www.debito.org
ARTICLES ON THE OTARU ONSENS LAWSUIT HIGH COURT DECISION OF SEPT
16, 2004
Japan Times/Kyodo,
Mainichi
Daily, AP/Yahoo
News, Hokkaido Shinbun Editorial (trans)
Court says city not remiss for letting bathhouse bar foreigners
(reprinted in abridged version in Japan Times)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040917a3.htm
SAPPORO, Sept. 16 Kyodo - The Sapporo High Court on Thursday
rejected an appeal seeking compensation from a Hokkaido city government
for failing to stop a policy of refusing foreigners at a bathhouse under
its jurisdiction.
The suit seeking a total of 6 million yen in damages from the Otaru
city government and the bathhouse operator was filed Feb. 1, 2001, by
David Aldwinckle, a 39-year-old U.S.-born local resident who is now a
naturalized Japanese with the name of Debito Arudou, and two foreign
nationals.
In November 2002, the Sapporo District Court dismissed the suit for
compensation against the city but ordered the bathhouse operator to pay
1 million yen each to the three plaintiffs.
In the high court, the plaintiffs argued that the city had a duty to
meet the requirements of the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Japan signed in December
1995, by introducing an ordinance to ban racial discrimination.
Presiding Judge Keiichi Sakamoto called the bathhouse's refusal to
admit non-Japanese ''unreasonable discrimination,'' but added,
''The convention has only general, abstract provisions recommending
appropriate measures to eliminate racial discrimination, and Otaru city
does not have any obligation to institute ordinances to ban such
discrimination.''
According to the suit, in September 1999 Arudou, then still a U.S.
citizen, and German Olaf Karthaus visited the Yunohana Onsen bathhouse
in the port city and were refused entry because they were foreigners.
Ken Sutherland, another American, was denied admission there in December
2000.
The bathhouse had put up an English-language sign saying
''Japanese only.'' It gave as a reason that trouble with drunken
Russian sailors at similar facilities in the area had caused Japanese
customers to stay away.
Arudou filed the complaint with the court after he visited the
bathhouse again in October 2000 after becoming a naturalized Japanese
citizen. He was refused entry even after he presented his driver's
license as proof of his Japanese citizenship...
In a separate case, the Tokyo District Court on Thursday ordered a
bar in the capital's Toshima Ward to pay 1 million yen in compensation
to a naturalized Japanese born in China for refusing him entry in
February last year on the grounds that he was a foreigner.
The 41-year-old man had demanded 2.2 million yen in compensation for
mental distress from the discriminatory treatment.
==Kyodo
ARTICLE ENDS
High court upholds Otaru spa
ruling in racial discrimination suit
Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Sept. 16, 2004
http://www12.mainichi.co.jp/news/mdn/search-news/912820/Debito-0-1.html
SAPPORO -- The Sapporo High Court on Thursday upheld a lower
court decision and ordered a bathhouse in Hokkaido to pay 3 million yen in compensation
to a United States-born Japanese national and two other plaintiffs for refusing them
entry.
In handing down the decision, the high court rejected an appeal
by the Otaru, Hokkaido, bathhouse, and also denied an appeal by the plaintiffs, including
Debito Arudo, 39, who sought court recognition of Otaru's
responsibility in the case. Arudo plans to appeal the ruling.
The focus of the appeal hearing was on whether the city of
Otaru bore responsibility to eliminate personal discrimination in the case.
Arudo said that the bathing facility was one used by the general
public and that the city bore the same responsibility as the national government
in protecting people's rights to use its services.
He based the argument on the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Japan signed in 1995 and
ratified in 1996. The convention was adopted and opened for signature and ratification
at a United Nations general assembly in 1965.
The city had claimed that the convention went no further than
the nation's basic obligations and that the city had wide jurisdiction over what
types of policies were taken.
The facility in question refused entry to all foreigners in
August 1998, saying the bathing manners of Russian sailors was bad. It tried to defend
its actions during the case, saying, "Refusing foreigners did not exceed the
limit of what was accepted socially."
On several occasions since September 1999, Arudo and his friends
visited the bathhouse but were refused entry because they were not "Japanese."
Even after he was granted Japanese nationality, the manager
of the bathhouse remained adamant, saying, "From a Japanese point of view, you
are still a foreigner."
Arudo and the other two plaintiffs launched a lawsuit against
the actions of the bathhouse in Feb. 2001.
The district court ruling stated that the bathhouse had acted
with discrimination. However, it said the city had not acted illegally by failing
to take action. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Sept. 16, 2004)
Japanese court dismisses lawsuit against city over bathhouse
ban on foreigners
AP/Yahoo News, Thursday September 16, 7:55 PM
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040916/ap/d854nud00.html
An appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court decision awarding compensation
to three men who were turned away by a public bathhouse because they were foreigners,
but dismissed their claims against the city government, a court official said.
The three men _ a German, an American and a former U.S. citizen who converted to
Japanese citizenship _ had accused the Otaru city government of failing to ensure
that businesses abide by a Japanese law prohibiting racial discrimination.
In November 2002, a district court ordered the bathhouse to pay each of the men compensation
of 1 million yen (US$9,100; euro 7,500) for discrimination, but rejected their claim
against Otaru city.
On Thursday, Sapporo High Court Justice Keiichi Sakamoto upheld the district court's
ruling, court official Taisuke Shibagaki said.
Sakamoto said Otaru city, on the northernmost main island of Hokkaido, wasn't responsible
for regulating the bathhouse, Shibagaki said.
U.S.-born Debito Arudou, who changed his name from David Aldwinckle when he took
Japanese citizenship, Olaf Karthaus from Germany, and Kenneth Lee Sutherland from
the United States had demanded 6 million yen (US$54,500; euro 44,900) in compensation
from the government and the Yunohana bathhouse.
Arudou has said he would appeal to the Supreme Court if the high court didn't side
with him against both the bathhouse and government. He could not be reached Thursday
for confirmation of his plans.
The hometowns of the three men were not immediately available. Arudou now lives in
Namporo city on Hokkaido.
Arudou and Karthaus _ activists in the Tokyo-based human rights group Issho Kikaku
_ repeatedly visited Otaru bathhouses posting "Japanese Only" signs between
1999 and 2000, hoping to raise awareness of the practice, according to a report posted
on the group's Web site.
The men found many bathhouses were refusing entry to foreigners because of the belief
that foreigners didn't know Japanese bathhouse etiquette and were scaring off Japanese
customers.
Japanese bathhouses require visitors to wash themselves before taking a dip in a
large tub filled with hot water. Splashing is frowned upon.
The concept of discrimination is little understood in Japan, where many are suspicious
of foreigners and worry that diversity will disturb the country's cultural homogeneity.
Otaru is located 830 kilometers (520 miles) northwest of Tokyo. Sapporo is also on
Hokkaido.
ARTICLE ENDS
Hi all. Hokkaido Shinbun came out this morning with an editorial (shasetsu) in which
they finally get it.
After years of pussy-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.
ENDS
www.debito.org
小樽温泉人種差別訴訟・控訴
札幌高裁判決の関連記事
道新前日・当日・社説、毎日前日・当日、朝日・読売・産経
北海道新聞 2004/09/16
社会
http://www.hokkaido-np.co.jp/Php/kiji.php3?&d=20040916&j=0022&k=200409164169
市の責任認めず 小樽入浴拒否控訴審で札幌高裁判決 会社に賠償命令 2004/09/16 14:14
外国人や外国出身者を理由に温泉施設への入浴を拒否したのは人種差別撤廃条約に反するとして、日本国籍を持つ米国出身の大学助教授有道出人（あるどうでびと）さん（３９）＝空知管内南幌町＝と道内在住の外国籍の男性二人が、施設を経営する会社（小樽）と小樽市に計六百万円の損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の控訴審判決が十六日、札幌高裁であった。
控訴審で最大の争点だった人種差別撤廃条約に基づく自治体の法的な差別撤廃義務について、坂本慶一裁判長は、小樽市の法的責任を認めず、一審札幌地裁判決を支持し、有道さんの控訴を棄却した。会社に対しては一審通り計三百万円の賠償を命じた。
坂本裁判長は判決理由で、市の法的責任について「条約は一般的、抽象的な定めをしているだけで、一義的な義務付けをしておらず、小樽市は具体的な（人種差別撤廃のための）条例制定義務を負うものではない」と指摘。会社については「外国人に見えることを理由に、一律に入浴を拒否したことは社会的許容限度を超えた人種による不合理な差別として不法行為に当たる」と認定した。
市の責任について、原告側は口頭弁論で「条約は単なる努力義務ではなく、国内法と同様の効力で国や自治体に義務付けたもの」として、市には差別撤廃条例制定の義務があると主張。市側は「どんな具体策をとるかは市の自主的な判断や裁量に委ねられている」と反論していた。
この訴訟は、原告三人が一九九九年、小樽市内の温泉施設で外国人を理由に入浴を拒まれ、有道さんは日本国籍取得後の二○○○年にも拒否され、○一年に提訴した。
一審判決は○二年、会社に計三百万円の賠償を命じる一方、謝罪広告の請求は棄却。市の責任については「違法とすべき行政の不作為は認められない」とした。賠償命令には双方が、小樽市に関しては有道さんが控訴していた。
差別の解決策示さず
原告代理人団の話 最も重要な小樽市の責任が認められなかったことはとても残念だ。全国各地に人種差別がある中、判決は何ら解決策を示さなかった。原告と相談し、上告の方向で検討する。
北海道・小樽の外国人入浴拒否訴訟 市の法的務、争点--控訴審、あす判決
毎日新聞 2004年9月15日
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/search/html/news/2004/09/15/20040915ddr041040002000c.html
米国出身の大学助教授、有道出人（あるどうでびと）さん（３９）＝００年に日本国籍取得＝ら３人が、外国人の入浴を拒否した小樽市の入浴施設と市に損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の控訴審判決が１６日、札幌高裁である。１審・札幌地裁は施設側に計３００万円の支払いを命じたが、市の賠償責任を認めなかった。入浴施設側が判決を不服として控訴。有道さんも市を相手に控訴した。
控訴審は市の法的義務の有無が争点となった。有道さん側は「日本が批准している人種差別撤廃条約に基づき、市も人種差別をやめさせる義務があるのに差別を長期間放置した」などと訴え、市側は「条約は私人間の人種差別について地方自治体に具体的な義務を定めていない」と反論した。施設側は「（原告１人に）１００万円の慰謝料を払うほど人格権を侵害していない」と主張した。
この入浴施設は９８年８月、ロシア人の入浴マナーが悪いことを理由に「外国人お断り」の張り紙を掲げた。小樽市は外国人一律拒否をやめるよう要請し、施設側は０１年１月、入浴マナーなどの理解を条件に外国人客を受け入れた。
３人は０１年２月に計６００万円の損害賠償などを求め提訴。１審は施設の外国人拒否を人種差別と認定した。【遠藤拓】
毎日新聞 2004年9月15日 北海道朝刊
********************
外国人客「お断り」、小樽の浴場に３００万支払い命令
2004/9/16/13:39 読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20040916ic08.htm
外国人を理由に入浴を拒否されたのは違法として、米国出身男性ら３人が北海道小樽市の浴場経営会社と同市に計６００万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟の控訴審判決が１６日、札幌高裁であった。
坂本慶一裁判長は、浴場側にのみ計３００万円の支払いを命じた１審・札幌地裁判決を支持、男性、浴場側双方の控訴を棄却した。
判決などによると、同市内の「小樽天然温泉湯の花」は１９９８年８月以降、「外国人の方の入場をお断りします」などとする張り紙を掲示して外国人の利用を拒否していた。米国出身の北海道南幌町の大学助教授、有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（３９）は９９年に同施設を訪れた際、利用を拒否され、有道さんが日本国籍を取得していた２０００年にも「外見上は日本人であることが分からない」として拒否された。
ﾊ(2004/9/16/13:39 読売新聞）
小樽市の賠償責任認めず 外国人入浴拒否で札幌高裁
産経新聞 09/16/04
http://www.sankei.co.jp/news/040916/sha060.htm
米国出身で日本国籍を持つ大学助教授、有道出人さん（３９）＝北海道南幌町＝ら３人が、外国人を理由に入浴を拒否されたのは人種差別撤廃条約違反だとして、小樽市の入浴施設と同市に計６００万円の損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の控訴審判決で札幌高裁の坂本慶一裁判長は１６日、市への請求を退けた一審判決を支持、原告側の控訴を棄却した。
一審・札幌地裁は２００２年１１月、「不合理な差別で社会的に許容される限度を超えている」と施設に３００万円の支払いを命じたが、小樽市については「違法となる行政の不作為はない」と請求を棄却した。
控訴審で有道さんは、同条約を根拠に市に人種差別禁止条例を制定する義務があったと主張。市は「条例の制定を含めた具体的な措置を取るかどうかは自治体の自主判断に委ねられている」と反論していた。
一審判決によると、有道さんらは１９９９年９月、入浴施設で日本人の客が敬遠するとして入浴を拒否された。有道さんは日本国籍取得後の２０００年１０月にも再び入浴を拒否されたため提訴した。
(09/16 13:47)