THE OTARU ONSEN LAWSUIT
小樽温泉訴訟
２つの控訴：原告有道　出人、被告温泉「湯の花」
UPDATE NOV 23 - DEC 4, 2002
BOTH SIDES APPEAL
原告有道　出人の控訴の詳細、理由はここです

Hello All. Page down to English:



（２００２年１２月４日公開　　有道　出人　著）

　皆様、こんにちは。私、有道　出人です。いつもお世話になっております。

　さて、御存知と通りかもしれないが、「外国人お断り」を実施していた小樽の温泉、被告「湯の花」は人種差別の訴えで２００２年１１月１１日付の判決で、敗訴となり、札幌地裁は各原告に対し賠償金１００万円の命令が下しました。詳しくはこちらです。

　しかし、判決文で被告小樽市の場合、「人種差別を撤廃する法制化する責務がない」と判断され、国連の人種差別撤廃条約を守らないようなこともあり、判例としては放置できないと思って私は一人で控訴すると決心しました。どうぞ以下の控訴状をご覧下さい。理由をもっと詳しくはこちらです。被告温泉「湯の花」を相手取りませんでした。


　ところが、被告温泉「湯の花」も原告らを相手取り控訴しました。しかも、「強制執行停止」を取得し、控訴が終了するまで命令された賠償を原告らに支払わなくてもいいようになりました。結果は、もう一人の原告、オラフ　カートハウスは以前発表した通り、全ての賠償金をEWM孤児院（インドのマドラスにて４６０人以上の孤児に住居、食事、教育を与えている）、全国心臓病の子供を守る会札幌支部、と難病連　新難病センターに寄付するですが、中止となりました。

　それに原告有道　出人が控訴に捧げる賠償金は凍結となりました。ですから控訴のため、皆様にやむを得ず頭を下げてカンパさせていただきたいと思います。私たちは個人ですが、温泉「湯の花」は大きな会社であり、小樽の一番大きな温泉です。最近なおさら大きくなりました。この裁判でも有名となり「手宮殿」の開店およそ４年後別館の「朝理殿」も開店できるまで儲けられているようです（http://www.yunohana.org）。入浴施設は客商売だから、湯の花さんが頑張って成長してほしいですが、控訴で相手取らなかった原告らを相手取って控訴し、しかも「強制執行停止」までするのなら、どれくらい自分の行為を反省して、裁判官に「人種差別行為・違法行為である」と判断されたものの、外国人または外見で外国人みたいな日本人客に対しどれくらい社会的に深刻な問題（即ち「外国人お断り」の普及の助長）を起したのかは認識しているでしょうか。湯の花さんは未だに「日本語ができない外国人」をお断りしています。

　要するに、私は原告一人として国籍・外見を問わず皆様が住みやすい日本社会を裁判でも頑張って助長したいと思います。国連の条約を守り差別を撤廃する行政官・立法府・司法官が我が国で必要であると思います。納得していただいてカンパは可能であればお願い致します。再び勝訴となり強制執行停止がなければ献金者に全額お返しします。振込先と控訴に関する費用明細・領収書などはここです。

　これからも皆様のサポートも宜しくお願い致します。有道　出人



The author of this page, Arudou Debito, will be carrying on this case as the sole Plaintiff (Plaintiff Ken Sutherland's grievance was more with the onsen itself, and an exhausted Plaintiff Olaf Karthaus rests assured that the case will receive the attention it deserves with my efforts alone).

The appeal is against Defendant Otaru City. Defendant Onsen Yunohana is not part of the appeal. See Japanese newspapers confirming this.

I am appealing the decision on the grounds of the dangerous legal precedents it sets--that Japan's administrative bodies are not bound by the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) to pass laws or take legal measures to eliminate racial discrimination within its jurisdiction. The decision also establishes an odd linkage between "rational discrimination" (an undefined concept) and "racial discrimination" (which it says is illegal only because *in this case* it goes beyond "socially-acceptible limits of discrimination"). I wish to argue, inter alia, that racial discrimination cannot fall under the category of "rational discrimination" (example: a blind man being ineligible to becoming an airline pilot may be deemed "rational discrimination", but there is no case where, say, a person is ineligible to become an airline pilot due to the color of his or her skin). In addition, legal litmus tests of discriminatory behavior (which this decision avoids) must include the ability for administrative and legislative sanction of discriminators outside the courtroom as well (again, as per the CERD). More details on my problems with the court decision here.



Meanwhile, Defendant Yunohana Onsen has also decided to appeal against us Plaintiffs. Despite a clear court judgment of racial and illegal discrimination, Yunohana has obtained a court order relieving them of the responsibility from paying Plaintiffs any of the 3 million yen damages until the next court decision, regardless of how many years that might take.


Plaintiff Olaf Karthaus adds:

This is Olaf Karthaus, one of the three plaintiffs in the Otaru Onsen Court Case.

I already mentionned in the press conference following the verdict on Nov. 11 that I will donate my part of the compensation (1,000,000 yen) for a good purpose. I decided that the following charities should receive donations:

1. EWM orphanage, which provides shelter, food and education for more than 460 children in Madras, India
2. The support group for children with heart defects (zenkoku shinzobyou no kodomo wo mamoru kai) in Sapporo, Japan
3. The support group for people with incurable diseases (Nan byou ren) in Sapporo, Japan

Since Yunohana decided to appeal the court decision and file a court order, the prospective receivers of the donations will have to wait until the appeal court decision.

It is very unfortunate that Yunohana asked for and obtained this court order to exempt them from provisionally giving me my part of the compensation in advance, as was stated in the court verdict.

It is very regrettable that due to these actions of Yunohana my wish to help children who are desperately in need cannot be fulfilled to the extent that I intended.

ENDS



Of course this also means that my share of the court compensation, which would have been put towards this appeal, will not be forthcoming. As I will be continuing this case, contributions are welcome, ahem, with the promise that any contributions made will be paid back in full. That is, if and when we someday win and actually receive the compensation ordered by the court. Click here to find out more about court costs and to see account details.

Also, to address two issues frequently raised:

1) DOES THE OWNER HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ITS CLIENTELE? Yes it does. It depends on the criteria. "No shoes, no shirt, no tie, no service" is one thing, since people can chose to put on those clothes and thus qualify to enter. However, for a public place (specifically one entrusted by Japanese law to carry out a "necessary and essential" service of public hygiene) to refuse people by their skin color or apparent nationality employs criteria that are not a matter of individual choice--one cannot simply put on a different skin and enter. Nor is this criteria germane to the selection process, since race or nationality have nothing to do with the individual customer's choice of following a bathhouse's rules.
2) ISN'T THIS AN OVERREACTION TOWARDS A MOM-AND-POP TYPE OF ONSEN? It is not a mom-and-pop onsen. Yunohana Onsen is actually Otaru's biggest bathhouse. And it has gotten bigger. In the four years since it opened, Yunohana has made enough money (notwithstanding the free publicity from this case) to open a second bathhouse in Asari (see for yourself at http://www.yunohana.org). Bravo for it's ability to make a living, but when it goes so far as to not only 1) ignore a court decision that its behavior was both "racially discriminatory" and "illegal", but also 2) demand a court order to avoid paying court-awarded damages, it makes one wonder just how deeply Yunohana has considered their position as a provider of a social service and public good to customers, any customers. Even now, Yunohana still refuses foreign-looking customers who do not speak Japanese.

If you can agree that this case involves a social problem that cannot remain untouched, and that the Japanese government is in fact responsible for following international treaty and for legally resolving issues of discrimination within its jurisdictions, please consider helping out. Even moral support, particularly in the public debate arenas, will suffice.

Scanned copies of Yunohana's three-page court order are available here.

The following pages are the exact copies of the Appeal Petition I submitted. Thanks for reading this far.

Arudou Debito
Sapporo


「強制執行停止決定」


以上