Otaru Lawsuit, City Appeal, 小樽訴訟、市を相手取る控訴, First Hearing June 3, 2003

OTARU LAWSUIT: APPEAL AGAINST OTARU CITY
(click here to page down to English)

小樽訴訟、市を相手取る控訴
６月３日札幌高裁で第１回期日開催報告

　（転送歓迎）
　皆様、おはようございます。有道　出人です。きのう、６月３日に札幌高裁で第１回期日が開催されました。報告を送信させていただきたいと思います。

　（念のためもう一度申し上げますが、控訴は二つになりました。私ひとりは弁護団として小樽市を相手取る控訴（小樽市人種差別訴訟）と被告湯の花から原告３人を相手取る控訴（被告湯の花控訴）です。この報告は「小樽市人種差別訴訟弁護団」のひとりの弁護士、東澤先生が書きました。ご了承下さい。後程、原告カートハウス　オラフは「被告湯の花控訴」についてレポートを発行します。 http://www.geocities.com/okarthaus/yunohanaappeal.html をご参考に）

　宜しくお願い致します。有道　出人

=================================================================
６月３日　札幌高裁で第１回期日開催報告 (digest)
「小樽市人種差別訴訟弁護団」東澤代表　著
２００３年６月４日発行
(http://www.debito.org/bengodan.html)
お問い合わせは　弁護団事務局長　芝池弁護士まで <shibaike@hg-law.jp>

　去る６月３日、札幌高等裁判所第３民事部で、小樽市人種差別訴訟の第１回期日が開催されました。この事件には、（１）有道出人さんの小樽市に対する控訴事件と、（２）湯ノ花の有道さんその他の１審原告に対する控訴事件とが、
一緒に継続しています。

　（１）の事件では、有道出人さんの代理人として、東澤靖弁護士、西村武彦弁護士、芝池俊輝弁護士が出席しましたが、有道さん自身は大学の授業のために出席できませんでした。小樽市側は、伊藤隆道弁護士が出席。（２）の事件では、１審原告の一人であるカートハウス・オラフさんと伊東秀子弁護士が出席し、湯ノ花側は、菰田尚正弁護士が出席。

　それぞれが行った訴訟活動や発言は以下のとおりです（敬称略）。
（東澤、西村、芝池）
　控訴理由書を陳述。また、追加書証として有道さんの著書「ジャパニーズ・オンリー」（明石書店） http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html 、前日６月２日に朝日新聞に掲載された有道さんの「私の視点」 http://www.debito.org/asahi060203.jpg を提出。

　今後の方針として、小樽市の人種差別放置が小樽市のみならず全道的な差別の蔓延につながっていった経過を次回までに書面にして主張したい。また、小樽市の法的責任については憲法学者の意見書を準備中であり、６月中に完成予定である。その意見書も踏まえた主張もしたい。今回、控訴人の有道さんが大学の授業のために出席できなかったので、次回期日において有道さんの意見陳述を行いたい。

　その準備のために、次回期日を９月に入れることを希望。
（伊藤―小樽市）
　控訴理由書に対する反論の書面を作成中なので、次回までに出す。
（菰田ー湯ノ花）
　控訴理由書を陳述。また、追加書証を提出。
（伊東ー原告カートハウス・オラフと他２人）
　控訴理由書に対する反論の書面を作成中なので、次回までに出す。

　この結果、次回の期日は、９月４日（木）午前１０時３０分からとなりました。

　控訴審は、つねにそうであるように、札幌高裁もできるだけ早く結審したいという雰囲気をにおわせていました。私たちも、いたずらに期日を延ばすつもりはありませんが、小樽市の責任に対してきちんとした判断をしてもらうために、主張と立証をつくしたいと考えております。

　次回弁護団会議　７月８日　北海道合同法律事務所

　また、７月か８月に札幌でシンポジウムの開催も考えております。
=================================================================
ENDS

OTARU LAWSUIT: APPEAL AGAINST OTARU CITY
Report on first Hearing, June 3, 2003

(freely forwardable)
OTARU ONSEN LAWSUIT
BRIEF: APPEAL AGAINST OTARU CITY'S FIRST COURT HEARING
By Higashizawa Yasushi and Arudou Debito

Good afternoon everyone. A quick update on the Otaru Onsen Appeal. We had our first court date yesterday, June 3, 2003, at the Sapporo High Court. A report, written by one of my lawyers, follows. A comment from me about some looming judicial sleight-of-hand comes after that.

(NOTE: Sorry for repeating, but for clarity's sake: The original Otaru Onsen Lawsuit (http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html) has split into two appeals: 1) The Appeal against Defendant Otaru City (http://www.debito.org/bengodanenglish.html), by one Plaintiff Arudou Debito represented by a "Bengodan" of several JCLU lawyers working pro bono, and 2) Defendant Onsen Yunohana against all three Plaintiffs (Olaf Karthaus, Coordinator, http://www.geocities.com/okarthaus/yunohanaappeal.html). This report represents the viewpoint of 1), The Appeal against Otaru City. A second report on the Yunohana Appeal by Olaf Karthaus should follow shortly.)

/////////////////////////////////////
Otaru Onsen Lawsuit Appeal Report (Digest)
Proceedings of the First Court Date, Sapporo High Court, June 3, 2003.
Released June 4, 2003.
Authored by Bengodan lawyer Mr Higashizawa, Arudou Debito trans.
Inquiries to Bengodan lawyer Mr Shiba-ike <shibaike@hg-law.jp>

Two cases were being represented in this hearing, with representatives from all sides present.

Present for the Otaru Appeal were Plaintiff Arudou Debito's Bengodan Lawyers: Mr Higashizawa, Mr Nishimura, and Mr Shibaike (Arudou could not attend due to university classes. Yes, he does have a day job). Representing Otaru City was lawyer Mr Itou Takamichi.

Present for the Yunohana Appeal were Plaintiff Olaf Karthaus and his representative, Ms Itou Hideko. Representing Onsen Yunohana was Mr Komoda.

Actions in court:
(Bengodan Lawyers Higashizawa, Nishimura, Shibaike)
Submission of Reasons for Appeal to the Bench. Additional submissions were Arudou's book "JAPANESE ONLY" (http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html) and his June 2 Asahi Shinbun "Watashi no Shiten" article (http://www.debito.org/asahi060203.jpg) as evidence.

We intend to prove in future court submissions that Otaru City's years of wilful inattention to the discrimination within its jurisdiction caused its spread around Hokkaido. We will also submit an opinion from a legal expert on a city's responsibilities under the Japanese Constitution, due for completion at the end of June. Plaintiff Arudou will make a five-minute speech on his reasons for appealing against Otaru City at the next hearing, which we requested for September.

(Otaru City Lawyer Mr Itou Takamichi)
Our counterarguments to the Reasons for Appeal will be ready by the next hearing.

(Yunohana Lawyer Mr Komoda)
Submission of Reasons for Appeal against Plaintifs to the Bench. More statements to come.

(Plaintiffs Lawyer Ms Itou Hideko)
Our counterarguments to the Reasons for Appeal will be ready by the next hearing.
------------------------------------------------

The next court date was then set for September 4, 2003, at 10:30AM

The atmosphere in the High Court was one of expediency, i.e. the judge wants these cases over quickly. We have no intention of dragging the Otaru City Appeal out, but we wish to get a ruling which specifically addresses the City's responsibility in this case.

The next Bengodan meeting will be July 8. We also hope to hold a public symposium on the problem sometime in July or August.

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

(ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ARUDOU DEBITO FOLLOWS)
The judge's intent to treat these two separate cases as one is disappointing. Emerging is the potential for some judicial sleight-of-hand.

For the Yunohana Appeal, the judge may simply award us the full amount (2 million yen, as we originally sued for), or keep it as it is (one million yen, from the last decision), or cut it, of course. But if he does award high, he can claim that since the full amount has been awarded, the City has no need to pay any damages or assume any culpability. In other words, as banks do when putting their bad loans within a dummy company, put all the blame on one party and ignore the other.

That is fine monetarily (we are not suing either party to get rich--we want a clear ruling which defines both parties' responsibilities in this case). But by lumping these two cases together so aggressively, the judge may be looking for a loophole out of holding Otaru responsible in a clear and important court decision.

We have already asked for these cases to be treated separately. Request denied. Moreover, Defendant Yunohana's Reasons for Appeal (http://www.geocities.com/okarthaus/030603reasons.html) are basically a rehash of what they said before (essentially that it seems overmuch to award a bunch of troublemakers--who came to the onsen knowing they would be refused entry--a million yen after spending a mere 600 yen to get in). This means that the judge may draw this all to a close by the next hearing in September.

That would be bad news. We wish to spend more time patiently building our case, gathering substantiation of Otaru as epicenter of signposted exclusionism (submissions still welcome at http://www.debito.org/classactionappeal.html) and presenting new arguments. Not have our case also drawn to an untimely close due to one petulant discriminatory onsen that won't admit any wrongdoing. But that may be a convenience the judge wishes to exploit. We shall see.

Arudou Debito
Sapporo
June 4, 2003
ENDS