sapporo
[email protected]
http://www.debito.org
September 16, 2004.

[stillnosheep]

[Glenski]

[PAULH]

[PAULH]

[JimDunlop2]

Or..how about AWFUL news. Racism or xenophobia in any form is abhorent to me. It doesn't matter what country it happens in, it's all very sad.

I often wish there were more I could do.

Fortunately, despite the result of the civil claim lawsuit, it seems that the Japanese goverment's stance (at least OFFICIALLY) seems to be against racial discrimination... But that's a joke too, isn't it?

[PAULH]

Jim,

welcome to apartheid South Africa.

[PAULH]

Hi all.� Hokkaido Shinbun came out this morning with an editorial
> (shasetsu) in which they finally get it.
>
> After years of *beep*-footing around the issue, saying "Why can't we
> just get along?� Let our hearts be barrier free!" sort of piffle (for
> example Doshin Shasetsu Feb 3, 2001
> <http://www.debito.org/doshinkaisetsu020301.jpg>), they finally came
> round this morning--and stated the obvious and inevitable.� We need a
> law or racial discrimination will not be eliminated.�� Translating.
> Bests, Arudou Debito in Sapporo
>
> /////////////////////////////////////
> EDITORIAL
> IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION, THE TIME IS NOW FOR LAWS
> Hokkaido Shinbun, Sept 17, 2004, page two
> http://www.debito.org/highcourthanketsupress.html#doshinshasetsu
> (Translated by Arudou Debito)
>
> Yesterday's court decision is a grim reminder of how far we have to
> go towards eliminating racial discrimination in Japan.
>
> We are talking about the case of the Otaru onsen facilities which
> refused people because they were foreign-born.� One, an American-born
> Japanese citizen, took one to court on the grounds that said refusal
> contravened international treaty on racial discrimination (CERD).
> The Sapporo High Court just handed down a decision on their appeal.
>
> The court ruled against the company which runs the onsen, stating
> "unrational discrimination is illegal" and ordering compensation.
> However, the court rejected the plaintiff's appeal against the City
> of Otaru.� Court stated that Otaru's responsibility in the matter did
> not extend to an obligation to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance.
> This was about the same as the Sapporo District Court's ruling on
> this case two years ago.
>
> Having the onsen pay compensation is a no-brainer.� Refusing people
> simply because they look foreign is racial discrimination, none
> other.� Some may say this is a problem between private individuals,
> but the fact the court established that human rights take priority is
> worthy of high praise.
>
> But the larger issue remains a problem:� What of the obligation under
> the CERD of local governing bodies to eliminate discrimination
> through legislation?
>
> Plaintiffs maintained in court that the City of Otaru should have
> made ordinances stopping discrimination.� Their failure to do so
> resulted in them being discriminated against.
>
> The High Court yesterday refuted this by saying that the CERD only
> vaguely establishes general guidelines for signatory countries to
> properly eliminate discrimination.� Thus, Otaru's obligation to
> eliminate discrimination is no more than a political duty.
>
> The plaintiffs could not accept this outcome.� How is racial
> discrimination to be eliminated?� How is the government to intervene
> in these cases?� These were not ruled upon.� This is an unfortunate
> development even if one is not a plaintiff.
>
> Then again, the judiciary does have its limits.� We stress that it is
> essential for national and/or local governments to make legislation
> to eliminate racial discrimination.
>
> The UN adopted the CERD in 1965.� It took Japan 30 years to sign it.
> And the Japanese government's stance has been half-hearted ever
> since.� In a public admonition, the UN in 2001 clearly demanded Japan
> adopt anti-discrimination legislation with penalties.
>
> This delay in creating a legal framework has caused trouble
> nationwide, with baths and eating/drinking establishments refusing
> people with "Japanese Only" policies--no longer limited to Otaru.
>
> Are we to assume that things are all right as is?� That victims of
> discrimination have to compound their burdens with long lawsuits over
> and over again?� This offends one's sense of social justice.
>
> Through legislation, people must be told clearly what exactly amounts
> to discrimination, thoroughly enough that it becomes common knowledge.
>
> This requires effort on the part of the people.� Yes, we will in the
> meantime see the closed nature of this society, thanks to the limited
> contact with foreign countries that an island society has.� But we
> must build a society where non-Japanese can live in this society
> without segregation or discrimination.

[Gordon]

Here is another story.



Man wins compensation from 'no foreigners' bar


A man who was refused entry to a bar because he was a "foreigner," even though he changed his nationality from Chinese to Japanese, was Thursday awarded 550,000 yen in compensation.

The man, whose identity was not disclosed, had sought 2.2 million yen in compensation from three operators of the bar, located within the Tokyo Metropolitan area.

The Tokyo District Court granted the man's claims, but lowered the amount of compensation to 550,000 yen.

According to the ruling, the bar's proprietress forced the man out of the bar, which he had visited twice before, in February last year because he was born in China. When he visited the establishment three months later, a worker reportedly told him, "Foreigners are not allowed here."

Previously the man had Chinese nationality, but he changed it to Japanese. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Sept. 17, 2004)


Still nothing was noted that it was OK to bar foreigners from the bar.

[PAULH]

have you guys seen these yet?

http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html