ON RACISM IN JAPAN:
WHY ONE
MAY BE HOPEFUL
FOR THE FUTURE
By Arudou Debito, Associate
Professor, Hokkaido Information University.
Paper given at Meiji Gakuin University Symposium "International Studies of Our New Era: Immigrants, Refugees, and Women" on Sunday, July 17, 2005
===============================
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the phenomenon of racism in Japan, and how Japan's version is subtler than those found in other societies. This subtlety has both positive and negative consequences: Negatively, it deprives the issue of the power of social shock, alleviating pressure to eliminate racism through clear and expedite legislation. Positively, because the Japanese variant is grounded less in an inexorable hatred per se, it will be comparatively easier to persuade people of racism's evils, particularly since Japanese paradigms conflating race and nationality increasingly affect multinational and genetically-diverse Japanese citizens. Nevertheless, it will take some time to convince the government that anti-discrimination laws are necessary, and the government must counteract a fear and hatred of foreigners currently being generated by domestic law enforcement. After activists lay the groundwork, by stressing the humanity of foreigners and the benefits of immigrants to an aging Japanese society, it is entirely conceivable that Japan will create said policy to protect all of its residents, regardless of nationality and appearance, against racial discrimination.
===============================
"As a world power in an era of globalization, Japan has to expand to the outside world. But its society is still closed, spiritually and intellectually centered."
--Doudou
Diene of Senegal, special
rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on
contemporary
forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance, who
toured Japan July 3 to 12, 2005, assessing the situation of minorities
and
foreigners in Japanese society. This
is the first time a UN envoy has ever made an on-site survey of Japan. (Kyodo News, July 1, 2005)
By "racism", I mean discrimination by race, as
defined in
the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination
(CERD), effected by Japan in 1996: "any
distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race,
colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect
of
nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an
equal
footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,
economic,
social, cultural or any other field of public life."
Racism, it should be stated right away, is
ubiquitous, and any
discussion of it should be with the understanding that no country or
people is
innocent of it, or immune to similar critique or criticism regarding
its
history and expression of racist tendencies.
Japan is not to be held to any different standard of
observation or
scrutiny from its fellow international societies.
That understood, racism in Japan is more subtle
than its overseas
variants. It lacks the
outright hatred
one sees in American cross-burnings and lynchings, pogroms against Jews
and
Tutsis, and highly-codified classifications and repressions of South
African
Apartheid, to give but a few examples.
Thus one of the common arguments for overlooking Japan's
racism has
been, "it is worse elsewhere in the world".
Nevertheless, Japanese racism is no less effective in
separating
people into categories based solely upon their genetic background. It is, essentially, a binary system: Either you are Japanese, or you are
not. Zero or one, zero or Ichi-ro.
The terms of social categorization are evident
in Japan's public
discourse. Although the word
gaikokujin (extranational)
is generally used with the semantics of "foreigner" in English,
people are also separated into a "foreign" category by appearance
alone (meaning that many types of Asians, on sight, are not considered gaikokujin, as we shall see
below). Consequently,
appearance (which
soon becomes a racial construct) is conflated with nationality (a legal
construct), with Japanese racist tendencies grouping anyone who does
not "look
Japanese" into one group--gaijin (along with the archaic ijin, with equivalent
semantics). There are
allowances for
skin color: "Whites" become hakujin,
Amerika-jin, or Eigo-jin ("English-language person"), "Blacks" are
rendered as kokujin, kuronbo ("blackie"), and the older but still
used dojin ("dirt person", although this is not
exclusively used
for black people—rather for “backward
people”)). Then
comes a salad of categories and epithets for people who do
not have "pure" Japanese looks:
haafu, kuo-ta- (quarter), plus the older konketsuji (mixed-blood
child) and ainoko (literally "alloyed child", but historically
used for
bastard children from liaisons between Japanese and US soldiers). Nationality, in terms of being a
legal
status, rarely comes into the language when socially pigeonholing
"foreign-looking people", even if they happen to have Japanese
citizenship.
However, people of Chinese and Korean descent
are treated with
greater sophistication in public discourse, their nationality derived
through
evidencing shapes of eyes and faces. As
with all societies dealing with their neighbors, Japan assigns them
vernacular
nicknames: shina-jin
("Sinese") and the historical toujin for Chinese, chon usually for
Koreans but sometimes for both. A
prewar
word left for dead until revived by Tokyo Governor Ishihara in his
speeches was
sangoku-jin ("Third-Country Person"), historically used to
separate
"genuine" Japanese from the colonial-era "Japanese citizens of
empire" (Chinese, Formosans, Koreans, even Okinawans--cf. Dower p.
122)). What confuses many
overseas
observers of the debate is defining "Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese"
as separate "races"--as opposed to "ethnicities" in Western
rubric. This is in part
because the
Japanese language tends to conflate "ethnicity" (minzokusei) with
"race" (which would be rendered jinshu if translated under English
semantics)--most obviously visible in yamato minzoku for "the
Japanese race". This rubric
is not
only Japan's; the debate between all three parties also conflates the
terms,
often stressing "blood and soil" arguments when drawing societal
comparisons and contrasts.
However, the terms of debate are shifting under
current social
trends in Japan. With record
numbers of
registered foreigners in Japan (and a sizable number of illegal
entrants and
overstayers), police and media reports on foreign crime have added
diversity to
criminology and racial profiling: burajirujin
kei
(for South Americans), tounan ajia-jin-fuu, (for South-East Asians), chuutou-kei (for
Middle-Easterners), ajia-kei (for Asians in general), chuu-goku
kei (for Asians
speaking in tonal accents), indo-kei (for Subcontinental Indians,
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans), and the occasional
allowance for firipin-kei when the context
of the announcement involves the water trades.
Nevertheless, the general default term used in police
reports is still
binary--when the suspect is of uncertain ethnic origin but clearly "not
Japanese", the terminology reverts back to the default gaikokujin-fuu
(foreign-looking).
However, racism in Japan is not confined to
public discourse. It is also
enshrined in Japan's laws. Refer
to my handout in English and Japanese
entitled "Treatment of Japan's International Residents:
Problems and Solutions for a 21st-Century
Japan" (also available as a link below).
In section two, "Legal Barriers towards Japan's
International
Residents", four clear systems are mentioned which exclude
foreigners--not
simply in the practices found worldwide of denying them the right to
vote or
run for public office--but rather in ways unusual for a developed
nation:
1) Refusal to register foreign
residents legally-married to
Japanese as a "spouse" on Family Registries (koseki); 2) refusal
to register foreign residents specifically as "residents" (juumin) on Residency
Certificates (juuminhyou), meaning that one technically has to be
citizen (kokumin) to be a resident; 3) refusal to allow people
born in Japan to become Japanese citizens automatically (creating a
postwar subculture by now at least four generations strong of
"native-born
foreigners"--comprising at least a third of the total of all registered
foreigners in Japan); and 4) arbitrary barriers against
naturalization into Japan, which makes it
difficult for the immigrant to graduate out of foreigner status. In sum, non-Japanese residents of
Japan face
an unenviable system where they are rendered invisible to the local
government
registrar, but not the taxman, and face substantial difficulty
remedying that.
Another problem is there is no law against
racial discrimination
in Japan. This has had clear
effects
upon which your author may speak as a primary source:
"Japanese Only" signs are appearing outside businesses
nationwide in Japan, excluding all customers who do not "look
Japanese". The Internet
"Rogues' Gallery of Exclusionary Businesses in Japan" website
contains photos and case studies of no fewer than fifteen cities where
signposted discrimination occurs, or has occurred, at public
bathhouses, bars,
discos, restaurants, barber shops, pachinko parlors, fashion boutiques,
and
regular stores. Most
attempts to get
these signs down and policies withdrawn have been unsuccessful, due to
the fact
that 1) these owners state, if not believe, their policies are
essential to
their survival, and 2) the authorities say they cannot stop it, since
racial
discrimination in Japan is not an illegal activity.
The Ana Bortz Case (1998-99) and the Otaru
Onsens Case (2001-05)
demonstrated that foreigners have legal recourse when denied service,
as
plaintiffs won their court cases against an exclusionary jewelry shop
and
public bathing facility respectively.
However, in the latter case, which went all the way up to
the Supreme
Court for rejection, courts ruled that local governments may not be
held liable
for not taking effective measures against racial discrimination
occurring in
their jurisdiction. The same
essence
was found in court decisions regarding Prefectural University of
Kumamoto Case
(2000-2004) where a government-sponsored prefectural university was
exonerated
of responsibility for systematically hiring foreign and Japanese
educators on
unequal terms. The
conclusion to be
drawn here is that one may successfully sue private-sector businesses
for
damages one by one, but holding the government accountable for not
enforcing
the CERD is not something the Japanese judiciary will see as legally
tenable,
citing problems with the separation of powers.
Will things get better?
Surface arguments say no.
Attempts at getting the vote for Special Permanent
Residents (the
"Zainichi" generational foreigners mentioned above) keep getting
stalemated by questions of loyalty to overseas powers, such as North
Korea. Some jobs in the
Japanese
bureaucracy, such as firefighting and food preparation, remain reserved
for
citizens only, as are many jobs entailing promotion in the civil
service (Chong
Hyang Gyun Supreme Court defeat 2005).
Clearly until 1997, Japanese National and Public
Universities uniformly
cited the "Nationality Clause" (kokuseki joukou) as grounds for
denying tenured positions to non-Japanese full-time faculty; it still
remains
common practice in Japanese universities to deny tenure to foreigners
(Blacklist of Japanese Universities, 1999-2004).
The current debate in the Japanese government on the
proposed
"Protection of Human Rights" bill (jinken yougo houan) is bogged down
in debate on whether or not to allow foreigners to be human-rights
monitors
with policing powers within the proposed redress system (the LDP again
wants
the Nationality Clause to apply).
As for establishing a law specifically
protecting people against racial
discrimination, the Japanese Government has argued to the United
Nations that
legislation is unnecessary, as Japan's judiciary already offers
sufficient
redress. (Japan CERD Report
2001 5(1)): "We do
not recognize that the
present situation of Japan is one in which discriminative acts cannot
be
effectively restrained by the existing legal system and in which
explicit
racial discriminative acts, which cannot be restrained by measures
other than
legislation, are conducted. Therefore,
penalization of these acts is not considered necessary." Other arguments made by the
government were that laws against racial discrimination, specifically
hate
crimes and expression, would undesirably abridge freedom of speech.
This disinclination is also reflected in the
attitudes of Japan's
legislators at all levels of government.
When questioned by activists on the necessity of
legislation (Otaru,
Monbetsu, Wakkanai, and Sapporo City Assemblypeople 1999-2004, Hokkaido
Prefectural
Assemblypeople 2000-2003, and at least three Dietmembers (Takemura
Yasuko 2000,
Hatoyama Yukio 2001, Tsurunen Marutei 2002)), all wound up stressing in
one
form or another that caution and further deliberation is necessary, or
it is
simply too early for legislation.
Submitted draft anti-discrimination chinjou petitions to
these local
authorities above have resulted in burial in committee, with eventual
rejection
through attrition. There has
been no
action on a "Basic Rights for Foreign Residents" bill (gaikokujin
juumin kihon houan) seigan sponsored petition, drafted by
activists in the domestic
religious community (Gaikiren), and submitted to both houses of the
Diet in
March 2003.
(http://www.sangiin.go.jp/japanese/joho1/seigan/current/54.htm) (http://www.shugiin.go.jp/itdb_seigan.nsf/html/seigan/1590492.htm).
Likewise, anti-terrorism action plans (such as
the "Action
Plan for Pre-empting of Terrorism" (tero no mizen boshi ni
kansuru kodo
keikaku), approved by the Koizumi Cabinet in December
2004 and facing
implementation in 2006 and 2007, has proposals specifically targeting
foreigners--including reinstituting fingerprinting for foreign
entrants,
screening miniscule of amounts of money transfers into foreigner
accounts, and
revising laws to require hotels to photocopy passports of foreign
"lodgers" (the revision says "foreign tourists"; in
practice it is being applied to all foreigners, including residents).
In sum, it does not seem likely in the near
future, in this era of
fear of foreign terrorists worldwide, that Japan will behave any less
cautiously towards its gaijin than any other country, and why the time may
not yet be ripe for Japan to pass any laws protecting people against
racial
discrimination.
The bright side to the debate is the fact that
racial
discrimination is not as insurmountable as it may seem.
The author believes it is precisely because
Japanese racism is not as much motivated by hatred, as it often is
overseas.
Hatred, as may be seen in the smoldering
conflicts that continue
for generations in societies with racial tensions, is a hard habit to
break. Hatred is often a
visceral,
inexorable emotion, not swayed by appeals to logic or reason. Moreover, the vicious circle of
hatred--the
vendetta--means that violence begets hatred, and vice versa; one need
not dig
too deeply into historical example before being convinced. However, in Japan, one of the
reasons why
racism is so hard to grasp and deal with is because people are rarely
being
killed by it--let alone being clearly deprived of life, liberty, and
property. Apart from the
Herculano Case
(http://shiga.sinsyu.or.jp/〜magia/Eng-Hercurano-book.html), where a
Brazilian youth was killed by a Japanese gang in Aichi Prefecture in
October
1997 (not to mention of course the violence against foreigners as
sexual slaves
under the now-abolished Entertainer Visas), it is difficult to find
specific
examples of racially-motivated violence against foreigners.
This is not to say that hatred towards
foreigners in Japan does
not exist, of course. However,
Japanese
racism pales in comparison with more egregious examples overseas
(contributing
to the attitude in Japan that racial discrimination is generally an
overseas
phenomenon), reducing the sense of urgency for public policy action. In contrast, consider the Okegawa
Case
(October 1999, see
http://www.higai.net/okegawa.htm). It
took a premeditated murder of a college
student by a stalker, coupled with a police cover-up of their
overlooking all
warning signs brought to their attention, before sufficient social
shock was
generated for public policy action.
Legislation was then clear and expedite:
An anti-stalking law (suto-ka- kisei hou) was passed by
the Diet a mere five months after the murder, formally criminalizing
the act in
November 2000. In other
words, a social
shock is necessary to pass a law of this magnitude.
Fortunately--and unfortunately--Japanese racism, due to
its
subtlety, is simply not shocking or murderous enough to outlaw.
Japanese racism also involves tenets so
ingrained as to become
self-evident in the debate, for the roots of separation and
categorization of
people in Japan is endemic to a Japanese sense of identity. What is "a Japanese"? I have surveyed hundreds of people
on this
issue both in regular conversation and in my university lectures, and
it
generally boils down to relatively simple qualifications: 1) Physical appearance, 2)
Acculturation
and Japanese Language Ability, 3) Japanese Blood, 4) Citizenship.
Physical appearance, as discussed above, is
fairly straightforward, given the natural human talent for recognizing
patterns
in faces after years of experience and socialization.
However, how one expressly "looks Japanese" is
something not specifically quantifiable and codifiable (aside from the
black
hair/brown eyes generalization). Yet
it
is still generally accepted as a reasonable qualification within any
discussion
of national identity. It is
also
something that can rarely be changed in a person from birth, and will
thus
naturally entangle elements of race and racism.
Acculturalization and Japanese
Language Ability, however, is a
not racially-based paradigm, as anyone can under the right
circumstances learn
a language (and the media has proven repeatedly for decades that many
people
who do not "look Japanese" can speak it perfectly well). However, the oft-held beliefs that
a)
Japanese is a difficult language for any not born here and imbued with
"Japaneseness", and that b) foreign languages must be difficult to
learn, given everyone's rough experience with learning English, will
make many
people in Japan unable to accept language ability in itself as anything
more
than a minor qualifier for "Japaneseness", one made after taking into
account other factors.
Japanese Blood is one of those factors.
Those who have it tend to be naturally
expected to be good at Japanese and familiar with Japanese tenets,
while those
who do not are generally politely excused from qualification. What is making the debate
interesting these
days is the large, and rising, numbers of children in international
marriages who
have Japanese nationality (by having one Japanese parent), have
Japanese
language ability (as natives), yet do not "look Japanese". People are often hesitant on first
impression to call a Japanese child with darker skin and overseas
features a nihonjin (Japanese). Instead,
the tendency is to resort to words
such as, nikkei (Japanese lineage), haafu (half-breed), daburu (double)
etc.--all qualifiers and to some degree disqualifiers.
However, once the observer acknowledges the person's
familiarity with Japan and the Japanese language through extended
contact,
there is usually little more thought devoted to finding differences and
divining cultural lessons in every encounter.
Note that a raw hatred of the physical characteristics
would not permit
this degree of flexibility.
Finally, Japanese Citizenship makes the debate even more
sophisticated. According to
the
Ministry of Justice, around 20,000 people naturalize into Japan every
year. Most are ethnic
Koreans, but
there is still the occasional person who would normally be classified
as a gaijin (including the
author). Given the
rigorousness and
arbitrariness of the tests involved to qualify for citizenship
(including
rejection for parking tickets; Japan Times April 21, 2001), and the
lack of
appeal mechanisms for rejection, anyone who passes the test may
certainly lay
claim to being unquestionably "Japanese". However,
this legal status changes none of the above qualifiers,
which means any discussion of Japan's "internationalization" must
take into account the racial diversity which is slowly emerging in
current
Japanese society.
Why the author remains hopeful that Japan will
become more
tolerant, both societally and legally, is precisely the fact that so
many
"people of differences" are undermining the postwar paradigms of
"Japaneseness". After
thorough discussion and debate in my university classes, almost all
students
come to realize that the only way one can determine "Japaneseness" is
through legal status. All
other
qualifiers create unacceptable dilemmas for them:
Judging by Physical Appearance would mean that, for
example
famous tarento TV personality Miyazawa Rie (who has a foreign
father) would be
"Japanese", yet similar tarento Umemiya Anna (who has a
foreign mother) would be gaijin--just because the latter looks more like her
foreign-born parent. The
same dichotomy
would naturally apply to their fully-acculturalized haafu classmates, who
are becoming increasingly visible in Japan's schools.
Acculturalization and language ability would mean that,
for
example, tarento Dave Spector, given that his abilities surpass
most native
speakers, would be indisputably Japanese, while any number of kikoku
shijo (children
returnees from overseas educational systems) classmates, by mere dint
of
spending extensive time abroad, would be disqualified and excluded. Japanese Blood would mean that
famous people
such as Beat Takeshi (aka movie director Kitano Takeshi), tarento Wada Akiko, enka singer Misora
Hibari, and baseball superstar Oh Sadaharu would no longer be
"Japanese" due to their pure-blood Korean and Chinese ties.
When all else falls away, people I have
surveyed indicate that
only Japanese citizenship remains the fairest arbiter of
qualification--since
it involves personal choice to be Japanese or not, not a status
determined from
birth for life. While
allowing that the
person conducting the survey of "Japaneseness" is the teacher or
friend of those surveyed, with an apparent vested interest in the
outcome, respondents
demonstrated an overwhelming disavowal of racially-based qualifiers for
"Japaneseness"--especially after awareness raising (the survey is
conducted twice--once measuring initial feelings, once again after
demonstrating how several of their favorite tarento do not fit their
paradigms of "pure-blooded" Japanese). This
overwhelming disavowal (usually around 95% of respondents
ultimately eschew racial paradigms) and change in opinion after debate
would
show statistical significance even after a regression analysis. This is hopeful for the future.
The more Japanese society has contact with
"foreign
Japanese", not to mention contact with the growing numbers of
foreigners
in Japan, the more likely people are going to see them as individuals,
as
neighbors, rather than as mere statistics and social phenomena. Again, precisely due to the
relative lack of
hatred behind Japanese racism, and the fact that all the paradigms that
support
it are being chipped away at by Japan's increasing genetic diversity,
it is
becoming more likely that these racially-based paradigms will quietly
be
shifted away as obsolete thinking of a bygone era.
This has happened before in Japan.
To give but two examples:
the obsolescence of the derogatory word "Christmas Cake"
(referring to unmarried women over 25 years of age) due to the lowering
birth
and marriage rate; or the decrease in the stigma attached to changing
jobs in
Japan, thanks to the slow undermining of the system of lifetime
employment in
Japan.
There is also a perceptible rise of civil
society[1]
in Japan, with more NGOs emerging (IMADR, Ijuuren, Gaikiren, Mindan,
Mintouren,
Zenrouren, NUGW, Tokyo Alien Eyes, Welcome House, NIBRA, The Community,
United
for a Multicultural Japan, to name but a few) to defend the rights of
foreign
residents, taking up issues affecting the public discourse on
multiculturalism,
even filling the gaps in government services in places with high
foreign
immigrant populations (Aichi, Gifu, and Shizuoka Prefectures). Activists will increase the number
of
proponents for anti-discrimination laws.
However, as is commonly argued, even if laws are passed,
it will not
change the mindsets of individuals stuck in racist ruts. While I do not agree with this
argument
(having grown up in the United States under the Civil Rights Act of
1964,
watching awareness and empowerment of the African-American community
and the
delegitimization of racist debate), I will agree with this: If support for anti-discrimination
laws is
truly to take root, the Japanese government must also encourage
societal
tolerance of racially-based differences through official pronouncements:
1) The Japanese government must stress
that Japan is already an
international society, and provide the statistics to prove it. To this day, the Census (kokusei
chousa) does not survey citizens for ethnicity, which
means that
international Japanese children (which are not counted as "registered
foreigners" because, naturally, they are not foreigners) remain
invisible. The current
situation
provides an inadequate and inaccurate representation of Japan's social
situation, and how the lack of anti-discrimination laws will affect
Japanese
citizens as well.
2) The Japanese government must
indicate that
"Japaneseness" is a legal status, nothing more, and that racial
paradigms for categorizing people will also affect Japanese people too--particularly
children. This will provide
that
necessary degree of social shock and impetus--even for many older
conservatives, who, since there are 40,000 international marriages per
year in
Japan, will want the best for the young ones, particularly if they have
international grandchildren.
3) The Japanese government must stress
that foreigners are also
residents of Japan, and as taxpayers are supporting Japan's aging
society and
welfare systems. This
inevitable trend and
the need for immigration to Japan has already been made clear in
reports from
the United Nations (2001) and the Prime Minister's Cabinet (January 8,
2000,
see www.debito.org/A.html). In
other
words, foreigners are also immigrants, not just temporary guests, and
are a
social boon, not a bane. The
National
Police Agency has been fudging foreign crime statistics in order to
target
foreigners for budgetary reasons (Arudou, Japanese Only, p. 200-209),
which is
generating fear and hatred, and even pseudoscientific racism (including
one
example of "genetic racial profiling" crime research, under the NPA's
clearly erroneous belief that one can genetically tell foreigners and
Japanese
apart--Japan Times January 13, 2004).
Once these foundations are laid, we can turn to
the larger ideas
(see the last page of your handout "Treatment of Japan's International
Residents", under the section entitled "Modest Proposals"), such
as dual nationality, universal suffrage for Special Permanent Residents
(since
they would be citizens already in any other developed country), equal
registration procedures regardless of nationality, and a law preventing
and
punishing racial discrimination.
Is this wishful thinking?
Speaking as an activist as well as a scholar of social
trends, your
author does not think so. Situations
have improved after entreaty. I
have
seen businesses change their minds, after consultation and awareness
raising,
and taken their "Japanese Only" signs down.
I have witnessed the same degree of outrage in Japanese
over
things like Mandom Gatsby advertising campaigns juxtaposing
Rastafarians with
chimpanzees (see Community Mandom Project
www.debito.org/TheCommunity/mandomproject.html). Information
on a social movement against
Little Black Sambo's republication in Japan is a work in progress
(www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html), and we will see where the debate
winds
up.
Therefore, as stubborn as many businesses and
people are in
enforcing racist practices, many more are open to entreaty and
persuasion. This is why, as
more people such as your
author remain active in presenting their viewpoints, more Japanese will
be able
to see foreigners and people who look foreign as people, as neighbors,
and as
contributors to Japanese society. It
is
crucial to lay the groundwork through entreaty and persistence for
those ideas
to take root. Normal social
trends are
fostering that, and next year your author will be lobbying Japanese
legislators
with these ideas in order to soften them up to the inevitable social
change
which is Japan's internationalization and multiculturalization.
The United Nations would agree:
DISCRIMINATION IN JAPAN "DEEP", U.N. REP SAYS AFTER NINE DAY-VISIT
Kyodo
News, Monday,
July 11, 2005 (excerpt)
www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=&id=343139
TOKYO--Discrimination in Japan is "deep and profound,"
with
government leaders lacking recognition of the depth of the problem and
the
public having a "strong xenophobic drive," a U.N. special rapporteur
said Monday in wrapping up a nine-day visit in Japan.
Doudou Diene of Senegal, appointed by
the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights, called for stronger political will at the highest level to
combat the
issue, for Japan to enact a national law condemning racism as is
obligatory
under international conventions, and to improve its public education
about
minorities in the country.
"It will be a long-term task to
change people's mentality and
it must be done through education," said Diene, special rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related
intolerance…
"Japan has no comprehensive national
law against
discrimination," Diene said at a news conference…
Diene said he had requested a meeting
with Tokyo Gov Shintaro
Ishihara, known for his nationalistic views and controversial remarks
against
foreigners, but was denied an appointment…
Diene said he shared his preliminary
findings with the Japanese
government Monday morning and will wait for Japan's response before
completing
a final report to be submitted to the Commission on Human Rights next
March.
He will also present a summary of his
findings in an interim report to the U.N. General Assembly this autumn….
(Kyodo News)
ENDS
4200 words
1.
有道 出人 著 『外
国人』入店禁止という人種差別」（有道 出人 著）、単行本
『日本の民族差別 人
種差別撤廃条約からみた課題』』p２１８ー２２９、岡本雅享先生監修・編著、明石書店（株）２００５年６月出版
["'Gaikokujin'
nyuuten kinshi to
iu jinshu sabetsu"
(Banning "Foreigners" Entry is Racial Discrimination). Chapter in
book Nihon no Minzoku Sabetsu--Jinshu Sabetsu Teppai Jouyaku
kara mita Kadai,
Okamoto Masaktaka, Eds.
(Akashi Shoten Inc June 2005)]
2.
Arudou, Debito, ‘JAPANESE ONLY’: The
Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial
Discrimination in Japan. Akashi
Shoten Inc., English 2004, Japanese 2003.
http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html
3.
Arudou, Debito, “Treatment of Japan’s International
Residents: Problems and
Solutions for a
21st-Century Japan.” 2001-2005.
Artery website for substantiation: http://www.debito.org/handout.html
4.
Arudou, Debito, “Generating the
foreigner crime wave.” Japan
Times, October 4, 2002. http://www.debito.org/japantimes100402.html
5.
Arudou, Debito, "Forensic science fiction: Bad science and racism underpin
police
policy." Japan Times,
January 13,
2004.
http://www.debito.org/japantimes011304.html
6.
Arudou, Debito , "Downloadable Discrimination: The Immigration Bureau's new
snitching Web
site is both short-sighted and wide open
to all manner of abuses." Japan Times, March 30, 2004. http://www.debito.org/japantimes033004.html
7.
Arudou, Debito: “Foreign crime in Japan:
More to the issue than meets the eye”. Presentation
at Peace as a Global Language Conference Conference
IV, Sept 26, 2004, Ritsumeikan U, Kyoto Museum for World Peace. Handout at:
http://www.debito.org/pglconference092604.html
8.
Arudou, Debito, “Creating Laws Out
of Thin Air: Revisions to
hotel laws
stretched by police to target foreigners.” Japan
Times, March 8,
2005. http://www.debito.org/japantimes030805.html
9.
Arudou, Debito, “Here comes the
fear: Antiterrorist law
creates legal
conundrums for foreign residents.” Japan
Times, May 24,
2005. http://www.debito.org/japantimes052405.html
10.
Dower, John, Embracing Defeat--Japan
in the Wake of World War
II. W. W. Norton,
1999.
11.
Matsubara, Hiroshi, “Foreigners face long slog to Japanese
citizenship.” Japan
Times, April 20, 2001.
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010420a4.htm
12.
Matsubara, Hiroshi, “Koreans weigh merits of gaining Japanese
citizenship.” Japan
Times, April 21, 2001.
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010421a3.htm
REFERENTIAL WEBSITES:
1.
Arudou Debito’s statements to Mr.
Doudou Diene of Senegal, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission on
Human Rights, Tokyo, Japan July 6, 2005.
http://www.debito.org/rapporteur.html
2.
The “Rogues’ Gallery” of exclusionary businesses: http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html
3.
On the Prefectural University of Kumamoto Case http://www2.kumagaku.ac.jp/teacher/〜masden/mamorukai/english/Ehome.htm or http://www.debito.org/PALE1298.html
4.
The “Blacklist of
Japanese Universities”: http://www.debito.org/blacklist.html
5.
Japan and the United Nations CERD Committee
debate (1998-
present)
http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html
13.
Pertinent pages on the Otaru Onsens Lawsuit and
Ana Bortz
Case: http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html or http://www.debito.org/lawsuitbackground.html
14.
Japanese Cabinet and UN recommendations on
immigration into Japan,
and how Japan’s police forces
generate undue fear of foreign crime.
Artery site at http://www.debito.org/A.html
15.
Internet human rights group “The Community’s” Mandom Project, where a
cosmetic company abandons an ad campaign juxtaposing Rastafarians with
a
chimpanzee (May-June 2005) http://www.debito.org/TheCommunity/mandomproject.html
16.
Protests over the republication of Little Black
Sambo (Chibi Kuro
Sanbo) in Japan: http://www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html
PAPER ENDS
[1] Defined by the
London School of Economics Center for Civil Society:
“Civil
society refers to the set of
institutions, organizations, and behavior situated between the state,
the
business world, and the family.
Specifically, this includes voluntary and non-profit
organizations of
many different kinds, philanthropic institutions, social and political
movements, other forms of social participation and engagement and the
values
and cultural patterns associated with them.”