Comments

Posts

Japanese government says it has taken “every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination”

The Japan Times has an article up about a report on racial discrimination Japan has submitted to the United Nations. According to the article, Japan responds to previous criticism by stating it has made “every conceivable” effort to deal with problems of discrimination:

Human rights groups and Doudou Diene, the U.N. special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, have called for the passage of a law clearly against racism and xenophobia, as well as the establishment of an independent national human rights monitoring body.

The government has long held that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law, makes any antidiscrimination legislation superfluous, a point reiterated in the report.

“Japan has taken every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination,” the report’s introduction says, later adding that apartheid is unknown in Japan.

Do you feel that the Japanese government has taken every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination?

120 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - August 26, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Categories: Discrimination, Foreigners in Japan Tags: japan, united nations

Joe

bollocks!
http://www.feitclub.com feitclub

It’s a pretty black and white issue – if discrimination is not illegal (never mind what the constitution says), then you aren’t doing anything to seriously fight against discrimination. That’s essentially the first step.

I can be turned down for a variety of services because I am not Japanese and I have no legal recourse. That’s deplorable.

LB

“Denied service” I can think of bank loans, and that only applies to non-PRs, and isn’t a “public service” anyway. So name a public service that is denied to you based on your nationality.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ James Annan

Denial of accommodation is probably the most widespread and significant discrimination faced by most foreigners, and it’s a rare (or at least sheltered) gaijin who has not encountered it.

Not sure why you think “public service” is relevant here, or what you think it refers to.

LB

feitclub said he has been turned down “for a variety of services”. I interpreted that to mean “public services”.

Denial of accommodation is already against the law in Japan. And yes, I have encountered it. But I really don’t have the time or money to waste on fighting a court case, even secure in the knowledge I could win one. There is plenty of housing available, one idiot landlord turns me down and I think “Fine, screw you, I’ll go to the next place.” Never met with a complete inability to find housing. This is not to excuse landlords/rental agencies that do discriminate, if they do then they are breaking the law. But like I said, let someone with the free time and deep pockets sue.
Darin

Actually, I’m pretty sure there is no such law against denying people accommodation that applies to foreigners. People often point to the constitution when talking about human rights, however they don’t read the constitution the same way as the Japanese courts do. The Japanese courts see the constitution as an agreement between the government and the citizens, foreigners are not considered in the constitution, which is different from America where it doesn’t use as specific of wording as ‘citizen’ but ‘man’. I’m fairly certain that any nation-wide law you may be thinking of is hampered by the same wording, applying only to citizens, not people.

Which means that once you get Japanese citizenship, they can’t discriminate against you because of your race, but until you do, they can discriminate against you based on your nationality which is not covered by any Japanese laws as they only work to protect Japanese nationals. A perfect example of this is Debito and his onsen case, a case that he couldn’t take on until he got citizenship.

I think I recall seeing an article here on Japan Probe that said the same thing was going on in the US, with landlords refusing to rent to people who might be thought of as being from terrorist countries, and they were able to get away with it exactly the way people are doing it here, by turning them away based one their nationality, not their race.

Japan needs anti-discrimination and basic human rights laws that apply to humans, not just Japanese nationals. Until that happens, it hasn’t even begun to start fighting discrimination, let alone take ‘every conceivable measure to fight [it]‘.
The Overthinker

Japanese courts have determined that the rights in the Constitution are applicable to all residents, save for those (like voting) that are clearly citizenship-based.

The issue is not with the law, as LB said, it’s with getting people to obey it. This isn’t to say Japanese doesn’t “need” these wonderful human rights laws yadda yadda, just that you can come up with all the laws you like, but they won’t mean jack until they are easily (and cheaply) enforceable. For housing, for example, there needs to be a concerted move by the Real Estate Agents Union or whatever its called to end discrimination.
ponta

Darin wrote

The Japanese courts see the constitution as an agreement between the government and the citizens, foreigners are not considered in the constitution,

For youre reference
Page 432 Japanese Law second edtion Hiroshi Oda, oxford

It is generally accepted that the protection of rights and freedoms under the Constitution extends to foreign nationals resident in Japan insofar as the nature of of the given right allows it. …

And kawasaki ordinance banning descriminations against foreingers,etc.

第14条　何人も、正当な理由なく、高齢者、障害者、外国人等(以下「高齢者等」という。)であることをもって市内の民間賃貸住宅への入居の機会が制約され、又は高齢者等であることをもって入居している民間賃貸住宅の居住の安定が損なわれることがあってはならない。
http://www.city.kawasaki.jp/16/16housei/home/reiki/reiki_honbun/ac40010651.htm

l
Darin wrote

which is different from America where it doesn’t use as specific of wording as ‘citizen’ but ‘man’.

For your reference
The US fair housing act

Act does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status. Accordingly, asking housing applicants to provide documentation of their citizenship or immigration status during the screening process would not violate the Fair Housing Act. In fact, such measures have been in place for a number of years in screening applicants for federally-assisted housing
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm

I think I recall seeing an article here on Japan Probe that said the same thing was going on in the US, with landlords refusing to rent to people who might be thought of as being from terrorist countries

Hmmm. Foreigners being terrorist is not considered here.
Or does the U.S. consider foreigners terrorists?

A perfect example of this is Debito and his onsen case, a case that he couldn’t take on until he got citizenship.

Debito got citizenship when he sued but it does not follow foreigners cannot sue. In fact, there is a case where zainichi Korean won the case as for the accommodation
. 大阪地判　1993,6,18.判時1468号122項

You are talking not based on the fact but on your prejudice.
Justin

Darin,

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 made it patently illegal to refuse to rent, sell, or finance a house to an individual based upon nationality.

Not saying it doesn’t happen, discrimination is a bitch to prove in court and doesn’t get prosecuted particularly often, but it is explicitly illegal to discriminate against any individual based upon race, sex, or nation of origin in the US. Your scenario probably ended in a lawsuit if some moron admitted their prejudice to the press.
The Overthinker

Actually I think the issue with the onsen thing is that it wasn’t until Debito got citizenship that he was able to prove that it wasn’t nationality based, but race-based.
LB

Darin, the housing law applies to foreigners as well. The first time I went apartment hunting after the “new” (well, it was “new” 7-8 years ago) law was passed the real estate agent I was using showed me an apartment which I liked, but when they contacted the landlord he said “foreigner, huh? Don’t think so.”

The real estate agent was very apologetic and said if I really wanted that apartment they would be happy to show him the law (which they had on the desk the day I went back to see what had happened with the apartment) to remind him what he was doing was definitely illegal, that I would be within my rights to sue if he didn’t change his mind, and that I would almost certainly win – a year or so down the road, which would mean he’d have to rent to me and pay my legal costs plus some paltry civil penalty.

To which I replied “well, what else have you got in the same price/size range”? And I got a less-modern place, but which was being refurbished so I got to choose the wallpaper and all, plus had a yard attached. All for the same money.

The law most certainly does cover foreigners.

As for the Constitution – yes, it is a contract between the citizens and their government. Of course it is! No constitution represents a contract between the government and every Tom, Dick and Harry in the world, not even the US Constitution. The US Constitution may use the word “people”, but try reading the qualifying sentence that word is part of:

“We the people of the United States,”

Citizens, in other words. And the rights enshrined in the US Constitution apply to citizens unless otherwise mandated to apply to non-citizens. If you are not a citizen, you have less rights. Seems a natural enough logic to me…
stereo

Darin 2008-08-26 19:17:01
>”Actually, I’m pretty sure there is no such law against denying people accommodation that applies to foreigners.”

Yes there is. See ryokan-gyou-hou (Hotel Business Law) Article 5.
“Article 5
Hoteliers may not refuse accommodation unless one of the following applies.
1. It is clearly recognized that the guest is infected with contagious disease.
2. The guest is likely to indulge in gambling or illegal or immoral activities.
3. The hotel has no vacancy or such condition as may be stipulated by local government ordinance holds.”

It is absolutely illegal to refuse accommodation because the guest is a foreigner.

If an hotelier does not comply with the law, the government may suspend hotel license, in addition to levying petty fine of 5000 yen.

Do not get fooled by Debito et al, by believing their false statement, “There is no law against discrimination in Japan.”

Justin 2008-08-27 00:19:25
“The Civil Rights Act of 1968 made it patently illegal to refuse to rent, sell, or finance a house to an individual based upon nationality.”

No, not quite. It prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex, but it does not prohibit discrimination based on nationality. If you become a citizen of the US, you will not be discriminated by national origin, but if you are a foreigner in the US, the law does not help you. See the link to HUD provided by ponta 2008-08-27 00:03:59.
ponta

Do not get fooled by Debito et al, by believing their false statement,

Debito org’s　influence is serious.

They don’t check the facts.
They don’t correct the mistakes.
They glorify Euro-America and curse Japan.
DC

Debito, love him or hate him, has clearly quoted that hotel accommodation law many times.

You racism apologists seem to think that attacking Debito is more important than actually discussing the issues. The article is not about Debito, it’s about the J-Gov’s response to the UNITED NATIONS criticism of the racism in Japan… or more specifically, Japan’s unique status in having no anti-racism laws.
LB

“or more specifically, Japan’s unique status in having no anti-racism laws.”

Lots of countries do not have anti-racism laws. Japan is a long way from “unique”. And no, I am not talking about the Zimbabwes of the world – I am talking about the OECD nations that have somehow become the bar against which all others are measured.

Step one in discussing an issue – learn the facts, otherwise you look like a apologist for misinformed Japan bashers.
ponta

Debito, love him or hate him, has clearly quoted that hotel accommodation law many times.

I didn’t say he hasn’t .
As a side note, quoting a law does not mean someone has quoted a law in a appropriate context.
For instance citing the constitution art 16 in the case of the interview with the police is the case in point.
debito.org/?p=1767
debito.org/?p=1763#comment-164271
He does not know how to apply the law.

You racism apologists

You are wrong in thinking I am racist apologist. What makes you think that?

seem to think that attacking Debito is more important than actually discussing the issues.

You are wrong in stating I seem to think attacking Debtio is more important than actually discussing the issue.
But I admit, I should have added “as a side note”
And keep in mind I am not attacking Debito , I am attacking his style and tactics in which debito org does not correct misinformation, accept racism comment. And the frequent wrong allegation about Japan’s racism comes from Debito’s web site, which is relavant to this post.

The article is not about Debito, it’s about the J-Gov’s response to the UNITED NATIONS criticism of the racism in Japan…

Agreed, And it is also about this JT misleading article about it. Why is it misleading?
Because the article sates,

About 30 percent of Hokkaido’s Ainu said they had experienced discrimination at school, in job interviews or when getting married, or that they knew of someone who had experienced such discrimination, the same survey indicated

This is misleading because in fact
(1)Only 3.2 % said they had experienced discrimination or knew of someone who had experienced such discrimination for this 6-7 years.
(2) This number 30 % is not in the survey. ERIC JOHNSTON added the number. He added 16.8%(the number of people who had experience discrimination in their life time）＋13.8%(the number of the people have seen such discriminations in their life time)
But this addition is nonsense. Depending on the situation, you’ll get more 100% people who has discriminations.

DC, are you supporter of the website which accept racist comments while blocking balancing comments? As much as I am against racism, I hope JG would not take every conceivable measure to fight against it. My opinion is that people participating in the forum should realize that it is wrong withoug interverntion from the government.

http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

Define “services”. Private businesses are not obligated to serve anyone, although they are restricted from specifically barring people based on racial profiles. Proving that they are denying service because of race and not some other factor is where litigation will usually fail, unless the business owners are daft enough to put up signs that say things like, “No foreigners.”

However, “We have the right to refuse service” is not something unique of Japan.

That the government claims to have taken “every conceivable measure” is amusing, though. I admit, it made me chuckle a little. Perhaps they subscribe to the Animal Farm philosophy – All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

concerned Filipino

Private businesses are “restricted from specifically barring people based on racial profiles”, “but not obligated to serve anyone.”

Therein lies the problem, I guess. Do you think that any business that refuses to serve foreigners, and is aware of this law, is going to say his race was the reason? That legislation has a loophole the size of Mt. Aira.

That leaves litigation as the only option – and my gut feeling tells me that the chances in court won’t be so good for the foreigner, as you also said.

http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

Right, but what I’m saying is that it’ll be the same case world-wide, unless you make a clause that requires businesses to serve everyone, which would basically be making business owners into slaves of the market. I’m not saying that the Japanese system has no faults, but that this particular fault is not the result of any system that is particularly Japanese. No, this is a human fault, and the best solution is for Japanese citizens to take action.

That’s where this gets intersting – To what degree is the government liable for? That it creates policies to combat racism is one thing, but the most important factor is disseminating information to educate its citizens. Racism isn’t a law (or lack of one), it’s a doctrine.

David

Bullshit. For a start, what about Japan strict immigration laws? I call that discrimination

LB

Yes, they “discriminate” and require a sponsor, family relation or proof you can support yourself before granting anything other than a tourist visa. If you come from a select list of countries they further “discriminate” and allow you in as a tourist, no questions asked. What part of this “discriminating” is unfair? It seems like fairly standard practice at the border of any country, but as has been pointed out below immigration policy is a separate issue, not related to human rights guarantees within the country in any meaningful way.

Dirk Diggler

Thanks for the laugh.

Regards,

Dirk Diggler
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ James Annan

Just to defuse the likely evasion and subject-changing by the apologists, immigration is based on citizenship and not really relevant to UN CERD (although I’m not defending Japan’s outrageous immigration policy especially wrt refugees). But I don’t understand how even 3 people (so far) can claim to believe that the Japanese Govt has taken every conceivable action, unless for the cynical and defeatist reason that it is utterly inconceivable that they could actually change the institutional racist attitudes in Japan.

The Overthinker

Nah, it just means the measures *they* could conceive of. And they don’t have very good imaginations….

onceuponatime

oh, come on japan. you can do better than that!!!!
ponta

I agree there are a lot more things to do.
Japan Times says.

About 30 percent of Hokkaido’s Ainu said they had experienced discrimination at school, in job interviews or when getting married, or that they knew of someone who had experienced such discrimination, the same survey indicated.

But A Hokkaido Prefectural Government survey(2006)　says.
http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/NR/rdonlyres/A7397AEA-716C-4CC9-A796-531A4458C2D5/0/H18houkokusyo.pdf

アイヌの人たちに対する差別について
「物心ついてから今までの差別の状況」について聞いたところ、表70のとおり、「差別を受けたこと
がある」が16.8％、「自分に対してはないが、他の人が受けたのを知っている」が13.8％、「受けた
ことがない」が44.9％となっている。
また、「最近６，７年」の「差別を受けたことがある」と「自分に対してはないが、他の人が受けた
のを知っている」を合わせると3.2％となり、前回調査と比較して24.9ポイント減少している。(page 44)

About 16.8% of Ainu people said they had experienced discriminations in life , and ……3.2% of Ainu people either experienced or witnessed discriminations for this 6 -7 years .
Japan Times article is not exactly accurate, which leads me to want to see the actual report on racial discrimination Japan has submitted
edwardhasnewgoggles

You can’t change this kinda stuff overnight, but I think it’s better than it was before.

Debito would be soooo ashamed of all you guys carelessly throwing around the “g word” like that…tsk tsk.
Rita Skeeter

ROFLOL

This would possibly be the funniest thing that I’ve ever read, if it wasn’t so sad. It’s really revealing that the Japanese government thinks that they’ve done anything noteworthy at all to stop discrimination.

I can’t count the number of times that I’ve been denied rental of a property with the explicit reason, “I don’t rent to foreigners.”

DC

Yes, but the Japanophile apologists will say that that’s ok, it’s the landlord’s choice… I mean, perhaps he read somewhere about a gaijin not paying his rent, so it’s ok to ban *all* gaijin. And in Japan it *is* the landlord’s choice, because there are no laws against racism.

LB

Try reading all the posts – because you’re wrong.

DC

Where am I wrong? About apologists claiming that landlords’ discrimination is acceptable, or about there being no racism laws in Japan? It can’t be the latter, because you appear to agree with me on that point in your post of 14:48:28.
LB

“Where am I wrong?”

here: “in Japan it *is* the landlord’s choice, because there are no laws against racism.”

Read my post of 8:57. It is not the landlord’s choice, and there is a law that says so.
taiko666

By your own experience you know that it *is* the landlord’s choice. He/she can choose to discriminate against you in the full knowledge that the onus is on *you* to do something about it (ie sue) and in all probability you won’t because of the cost and time involved. If it was a criminal law, the state would prosecute the landlord. At the moment, whereas there may be a *civil* code to protect foreigners (still not convince about that anyway) it’s useless in real terms.
ponta

For your reference.
Here is how the US housing act works.
(I quoted them before though.)

You must file your complaint within one year of the incident. HUD(the federal Department of Housing and Urban development) will look into your allegation. If it feels that there has been a violation of the FHA, it will try to negotiate a conciliation agreement with the violator. …If the negotiations are unsuccessful, an administrative hearing will be held before a judge—you will be represented by a HUD attorney.

I think applying criminal law is too harsh just as the U.S. think the civil procedure (with committee’s help) is sufficient..

And according to the U.S. housing act

Act does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status

I think Japan need not follow the U.S. example in this regard.

Bruce Smith

J government is pretty useless like most governments. I very much doubt that any Japanese politician or public servant has the foggiest clue about racial discrimination. That said I am no fan of idiots like Debito.
Irene

I don’t think so.. -_-; I’ve lived in Japan forever and I clearly see racial discrimination in everyday life. People are just so inconsiderate.. I’m really sick of it.

ponta

If you are more specific, probably it can become more constructive.
If you want to just rant, you might as well visit Debito org and rant.
You’ll get a good advice　from him.

If you’re becoming emotionally or psychologically impacted, I suggest you get out of here as soon as possible. Meanwhile, consult with International Mental Health Professionals Japan at http://www.imhpj.org/ (also refer to Handbook page 168-9)
debito.org/?p=1861#comment-166128
Irene

I’m not trying to debate or anything.. here at japanprobe, it’s not like everyone is debating all the time. I just wrotewhat I felt as usual.. and I don’t know who Debito is.

To be more specific about the previous post, I’ve grown up in Japan as a non-Japanese Asian and I’ve felt the racism all the time, although many Japanese people don’t realize that and deny its existence (especially towards Asians, as they think they’re fair to those who look similar to them, at least).

In contrast, I’ve never felt that in California.

I’m not “emotionally or psychologically impacted” at all;
I’ve lived in Japan for more than half of my life, so I’ve kinda given up on trying to fix that.. but I still feel the need for a change.

ponta

I’m sorry. I was in a bad mood when I was writing the comment to you.

I’ve grown up in Japan as a non-Japanese Asian and I’ve felt the racism all the time,

It might be profitable if you wrote essays specifically how you felt racism. I’ve read the story that international child who was born between a Japanese and a foreigner was picked on because he/she looked different. I’ve never had a classmate with international parent, but I had a disabled classmate ;I remember she was picked on because she acted different. A teacher got furious when some students bullied her, so the bully stopped. I think raising consciousness and education is important. Your stories, if written without hatred, would be enlightening and I think there are many Japanese who are willing to listen.

although many Japanese people don’t realize that and deny its existence

sorry, but this is still vague. I sometimes frankly chat with a Chinese woman who runs a Chinese restaurant. As a side note, one of his son goes to a elementary school at California. In her perception, the U.S., to paraphrase her words, is white-man’s society. There are zainichi Korean living in my neighbor, I have absolutely no problems with them just I have no problem with other Japanese.
Specifically in what respect do you think I–or the Japanese people —- should be careful when talking to an Asian person?

SebastianJapan

Ahahahahahahahahaha…… “every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination”

Oh that’s too funny. I actually laughed so hard I cried when I read that title… I can’t believe they said that!
Level3

How about no longer publishing special tbales of “gaijin hanzai” in the annual police crime statistics?

Along with the general, national, and prefectural breakdowns of the stats; there are only 2 special sections of specific groups of people that get a special focus

1. Boryoku dantai (gangs, yakuza, etc.)
2. Gaijin (further broken down by nationality)

Basically the police, in cooperation with the media, merely by choosing to publish, implicitly equate the 2 groups as dangerous and worthy of special police attention, (even though they actually show no real difference in crime rates for gaijin) and provide meat for the xenophobic spin machine to misquote, misuse, etc.

How is this not discrimination?

Personally, I’d love to see special breakdowns of stats showing crimes by wealthy people and government officials.
Crimes by persons determined to be violently insane but released into the general population.
Crimes by police officers, active duty and retired.

Surely these groups are more dangerous percentage-wise than gaijin.

edwardhasnewgoggles

yeah dude, anarchy in the uk! fuck authority!!! destroy the system!!!
Bob

A selection of Japanese newspaper headlines.

*Man, 21, held for killing 60-year-old motorcyclist in hit-and-run
*Wife arrested for stabbing husband to death in Yokohama
*Woman climbs radio tower in Yokohama
*Russian sumo wrestler arrested for possession of marijuana
*British man arrested for causing newborn baby’s death

Can you tell from the headlines which articles are about Japanese and which are about non-Japanese?

LB

You’re right! By not listing a foreign nationality they are clearly and explicitly stating the culprit was Japanese! The racist bastards!

Yawn.

Next!

The Overthinker

What I did like was hearing on the news in Japan that “Police are looking for an Asian suspect.” This was a clear example of using “Asian” to mean “those people on the mainland,” a bit like Brits (used to) use “European.”

http://www.victorymanual.com Alex

Looks like a fun game! Can I play, too?

A selection of U.S. newspaper headlines.

* Death for man who kidnapped, murdered Idaho boy
* 3 arrested in 2 Texas school threats
* Man Found With Gun, Bomb Near Capitol Gets 22 Years
* 6 Israelis charged with drug trafficking in Calif.
* Ruling in 1980s Japanese businessman case delayed
* Pakistani Woman Faces Assault Charges.
* S.Korean student blamed for shooting rampage

Can you tell from the headlines which articles are about Americans and which are about non-Americans?

Mister M

Racial discrimination in Japan is something terrible in our days. Japan is an example of nation where moral values are higher than many nations where respect is not put in first place. I hope Japan can improve this area soon. Changes like gender equality and respect for all nations and cultures are the major things that can make Japan a better nation.
Autumn

Last Thursday, me and a British friend were asked for our Gaijin cards after exiting a convenience store in Imaike in Nagoya. No Japanese were asked for identification. We did nothing wrong.

stereo

The fact that you are asked to show a gaijin card does not imply that you did something wrong or you are suspected to have done something wrong.

It is their job to check as many gaijin cards as possible to deter illegal foreigners from roaming around.

Do not feel bad at card checking.

DC

… and among the ‘advanced’ countries of the world it’s only in Japan where this on-the-spot ‘show me your id, foreign looking person’ is widespread. This sort of harrassment based on race is exactly the sort of thing the UN is complaining about.

nk

You claim, “only in Japan”. Name advanced countries you know. There is racism in Japan. No doubt about it and it must disappear. However, your claim is factually wrong.
I lived in France where especially African or Arab looking people are asked their ID on the streets without any reason. Isn’t France an advanced country you’re supposed to know when you make your argument?
ponta

You claim, “only in Japan”. Name advanced countries you know. There is racism in Japan. No doubt about it and it must disappear.

can’t agree more.
There is racism in Japan and we–Japanese and non-Japanese— should work together. But this Debito org style is hurting the relation between Japanese and non-Japanese rather than helping. why is it hurting?Because.
They presume their mother country is better without checking the facts.
Not checking fact is based on prejudice and prejudice with the sense of superiority is a typical case of racism, therefore they smack of racist.
They exaggerate the extent of racism operation in Japan. The shops with Japanese only sign is the case in point.
They misunderstand the system. Juminhyou is the case in point
When they exagerate and misunderstand, few Japanese take it seriously.
I understand there is real issues facing foreingers such as renting an apartment for foreingers.
But it is ironical it was people outside Debito org who have been working toward the solution.

The Daily Yomiuri reports the project has become widely known among foreigners by word of mouth.

debito.org/?p=1882
Without real achivements other than winning the right to flirt with girls and play with geisha for foreingers.
Debito org has become the site which has been just fueling hatred, providing misimformation with no intention to correct.. By their standard, Debito. org is raicist in that the site accepts racist comment while blocking balancing comments;it is sexist because it supports the hentai articles that was insulting women and because it has attacked the alleged rape female victim covering up the essential facts about the case.
Paradoxically some people are just fuenling hatred in the name of “social activism” against racism.
(I exepcted they were self-corerctive, but in vain. I still can’t believe there are still some foreingers who , directly or indirectly, support it.)

Right, Japan has not taken every conceivable measure to fight against such hatred, bias, sexism and racism. But it is not always the case that the law alone settles the matter completely. With anti-descrimiations law, there can be still racism, without such law, there can still be community where the racism is decreasing. The govenment should work harder, but the people should work harder as in the case of Saitama real agent.
ponta

You miss the point. I didn’t say the law does not settle the matter.I said the law alone does not settle the matter.

The Overthinker

Debito has said that the law states that police must have “due cause” to demand ID from “anyone” (although there is another law that says if asked, you must show it to cops), though I note he always did comply.

The bit about “looking for illegals” is a bit silly however: the vast majority of illegal aliens in Japan are Asians, and I would wager that it is Westerners who are in fact least likely to be illegal. So targeting ‘gaijin’ (white westerners) for illegal alien hunts is like the US TSA screening 70-year-old grandfathers as potential terrorists at airports.

stereo

In case if you have any doubt, the law clearly says police do not need any “due cause” to ask for a gaijin card. (See Article 13 of Alien Registration Law)
Debito is trying to make people believe that “due cause” is needed by connecting two different clauses in two different laws (Alien Registration Law and Law on Execution of Duties of Police Officers) that apply to two totally different situations.
LB

One law states that the police must have “due cause” to conduct “shokumu shitsumon” (the police basic law).

Another law states police are empowered to check foreign registration cards at any time, and we foreigners have to show them if asked to (identical to laws in the US and I would imagine elsewhere).

These two may seem to be at odds, but in reality they are covering two different areas. Is checking foreign registration cards or passports “shokumu shitsumon”? Well no, not actually. If the police have to have “probable cause” to do one, do they need it to do the other? So far actual practice seems to indicate that, at the very least, they think not. After all the law says “you need probable cause to do this”, not “you need probable cause to ask anyone anything at any time”. Besides, if they are required by law to check for illegal immigrants by checking passports and foreign registration cards, and you are an “immigrant”, then in theory that could be stretched to giving “cause” to check if one is legal or not.

I do basically agree with you about who they should be checking. The only bugger is that while the vast majority of illegals almost certainly are Asians, there are more than a few illegal Iranians, Russians, Eastern Europeans etc. I doubt there are many illegal Brits/Americans/Aussies/Kiwis/Germans/French etc., but even you are I would probably be hard-pressed (unless we heard them talking) to ascertain from looks alone what nationality we were looking at. Even if we focused on “Asians”, do you know the earful we’d get if we pulled up a Zainichi with the chip they have on their shoulder?

And so we get the shotgun-overkill approach aimed at the obviously foreign of us. Effective? No. Fair? Probably not. Legal? Well, yeah. Bureaucracy at its finest!
LB

“you OR I would be hard-pressed…”

And stereo beat me to it, with far less words….

http://witzl.blogspot.com/ Mary Witzl

Racism is what keeps us vibrantly diverse? That is just surreal.

For what it’s worth, I’ll bet that even if all races merged into one, stupidity would still be very big.
poetaster

Japan is the unique nation has problems of serious racism and racial discrimination. No nation in the world that is possessed by the evil thoughts like it. That’s why JP is discriminated by the people who are fair and mature.

wwwww
The Overthinker

What sort of search engine results is this post appearing on?
Kevin

Wow, the 2 camps are out in full force today. I’m kind of curious though, of those people complaining about racism and racial discrimination, how many of you have taken your complaints to court?

DC

What’s the point? Racial discrimination is not illegal in Japan. And it’s only unconstitutional if a *Japanese citizen* is being discriminated against.

http://whatjapanthinks.com Ken Y-N

DC and others,

Racial discrimination is not illegal in Japan.

Wrong. Study Ana Bortz’ case.

DC

That article clearly points out at that international law had to take precedence since there are *no racial discrimination laws in Japan !!!*

And even in this case, if the shopkeeper later did exactly the same thing to another customer, *that* customer would have to instigate proceedings.

The onus shouldn’t be on the victim to take out expensive, time-consuming and stressful civil proceedings, which even then end up in the realm of international law. The *law of the land* should automatically kick in when racism occurs. There is no appropriate law in Japan.
stereo

DC, *no racial discrimination laws in Japan !!!*

Yes there are. I have already cited Ryokan-gyou-hou (Hotel Business Law) in my comment 2008-08-27 09:55:14.

Look at Roudou-kijun-hou (Labor Standard Law), which prohibits discrimination.
Labor Standard Law
Article 3. An employer may not discriminate employees as to wage, labor hours, or other working conditions based on their nationality, creed, or social status.

The penalty for violating this article 3 is 6 months or less in prison.

Do you still say *no racial discrimination laws in Japan !!!*?
Kevin

It doesn’t really matter if a law is made. The same people will come jumping out of the woodwork to say that Japanense people are racist at heart and won’t enforce it, anyway. Then, where will that leave us?
You’d still have to take a dispute to court, and there is already enough precedent to win right now, were you to do so.
ponta

There is NO, repeat (in stereo for your benefit) NO, anti-discrimination law in Japan

It seems to me, John K, it really depends on what people have in mind when talking about “no racial descrimination law” “anti-descrimination law”
You say.

There is no law to cover all aspects of society, regardless of the situation

But Japanes constituion says

Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.

Is the constitution not law in your definition?

Stereo points out as for the US law as for housing

. It prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex, but it does not prohibit discrimination based on nationality

Is it anti descrimination law in your definition?
ponta

John K
A definition is essential when we discuss. We are sometimes talking about different things while we think we are talking about the same subject. That is unproductive discussioin.
That is my point of comment.
Your comment is about my wish and motivation, which has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Can’t you just answer the question if the constitution is law,and if the U.S. housing act is the law you had in mind when you were talking about the anti-discrimination law?
ponta

John K

Without motivation, there is not point to a discussion or topic of discussion. The motivation brings context. You are motivated to allay misconceptions about Japan to others

But　the motivation has nothing to do with the validity of the argument and asking the motivation is often used to derail the topic.

Can you explain to me where i raised to issue of US law?
Can you explain to me where i raised to issue of the constitution?

Yes, we have been talking about the law, especially anti-discrimination law.

there is no anti-discrimination law that exists in Japan.

You are repeating the old claim without clarifying the concept.

…but it does nothing except expose a bias and unwillingness to acknowledge a simple fact of Japanese law,

That is not case, I am simply trying to clarify your comment by asking your usage of the word “anti-discrimination law”.

It really amuses me that in order to attempt to defend a defenceless position, one begins bathos and meander into “another” countries set of rules as justification.

When did I try to defend my position—and what is my position?–I am just asking simple questions— by citing other countries?

As for a constitution, if you must.
It is a system of of laws and basic principles that a country is governed by. In other words, procedural.
A Law, is the whole system of rules that everyone must obey.
Being constitutional, does not automatically make something law

Wait wait.
Constitution is a system of law So is Japanese constitution law or not? This is a simple question.
For your reference, it is well known that Japanese constitution such as the article 15, 18, 24, 27-3, 28 is directly applicable to citizens and it is widely admitted that the article such as 14 is applicable via civil code art 90, 709 etc.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5874#comment-228411

If you say Japanese constitution is law, then you turn out to be wrong because the article 14 is anti-discrimination law that covers all aspects of society.

If you say Japanese constitution is not law, the claim is dubious.

constitution
(Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
1: an established law or custom
5 a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
（Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
* constitute (FORM PART OF)
* constitution (LAWS)
* constitution (HEALTH)

If you say the U.S. housing act is not anti-discrimination law, there is no use of law which covers all aspects of society because even if there is such a law in the U.S. it does not protect the foreigners equally.

If you say the U.S. housing act is anti-discrimination law, the law is not what people here is talking about;for, people are talking about the right of the foreigners in Japan.And in this case too, the law covering all aspects of society you are talking about does not matter, because the law does not protect the foreigners equally whether such comprehensive anti-discrimination law exist or not.
I really doubt such comprehensive if it does not protect people equally in a specific context is useful.

Let’s enjoy discussion, John K.
nigelboy

U.S. Constitution has what is called a Supremacy clause which basically states that Constituion is the supermeme law of the land.

U.S. Citizenship test handbook also asks, “What is the Constitution?”

Answer: The supreme law of the land.

“The U.S. Constitution has lasted longer than any other country’s constitution. It is the basic legal framework establishing the U.S. Government. Every person and every agency and department of government must follow the Constitution. This is why it is called the “supreme law of the land.” Under this system, the powers of the national government are limited to those written in the Constituion. The guiding principle behind this sytem is often called the rule of law”.”

Since it’s a “basic legal framework”, it can often lead to different intepretation. However, since it also states that every person “must follow” the Constitution, one can interpret that as “anti-discrimmination” law.
ponta

What you all continuously fail to understand, is that the Japanese constitution is for Japanese nationals only. (see article 10)

I cited this, but I’ll cite it again.

It is generally accepted that the protection of rights and freedoms under the Constitution extends to foreign nationals resident in Japan insofar as the nature of of the given right allows it. …

page 432 Japanese Law second edtion Hiroshi Oda, oxford

A tourist from, “A” country, visits Japan. As soon as s/he walks out of the airport experiences discrimination. What law is there to protect him/her?

Of course article 14 coupled with civil code etc as I explained.

As for “WE” have been talking about the law. The pronoun “WE” is the operative word. “I” wasn’t.

But You were talking about anti-discrimination law, no?

If you also believe that the constitution is LAW, then why have laws? Just the constitution is suffice!

Constitution is law and civil code is law criminal code is law.
Your logic is flawed because it does not hold if civil code is law, why have laws? Just civil law is suffice.

So why are you in a debate..if you have no motivation?

Suppose you argue that 1 ＋2＝3 to make yourself look smart. Making yourself look smart is your motivation. but it has nothing to do with the validity of your statement that 1 ＋2＝3.

On that note, im off to eat breakfast

Just enjoy your breakfast.
ponta

In other words Japanese constitution states it needs laws to carry out the “ideology” written down…hence the need for laws and not relying solely on the constitution as all encompassing as it is simply a frame-work!

No. As I said

For your reference, it is well known that Japanese constitution such as the article 15, 18, 24, 27-3, 28 is directly applicable to citizens and it is widely admitted that the article such as 14 is applicable via civil code art 90, 709 etc.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5874#comment-228411

And civil code has been effective before this constitution. It is just that there was parts that need to be amended to enforce the new ideology of the new constitution.
Besides, your argument does not show Japanese constitution is not law. A citizen must obey the article 27-3. A citizen must obey the article 14 and civil code 90.
nigelboy

“In other words Japanese constitution states it needs laws to carry out the “ideology” written down…hence the need for laws and not relying solely on the constitution as all encompassing as it is simply a frame-work!”

No. Those are your words. There are civil codes in place for remedy.

What I’m arguing is about is your statement that there is no Anti-discrimmination law in Japan as if there is such a law that encompasses all discrimination in U.S.
ponta

Otaru Onsens Lawsuit] Sapporo District Court decision

With regard to the refusals, it seems that the signs
banning foreigners posted at the entrance of Yunohana evince
discrimination based on nationality. But there are situations,
such as in the second refusal, when one cannot differentiate
national origin from physical appearance; Arudou was refused
even after taking Japanese nationality. The substantive issue is
not discrimination based on nationality, but whether one
appears to be foreign. This is discrimination based on race,
skin color, descent, ethnic origin or racial origin. In light of the
meaning of Article 14(1) of the Constitution, Article 26 of the　ICCPR, and CERD, these amount to private acts of racial
discrimination that ought to be eliminated.

http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/articles/APLPJ_09.2_webster.pdf

The constituion 14 is at work here.

As a side note, notice the decision was made not because Debito he was Japanese.
ponta

JohnK
Now you read the court text, you understand the constitution is at work among a civilian’s lawsuit against an civilian
Your claim was that “There is NO, repeat (in stereo for your benefit) NO, anti-discrimination law in Japan”
But the constitution states anti-discrimination.
And the constitution is at work in Debito’s case.
Being foreigner or not , the court says, does not matter.
And dictionaries say the constitution is law.

In what sense there is no anti-discrimination law in Japan?—only in Jonh K’s sense?

Not sure why you bring up the US, that was raised by others, not by me.

To repeat, to clarify your meaning of anti-discrimination law.
stereo

John K, as to article 100, you are misleading people by mistranslating a Japanese word “shiko” into an English word “enforcement”. “Shiko” means to make a rule effective or into power.

Article 100 of Japanese Constitution is a transition rule. When the new constitution came into power in Japan, the government needed to change substantial number of laws to comply with the constitution. Paragraph 2 of Article 100 says such reform acts may be enacted before the new Constitution came into power.

Read the article again.
“The enactment of such laws that are necessary for the enactment of this Constitution may be executed before the day prescribed in the preceding paragraph.”

It does not mean or imply the Constitution is powerless without laws.

There are group of lawyers who argue that the power of the Constitution is limited to the public sector and that a law is required to regulate the private sector. But their argument has nothing to do with article 100 of the Constitution.
nigelboy

“If the civil code covers these, why have the constitution mention it?”

I stated was there are civil codes in place “for remedy.”
Kevin

John, you’re simply twisting words. It’s obvious that Ponta doesn’t want discrimination.

The laws against discrimination have all already been established. However, it seems that you want one law that encompasses all the existing laws and then adds penalties in addition to clearly established actions for enforcing the law. I think all of us would agree that this is what we need in Japan.

However, saying that laws against discrimination in Japan don’t exist is a fallacy, and that is where the point of contention is coming from.
ponta

John.
I have enjoyed the discussion with you as always. Answering your question might make you accuse me for derailing the topic, but you might want to consider why there are specific laws like commercial law, local regulation besides general laws like civil code and national law.
Enjoy tea!
nigelboy

“But to my knowledge, the civil code is simply that, i.e. it is not a criminal offence, just a civil one!”

Are you serious?

Dirk Diggler

Most of you seem quite troubled. Take it on the chin and keep on smiling my delightfully seething horde of franken flesh.

Debate is but pouring water on the ground; time could be spent better enjoying the timeless treats of oxygen, and sight.

It’s only life after all. And life as we know it by its very definition and no other.

Keep those stars a’shinin’ peeps!

All the best,

Dirk Diggler
Pingback: Nihonzaru: Another case of abuse against foreign trainees
hoihoi

it is simple.
why did debito the problem of the hot spring by the trial?
because there is …
hoihoi

Why did debito win the problem of the hot spring by the trial?
Eric

Predictably, most of the comments on this post have been way off target.

The question is not whether there is discrimination in Japan, or even whether there are laws in Japan against discrimination. The question is whether or not “Japan has taken every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination.”

That proposition is laughable. In exactly which alternative universe was this exhaustive list of been measures taken?

Would the government’s foreign trainee program (which was obviously never intended, as advertised, to be a means of transferring Japanese technology to developing countries; it was intended from the beginning to be a means of importing cheap labor for small Japanese companies that are struggling with a labor shortage and relatively high labor costs) be an example of these measures?

I had an interesting experience 4 years ago. I was supposed to have renewed my spousal visa in March of that year, but it slipped my mind until May, when my memory was jogged by a notice to renew my driver’s license that I had received in the mail.

Of course, I had managed to do this at a time when the government was cracking down on illegal immigrants. To make a long story short, I was literally treated like a criminal. I had fingerprints taken from all ten fingers, plus mug shots: full frontal and both profiles. At one point in a deliberately humiliating process, I was being grilled by a special officer who deals with overstayers, with my panicking wife at my side. Just next to me was a guy from Hong Kong who was in exactly the same boat as me. As I couldn’t help but overhear, the fact that he had forgotten to renew his spousal visa was picked up on at Narita Airport when he had gone there to meet his mother who was coming to Japan to see the new baby that he and his wife had just had.

The thing is, he was treated to a very different tone than I (a very white man: I make Dan Akroyd look ethnic) was. The officer talking to me was sooo nice, he was lovey-dovey, but the Chinese guy was asked whether he had ever committed any crimes in Japan and generally, as my wife also noticed, treated with suspicion and disdain.

So, my point is that the Japanese government’s record regarding racial discrimination has been mixed at best. They have, especially recently, taken some measures to combat it; but I, and I’m sure most other people, can conceive of many measures that have yet to be taken.

ponta

Actually I am still looking for the original text in which Japan claimed that it had made “every conceivable ” effort. This statement is laughable regardless of which nation stated.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/PAGES/JPSession2.aspx
I am convinced that JG is stupid, but I have a little suspicion that this author took it out of context just as he took the statistic about Ainu out of context.
stereo

Eric
>”The question is whether or not “Japan has taken every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination.””

I am not sure we can talk about it or are qualified to talk about it, if we cannot even agree on basics like if there is no law that prohibits discrimination in Japan.

Kevin

This is something I don’t understand. I hear a lot about not having a law against discrimination, but the constitution clearly prohibits it. What kind of law is being proposed here? There are definitely laws prohibiting discrimination in hotels, etc. so is this proposed law for personal businesses?

Stereo is right, if we can’t even decide what laws exist and what don’t this conversation is pointless.

The Overthinker

The fear of forgetting to renew…. If it’s so easy to send licence reminders, why not visa reminders?

Not to diss on your problems 4 years ago Eric, but you actually were literally a criminal: overstaying is indeed a crime, as victimless as it might be.

I would also hesitate to jump from “some cops / immigration officials are bastards” to “the government is”.

I can think of one reason why the Chinese person was treated differently: he was caught at Narita, you (I assume) voluntarily ‘dobbed yourself in’. However I do agree that if a factor, it is probably not the only one. Complete gut reaction is that cops attract closet and not-so-closet racists in any country: they are given a position of power over others, after all.

And I don’t think anyone would ever believe any government’s claim to have taken “all conceivable measures” about anything, really.

LB

“The fear of forgetting to renew…. If it’s so easy to send licence reminders, why not visa reminders? ”
I wonder why it is the State’s duty to nanny people and remind them in either case. It is your license/visa, be an adult, take responsibility for your life and meet the deadlines on your own.

Oh damn, sorry, I forgot we’re in the 21st Century now, and “being responsible for your own actions” fell out of vogue back in the ’80s….

Gusuke

My father was an immigration to the United States with his family from Latin America, and every single member of his family abided by the rules in regards to visas, and immigration matters. Since I plan on following the same path in regards to staying in Japan I have absolutely no remorse for anybody who falls through on that stuff and whines about it. Getting deported for overstaying your visa? You have nobody to blame but yourself for not keeping track of when to renew it.
The Overthinker

“I wonder why it is the State’s duty to nanny people and remind them in either case.”

Two reasons. Or Three.
1. If it can be done for licences it can be done for visas.
2. Saves a lot of hassle, for the state as well (surely it’s easier to send out a postcard than interrogate someone?)
3. The state requires we have them. Let them do a bit of work as well.

http://whatjapanthinks.com Ken Y-N

The fear of forgetting to renew…. If it’s so easy to send licence reminders, why not visa reminders?

This matter was the first time I started to get disillusioned with Debito. He’d posted on the Community mailing list a story like the above about someone forgetting by a day to renew, and a few people indirectly and I directly said to him that why, with his contacts in higher places, does he not take up the issue of reminders? We get licence and gaijin card reminders, but not visas, yet nothing really bad happens if you forget to renew the first two.

He ignored the posts.

PS: I wonder if the talk of centralising gaijin card info and linking with visas means that Immigration will now directly know where we live, in a good sense.

LB

I have to admit I am a bit perplexed by what it is some people apparently want. As things stand right now in Japan, if you are a citizen you cannot legally be discriminated against on the basis of race, creed, skin color, religion, employment, social background or anything else.

If you are not a citizen you cannot legally be discriminated against based on nationality
*in housing
*in hotel accomodation
*in employment
*in receiving public services for the locality you live in

That seems to pretty much cover everything needed for daily life, and yet some people apparently want “more” and complain Japan does not have an overall law against “discrimination”. What exactly do folks want that law to say? “No business or store can refuse service to anyone for any reason?” Two thoughts:
1. Is there currently a problem with stores refusing service to people based on their being “gaijin”? Not “has it happened”, because as seen above it has, but is it a big enough or widespread enough problem that we need to legislate against it? From my experience, no. Some old guy at a shop gets cranky and says “I don’t want to serve gaijin” – fine, I’ll take my business elsewhere. But then again, I have never, ever, been in that situation. No-one has ever refused my money, and if they didn’t like the gaijin in the shop then they were certainly civil enough to keep their mouths shut and not let on.
2. Do people really want to live in a socialist nanny state where the State tells businesses they must always serve everyone who shows up at their doors, regardless? That is what any such law would have to say, in effect. So in order to protect the gaijin from their own insecurities that they might be (not “are being”, but might be) discriminated against by someone, somewhere, now McDonald’s has to let every unwashed and stinking to high heaven homeless person in from the cold or heat. Well, that will be good for business! Businesses have a right to serve or not serve anyone they see fit. That is a basic principle of a free market. If they discriminate to the point that their actions are socially unacceptable the market will deal with that as customers turn away and the business loses money.

Or is it that there should be some sort of overarching law making any sort of “discrimination” against anyone anywhere illegal? So when the kid across the aisle makes a face at the gaijin on the train you can call the cops and get him and his mother hauled away? Or some grandmother who last learned a new trick during the Occupation smailes and calls you “gaijin-san” and Bam! Out come the anti-discrimination thought police to send her off to re-education? Please, give me a break. You cannot legislate what people think, as a matter of fact I seem to recall there was a war fought (in part) to remove a Japanese government that was basically doing just that.

Hate speech laws? Oh, those have proven to be trouble-free (sarcasm). Everyplace I am aware of where those exist is now dealing with problems caused by ever-widening definitions of what constitutes “hate speech” as each little group tries to get its pet peeve declared as such. At the end of the day everyone is wandering around looking over their shoulders afraid to say anything at all for fear of upsetting someone seeking to be offended.

No what needs to be done is:
1. Existing laws need to be given teeth, and they need to be enforced as criminal offenses. If someone gets turned away by a landlord because they aren’t Japanese, then the existing laws need to be used by the police and prosecutors to charge the landlord and hold them accountable. And the penalties need to be steep. Slaps on the wrist won’t do it.

2. Signs that say “Japanese only” or “no foreigners” need to be puled down. This could probably be done under existing laws or interpretations of the Constitution. If the businesses (bars, hostess clubs etc.) in question choose to continue to not allow foreigners then they’ll have to find some other way to do it – bouncers only allowing certain people in (without saying “we only let Japanese in here”) or become members-or-invitation-only establishments.

3. A whole lot of people need to grow thicker skins. And learn whereof they speak. There is a whole lot of “Japan has no laws, foreigners have no rights” when neither is true – there are laws, and foreigners have rights. Ignorance of what those laws and rights are is not proof that they do not exist.

The onus of adapting is on the immigrants. Those of us who actually live in Japan chose to come here and choose to continue to do so. I’ll say this here, I’ll say it to immigrants to my country of birth, I’ll say it anywhere: don’t like it here? Fine, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Kevin

1. Existing laws need to be given teeth, and they need to be enforced as criminal offenses. If someone gets turned away by a landlord because they aren’t Japanese, then the existing laws need to be used by the police and prosecutors to charge the landlord and hold them accountable. And the penalties need to be steep. Slaps on the wrist won’t do it.

I think this is really the heart of the matter. Those people complaining about a lack of laws regarding discrimination probably want to know that someone will be punished for discriminating against someone else.
ponta

Existing laws need to be given teeth, and they need to be enforced as criminal offenses. If someone gets turned away by a landlord because they aren’t Japanese, then the existing laws need to be used by the police and prosecutors to charge the landlord and hold them accountable

I think the police involvement is too harsh.
Here is how the US housing act works.

You must file your complaint within one year of the incident. HUD(the federal Department of Housing and Urban development) will look into your allegation. If it feels that there has been a violation of the FHA, it will try to negotiate a conciliation agreement with the violator. …If the negotiations are unsuccessful, an administrative hearing will be held before a judge—you will be represented by a HUD attorney.

It might be good idea to give penalty, though.

Though Japan does not have to follow suit, keep in mind this U.S. act does not protect foreigners equally.

LB

Police involvement may be too harsh, possibly, but the point is enforcement of the laws needs to be taken out of the hands of civil courts. If the only way to achieve redress is for the individual discriminated against to personally sue the person doing the discriminating, only a very tiny handful of violators will ever be punished. Most people just don’t have the time – like I said above about the landlord who turned me away. What happened to him? Nothing. I could have sued and won against him, but I don’t have the time and money for that.

Now, if there was someplace to go to file a complaint, and then an agency would take over and file suit on the consumer’s behalf, that combined with stiff penalties would in all probability actually do something about the situation.

DC

Then why is discrimination based on race, nationality, sex, age etc so widespread in Japan? You yourself have experienced it. Why can you find ads requesting things like ‘Japanese person to work in Roppongi Bar’ (or even ‘Blonde blue-eyed English teacher wanted’? Why are women routinely asked about their maternal plans when going for jobs? Why are they paid less? Why was my Japanese-born Japanese-fluent friend denied a job *at MacDonald’s* because ‘customers would be surprised to see a white person serving them?’ Why was my local kisaten *which is next to a koban* able to post the ad ‘Staff wanted: Japanese Woman, under 40″ in its window (an ad which would be illegal 3 times over in most countries.) You *know* that even though there may be some civil codes which technically outlaw this sort of thing, in reality the law is next to useless in preventing discrimination and the J-Gov is doing Sweet FA to deal with it. At the *very least* it could do something to actually enforce the pathetically weak laws that already exist.

ponta

Then why is discrimination based on race, nationality, sex, age etc so widespread in Japan?

Why is discrimination so widespread in US, UK, etc?

in reality the law is next to useless in preventing discrimination and the J-Gov is doing Sweet FA to deal with it.

Kevin was right.

Comment by Kevin
2008-08-27 21:19:13

It doesn’t really matter if a law is made. The same people will come jumping out of the woodwork to say that Japanese people are racist at heart and won’t enforce it, anyway. Then, where will that leave us?

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ James Annan

Why is discrimination so widespread in US, UK, etc?

Because, just as in Japan, some people in those societies are racist, which is why (IMO) effective laws need to be in place (and enforced) to protect victims, provide for effective redress and emphasise to all that such behaviour is considered unacceptable in modern society.

Kevin

Work related discrimination is one point where I feel Japan still has a lot of work to do. I really wish companies would stop using the traditional resume, first of all. I consider the picture attached to the resume a big no-no – the employer should be able to determine your qualifications by looking at the resume and not have access to your appearance until the interview. Also, age and gender should never be used as qualifications for any position.

Head hunters currently use a shokumu-style resume (emphasis on work experience), and I really think that bigger companies need to start converting to this style as well.
The Overthinker

That and job ads that state clearly “aged 35 or less.”

The real reason the law is toothless is because too few people are really upset about it.

nigelboy

I think Ponta raised a very good question in that even with the laws in place, “Why is discrimination based on race, nationality, sex, age etc. wo widespread in U.S. or U.K.”?

To go further, why are there so many crimes when criminal activities are illegal?

IMO, laws or lack of it has very little to do with the problem.

DC asks “Japanese person to work in Roppongi Bar’ (or even ‘Blonde blue-eyed English teacher wanted’? Well. To answer simply, it’s what the customer wants. If a U.S. strip club owner posts an ad that saids “Dancers wanted!”, do you think the owner is going to hire a 50 year old woman former professional dancer even though she could dance her butt off? Probably not. Is it age discrimination? Sure it is. But in reality, that woman would simply not apply and if she did, I doubt she’ll take her case to court.
Employers from any country hire or discrimminate based on age, race, and sex. The only difference I see is that there are those who do it discretely while the other doesn’t.

ponta

As for DC’s examples, I took them with a grain of salt. Obviously he is a poster on Debito org using another handle, and you know, Debito org is filled with dubious anecdotes. For instance, I’ve never seen Kissaten Ad saying ‘Staff wanted: Japanese Woman, under 40″. Gaijin population is not large and so an owner of Kisasten takes it for granted that the applicants are Japanese and zainichi Koreans who lives indistinguishably with the Japanese, so he/she wouldn’t come up with the idea of preferring to the Japanese in particular.(Has anybody seen the photo on ROGUES’ GALLERY?) Even if the case should be true. I think it would be very exceptional.
On the other hand I know that the case of ‘Blonde blue-eyed English teacher wanted’is true;it was on Debito org.debito.org/?p=219 And it was an suggestive case.
The solution was easy. You didn’t need a law to settle it. All it took was to just point out it was wrong and the school understood it and took it down. The case shows, I think, that in Japan, education and government advertisement will be effective. In that sense, yes, Japanese government has a lot more things to do.

stereo

DC,
“Why are women routinely asked about their maternal plans when going for jobs?”
I do not think corporate recruiters would ask such things these days.

“Why are they (women) paid less?”

They are paid equally for the same job. I know. The income disparity between sexes is hardly unique to Japan.

“Why was my local kisaten *which is next to a koban* able to post the ad ‘Staff wanted: Japanese Woman, under 40″ in its window (an ad which would be illegal 3 times over in most countries.)”

At least, such ad is not illegal in the US, since small shops are exempt from equal employment acts.

If you think you or your friend is discriminated, you or your friend can file lawsuit.

DC

“Why are women routinely asked about their maternal plans when going for jobs?”
>I do not think corporate recruiters would ask such things these days.

Unfortunately, my Japanese g/friend, who is an architect, has been asked this by three prospective employers in the last month. And her friends say they have the same experience.

>They are paid equally for the same job. I know. The income disparity between sexes is hardly unique to Japan.

Maybe not unique, but in Japan it’s *blatant* – because there are no laws against it, except the constitution – which has to invoked in an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.

>If you think you or your friend is discriminated, you or your friend can file lawsuit.

Again, the same civil ‘lawsuit’ argument. Civil lawsuits don’t stop other employers discriminating, or even the same employer discriminating a second time. A *law* is required for this.

http://www.japanprobe.com James

>They are paid equally for the same job. I know. The income disparity between sexes is hardly unique to Japan.

Maybe not unique, but in Japan it’s *blatant* – because there are no laws against it, except the constitution – which has to invoked in an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.

I am almost certain that there are specific gender discrimination laws in Japan. The Japanese Equal Employment Opportunity Law of 1986 would be one of them:

IN April 1986, the Japanese Equal Em
ployment Opportunity (EEO) Law of
1985 went into effect. This law prohibits
gender discrimination with respect to
vocational training, fringe benefits, retire
ment, and dismissal. It also urges firms to
try to equalize opportunity with regard to
recruitment, hiring, job assignment, and
promotion. It is too early to attempt to
assess the effects of this law. -Source

Interestingly, the source link says that law was passed because Japan wanted to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I guess in that case, the constitution and other laws were not seen as sufficient, but in the case of the UN racial discrimination conventions, Japanese lawmakers view the constitution as enough.

Edit: That link also states “discrimination against women with respect to wages has been prohibited by the Japanese Labor Standards Law since 1947″

The Overthinker

“discrimination against women with respect to wages has been prohibited by the Japanese Labor Standards Law since 1947″

A classic bit of toothless law if ever there was one….
Perhaps the counter argument is that women were never allowed to do the same jobs as men….
DC

Ok… then obviously adhering to the law is not important to Japanese companies.
http://www.japanprobe.com James

More people need to care, and more people need to file law suits. I expect that companies would adopt better employment practices after they’ve felt the sting of having to pay damages.

Isa

What do you think of “Beautifulpeople.net”?
The Europe based SNS only allows good looking people.
If you are fat and ugly, you are sub-human in the society.
The SNS is worldwide now.
http://www.essential-japan-guide.com Shane

As much as I love, Japan, what a joke.
Behan

Personally, I don’t have any physical proof that foreigners are denied housing, but I found an interesting ad for apartments posted at a train station.

It listed the price, and locations and said: gaikokujin-ka.
外国人可

Kind of telling, I thought, about the general situation here. One of the selling (renting?) points is that they will accept foreigners. It kind of suggests that many other places don’t.

If I can figure out a way of posting it here I will.

http://charlesjeggleston@gmail.com mumyou

The Kanji 可 is kind of open ended. On a test it means “pass”, but another meaning is possibility. Now if it said 外国人でもいいし or 外国人向け it would probably be less offensive. It is like saying we are open to the idea of foreignors but we might reject you based on the fact that you’re a foreignor. I think the apartment would accept foreignors, but they may or may not try to exploit the person out of paying more money via key deposit, agent, etc.

lonnie

i was recently arrested in japan.it was for a small amount of drugs for personal use which i had sent to me from america.during my encarceration i met with multiple cases of discrimination.i was told because im a big white guy and the normal people would be scared i cant be put in general population. so i was kept in solitary confinement which is used for seperating inmates who have committed some kind of offense inside of the jail.i contacted the american embassy and they came to dispute the discrimination and segregation but nothing changed and even the embassys liason said to me you ived here for many years you know were treated differently! i was shocked and after they left i was threatened by the gaurd in charge of my floor. i couldnt believe what was happening to me. i have dealt with the dat to day discrimination in japan. not being allowed to go to a gym because i have tattoos not being allowed in certain bars because they dont speak english , even though i speak read and write japanese. kanji aswell! now im banned from the country for life even though i have 2 half japanese children a japanese ex wife and my current wife is japanese. japan has litterally seperated me from my current wife and made it impossible for me to see my children.and my children are american born u.s. citizens who traveled to japan with me 7 years ago. i havent seen them in 2 years because me and thier mother dont get along. now because im not allowed in the country she is using that to keep me from ever seeing my kids again.what is a person in my position supposed to do? i understand i commited a crime and i went to trail for it i was sentenced and released on a suspended sentence. then i was deported even though i am married to a japanese national my american born half japanese children are living in japan.my crime didnt hurt anybody else nobody but me and my wife knew about it.how can they get away with this? what can i do ?
http://streetmakarov.livejournal.com makstreet
samuel welsh

the government kisses its own ass cleaver eh
http://charlesjeggleston@gmail.com mumyou

Well considering the recession and getting reliable tenents, I would actually be more open minded. Honestly, if someone turned me down for rental accomadation, I would simply take my money else where. I do not see the point in turning down “money” based on someone’s ethnic identity. It is not very logical in the long run. Sure it might make some of the Japanese people mad, but if the person makes a good enough impression I do not see Japanese people upping and leaving over the “Gaijin” infestation. That would be a waste of money. And if they do leave, fine. Let them move out and move someone else in.
The Overthinker

I see we are in no danger of losing stupidity, however….
The Overthinker

Are you a genuine idiot or just acting? Do you seriously think racism prevents this sort of thing?

Japanese government says it has taken “every conceivable measure to fight against racial discrimination”

Recent Comments

Further Reading

Japanese Documentary About Sea Shepherd’s Protest Activities in Taiji (English Subtitles)

Babies Born on March 11th Receive Special Present

Washington Times Freelancer Slams Former Employer, Fails to Ethically Disclose Relationship?

Christopher Johnson Attempts to Silence Criticism of His “Gaijin Gulag” Article (Legal Threats!!!)

Tabloid Reports About Yu Darvish’s Love Life: Kirara Asuka & Miho Koga?

Does K-Pop Group KARA Have Ties to North Korea?

Tokyo Gate Bridge

Sara Errani Admits She Avoided Tennis Tournament in Tokyo: Feared Radiation

Chinese Workers Who Survived March 11th Tsunami Return to Tohoku

Why’s Zippei So Quiet? TV Dog Had Vocal Cords Removed

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs