Final update before the Nov 11, 2002 Decision on
the Otaru Onsen Lawsuit.
(Japanese 日本語 here)
This URL is structured thus:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1) NOV 11 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
2) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFFS
3) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT YUNOHANA ONSEN
4) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OTARU CITY
5) UN CERD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO JAPAN 2001
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1) NOV 11 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
--------------------------------------------------------
1PM Plaintiffs Karthaus, Sutherland and Arudou enter
Sapporo District Courthouse (Odori, Nishi 11-chome)
1:15 Court Decision is summarily delivered
(Open to the Public--attend if you like, if there are seats)
1:30 Plaintiffs receive legal counsel from Lawyer Itoh,
ruminate over text of decision
4:15 PRESS CONFERENCE (Open to the Public)
Same Courthouse building, 2F
--------------------------------------------------------
2) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFFS
The final court document, submitted Aug 9 by Lawyer Itoh, outlines the legal
grounds for our deserving a favorable judgment (i.e. violations of both the UN Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Section 2 Clause 1 (d), and of
Japan Civil Code 90, 709, and 710)
Viewable in Japanese at http://www.debito.org/genkokujunbifinal.html
(UN CERD text in English: http://www.debito.org/intlconvention.html)
A very frank and spicy essay on our case by our Lawyer Itoh appeared in the Sapporo
Bar Association Journal, Sept 2002 (Japanese):
http://www.debito.org/itouarticle0902.html
Excerpt: "Even though local governments spend a lot of taxes on 'diplomatic'
(hyoukei) missions to their overseas sister cities, they brush aside taking any measures
eliminating racial discrimination, saying they have 'no budget'. It will be interesting
to see how this court decision will act as a lever against those who ignore human
rights in this era of 'internationalization'." (Arudou Debito trans)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
3) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT YUNOHANA ONSEN
Two pages of diffident counterargument (which completely, as always, conveniently
ignore any aspect of Arudou Debito's being refused again as a Japanese citizen) were
submitted on Aug 9.
http://www.debito.org/yunohanafinaljunbi.html
Excerpt: "If we focus on these events above [the fact that they went to
the onsen as a group knowing they would be refused] , one cannot believe that Plaintiffs
received any psychological shock from being refused entry by [parent company] Earthcure
KK. Since we cannot acknowledge any damage done to Plaintiffs, they have no reason
to demand compensation." (Arudou Debito trans)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
4) FINAL ARGUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OTARU CITY
Five pages submitted Aug 14. Japanese at
http://www.debito.org/otarushifinaljunbi.html
Excerpt: "The CERD is no more than a declaration of a country's basic
duties to undertake effective policies eliminating racial discrimination, as well
as a signatory country to assign blame (hi'nan) for racial discrimination. It is
not a document assigning (sadameru) concrete and special duties. Also, though the
Treaty's Clause 1 (d) says "each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an
end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances,
racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization", this is no more
than a glorified declaration (utau) of a country's basic and general duties. It is
thus left up to each signatory itself whether or not to choose to include concrete
policies or legislative measures." (Arudou Debito trans)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
5) UN CERD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO JAPAN 2001
The UN Committee reviewed Japan's progress on the human rights front in Geneva,
Switzerland, in March 2001. They released highly-critical recommendations which have
a bearing on our case. Entire text in English at:
http://www.imadr.org/geneva/cerd.2001.japan.html
Excerpt:
"9. The Committee notes with concern that although article 98 of the Constitution
provides that treaties ratified by the State party are part of domestic law, the
provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
have rarely been referred to by national courts. In light of the information from
the State party that the direct application of treaty provisions is judged in each
specific case, taking into consideration the purpose, meaning and wording of the
provisions concerned, the Committee seeks clarifying information from the State party
on the status of the Convention and its provisions in domestic law.
"10. The Committee is concerned that the only provision in the legislation of
the State party relevant to the Convention is article 14 of the Constitution. Taking
into account the fact that the Convention is not self-executory, the Committee believes
it necessary to adopt specific legislation to outlaw racial discrimination, in particular
in conformity with the provisions of articles 4 and 5 of the Convention."
The official Japanese translation is surprisingly much clearer, at
http://www.debito.org/UNCERDCommit2001rptJ.html
March 20, 2001 Press Release from the UN on this (with plainer English) at
http://193.194.138.190/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01
DEE30E727A90CAA9C1256A160033255E?opendocument
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
All for now. Full details on the lawsuit at
http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html
Thanks for reading,
Arudou Debito, One Plaintiff
November 8, 2002