---

有道　出人　著
２００６年２月１日付

このレポートの和英文、和英関連記事、コメントなどのアーカイブは
http://www.debito.org/mcgowanhanketsu.html

この裁判の流れに基づいている物語：
　「或る日、ある歩行者は車両にぶつかってケガを受けました。その運転手は「こうやって人をぶつけること僕の 性格だから、謝らない」。法廷で救済を求めるケガ人は「車にぶつけられてケガを受けた」。しかし裁判官は「違う。あなたにぶつけたのは車ではない。トラッ クだった。却下。」

お断り　このレポートは有道出人個人のみの感想と分析 です。マクガワンさんの弁護団の見解と解釈とは関係がありません。ご了承下さい。

経緯
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
　スティーブ・マクガワンさん(Steve McGowan)は京都府在住のアフリカ系アメリカンです。判決文とマスコミ（東京新聞０５年１１月４日２４ページ）によると、０４年９月４日、マクガワ ンさんは黒人の南アフリカ人の友人と一緒に大阪府大東市の眼鏡店の「G-Style」(http://gs-gstyle.jp) に行きました。マクガワンさんは以前自分の奥さんと一緒に本店舗で買い物をしたことがあるので、友人に紹介しようとしました。しかし、この２人が店舗前で 立っているショーウィンドウを見ている間、店主は外に出てきて、「出て行け。黒人が嫌い。ドアに触らない。ショーウィンドウに触らない。あっちに行け！」 などを言ったようです。打撃を受けたマクガワンさんが奥さん（日本人）と相談したうえ、奥さんは店主に電話してマクガワンさんと一緒に店主とも会合をしま した。が、店主は入店拒否を謝らなかったです。「婦人客から電話がきて、黒人が本店舗前に立つなら顧客が困っている」と主張して正当化しようとしました。 後日、有道出人と他の人種差別撤廃運動家と一緒に店主と直接話し合い、マクガワンさんを入店拒否することを認めて「ドイツで黒人に関する悪い経験があっ た。僕の性格だから。とにかく僕の店だから。」（上記の東京新聞も出典）とも認めました（このやりとりをテープで録音した）。０４年１０月マクガワンさん は黒人を理由として差別を受けた原告として人種差別の訴えで大阪地方裁判所で提訴しました。
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

判決
　２００５年１月３０日、裁判官　佐賀　義史（よしふみ）は原告の請求を棄却しました。主な理由は（まとまり）：
　１）マクガワンさんの日本語能力について疑問があるので、当日店主は差別発言をしたのかは認めず、彼の供述を採用しない。
　２）マクガワンさんの奥さんは店主と会談した際、きちんと「黒人に対する差別」の有無を確かめず、「外国人に対する差別」のみについて聞いて、訴えた件 の「黒人差別があった」という根拠は乏しい。
　３）よってマクガワンさんの訴えたことが外国人差別かつ人種差別ではなく黒人差別のみだったので、被告の有実は認められない。
　なぜ店主がマクガワンさんを入店拒否したのか、は判決は取り挙げませんでした。

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

反響
　判決日、記者会見でマクガワンさんは泣きながら、このコメントを英語で言いました（出席した記者ジョンストン氏出典、有道　出人和訳）：
　●　「きょうは非常に悲しい日です。日本の裁判制度について痛感したことは、裁判制度が[正義について]たくさん学ばなければいけないことです。」
　●　「１９５０年代の米国アラバマ州やルイジアナ州だという気持ちでした。私は何をしても、何を言っても、私の皮膚の色で台無しにされます。」
　●　「日本を愛しております。この判決があってもかかわらず愛しております。この国の人々も。ただ、私の皮膚の色によってある人は私のことが好きになら ない、と理解しました。」
　●　「私は人間以下だと感じさせられました。動物並み。なぜなら裁判所は私の供述を一切採用しなかった。」
　●　「皆様がこの判決によって何かを肝に銘じていただく存じます。なぜならこの外国人に対して偏見を持つ裁判制度と戦って私たちの人権を認めてもらわな いといけないことです。」

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

判決文の分析
　（お断り：私は法律の専門家ではないので、コメント は素人の見解にすぎないことだとご了解下さい。そして、判決文全文を見せたいが、マクガワンさんの弁護士より私のウェブサイトから記載していた書面の削除 依頼がきました。よって適当に判決文から抜粋させていただき分析いたします。）

　本件、裁判官は結論から遡って、棄却を狙って原告のみの立場を崩そうとした感じが強いです。最初からそうなっています：

＝＝＝＝＝＝（判決文７ページ２節よりの抜粋）＝＝＝＝＝＝
　（（前略）ニグロは嫌いだ、黒人お断りなどという、祖先の歴史を読んで 知った嘲り（ののしり）の言葉、現代においても世界中で発せられている嘲りの言葉を思い出し、強い無力感に襲われたとの記載がある。）、[マクガワンの 妻]も当然にそのことを認識していたと考えられる。そして、そうであるなら、[マクガワンの妻]としては、９月４日夕方、被告店舗に赴いた際、[被告]に 対し、被告店舗では黒人を差別するのか、黒人の入店を禁止しているのかと質問するはずである。ところが、[マクガワンの妻]は、[被告]に対してそのよう な質問をしたのではなく、被告店舗では外国人を差別することがあるのかという質問をしているにすぎないのである。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

有道　出人よりコメント：
　つまり、マクガワンさんが店舗から断ったことよりも、奥さんの質問の仕方がフォーカスです。しかし、差別の有無がポイントなのではないでしょうか。なぜ 裁判官は「入店拒否が悪かった」よりも「質問が悪かった」を挙げて原告のを攻めるのですか。

　その後、佐賀裁判官は一つのポイントを捕まって、一点張りしてマクガワン夫妻の信用性を崩します。そのポイントは「原告は『こくじん』という言葉が分か らなかった」。その時点から原告がうさん臭いように証明しようとします：

＝＝＝＝＝＝（７ページ同節より、続き）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　 もし、「こくじん」という言葉の意味を電話で原告から質問されたのであれば、[マクガワンの妻]は、被告店舗へ行く前に、本件言動を原告から知らされてい たはずであり、そうであれば、黒人差別の重大性を認識しているはずの[マクガワンの妻]が、「黒人差別」を「外国人差別」を置き換えるはずはなく、端的 に、黒人差別の有無を[原告]に質問するのが当然であり、それをすることについて障害があったとは考えられない。ところが、それにもかかわらず、[マクガ ワンの妻]は、黒人差別の有無に関する質問をしていないのであるから、そのことからすると、当日原告から「こくじん」という発言がされたという原告の供 述、当時「こくじん」の意味を原告が[マクガワンの妻]に質問して、原告がその意味を理解したという原告、[マクガワンの妻]の供述の信用性は乏しいとい うべきである。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

コメント；
　そう言えますか。
　じゃあ、どうやって「こくじん」がこの件に関わる用語となったのでしょうか。マクガワンさんは当時知らなかった言葉ならば他人から教わったわけです。上 記の通り、マクガワンさんが電話したときに奥さんに定義を聞いたようです。よってマクガワンさんから被告から聞いて、被告が用いた言葉というわけです。と にかくこれは脱線です。被告が非口頭的にも原告を入店拒否したことは事実なので、「差別発言の意味が分かったか」は論外です。
　とにかく、なぜ佐賀裁判官は「黒人差別」と「外国人差別」を別々にしているのでしょうか。「黒人差別」は「外国人差別」の部分集合、どちらでも差別で す。「黒人差別」がなければ「差別」がなだったわけですか。それよりも、「人種、国籍、外見、嫌悪などによる差別」があったかどうか検討すべきだと思いま す。

　それから、佐賀裁判官は原告の立場を更に崩すために、奥さんの供述を捻くって曲解してしまいます：

＝＝＝＝＝＝（１０ページ２節から）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　また、[マクガワンの妻]としては、原告が黒人であることを理由として 被告が本当に原告の入店を拒否したということを、被告自身の発言により確認したかったということも考えられなくはない。しかし、そうであるなら、[マクガ ワンの妻]としては、婦人客から電話があったために被告店舗前から離れてもらったという被告の説明に対し、仮に被告の説明する事実があったとしても、だか らといって、被告が「黒人きらい」などと述べ黒人であることを理由として原告の入店を拒否することは不当ではないかということを述べるはずである。ところ が、[マクガワンの妻]は、そのようなことを述べたとは供述しておらず、被告に対し、「私もここで眼鏡を買ったカスタマーなので言いたいことがありま す。」と述べたと供述するのである。（参考資料番号省略）すなわち、[マクガワンの妻]は、黒人であることを理由とする入店拒否行為が不当であるとの指摘 をするのではなく、婦人客からの電話があったためであるという点を捉えて、それなら自分も被告店舗で眼鏡を買ったことがあるという主張をしているのであ る。このことからすると、[マクガワンの妻]は、原告が黒人であることについて被告の態度を問題としたのではなく、他の客のために、同じく客である原告に 対して不当な扱いをしたことを問題としてと考えるのが自然である。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

（簡潔に和訳します：「原告の質問の仕方によって、黒人差別の意図で聞いておらず、客として待遇の差異を争っている。よって、黒人差別に該当しない。」）

コメント：
　いや、不自然である。やはり、被告が「客が黒人門前払いを頼んでいる、客だから仕方がない」と一点張りすると、聞いている人は自然に「私たちも客だか ら」を無意識に言いたくなってしまいます。裁判官が文脈がなくこれのみ挙げて、差別の有様を否定しようとするのは故実けです。なぜ断る人よりも断られた人 をこうやって無理矢理非難を探るのでしょうか。

　では、屁理屈のファースト＝プライズを賞します：

＝＝＝＝＝＝（１１ページ２節から）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　原告は、被告から、「出て行け、ドアに触るな、ショーウィンドウに触る な。」と言われたというのであるが、（中略）前期認定のとおり、原告も[原告の友人]も、そのとき、被告店舗に入っていなかったのであるから、被告が原告 らに対し「店に入るな。」ということがあっても、「出て行け。」というはずはないと考えられる。また、原告も[原告の友人]も、被告店舗のドアやショー ウィンドウに触っておらず、触ろうともしていなかったというのであるから、そのような原告や[原告の友人]に対してドアに触るな、ショーウィンドウに触る なと発言するとも考え難いのであって、これらの発言があったという原告の供述も採用できないというべきである。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

コメント：
　「敷地から出て行け」ということにもなり得ないのでしょうか。「ショーウィンドウ」のディスプレイも店舗の必要不可欠の商売敷地であります。被告さえ 「婦人客が入れないから店舗前から追い出した」という正当化もあったから自分の店の敷地に既に入っていると解されます。
　この裁判官は実用的に考えられるでしょうか。この判決は前例として、店舗前一歩前なら門前払いにすれば「入店拒否にならない」というわけになりますか。 非常識です。しかも乱用しやすい判例です。
　いずれに入店拒否されたのは変わりがありません。なぜ裁判官がそうやって木を見て森を見ずができ、日本の法令を解釈する立場になりえますか。

　しかし、もっと悪質な原告バッシングは起きます。

＝＝＝＝＝＝（１２ページ１節から）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　（戦略）原告の日本語能力については、相当な疑問がある。したがって、 原告は、原告が日本語に不自由であるという認識している日本人の間で日本語の会話が一応できるとしても、そのような認識を有していない者の発言を正しく理 解できるかとうことについては疑問がある。（中略）原告は、本件言動における被告の発言について、その場ではその意味をほとんど理解していなかったという 疑いが払拭できないところがある。
　以上によると、本件言動についき、原告が黒人であるこ とを理由とする入店拒否に関するがあったという原告の供述は採用できず（後略）
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

コメント：
　これは私がよく経験した討論の戦略です。以前、私は日本人との争いがあった時に、相手がよく「この外人は俺の日本語は母語じゃないから、俺を誤解した」 という口実を設けて、私の議論を無効にしようとしました。(http://www.debito.org/powerbullies.html)  非常に不公平です。まして法解釈が担った裁判官がこうやって原告の供述を全部「採用不可」にするのは倫理的にどうですか。
　皮肉は、本件はコミュニケーションの問題じゃなかったのです。原告被告の交渉がブレークダウンする前に被告は原告を門前払しました。ボディランゲージだ けでも「入店拒否」で分かるはずです。しかし、裁判官はそれも却下します：

＝＝＝＝＝＝（１６ページ２節から）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　原告は、本件において、本件言動のうち、被告が腕で原告らを追いやるよ うな動作をしたことをも問題とするが、これは、被告が黒人差別発言をした場合には、原告を動物のように扱う行為として問題になると考えられるものの、被告 が黒人差別発言をしたとう事実を認めることができないのであるから、被告の上記動作をもって、それが被告の原告に対する不法行為になるということはできな い。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

コメント：
　じゃあ、「拒否」以外、どうやって「腕で追いやるような動作」を解釈すればいいですか。というわけで、残念ながら、マクガワンさんは日本語が理解できな いから非口頭的なことについても原告として採用できる解釈は不可です。

　皆様、どうですか。我が国の裁判官の判決文はこの状態でいいですか。佐賀裁判官さえ「正義」、「仲裁」、「弱いものの救済」という認識が充分あります か。

　本件、もう一つの例を取り挙げさせて下さい。これは面白いロジック＝ゲームです。

＝＝＝＝＝＝（１２ページ４節から）＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
　 原告は黒人であることを理由として被告が原告を入店を拒否したのではいことは、平成１４年ないし１５年ころ、[マクガワンの妻]が原告とともに被告店舗に 赴き、被告店舗で眼鏡を購入したときに、被告が原告の入店を拒否していないことからも十分に窺われる（うたがわれる）ところである。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

コメント：
　では、同じ理論に沿って極論を出しましょう。
　私は或るバーに入ります。店主は私を相手にしない。が、結局当バーでいい食事をしました。数年後、私は同バーに入ると、今回店主は銃で私を撃ち殺す。佐 賀裁判官の論理によると、私を撃ち殺した店主は無罪である。なぜなら、前回私が入ったとき、私を撃ち殺さなかったから。

　これは先進国日本の裁判所で公認された法律の専門家が採用できる理論と論理ですか。

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

結論

　分かりやすくまとめると、この判決の流れは比喩的に言うと：

　「或る日、ある歩行者は車両にぶつかってケガを受けました。その運転手は「こうやって人をぶつけること僕の性格だから、謝らない」。法廷で救済を求める ケガ人は「車にぶつけられてケガを受けた」。しかし裁判官は「違う。あなたにぶつけたのは車ではない。トラックだった。却下。」

　但し、この判決はもっと危険な前例を作っております。波及結果を考えましょう。

　外国人差別の司法的救済を無効にする可能性があります。なぜなら、外国人と日本人の争いの際、外国人は殆ど勝ってられません。なぜなら、日本人は「外人 は俺の日本語を誤解した」と主張して、外国人の供述が採用されません。

　毎日と言えるぐらい、私に差別を受けた人から助言依頼がきます。いつも私のアドバイスは「ネーティブ＝スピーカーを連れていてもう一度状況を確認して、 誤解を防ごう」。（しかし、本件では、佐賀裁判官はできるだけ第三者のネーティブ＝スピーカー、つまりマクガワンさんの奥さん、をあら探しして供述を無効 にしようとしました。）

　要するに、言語の障壁があり得るから、外国人のみの証言・陳述が信用性が乏しい、という前例です。

　では、佐賀裁判官が拵えた前例を参考にして、「救済できる人種差別事件」に該当するケースは何でしょうか。

------------------------------------------------
　一、原告は外国人ではないこと。
　二、原告は日本語のネィテーブであること。
　三、原告は差別された時に記録した証拠を持つこと。 （第三者が確認したり再現することは疑わしく、裁判官が払拭できない疑問が生じるかもしれない）
　四、被告は「自分には差別意識と意図がある」と公式に 認めること。
------------------------------------------------
　
　あっ、四）もダメですね。本件でも被告は「ドイツで黒人によって悪い経験があった。原告（偶然に黒人）を入店拒否した。僕の店だから。僕の性格だから」 とも認めたものの、それでも人種差別に当らなかったです。
　
　よって、２４時間、外国人ならネーティブを連行、テープで録画、ビデオで撮影、「差別キャッチャー」らしき見張らなければいけません。無理があります。 つまり、この判例で人種差別救済はできません。

　原告マクガワンさん夫妻、大阪高裁へ控訴を深くお願いいたします。このままで前例として残さないで下さい。大阪地裁では裁判官にとってアンラッキーだっ たが、高裁の判決で祈りましょう。

　宜しくお願い致します。有道　出人

debito@debito.org
http://www.debito.org
February 1, 2006
ENDS

---

---

毎 日新聞
2006年1月30日　13時55分　（最終更新時間　1月30日　13時57分）
黒人差別訴訟：原告の損害賠償請求を棄却　大阪地裁
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/wadai/news/20060130k0000e040071000c.html

判決を受け会見で涙をぬぐう米国人男性＝大阪市北区の大阪司法記者クラブで３０日午後０時６分、幾島健太郎写す
　「黒人は嫌いだ」などと差別的発言で入店を拒否され、人格を傷つけられたとして、米国人デザイナーの男性（４１）＝京都府精華町＝が大阪府内の眼鏡店の 経営者を相手取り、１５０万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟で、大阪地裁（佐賀義史裁判官）は３０日、「黒人差別の発言の事実が認められない」と原告の請求を棄 却した。
　判決によると、原告は０４年９月、知人と眼鏡店前でポスターなどを見ながら話していたところ、経営者が店から離れるよう求めた。翌日、原告と一緒に店を 訪ねた日本人の妻が「昨日、何があったのか」と尋ねた。経営者は「店の前に変な人がいて入店できないと、客から電話があり、店から離れてもらった。若いこ ろドイツにいたことがあって、黒人から嫌な思いを受けた」などと説明。妻と言い合いになった。
　訴訟で原告側は「経営者から『黒人は嫌いだ』などと言われて入店を拒否された」などと主張した。しかし、判決は「意思に反して店舗前から離れさせられた というべき。原告の日本語能力には相当な疑問があり、差別発言があったという証言は信用できない。経営者のドイツ時代の話から、原告らが黒人差別を推測し たと認められる」と退けた。
　判決後、会見したマクガワンさんは「人間以下の扱いを受けた気分。数世紀前の米国南部にいるようで悲しい」と涙をぬぐった。原告代理人の丹羽雅雄弁護士 は「差別はなかったとしながら、被告がなぜ入店を拒否したかを明らかにしていない。著しく不当な判決だ」と批判した。【前田幹夫】

---

朝日新聞
入店拒否訴訟、黒人男性が敗訴　差別発言の存在認めず
2006年01月30日
http://www.asahi.com/kansai/news/OSK200601300045.html

写真：判決後、涙をぬぐいながら会見するマクガワンさん＝３０日午前１１時４９分、大阪地裁で

　大阪府内の眼鏡店で黒人であることを理由に入店を拒否したのは人種差別にあたるとして、京都府精華町のデザイナーの米国人男性が同店経営者を相手に慰謝 料など５５０万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟の判決が３０日、大阪地裁であった。佐賀義史裁判官は「差別発言があったとは認めることはできない」として、請求 を棄却した。

　訴えていたのは、スティーブ・マクガワンさん（４１）。

　マクガワンさんは、０４年９月４日、同店前で同じ黒人の友人とショーウインドーに陳列された眼鏡を見ていた際、表に出てきた経営者から「出て行け。黒人 は嫌い」などと言われて入店を拒否されたとして、同年１０月に提訴していた。

　判決は、マクガワンさんが主張する発言があったとすれば、法の下の平等を定める憲法に反すると指摘した上で、発言の有無について検討。「原告の日本語に 関する能力の程度には相当の疑問がある。当日の発言の意味をほとんど理解していなかったとの疑いがぬぐえない」と判断した。

　マクガワンさんは翌５日にも妻と同店を訪れた際に差別的な発言に対する説明を求めた、と主張していたが、判決は「原告側は黒人差別の有無に関する質問を していない」と退けた。

　経営者側は「差別的なことを言った事実はない」と反論していた。

---

The Japan Times
Man loses racial discrimination suit against shop
By ERIC JOHNSTON, Staff writer
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060131a3.html

OSAKA -- In a case that human rights lawyers and activists worry could condone racial discrimination against foreigners by Japanese businesses, the Osaka District Court rejected a lawsuit Monday that was filed by a black American man who was denied entry to a store apparently due to his color.

Steve McGowan, 41, a resident of Kyoto Prefecture, filed the 1.5 million yen suit after he was denied entry in September 2004 to a store in Osaka Prefecture that sells eyeglasses. He claimed the owner shouted at him to leave and told him he hated black people.

But presiding Judge Yoshifumi Saga ruled that, while it was inappropriate for McGowan to have been asked to leave, there was no evidence the store owner had made discriminating remarks against blacks and said it was questionable whether McGowan had understood what the owner had said.

The court noted that the plaintiff claimed he was told to get out and not to touch the door or show window, but added that neither the plaintiff nor his friend were in the shop at the time, so there was no reason they would have been told to "get out."

"There are doubts about the plaintiff's Japanese ability. . . . and the defendant himself has said he recognizes he has limited freedom in Japanese," the court said. "Therefore, testimony from the plaintiff about what the defendant said can't be trusted."

In a news conference immediately following the ruling, a visibly shocked McGowan warned that a dangerous precedent was being set.

"Today I felt as if I was not in Japan, but in the Alabama of the 1950s. I've been made to feel less than human, like an animal," said McGowan, choking back tears. "This case was not just about me. With this ruling, the judge has given store owners the right to discriminate based on color."

Masao Niwa, a human rights attorney and lead lawyer for McGowan's legal team, expressed disbelief that the court failed to address the most basic issue of all.

"Nowhere does the ruling attempt to answer the question of why he was refused," Niwa said. "This decision is extremely unfair."

That question was also on the minds of rights activists who warned the ruling was tantamount to condoning "commercial apartheid" against foreigners.

"The judge missed the point," Sapporo-based activist Debito Arudou said after the ruling. "The issue is not, 'Did Steve understand properly why he was being refused?' The issue is, 'Why did the shop refuse Steve entry?' "

"Now public-space shops can act like private clubs, refusing anyone they don't like, especially foreigners," Arudou said. "Shops can just claim, 'There was a misunderstanding -- because of his Japanese abilities.' "

McGowan said he will decide whether to appeal in a few days.

The Japan Times: Jan. 31, 2006

---

LEAD: Court rejects African-American's damages claim over denied entry
Monday January 30, 12:37 PM
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060130/kyodo/d8fepg080.html

(Kyodo) _ (EDS: ADDING INFO, COMMENTS)
The Osaka District Court rejected a damages suit Monday filed by a U.S. citizen living in Kyoto Prefecture who said he was denied entry to an Osaka optical shop in 2004 because he is black.

The 41-year-old man, a designer living in the town of Seika, had demanded the shop owner pay 5.5 million yen in damages.

"It was inappropriate for the owner to have asked (the man) who was in front of the shop to leave...but it cannot be recognized that (the owner) made remarks discriminating against black people," Judge Yoshifumi Saga said in handing down the ruling.

The man said after the ruling that it is a sad day and that he feels like living in Alabama or Louisiana in the 1950s.

He also said that he will continue to fight until he receives equal treatment with Japanese people.

According to the ruling, the shop owner told the man in Japanese to leave when he was in front of the premises with a non-Japanese friend in September 2004.

The man said the shop owner shouted, "I hate black people."

Saga said that the claim lacked credibility.

According to the lawsuit, the owner used the derogatory term "kokujin," or black people, when denying the man entry, and the man said the remark is racist.

The man later returned to the shop with his Japanese wife to ask why he was denied entry. The owner said he had received a phone call from someone saying they were unable to enter the premises because "two strange people" were in front, according to the lawsuit.

The judge rejected the claim by the owner about the phone call.

---

Mainichi Daily News
Osaka court rejects black American's discrimination suit
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20060130p2a00m0na017000c.html
PHOTO:  Steve McGowan speaks to reporters after the ruling.

OSAKA -- The Osaka District Court on Monday rejected a suit by a U.S. national who demanded compensation from the owner of an eyeglasses shop who allegedly told him he disliked black people and refused him entry to the store.

Steve McGowan, 41, a designer, demanded that the store owner pay 1.5 million yen in compensation for remarks he said were discriminatory. The court, however, ruled that the business owner did not use any such offensive words.

The case stems from an incident in Osaka Prefecture in September 2004. McGowan was talking with his friend while looking at a poster in front of the shop when the owner came out and asked the two to leave, according to the ruling.

The next day, McGowan and his Japanese wife appeared at the shop, and she asked the owner what had happed the day before.

The owner explained that he had asked the two to leave after he was contacted by a customer who claimed to have had trouble entering the store because there were people in front of it.

The business owner added that he had a bad impression of black people during a stay in Germany.

McGowan, who lives in Kyoto Prefecture, maintained in the suit that the owner said he hated black people and refused him entry to the shop.

The court, however, rejected the allegation.

"The plaintiff should have said that he was made to leave the shop against his will," the judge said. "I have doubts about the plaintiff's level of comprehension of the Japanese language. I cannot trust his accusation over the use of discriminatory remarks."

The judge concluded that the plaintiff had merely assumed the owner made offensive remarks when he mentioned his experience in Germany.

McGowan called the ruling disappointing and said it saddened him.

His lawyer, Masao Niwa, called the ruling "unfair."

"The ruling said there were no discriminatory remarks. But it didn't explain why the defendant asked him to leave," Niwa said. (Mainichi)

Click here for the original Japanese story
January 30, 2006

---

THE ZEIT GIST
Twisted legal logic deals rights blow to foreigners
McGowan ruling has set a very dangerous precedent
By DEBITO ARUDOU
The Japan Times: Feb. 7, 2006
Courtesy http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060207zg.html

Steve McGowan, an African-American resident of Kyoto, sued an eyeglass shop in Daito City, Osaka Prefecture, for refusing him entry in 2004 on the basis of the color of his skin.

It should have been a slam-dunk case.

The owner shooed McGowan away from his store, G. style, physically if not verbally. As reported previously by the Community Page, he was caught on tape admitting he barred McGowan from entry. He made it clear in court that he has a "thing" about black people, justifying it as merely part of his personality.

But Japan is a land of surprises. On Jan. 30, McGowan lost his case.

Judge Yoshifumi Saga of the Osaka District Court handed down a decision that worked backward from preformed conclusions.

Clearly McGowan had to lose, when you consider how petty the judge's justifications were.

Instead of questioning the responsibility of a shopkeep refusing customers he just happens to find racially repugnant, Saga decided to discredit the victims.

He disqualified McGowan and his wife as credible witnesses to any discrimination, by ruling:

1.) McGowan's testimony is inadmissible, as he apparently does not understand enough Japanese to reliably prove that the store-owner used discriminatory language toward him.

2.) In her follow up investigation, McGowan's wife didn't confirm whether the store-owner had excluded McGowan because he is black ("kokujin"); she apparently asked him if it was because her husband is foreign.

Therefore, Judge Saga concluded it unclear whether McGowan had been excluded specifically for being black.

Since McGowan's suit claimed discrimination against black people (as opposed to discrimination by race or nationality), case dismissed.

Let's put it another way: A guy gets struck by a motor vehicle. The driver refuses to apologize, even says hitting pedestrians is merely part of his personality. The pedestrian takes him to court, claiming that getting hit by a car hurt him. The judge says, "You weren't in fact hit by a car. It was a truck. Compensation denied."

Judge Saga avoided addressing the issue of why McGowan had been turned away.

Was there no discrimination here at all? It was a farcical judgment unbecoming to a trained mind entrusted with interpreting the laws of Japan.

But this is no laughing matter, given the damage this verdict could wreak.

The problem with a quibbling judge is that he still sets legal precedent. Judges are supposed to consider the ramifications of their decisions.

However, in his haste to kick McGowan's case out of his courtroom, Judge Saga deployed reasoning that could make it impossible to successfully seek legal redress for racial discrimination in Japan.

I'm talking about the fact that the judge invalidated McGowan's testimony simply because his language abilities are suspect.

Think about it. This gives incredible license to the chauvinists, as there will be no way to resolve a disagreement in favor of the foreigner.

Let's say you're in a dispute with somebody. How many times have you heard the following:

"Hey, the gaijin misunderstood my Japanese. After all, he's not a native speaker."

Claiming a language barrier will bring in a benefit of the doubt.

After all, Japanese is one of the world's most difficult languages, too difficult for a foreigner to understand fully, right?

Thus native speakers hold all the aces. It's a great way to delegitimize the gaijin's voice.

Thanks to Judge Saga, it is now a legitimate legal tactic. Just say the gaijin didn't understand your words, and you destroy the credibility of his testimony.

To avoid this pitfall, I usually advise people to return to the scene with a native speaker and reconfirm what happened. (Community Page, Nov. 30, 2004)

But Judge Saga must read this column, because he anticipated that. If the plaintiff's native speaking friend asks the defendant questions that don't satisfy the judge's sense of Sherlocking, pack your bags.

Hey, your friend wasn't there when the discrimination occurred anyway, so who can say what happened? The defendant again wins by default.

In other words, under the "Judge Saga Litmus Test for Racial Discrimination," to claim credible damages you must:


Actually, scratch the last one. The eyeglass shop owner did admit a distaste for black people, yet the judge still let him off.

So much for the government's claim to the U.N. that Japan doesn't need any laws against racial discrimination since our judiciary will protect us.

But does legal precedent like this really matter in Japan's judicial system?

Of course it does. Court decisions are not merely case-by-case. They cite something -- if not specific laws, then reasonings found in legal precedents.

But if there is no specific anti-racial discrimination law to ground a verdict upon, then you refer to the outcomes of related court cases.

For example, two Zainichi Koreans won their case in Kobe District Court Amagasaki for wrongful housing refusal on Jan. 24, 2006; the judge cited verbatim the legal reasoning from the Otaru Onsens Case -- in which this writer was a plaintiff -- ie. that discrimination is illegal "if it transgresses socially accepted limits" ("shakaiteki ni kyoyou shiuru gendo o koeru").

However, we now have a precedent to disqualify a foreigner's testimony, denying him his rights, because he doesn't speak satisfactory Japanese. That can be great weapon for a provincial judge.

History shows it takes a long time to undo something like this. Even with the shortcomings of comparing legal systems, consider the U.S. precedent of "separate but equal" justified by Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896.

It took until 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, to cancel that one out.

It takes a lot more effort and a separate government branch to get a civil rights law passed.

So with no laws to rein them in, judicial precedents offer judges more prerogatives.

The McGowan Case has exposed an attitude unbecoming of a developed country. How can a judge, in the world's second-biggest economy, ignore racial discrimination through semantics and splitting hairs? What of the role of the judiciary to protect the weak, in the name of severance, deterrence, even simple justice?

I hope Steve McGowan appeals, as a ruling like this must not be left alone. He ran a risk by suing. He got a cracked judge. Now that the cracks are clear, the High Court (which does overturn and even admonish lower court decisions) must have a go at it.

Otherwise, the damage is done, and this decision will affect millions of people in Japan who will find themselves unprotected by either the laws or the courts.

Further analysis of the McGowan court decision is available at www.debito.org/mcgowanhanketsu.html

The Japan Times: Feb. 7, 2006

---

入居拒否：「差別」と認定　家主に賠償命令　神戸地裁尼崎
毎日新聞　2006年1月25日　0時48分
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/jiken/news/20060125k0000m040147000c.html

　国籍を理由に民間賃貸住宅への入居を拒否したのは法の下の平等を保障した憲法などに違反するとして、兵庫県尼崎市の在日韓国人３世の団体職員、李俊煕 （イチュニ）さん（２９）、朴絢子（パクヒョンジャ）さん（２９）夫妻が、家主と仲介業者に慰謝料など約２４０万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟の判決が２４ 日、神戸地裁尼崎支部であった。小松一雄裁判長は「韓国籍であることを入居拒否の理由にしており差別にあたる」と認定。家主に、精神的苦痛に伴う慰謝料な ど２２万円の支払いを命じた。仲介業者の賠償責任は認めなかった。
　判決によると、夫妻は０３年１０月、尼崎市内の仲介業者の事務所で木造住宅の賃貸借契約を結ぼうと申込書に記入したが、家主はその後、仲介業者を通じて契約を断った。
　家主は、夫妻が猫２匹の飼育を希望していると知ったので契約を断ったと主張したが、小松裁判長は「家主は猫の飼育を理由に拒否したが、申込書の国籍欄に 韓国籍と書かれているのを見て『前の住人が韓国の人で、退去時にリフォームするのに苦労した』などと言った。国籍を理由に賃貸借契約の締結を拒否したと受 け取れる発言」と判断。「社会的に許容しうる限度を超えており不法行為にあたる」とした。
　判決後、家主の代理人は「全く不当な判決。猫以外に断った理由はない」と話した。【西浦久雄】
毎日新聞　2006年1月25日　0時48分
ーーーーーーーーーーーーー

有道　出人よりコメント３つ：
　　　a) 家主は猫を被っている、という気がしませんか。（がくっ）

　　　b) 判決文で「社会的に許容しうる限度を超えており不法行為にあたる」は殆ど逐語的に「小樽温泉人種差別訴訟」２００２年１１月に下った札幌地裁判決を引用しています。
http://www.debito.org/lawsuitkansoubun.html
賠償金が少ないものの、肯定的に前例として適用されております。

　　　c) 「申込書の国籍欄に韓国籍と書かれているのを見て」。なぜこの国籍欄がありますか。無論、これは「邦人」と「異邦人」を選別するためです。これは差別の出処でございます。少なくとも法的にこの欄を廃止すべきです。

ABOVEMENTIONED MAINICHI ARTICLE
(English translation by Arudou Debito)

Z KOREANS WIN DISCRIM CASE AGAINST PRIVATE-SECTOR LANDLORD
Translating article (thanks to Mike Fox for the link)
Mainichi Shinbun, Jan 25, 2006  Japanese at:
http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/shakai/jiken/news/20060125k0000m040147000c.html
(or page up to text)
---------------------------------
REFUSING HOUSING "DISCRIMINATION", RULES KOBE DISTRICT COURT AMAGASAKI
Landlord ordered to pay compensation

On Jan 24, 2006, Kobe District Court, Amagasaki Branch, ruled that refusing private-sector housing on the basis of nationality is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.  The landlord and the negotiating realtor were sued by Plaintiffs Lee Chuni (29) and wife Park Hyunja (29), third-generation Zainichi ethnic Koreans, for 2,400,000 yen. 

Judge Komatsu Kazuo acknowledged, "Refusing housing based upon Korean nationality is discrimination".  The landlord was ordered to pay 220,000 yen for causing mental suffering.  The realtor was cleared of any wrongdoing.

According to the text of the decision, the couple filed to sign a housing contract with an Amagasaki realtor to rent a wooden house.  However, the landlord subsequently refused the contract through the realtor.

The landlord claimed that he refused the couple because he knew they wanted to keep two cats.  However, Judge Komatsu determined, "The landlord claims the cats as the basis of his refusal, but in fact after he saw the nationality column within the application indicating 'Korean', that is when he said 'the last occupants were Koreans, and after they left I had a hell of a time with renovating the premises.'  This indicates that he refused them because of their nationality."  He added, "This is illegal behavior because it transgresses the boundaries [of discrimination] permitted by society." (shakaiteki ni kyoyou shiuru gendo o koete ori fuhou koui ni ataru)

After the decision, representatives for the landlord said, "This is a complete injustice.  There was no reason for refusal beyond the cats."  ENDS
---------------------------------

TWO QUICK COMMENTS FROM ARUDOU DEBITO:
1) Note that the wording of the refusal (about transgressing permitted societal boundaries) is an exact quote from the Otaru Onsen Sapporo District Court Decision, November 2002.  Precedent is being applied, however miserly, in a positive direction.

2) Part of the problem is that according to the article, the realtor's application has a column where you must indicate nationality.  Why is this here?  A subterfuge of centrifuge.

ENDS

---

By Arudou Debito
January 31, 2006
Information on this case will be archived at http://www.debito.org/mcgowanhanketsu.html

Japan Focus article February 4, 2006, by Eric Johnston.
Japan Times Community Page article February 7, 2006, by Arudou Debito.

=====================================
BACKGROUND:  Steve McGowan is an African American and resident of Kyoto Prefecture.  On September 4, 2004, Steve was recommending an eyeglass store he had frequented before, named "G-style" (Daitou-Shi, Osaka, http://gs-gstyle.jp, mail: info@gs-gstyle.jp), to a black South African friend.  They were standing outside the shop when the owner, a Mr Narita Takashi, came outside and told McGowan and his friend to leave:  "I don't like black people!  Don't touch the door!  Don't touch the shop window!  Get over there!" [shooing them away and pointing across the street].   These statements are part of the court record.  So is Narita's claim that shooed them because a neighbor phoned his store to warn him about two scary blacks outside his premises.  Subsequent visits to the G-Style by both McGowan's wife (as well as Arudou Debito and other human rights activists; the conversation was tape-recorded) got Narita on record saying that he doesn't like black people, as he'd had a bad experience in Germany (involving a stolen bag and a prurient proposition) many years ago.  When the owner refused to apologize (instead justifying this behavior to the press (Tokyo Shinbun Nov 4 2005, see website) as merely part of his personality), McGowan took Narita to Osaka District Court for 5.5 million yen damages.

This should basically have been a slam-dunk decision.  But Japan is a land of surprises.
=====================================

THE COURT DECISION IN SUMMARY

On January 30, 2006, Osaka District Court's Saga Yoshifumi ruled against McGowan, for the following arguments (in nutshell; details follow in the ANALYSIS section below.)

1) McGowan's wife, in the follow-up visit, never properly confirmed that the reason McGowan was refused was because he was a black (kokujin).  She only used the word "gaikokujin" (foreign) when asking questions about Steve's treatment.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to claim that this is discrimination *in specific* against black people.

2) All testimony by McGowan is essentially invalid because of his insufficient Japanese abilities (particularly because he apparently couldn't distinguish "kokujin" from "gaikokujin", apparently learning the former word from his wife after the refusal).  Moreover, testimony by his wife is similarly discounted because it wasn't thorough enough.

3) Er...

4) That's essentially it.

5) However, the issue of WHY McGOWAN AND FRIEND WERE REFUSED ENTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE was not addressed in the decision.

6) In essence, the judge ruled that he was not a victim of discrimination against blacks.  Just discrimination against foreigners.  Which, sadly, was not what McGowan sued for.  So Plaintiff's claim was therefore dismissed.

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

THE REACTION

I have Steve McGowan's permission to reveal this:  Steve is a former serviceman with training for special operations.  He has been in battle, shot, and survived life-threatening conditions.  However, a verdict as egregiously awful as this one made this bulletproof man crumble, even cry, in public at yesterday's press conference.  Quotes from Steve, courtesy of reporter Eric Johnston, who attended:

=====================================
"Today is a real sad day for me because I learned something about Japan's justice system. I learned that they have a lot to learn.''

"I felt like I was in Alabama or Louisiana in the 1950s. No matter what I do or say, my color cancels me out.''

"I love this nation. The ruling doesn't take the love away. I love the people here. But I learned that some people don't love me because of my color.''

"Now I feel that the law gives them the right to discriminate based on color.''

"I feel less than a human being, like an animal, because the court said I had no say.''

"I hope people learned something today from this. For all foreigners in Japan have to struggle for our rights and fight against a judicial system that is biased against us.''
=====================================

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

ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION

Honestly, reading this turgid verdict (with the help of a native speaker, to make sure I was accurately seeing and believing) was like munching on tinfoil, and several times I just wanted to dash it across the room.

Slash away with me through the logical jungle cultivated by one of Japan's certified finest legal minds:  (Translations by Arudou Debito)

(page 7, paragraph 2)
====================================
"(According to Plaintiffs' affidavits, when he heard, "I hate Negroes.  No blacks allowed," etc, and other historical epithets, he recalled all the epithets used in history [against black people], and felt completely helpless.)  It is conceivable that [Plaintiff's wife] of course was aware of those words herself.  If that is the case, when they went back to Defendant's store on September 4 [to reconfirm the situation], she should have put the question to Defendants as to whether this shop discriminates, i.e. whether it discriminates against black people.  However, she did not put this question to Defendant.  Instead, she asked no more than whether this store discriminates against FOREIGNERS." [my emphasis]

(I normally include a link to the text of the verdict, a public document, so readers can check the text and the translation themselves.  But McGowan's lawyer asked me yesterday not to display it on my webpage for some reason.  Sorry.  The closest thing I can give you is a record of related articles in English and Japanese, at http://www.debito.org/mcgowanhanketsu.html)  Original Japanese, romajinized:)

(...niguro wa kirai da, kokujin okotowari nado to iu, sosen no rekishi yonde shita nonoshiri no kotoba, gendai ni oite mo, sekaijuu de haserareteru nonoshiri no kotoba o omoidashi, tsuyoi muryokukan ni osowareta to no kisai ga aru).  [Tsuma] mo touzen ni sono koto o ninshiki shite ita to kangaerareru.  soshite, sou de aru nara, tsuma to shite, 9 gatsu 4 kka, hikoku tenpo ni omomuita sai, [hikoku] ni taishi, hikoku tenpo de wa sabetsu o suru no ka, kokujin no nyuuten o kinshi shiteiru no ka to shitsumon suru hazu de aru.  tokoro ga, tsuma wa, [hikoku] ni taishite sono you na shitsumon o shita no de wa naku, hikoku tenpo de wa gaikokujin o sabetsu suru koto ga aru no ka to iu shitsumon o shite iru ni suginai no de aru.
====================================

COMMENT:  So this is a reason that can be given to ignore discrimination?  Just claim the wrong question was asked by the victims?

(page 7, paragraph 2, continuing)
====================================
If Plaintiff's wife had actually asked about "black people" over the phone to Defendants, and if this had been something Plaintiff had told his wife before returning to the store in person, then Plaintiff's wife would have been aware of how important "discrimination against blacks" is to this case.  However, when reconfirming the presence of discrimination, it's not possible for her to have substituted "foreigner discrimination" for "black discrimination"; it's also hard to conceive any impediment to her doing so.   However, even then, because Plaintiff's wife did not question about "discrimination against blacks", I must say that there is very little trust I can put into Plaintiff's testimony that Defendant actually said "black people" to him on the day, or that Plaintiff actually understood the meaning in Japanese of "black people" on the day if it had in fact been said.

moshi, "kokujin" to iu kotoba no imi o denwa de genkoku kara shitsumon sareta de areba, [tsuma], hikoku tenpo e iku mae ni, honken gendou o genkoku kara shirasarete ita hazu de ari, sou de areba, kokujin sabetsu no juudaisei o nishiki shite iru hazu no [tsuma] ga, "kokujin sabetsu" o "gaikokujin sabetsu" ni okikaeru hazu wa naku, tanteki ni, kokujin sabetsu no umu o [hikoku] ni shitsumon suru no ga touzen de ari, sore o suru koto ni tsuite no shougai ga atta to wa kangaerarenai.  tokoro ga, sore ni mo kakawarazu, [tsuma] wa, kokujin sabetsu no umu ni kansuru shitsumon o shite inai no de aru kara, sono koto kara suru to, toujitsu hikoku kara "kokujin" to iu hatsugen ga sareta to iu genkoku no kyoujutsu, toujitsu kokujin no imi o genkoku ga [tsuma] ni shitsumon shite, genkoku ga sono imi o rikai shita to iu genkoku, [tsuma] no kyoujutsu no shin'yousei wa toboshii to iu beki de aru.
====================================

COMMENT:  So the way to unzip the case and undermine the credibility of victims is by 1) arbitrarily separating "discrimination against black people" from bonafide "racial discrimination", and 2) then claiming victims' research vis-a-vis this arbitrary boundary is insufficient?  In fact, the judge explicitly says this is what he is doing on page 9, paragraph 2, line 6.

The rest of the judgment continues for another nine pages, probing whether there was actually any express and certifiable discrimination *specifically against black people*, as opposed to discrimination against Steve because he is of a different race.  Isn't one a subset of the other?  Did or did not discrimination happen anyway in this case?   Never mind:  Judge Saga justifies this by claiming (same paragraph, lines 13-14) that is apparently what Plaintiff wanted--a special treatment of the issue because Defendant's statements allegedly concerned blackness, not merely color.

Meanwhile, Judge Saga continues a rain of criticism on Plaintiff's wife (hardly ever mentioning Defendant Narita's behavior in his reasoning), to the point where it becomes farcical.  For example, when told that somebody had telephoned Defendant to caution about the ominous black people out front, Plaintiff's wife said, "I've bought eyeglasses here too.  I'm a customer.  So I think I you should listen to me too."
(watashi mo koko de megane o katta kasutomaa na no de, iitai koto ga arimasu.)  Judge used this testimony (page 10 paragraph 2) to indicate that she was not actually claiming "discrimination against blacks", but rather that she was protesting his ill-treatment as a customer, not as a person of color.  Oh, so that's all right, then.

Then we have the top prize in quibbling over semantics:

(page 11, paragraph 2)
====================================
Plaintiff says that Defendant told him, "Get out.  Don't touch the door.  Don't touch the window."...  Plaintiff and Plaintiff's friend were not actually inside the store at the time.  So even if Defendant actually said "Don't come into my store", it's impossible for Defendant to have actually said ,"Get out."

genkoku wa, hikoku kara, "de ike, doa ni sawaru na, shou uindou ni sawaru na."  to iwareta to iu no de aru ga,... genkoku mo [genkoku no yuujin] mo, sono toki, hikoku tenpo ni haite inakatta no de aru kara, hikoku ga genkokura ni taishi "mise ni hairu na" to iu koto wa atte mo, "dete ike" to iu hazu wa nai to kangaerareru.
====================================

(same page, continuing)
====================================
In addition, Plaintiff and friend also said that they were not touching Defendant's shop window, and had no intention of touching it.  Therefore, it is hard to believe that statements "Don't touch the door, don't touch the showroom window" were actually said to Plaintiff and friend, and this is why I should say I cannot admit the testimony from Plaintiff that this was actually said.

mata, genkoku mo [genkoku no yuujin] mo, hikoku tenpo no doa ya shou uindou ni sawatte orazu, sawarou to mo shite inakatta to iu no de aru kara, sono you na genkoku ya yuujin ni taishite, "doa ni sawaru na", "shou uindou ni sawaru na" to hatsugen suru to mo kangaegatai no de atte, korera no hatsugen ga atta to iu genkoku no kyoujutsu mo saiyou dekinai to iu beki de aru.
====================================

COMMENT:  So, um, it's absolutely impossible for Defendant to have said those words, because people are absolutely logical at all times, sizing situations in stressful moments and picking words with perfect certainty, right?  That's of course why he told them to go across the street--away from the shop window area which is also part of his business.  Even based upon simple logic, that's going outside an area they're in right now.  But why his this degree of nit-picking such an issue?  Because it's essentially all the judge can raise to deny McGowan any justice.  Again, this is how ridiculous things get when one works (and bends over) backwards from conclusions.

Judge Saga also decides to pick on McGowan's Japanese abilities.  Calling his language comprehension "questionable" (page 12, bottom of paragraph 1), our judge even doubts that Steve understood the words "get out" etc. (page 12, paragraph 2) .  By extension, judge doubted that Steve could even have understood the word "kokujin" for black people, mistaking it for "gaikokujin", or garden-variety foreigner.  Well, then how did the word "kokujin" even enter this case, then?  A little bird popped down on a spring in front of Steve bearing a flash card with "kokujin" as that day's "secret word"?

Cut through this.  The issue was never communication.  McGowan and friend were turned away even before any communication was possible.  Linguistic ability and misunderstanding were never the cause of the problem, and bringing it up is nasty smoke and mirrors, in a precedent-setting court case, no less.

Now let's play a game with logic:

(page 12, paragraph 4)
====================================
Plaintiff was not in fact refused by Defendant because he is a black person, because in 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff and wife went to Defendant's store, and bought glasses.  He was not refused entry then, so it's quite possible to assume that he was not refused this time [due specifically to his blackness].

genkoku ga kokujin de aru koto o riyuu to shite hikoku ga genkoku no nyuuten o kyohi shita no de nai koto wa, heisei 14 nen naishi heisei 15 nen koro, [tsuma] ga genkoku to tomo ni hikoku tenpo ni omomuki, hikoku tenpo de megane o kou'nyuu shita toki ni, hikoku ga genkoku no nyuuten o kyohi shite inai koto kara mo juubun ni ukagawareru [kisoku no ki] tokoro de aru.
====================================

Judge Saga then cites Steve's testimony (bottom of page 12 to top half of page 13) about Narita's treatment of him during their visit years ago to buy eyeglasses; Narita apparently offered him no smiles, kept his eyes averted, would not talk to him etc.  Based upon this, our judge then reasons that if the store's attitude was really that bad, then why was Steve returning to the store to recommend it to his friends years later?  Thus Narita's treatment on the day in question couldn't have been as bad as Plaintiff claims.

Now let's take this to the logical extreme:  I walk into a bar and the bartender doesn't really give me the time of day.  But my friends and I have some good eats and drinks.  Years later, I return, and the bartender shoots me dead.  Under Judge Saga's logic, the bartender is innocent!  He couldn't have shot me because he didn't shoot me the last time I went there!

This is how a judge in a developed country get away with ruling?  Believe it or not, the hanketsu contains even more gems of eye-popping illogic.  I think readers get the point.  But just one more:

(page 16, bottom paragraph)
====================================
Plaintiff makes an issue of how Defendant, inter alia, tries to shoo the Plaintiff and his friend away with his arm gestures.  Shooing people away like this in the course of discrimination against black people is conceivably a way to treat people like animals.  But as stated above, I cannot acknowledge that Defendant made any discriminatory remarks against black people.  Speaking only of these gestures, I cannot say that these gestures towards Plaintiff were illegal.

genkoku wa, honken ni oite, honken gendou no uchi, hikoku ga ude de genkokura o oiyaru you na dousa o shita koto o mo mondai to suru ga, kore wa, hikoku ga kokujin sabetsu hatsugen o shita baai ni wa, genkoku o doubutsu no you ni atsukau koui to shite mondai ni naru to kangaerareru mono no, hikoku ga kokujin sabetsu hatsugen o shita to iu jijitsu o mitomeru koto wa dekinai no de aru kara, hikoku no jouki dousa nomi o motte, sore ga hikoku no genkoku ni taisuru fuhou koui ni naru to iu koto wa dekinai.
====================================

I see.  So how else is somebody supposed to interpret the "shooing" gesture?  Even somebody who doesn't understand a lick of language, as Judge Saga apparently believes about Steve, can get that.  So fault Steve for not understanding enough Japanese, then fault him for being oversensitive about body language.  Let's just not fault the Defendant in any way for treating Steve in a racist manner.  After all, the judge essentially makes plain, it's his wife's fault.

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

CONCLUSION

Again, these sorts of illogics are the stuff of 2-Channel BBS, not an authorized judge empowered to interpret the laws of a nation.  It is extremely hard to believe that the judge had the interests of the weak or victimized in mind when he splits even already-split hairs.  The decision comes down entirely to an issue of semantics, not of severance, deterrence, or even justice.

Now consider the ramifications of this decision.  In practice it will wind up permitting discrimination against foreigners, anywhere, any time, because if somebody gets treated badly there will be no way to resolve the dispute in favor of the foreigner.  The native speakers hold all the aces.  How many times have you heard the argument made that if there is a dispute between a foreigner and a Japanese, the foreigner must have misunderstood because he is not a native speaker (I have, many times; for example, see http://www.debito.org/powerbullies.html).  This is the most facile way to deligitimize the gaijin's voice.  Which is why I've always said, "Take a native speaker with you when you reconfirm the situation."  (http://www.debito.org/japantimes113004.html)

But just in case bringing along a third-party witness might have any effect, the judge deligitimizes that too (in this case, through semantic sleight of hand--the apparent difference between "kokujin" and "gaikokujin").  So what could they have done right under the Judge Saga Litmus Test?  Let's see now... for a watertight case of "real claimable discrimination", you essentially have to have a tape recorder or a video camera going on 24 hours a day just in case to make sure you capture the discrimination on the spot exactly when it happens.  Because you won't be able to credibly recreate or claim it later.

And you also better not be a foreigner.  Because any reconfirmation afterwards is prone to suspicion because foreigners misunderstand Japanese, you see.

Yet even when there is no misunderstanding, the Defendant wins.  The owner admitted, "Sure, I excluded him!  Hey, that's just my personality.  I don't like black people, based upon my personal experience with a couple of them".  And he STILL gets exonerated!  This is racial discrimination, none other.  And if the Japanese judiciary won't even rule against it for the flimsiest reasons, that must be exposed and talked about to international bodies.

I implore Steve McGowan to appeal.

This precedent must be seen and struck down by the High Court.  This egregious decision must be exposed both at home and abroad, for everyone to see, if Japan's judiciary is ever going to clean out its bent judges.

Don't throw in the towel, Steve and Missus!

Arudou Debito
Sapporo
debito@debito.org
http://www.debito.org

PS:  I hope someday to put up the full text of the decision.  I hate quoting from sources without ready verification.  Check back at this space by mid-February 2006.

PPS:  And before you ask (lots have)...  No, I don't know whether or not the tape recording we made of Narita making his racist statements was ever submitted to court.

January 30, 2006
ENDS