OTARU ONSENS LAWSUIT
BRIEFING
(Freely forwardable)
WHY THIS CASE MATTERS
September 7, 2004
(Original version of this essay, dated November 1, 2002, was released shortly
before the November 11, 2002 Sapporo District Court Decision. The following version,
dated September 2004, has been revised and updated for the September 19, 2004 Sapporo
High Court Decision. Released to mass media around the world as a primer for the
case.)
------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
ON RACISM IN JAPAN--THE OTARU BATHHOUSE LAWSUIT
By Arudou Debito, Sapporo, Japan
September 7, 2004
(www.debito.org, debito@debito.org)
An important court decision, influencing the lives of millions of people in Japan,
will be handed down on September 16, 2004.
I refer to the Otaru Bathhouse Lawsuit, in which I am one plaintiff. With this
case, Japan's judiciary will clarify if foreigners and their kin are legally protected
against racial discrimination in Japan.
A little background: Otaru, a seaport in the northern island of Hokkaido, is renowned
for its traditional atmosphere and delicious seafood. It is also famous for its
treatment of the Russian sailors who bring in that seafood.
As far back as 1993, Otaru bathhouses decided, after apparent experiences with some
ill-mannered sailors, to exclude all foreign customers. They put up multilingual
signs saying "JAPANESE ONLY" on their front doors.
Since public bathing is as fundamental to Japanese life as sushi and sake, this
angered foreign residents who also enjoy a good soak.
People who contacted the bathhouses were rebuffed with nonsense like, "you
foreigners can't understand Japan's unique bath customs", "our customers
demand foreigner-free tubs", "our management can't tell you apart from
the sailors", and "we can't just refuse Russians; that would be blatant
discrimination, so we refuse all foreigners out of fairness."
Similar appeals to the local, regional, and national authorities proved equally
fruitless. They discovered that although Japan's constitution forbids discrimination
by race, there is no actual law on the books to enforce it. Thus these businesses
were doing nothing "illegal" and could not be compelled to scrap their
policies.
Stalemated, for years the problem was under carpet swept, allowing it to spread.
Soon in at least eleven other other cities nationwide (FOOTNOTE ONE)
--stores, restaurants, taxicabs, nightclubs, bars, and even a barbershop refused
service to customers who did not "look Japanese". One bathhouse forced
non-Japanese into segregated "foreigner baths", charging them six times
the Japanese price. After the 2002 World Cup, establishments which sprouted "anti-hooligan"
exclusionary signs simply left them up.
For years, friends and I lobbied Japanese lawmakers to abolish these practices.
We pointed out that Japan ratified the UN's Convention on Racial Discrimination
in 1996, meaning all levels of government are required to take immediate measures,
including laws, to eliminate racial discrimination. To no avail. Every proposal
submitted has been buried or killed in committee.
I realized the depth of the problem when I obtained Japanese citizenship in 2000.
I went to one of those bathhouses bearing proof of nationality, yet was still refused
entry. My White face would "cause misunderstandings" with customers.
They also admitted the same would happen to my Japanese daughter, because she unfortunately
looks more like her Caucasian father than her Asian mother.
Therein lies the peril of determining social status at birth. There are around
40,000 international marriages every year in Japan, producing thousands of international
children. They do not show up in statistics on foreign residents (as they are not
foreigners), and are challenging hidebound preconceptions of how one "looks
Japanese". However, without future legal protections, their access to public
goods will be impeded simply because of their phenotype.
This is why, after exhausting all other recourses , a German, an American, and a
Japanese (myself) decided in 2001 to sue a bathhouse and the Otaru city government.
It was time to establish legal precedents.
And not before time. To be sure, racism and discrimination occurs in all countries
in varying degrees. But it is unacceptable for Japan to be the only developed country
without any form of law against it.
Consider the repercussions. For generations, non-Japanese residents--even those
born and raised in Japan--have been routinely refused simple credit lines, apartments
(even in public housing), and civil service positions. They can also be deprived
of health and unemployment insurance, pensions, and job security--expressly because
they are foreign.
Moreover, foreigners are nowadays targeted as a social bane. Four years ago Tokyo
Governor Ishihara called for foreigner roundups in the event of a natural disaster.
Periodical media campaigns allege foreigner crime waves, with police notices warning
against "suspicious characters" (who happen to have darker skins and thick
accents). The public have even been advised to notify police if foreigners are seen
in groups speaking a foreign language, and research budgets for "genetic racial
profiling" have been provided for the National Police Agency (FOOTNOTE
TWO). Thus racial profiling, local law enforcement officials glibly say, is
merely part of crime prevention.
There is little that the million or so foreigners of racial distinction in Japan
can do about this, except speak out (and face criticism for being "bad guests"),
or quietly presume upon the eventual goodwill of the Japanese government.
Or sue, through Japan's expensive and time-consuming judicial system. That is why
the Otaru Lawsuit decision matters. For if government goodwill is not forthcoming,
what then?
Exactly five years after first being refused entry, and after nearly four years
in court, we shall see if local authorities are liable for not fulfilling a basic
constitutional duty: equal protection of all their residents.
Initial signs are not hopeful. In 2002, the Sapporo District Court ruled that the
discriminating bathhouse was culpable--but not for racial discrimination. For "unrational
discrimination", a legal distinction repeatedly rejected by the United Nations.
At the same time, the Otaru City government was absolved of any responsibility for
not making racial discrimination an illegal practice.
September 16, 2004, will see the results of our appeal against this ruling. One
hopes that international attention to this case will help. It may raise awareness
of problems facing foreign residents and taxpayers here. It might even loosen the
Gordian Knot inexorably tangling notions of race and nationality in Japan.
928 words
------------------------------
ESSAY ENDS
FOOTNOTE ONE: "Exclusionary signs up in at least eleven
Japanese cities" Photo gallery at
http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html
FOOTNOTE TWO: Police "Genetic Racial Profiling",
Japan Times article at
http://www.debito.org/japantimes011304.html
More on the case at
http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html
More on the author at
http://www.debito.org
ENDS