Trans News > 判例 > その他の重要判例
外国人入浴拒否損害賠償請求事件
札幌地方裁判所（第一審）判決
札幌地方裁判所平14(2002)・11・11判決
平成13(2001)年（ワ）第206号 損害賠償請求事件
(カッコ内の西暦は引用者が挿入)
last edited 2002/12/07
判決全文
Fulltext of the Judgment
判決全文コピー(JPEG形式)
小樽市・温泉湯の花を相手取り日本憲法及び人種差別撤廃条約違反訴訟の経緯ページ
(原告の一人、有道出人さんのホームページ)
Homepage of ARUDO Debito, one of the plaintiffs
of the Otaru lawsuit
THE OTARU LAWSUIT DECISION AND ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTS
新聞記事アーカイブ
Newspaper Article Archive
社説 Editorials
北海道新聞 2002/11/22夕刊
敗訴の会社控訴
小樽入浴拒否訴訟
小樽市内の入浴施設で入浴を拒否された道内在住の外国人ら三人が、入浴施設を経営する会社（本社・小樽）と小樽市に損害賠償などを求めた訴訟で、被告の会社は二十二日、計三百万円の支払いを命じた十一日の札幌地裁を不服として、札幌高裁に控訴した。
北海道新聞 2002/11/20夕刊
小樽の入浴拒否、損賠訴訟
原告の１人が控訴
小樽市内の入浴施設で入浴を拒否された外国人らが、入浴施設を経営する会社（本社・小樽）と小樽市を相手取り損害賠償などを求めた訴訟で、原告三人のうち、大学講師有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（三七）＝空知管内南幌町＝は二十日までに、小樽市に対する請求を棄却した十一日の札幌地裁判決を不服として、札幌高裁に控訴した。賠償を命じられた会社については控訴しなかった。
The Age (Australia) 2002/11/13
Race ban at baths turns heat on Japan prejudice
November 13 2002
By Shane Green
Japan Correspondent
Tokyo
(Photo) The bathhouse displayed an unequivocal
sign of unwelcome.
Racial discrimination in Japan is under renewed
scrutiny after three men successfully sued
a bathhouse for refusing them entry because
they were not Japanese.
A court in Sapporo in northern Japan has
awarded the men damages of almost $A45,000,
ruling that the bathhouse, or onsen, had
engaged in "irrational discrimination".
The ruling is significant because, despite
being signatory to international treaties
against racial discrimination, Japan does
not have anti-discrimination laws.
The case was brought by Debito Arudou, an
American who has Japanese citizenship, and
his friends Olaf Karthaus, of Germany, and
Ken Sutherland, of the United States. The
men and their families went to the Yunohana
Onsen in the city of Otaru in Hokkaido on
September 19, 1999, but were confronted with
a "Japanese only" sign in English
and Russian.
The onsen argued in court that it imposed
the ban after trouble with drunken Russian
sailors, who apparently took vodka into the
bathhouse and ignored the strict etiquette
of washing before entering the communal bath.
But Judge Mitsuru Sakai said the onsen should
have called in the police to deal with the
sailors, chastising its owners for discrimination
"well beyond the bounds of what is socially
acceptable".
Mr Arudou, whose Western name was David Aldwinckle,
had mixed feelings about the judgment. While
pleased with the ruling against the onsen,
he was perplexed by what constituted rational
versus irrational discrimination. "We
still don't really have a litmus test for
deciding what is rational and what is not,"
he told The Age.
The university professor, who took Japanese
citizenship after buying land in Hokkaido,
denied there was deeply ingrained racism
in Japan. "I don't want this to be an
indictment of Japan as a racist society,"
he said.
"This is not what the case is about.
The case is about our asking for equal access
regardless of how we look. It's not foreigner
discrimination, it's racial discrimination.
I wanted people to understand that this problem
exists in Japan and there should be a law
against it."
The case has highlighted the issue of discrimination
in an ethnically homogenous society where
there are only 1.7 million foreign residents
out of a population of more than 125 million.
The problem is often evident in entry bans
on foreigners. In a submission to the United
Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the Tokyo-based activist
group Issho cited several examples: a hotel
in Tokyo's Shinjuku district carried the
sign "No ruffians, no foreign women",
while a cafe in the same area had the sign:
"No foreigners, no salesmen".
There is also growing alarm about an increase
in crimes committed by foreigners, particularly
Chinese. The liberal national daily Asahi
Shimbun cautioned in an editorial last month
against Japanese developing racial prejudice
by overreacting to the crime statistics.
"Unfortunately, Japanese tend to suspect
foreigners with no valid reason whenever
an oddball crime is reported. Such profiling
and bias contributes to dangerous xenophobia,"
the paper said.
The Guardian (UK) 2002/11/12
Japanese-only public baths to pay damages
Jonathan Watts in Tokyo
Tuesday November 12, 2002
The Guardian
Japanese authorities were reprimanded for
ingrained racism yesterday when three foreign-born
men won a rare legal challenge against a
"Japanese only" public bathhouse.
The Sapporo district court ordered the Yunohana
bathhouse to pay 3m yen (about £15,000)
in damages for a discriminatory policy that
local police and municipal officials claimed
they were powerless to prevent.
"The company's behaviour amounts to
racism. Refusing entry to the baths goes
beyond socially acceptable limits,"
the judge said in a ruling that could set
an important precedent in a country that
has shown little enthusiasm for reforming
its lax laws against racial prejudice.
Although discrimination is prohibited by
the constitution and by United Nations conventions
to which Japan is a signatory, there is no
penalty for offenders. Some estate agents,
pubs and video arcades openly display signs
saying "No foreigners".
The Yunohana bathhouse has become a focus
for racial equality groups since 1994 when
it erected a "Japanese only" sign
aimed at the many Russian sailors who land
at the nearby port of Otaru, on the northern
island of Hokkaido.
The establishment justified its policy by
saying drunken and rowdy sailors had often
stolen belongings and ignored instructions
to wash their bodies before entering the
tub, as required by Japanese bathing etiquette.
Despite toothless protests from the local
government and the German and Russian embassies,
the owner continued to refuse entry to foreigners,
saying they drove away regular customers.
One of the plaintiffs, Debito Arudou - an
American-born civil rights activist - was
denied entry even though he has taken Japanese
citizenship, prompting him and two others
to sue the bathhouse and the local government.
"This has made clear that discrimination
against foreigners is illegal," Olaf
Kurthaus, a German plaintiff, told reporters.
"It will discourage other businesses
from doing the same, so discrimination should
decrease."
Though the court turned down a claim for
damages against the Otaru municipal authorities,
racial equality campaigners urged the central
government to enact tougher laws to penalise
discrimination.
With foreigners accounting for less than
1% of its 127m population, however, the government
has shown little urgency to act on a problem
that has its greatest effect on the Koreans,
Chinese and Brazilians living in Japan -
the vast majority of whom do not have a vote.
The Independent (UK) 2002/11/12
Japanese baths guilty of race bias
By Matthew Beard
12 November 2002
A public bathhouse in northern Japan has
been ordered to pay 3 million yen (£15,000)
in damages to three men who were turned away
because they were foreigners.
Sapporo District Court ordered the Yunohana
bathhouse to pay 1 million yen in compensation
to each of the three plaintiffs for its discriminatory
policy, but dismissed charges against the
Otaru city government.
Debito Arudo, 37, who was born in the United
States and changed his name from David Aldwinckle
when he took on Japanese citizenship, Olaf
Karthaus, 39, from Germany, and Kenneth Lee
Sutherland, 39, from the United States, had
accused the city government of failing to
ensure that businesses uphold Japanese law
prohibiting racial discrimination.
Mr Arudo and Mr Karthaus, activists in the
Tokyo-based human rights group Issho Kikaku,
repeatedly visited Otaru bathhouses posting
"Japanese Only" signs between 1999
and 2000, hoping to raise awareness of the
practice.
They found many bathhouses were refusing
entry to foreigners, and that the facilities
did so because they believed foreigners weren't
familiar with Japanese bathhouse etiquette
and were driving away Japanese customers.
Japanese bathhouses require visitors to wash
themselves before taking a dip in a large
tub of hot water. Splashing is generally
frowned upon.
AFP 2002/11/11
Foreign? Get out of the tub
Tokyo - A Japanese court on Monday ordered
a public bathhouse in northern Hokkaido prefecture
to pay three million yen to three bathers
it barred because of their foreign appearance.
"Their refusal to allow admission to
the bathhouse was a case of irrational discrimination
and exceeded the bounds of what is permissible
in this society," said Sapporo District
Court Judge Mitsuru Sakai in handing down
his ruling.
The judge ruled, however, that the city of
Otaru, some 800 kilometres north of Tokyo,
could not be held responsible for failing
to prevent racial discrimination in its jurisdiction.
"I find it difficult to acknowledge
the city's actions amount to illegal forbearance
of a violation," he said.
The suit was brought by US citizen Ken Sutherland,
German Olaf Karthaus and Debito Arudo, a
37-year-old nationalised Japanese citizen
who was born in the United States as David
Aldwinckle.
They have said they were barred in 1999 and
2000.
Arudo has said he was refused entry even
after he presented proof of his Japanese
citizenship, which he obtained in 2000.
The bathhouse has said it had been necessary
to ban foreigners to protect its business
and prevent problems between foreigners and
Japanese.
Arudo, a tenured professor at a Japanese
university and father of two children by
a Japanese woman, had argued that the nation
was obliged to uphold the UN convention to
eliminate racial discrimination, which it
ratified in 1996.
Arudo said on his website devoted to the
case that he had also sought a legal precedent
to punish actions which are forbidden by
the Japanese constitution but for which there
are no supporting laws.
"Racism and discrimination occurs in
all countries in varying degrees. But it
is unacceptable for Japan to be the only
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development) country without laws against
it," he said.
The Otaru bathhouse began admitting foreigners
in January 2001, Jiji news agency reported.
- Sapa-AFP
BBC 2002/11/11
Monday, 11 November, 2002, 14:46 GMT
Racist Japanese bathhouse fined
(Photo) Splashing icy water shows virility
but is taboo at baths
Operators of a bathhouse in northern Japan
have been ordered to pay three million yen
($25,000) in damages to three men barred
from entry because they looked foreign.
The Sapporo District Court said stopping
the men from using the facilities was unacceptable
and amounted to racism.
The case against the Yunohana bathhouse in
Otaru, on the northern island of Hokkaido,
had been brought by an American-born Japanese
man and two foreigners - one German and one
American.
Correspondents say the court ruling was unusual
and potentially important in a country where
there is the perception of widespread racism
but no penalties are specified for those
violating the constitutional ban on such
discrimination.
'Setting example'
The court judgement said: "The company's
behaviour amounts to racism. Refusing entry
to the baths goes beyond socially acceptable
limits."
The case was brought by 37-year-old Debito
Arudo, who changed his name from David Aldwinckle
when he took on Japanese citizenship, Olaf
Karthaus, 39, and Kenneth Lee Sutherland,
39, after they were refused entry to the
baths two years ago.
Mr Karthaus said: "This has made clear
that discrimination against foreigners is
illegal.
"It will discourage other businesses
from doing the same, so discrimination should
decrease."
The men had also tried to sue the city of
Otaru, 800 kilometres (500 miles) north of
Tokyo, but the court ruled it could not be
held responsible for failing to prevent racial
discrimination in its jurisdiction.
Etiquette
Japan's public bathhouses have a strict etiquette
which expects bathers to wash thoroughly
before stepping into a communal hot tub for
a soak.
Alcohol is taboo as well as unruly behaviour
such as splashing.
No-one at Yunohana was available to comment
on the verdict but a spokesman has previously
said the ban on foreigners was introduced
after visiting Russian sailors angered local
customers by stealing their belongings and
failing to obey the rules.
Japan's Jiji news agency said Yunohana began
admitting foreigners in January 2001.
International Herald Tribune/Asahi 2002/11/12
Otaru onsen owner soaked for 3 million in
ban of foreigners
By PAUL MURPHY, Asahi Shimbun News Service
But the court absolves the city of responsibility
of enforcement.
An Otaru onsen operator was slapped with
a heavy 3 million yen damage settlement Monday
in Sapporo District Court for barring foreigners.
But the port city, a co-defendant in the
discrimination suit, was out of hot water
after Sapporo District Court Presiding Judge
Mitsuru Sakai found no reason to require
the city to adopt an ordinance against discrimination.
Two non-Japanese and one naturalized Japanese
of U.S. origin sued the city and the privately
run Yunohana onsen last year over the spa's
pursuit of a ban on ``foreign-looking'' people
and the Otaru city council's refusal to outlaw
such conduct.
The court described the bathhouse's ``blanket
ban on foreigners as an irrational discrimination,''
which ``infringed the plaintiffs' personal
rights,'' and ordered it to pay 1 million
yen to each plaintiff. The plaintiffs were
Debito Arudou, a naturalized Japanese citizen
formerly known as David Aldwinckle, Olaf
Karthaus, of Germany, and Ken Sutherland,
of the United States.
``This is a bad result for us,'' acknowledged
Yunohana Onsen manager Katsuyuki Kobayashi.
``The judge smacked them,'' said Michael
Fox, an associate professor of sociology
and law at Hyogo College in Hyogo Prefecture.
``We saw an extraordinary amount of punitive
damages for the Japanese legal world.''
Combined with a case in 1999, when a Shizuoka
court ordered a jewelry store to pay 1.5
million yen to Brazilian Ana Bortz after
she was refused service because she was not
Japanese, Fox said that the ruling represents
an expansion ``of the legal rights for foreigners
in Japan.''
But the judge found no merit in the plaintiffs'
argument that Otaru city officials were bound
by Japan's Constitution and its ratification
of the United Nations International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. It stipulates that signatories
must take measures to eradicate discrimination.
The ruling said that while the local government
has a political responsibility to abide by
the treaty, it is not required to establish
an anti-discrimination ordinance.
Otaru officials were quick to label the ruling
a victory. ``The court has accepted our argument,''
said Tadaaki Suzuki, director of general
affairs, in a statement. The city said in
court it had taken some action against discrimination.
Arudou said he had ``complex feelings'' about
the result. ``There was a lot of good news
regarding the onsen, but in terms of the
city, it was a tiptoe ahead, not a step ahead,''
he said.
Arudou also questioned the judge's use of
the term ``irrational discrimination'' in
the ruling. ``What is rational discrimination?''
he asked.
Arudou noted that, although the court found
Yunohana Onsen ``stepped over the limit,''
it didn't define the limit.
The court rejected the onsen's assertion
that it was forced to bar all foreigners
because of problems in the past with some
of the estimated 30,000 Russian sailors who
enter Japan through the port city each year.
The judge noted the spa management should
have called police to deal with unruly customers.
In issuing redress, the court rejected plaintiff
demands that the onsen advertise in local
newspapers to apologize for discrimination.
No public apology was required because the
plaintiffs were not victims of defamation
by being denied service, Judge Sakai ruled.
Yunohana Onsen has since altered its policy
and admits foreigners after determining their
Japanese ability, time in Japan and knowledge
of bathing etiquette. People who do not speak
Japanese are refused and there are no explanations
in other languages to enlighten those unfamiliar
with bathing customs.
The Yunohana Onsen is considering an appeal
of the ruling.
(IHT/Asahi: November 12,2002)
Daily Yomiuri 2002/11/12
Otaru bathhouse ordered to pay 3 / Court:
Ban on foreigners discriminatory
Zal Sethna Daily Yomiuri Staff Writer
The Sapporo District Court on Monday ordered
bathhouse operator Earthcare KK to pay 3
million yen in damages to a naturalized Japanese
and two foreigners who were refused entry
into one of its facilities in Otaru, Hokkaido,
but rejected the plaintiffs' claim for compensation
from the Otaru city government.
Debito Arudo, 37, a university lecturer and
former U.S. national, Olaf Karthaus, a German
assistant professor, and Ken Sutherland,
a U.S. computer programmer, had sought a
total of 6 million yen from the two defendants
and an apology from Yunohana, the bathhouse.
Presiding Judge Mitsuru Sakai said in his
ruling, "Preventing the plaintiffs entry
into a bathhouse is an irrational form of
discrimination that is well beyond the bounds
of what is socially acceptable."
There is no law in Japan that penalizes acts
of discrimination, but the court recognized
the company's action as a case of discrimination.
The plaintiffs had attempted to argue that
the company's actions violate the Constitution
and were also a breach of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which Japan
ratified in 1995.
CERD states that all signatory nations have
a duty to provide the right to allow people
who claim to be victims of discrimination
to seek reparation for damage caused by such
acts.
However, while the court recognized that
local governments are obligated to pay heed
to CERD, it said the treaty did not legally
bind local governments to carry out duties
expressed in it.
"It's double-faced," Arudo said.
"It's saying that following CERD is
no more than a political duty and not an
administrative duty."
The court also did not deem it necessary
for the company to apologize to the plaintiffs,
saying that its action did not amount to
a personal attack on them.
Regarding the Otaru municipal government,
Sakai said, "It's difficult to perceive
that the local government has committed any
wrongdoing that could be said to be illegal."
The plaintiffs had blamed the city for being
negligent in its duty to put a stop to the
bans against foreigners, which were instituted
as long ago as 1994 by some bathhouses in
the city.
Such inaction, they argued, was a breach
of CERD, which states that signatory nations
are obliged to "pursue by all appropriate
means and without delay a policy of eliminating
racial discrimination."
However, the court maintained its stance
that CERD is not legally binding.
According to the ruling, Arudo and the two
others were refused entry into Yunohana in
1999 because they were foreigners. Arudo
visited the bathhouse again in November 2000,
after he had become a naturalized citizen,
but was once again refused entry because,
according to Yunohana, he "looked like
a foreigner."
Earthcare KK had claimed its ban on foreigners
was necessary to prevent friction between
foreign and Japanese customers.
The company alleges that it had to shut down
a sauna in 1998 because Russian sailors,
who often visit Otaru Port, had driven away
its Japanese clientele by misbehaving in
the facility. It then opened Yunohana the
same year, exclusively for Japanese customers.
Human rights groups and other activists,
including Arudo, made efforts to make the
facility change its stance, but initially
to no avail.
Katsuyuki Kobayashi, manager of Yunohana,
was disappointed with the ruling, saying:
"We do admit that the measures we created
previously were wrong, but we currently don't
ban any foreigners from using the facility.
We only require that they speak at least
some Japanese, in case we need to caution
them."
Arudo was satisfied for the most part and
said the ruling was evidence that "excluding
people because they look like foreigners
is not acceptable in the eyes of the Japanese
judiciary."
Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun
AP 2002/11/11
Japanese court orders bathhouse to pay damages
for refusing entry to three foreigners
Mon Nov 11, 6:00 AM ET
TOKYO - A public bathhouse in northern Japan
was ordered to pay 3 million yen (US$25,000)
in damages to three men who were turned away
because they were foreigners, a court spokesman
said Monday.
Sapporo District Court ordered the Yunohana
bathhouse to pay 1 million yen (US$8,330)
in compensation to each of the three plaintiffs
for its discriminatory policy, but dismissed
charges against the Otaru city government,
court spokesman Masahiro Ikawa said.
U.S.-born Debito Arudo, 37 ? who changed
his name from David Aldwinckle when he took
on Japanese citizenship ? Olaf Karthaus,
39, from Germany and Kenneth Lee Sutherland,
39, from the United States had accused the
city government of failing to ensure that
businesses uphold Japanese law prohibiting
racial discrimination.
The hometowns of the three men weren't immediately
available.
Arudo and Karthaus ? activists in the Tokyo-based
human rights group Issho Kikaku ? repeatedly
visited Otaru bathhouses posting "Japanese
Only" signs between 1999 and 2000, hoping
to raise awareness of the practice, according
to a report posted on the group's Web site.
They found many bathhouses were refusing
entry to foreigners, and that the facilities
did so because they believed foreigners weren't
familiar with Japanese bathhouse etiquette
and were driving away Japanese customers.
Japanese bathhouses require visitors to wash
themselves before taking a dip in a large
tub filled with hot water. Splashing is generally
frowned upon.
The concept of discrimination is little understood
in Japan, where many are suspicious of foreigners
and worry that diversity will disturb the
country's cultural homogeneity.
Sapporo, on the northernmost main island
of Hokkaido, is located 829 kilometers (518
miles) northwest of Tokyo.
Reuters 2002/11/11
'Racist' bathhouse in hot water
Monday, November 11, 2002 Posted: 7:29 PM
HKT (1129 GMT)
TOKYO, Japan (Reuters) -- A Japanese court
has ordered a bathhouse to pay three million
yen ($25,020) in damages to a U.S.-born Japanese
and two other men who were refused entry
because of their foreign appearance.
The judgment on Monday was an unusual and
potentially important step in Japan, where
although racial discrimination is banned
by the constitution, no penalty is specified
for offenders.
"The company's behavior amounts to racism.
Refusing entry to the baths goes beyond socially
acceptable limits," the Sapporo District
Court said in its judgment.
University lecturer Debito Arudou, known
as David Aldwinckle until he took Japanese
citizenship, and two non-Japanese sued the
Yu-no-hana bathhouse and the municipal government
of Otaru on the northern island of Hokkaido
after being refused entry two years ago.
"This has made clear that discrimination
against foreigners is illegal," Olaf
Kurthaus, a German citizen and one of the
plaintiffs, said on Monday.
"It will discourage other businesses
from doing the same, so discrimination should
decrease."
Foreign visitors sometimes fall foul of the
strict etiquette in Japan's public bathhouses,
which are popular weekend leisure spots.
Bathers are expected to wash thoroughly before
stepping into a communal hot tub for a soak.
Alcohol and unruly behavior are taboo.
But activists say the problem of Japanese
racism stretches well beyond baths. Foreigners
often have difficulty renting apartments
and are frequently discriminated against
when looking for jobs.
"The central government should seize
the opportunity to bring in an anti-discrimination
law with penalties...a lot of people are
suffering from discrimination in Japan,"
said equal rights campaigner Hideki Morihara.
No one at Yu-no-hana was available to comment
on the verdict but a spokesman has previously
said the ban on foreigners was introduced
after visiting Russian sailors angered local
customers by stealing their belongings and
failing to obey the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2002 Reuters. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed.
National Post 2002/11/9
Court to rule on 'Japanese Only' bathhouse
Discrimination lawsuit
Peter Goodspeed
National Post
Saturday, November 09, 2002
(Photo) Ryuzo Suzuki, The Associated Press
A Sapporo district court is expected to rule
on Monday whether a 'Japanese Only' bathhouse
acted illegally in barring entry to foreigners.
One of Japan's worst-kept secrets will be
dragged into the spotlight on Monday when
a Sapporo district court rules on a lawsuit
in which three "foreigners" claim
to be victims of persistent racial discrimination.
The court has been asked to decide if a Hokkaido
bathhouse acted illegally by barring people
simply because they were not Japanese.
But the case is far more significant because
the plaintiffs, an American, a German and
a naturalized Japanese who was formerly an
American, have also sued the municipal government
in the city of Otaru for failing to do anything
to prevent racial discrimination and the
subsequent proliferation of "Japanese
Only" signs on bathhouses, restaurants
and bars.
The case could trigger a landslide of similar
lawsuits in Japan -- which has signed several
international anti-discrimination and anti-racism
conventions, but has no law outlawing discrimination
on the grounds of race or appearance.
In a country where the word for foreigner
is gaijin or "outside person,"
distrust frequently borders on dislike and
discrimination. The Hokkaido case has unearthed
a long and bitter legacy of discrimination.
Trouble began in Otaru in 1994, when several
bathhouses decided to ban drunken Russian
sailors who were using the public baths and
driving away Japanese customers.
The owners justified the ban by saying their
baths are communal and Japanese customers
dislike sharing them with foreigners.
They argued some non-Japanese were not familiar
with bathing rituals, such as washing or
rinsing before getting into the bath, and
that made Japanese customers uncomfortable.
But when "Japanese Only" signs
started going up on Hokkaido's bathhouses
-- in Russian, English, Chinese and Korean,
as well as Japanese -- it was not long before
similar signs appeared on local bars, restaurants
and hotels.
In some instances, the policy had to be enforced
by foreign bar hostesses who were employed
to entertain Japanese businessmen in nightclubs.
The signs have also cropped up in the rest
of Japan -- for example, in the popular Club
International in the Tokyo nightclub district
of Shinjuku.
The distrust of foreigners is evident elsewhere.
Japanese news media regularly blame foreigners
for increases in crime or sudden health epidemics.
In public schools, students have been provided
with government pamphlets warning that foreigners
loitering around train stations are probably
trying to sell drugs and should be avoided
at all costs.
Security companies sell "foreigner-proof
locks," and Japanese police are empowered
under any circumstances to demand that foreigners
-- and only foreigners -- produce identification
documents.
Recently, one Japanese police department
circulated a crime- fighting pamphlet to
local businesses advising store owners that
if two or more foreigners park and enter
their premises, they should copy down the
licence plate numbers and call police.
In another recent case, Ishihara Shintaro,
Tokyo's Governor, caused a stir internationally
when he was quoted telling local police to
begin arresting foreigners en masse if there
was a massive earthquake in the city because
they could be expected to start rioting and
looting.
"For years, all levels of administrative
and legislative branches turned blind eyes
to the problem," said David Aldwinckle,
one of the plaintiffs in the Otaru lawsuit.
The university professor in Hokkaido is now
a naturalized Japanese citizen and goes by
the name Arudou Debito.
"These practices have spread to other
cities and business sectors, and they are
increasing perceptions that people of different
ethnicities and cultures cause social instability."
Mr. Debito argues his court case will be
crucial in clarifying just how much Japan's
foreign population is legally protected against
racial discrimination.
Right now, Japan's constitution, written
in English with the help of U.S. occupying
forces at the end of the Second World War,
is a study in contradictions.
The English version says "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."
But the Japanese version renders the word
for "people" as kokumin, or citizens,
a concept that implicitly excludes non-Japanese.
Japan's perception of itself as a proud,
monoethnic nation frequently makes it difficult
for foreigners to integrate into society.
pgoodspeed@nationalpost.com
Copyright 2002 National Post
Mainichi Daily News 2002/11/11
U.S.-born Japanese wins racial discrimination
lawsuit
SAPPORO -- A United States-born Japanese
national and his friends who sued a Hokkaido
bathhouse for racially discriminating against
them were awarded damages Monday at a Sapporo
court.
(Photo) Mainichi Shimbun
Arudou, left, speaks to the media after the
ruling was handed down.
Presiding Judge Mitsuru Sakai ordered the
operator of the bathhouse in Otaru, Earthcure
KK, to pay 3 million yen in damages to the
three plaintiffs, Arudou Debito, a 37-year-old
university lecturer from Nanporo in Hokkaido,
an American and a German.
"Not allowing the plaintiffs entry was
irrational discrimination and was unacceptable,"
Sakai said. However, he excused the Otaru
Municipal Government, which the trio accused
of failing in their duty to stop racial discrimination,
saying that the city's lack of action was
not illegal.
The ruling rejected the plaintiffs' argument
that the city of Otaru breached the U.N.
Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
because "the convention does not make
the city legally bound to ban racially discriminatory
acts." Lawyer Hideko Ito representing
the plaintiffs was disappointed. "The
ruling deserves a lauding (for ordering Earthcure
to pay damages) but we are deeply upset because
it found Otaru not responsible," she
said.
The trio filed the 6 million yen damages
suit last year to the Sapporo District Court
after the Otaru bathhouse refused their entry
on racial grounds in 1999 and did the same
again to Arudou, who returned to the facility
after acquiring Japanese nationality in October
2000.
Representatives of Earthcure unsuccessfully
claimed before the court that its discriminatory
rules were "socially acceptable"
because they were introduced to prevent troubles
between Japanese and foreigners.
An Earthcure spokesman said the company is
considering an appeal. "It was a disappointing
ruling to say the least. We'll decide whether
to appeal or not after studying the contents
of the decision."
Arudou, formerly David Aldwinckle, has been
working to eliminate discrimination against
minorities in Japan. (Mainichi Shimbun, Nov.
11, 2002)
Related stories:
Hokkaido hot spring to allow some foreigners
Hot spa faces racial discrimination suit
Kyodo News 2002/11/11
Bathhouse ordered to pay foreigners denied
entry
Monday, November 11, 2002 at 17:00 JST
SAPPORO ? The Sapporo District Court on Monday
ordered a private bathhouse in Otaru, Hokkaido,
to pay a combined 3 million yen in compensation
to three men for refusing them admission
because it had a policy of rejecting foreign
customers.
A lawsuit seeking 6 million yen in damages
from the bathhouse operator and the municipal
government was filed on Feb 1, 2001, by David
Aldwinckle, a 37-year-old U.S.-born local
resident who became a naturalized Japanese
under the name of Debito Arudo, Olaf Karthause,
39, of Germany, and Ken Sutherland, 38, of
the United States.
The court rejected the compensation claim
against the Otaru city government, which
the plaintiffs argued has a duty to meet
the requirements of the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, which Japan signed in 1995.
According to the suit, Aldwinckle, as he
then was as a U.S. citizen, and Karthaus
visited the bathhouse, Yunohana Onsen, in
the seaport city, in September 1999 and were
refused entry. Sutherland was denied admission
there in December 2000.
The bathhouse had a posted sign saying "Japanese
Only" in English. It gave as a reason
that it had observed that trouble with drunken
Russian sailors at similar facilities in
the region caused Japanese customers to stay
away.
Arudo visited the bathhouse again in October
2000 after becoming a naturalized Japanese
but was denied entry, despite presenting
his driver's license to show he was a Japanese
citizen. The posted sign was later withdrawn.
In the court, the plaintiffs argued that
Otaru, which claims to be an international
city, has not taken any effective action
and failed to meet its obligations under
the international convention.
The city argued that it has attempted to
issue instructions to the bathhouse, to educate
citizens about such discrimination, and taken
other steps but said the convention does
not require local governments to resolve
every single case of discrimination.
Hideko Ito, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs,
said, "The illegal nature of action
by the bathhouse was acknowledged. But it
is extremely regrettable that the claim against
Otaru was rejected."
Tadaaki Suzuki, an official of the Otaru
municipality, said he is not yet aware in
detail of the ruling but believes the city's
argument has basically been accepted.
A spokesperson for the bathhouse commented
that they are not happy with the ruling and
will consider what action to take after going
through the ruling once again. (Kyodo News)
Japan Times 2002/11/8
THE ZEIT GIST
The fight for equal protection of the law
Judgment could deal blow to discrimination
By BARRY BROPHY
Next Monday will be a red letter day for
the issue of racial discrimination in Japan.
On that day, the Sapporo District Court will
decide if a Hokkaido bathhouse acted illegally
in denying entry to two foreign residents
and one naturalized Japanese citizen on the
grounds of their race.
(Photo) A sign in a window in Shinjuku declares
that foreigners will not be admittted to
the premises.
The decision will be crucial in clarifying
just how much Japan's foreign population
is legally protected against racial discrimination.
The judgment comes at the end of a lengthy
case involving three plaintiffs, who are
suing a bathhouse in Otaru over a management
refusal to admit them, citing a ban on non-Japanese
customers.
Around 1994, some bathhouses in the city,
prompted by the bad behavior of some visiting
sailors, decided to bar all foreigners from
their premises. The owners justified their
actions by citing foreign ignorance of Japanese
bathing custom, complaints by Japanese customers,
and poor foreign sanitary habits.
Unwilling to accept the bathhouse's policy,
a group of foreign residents appealed to
local, regional, and national authorities
for clarification on their rights.
What they discovered was that Japan actually
has no law in place outlawing discrimination
on the grounds of race or appearance.
Fierce lobbying of Japanese lawmakers in
a bid to accelerate the introduction of legislation
banning these practices proved fruitless.
Likewise, an appeal based on the fact that
Japan had ratified the U.N.'s Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
fell on deaf ears.
Having exhausted all available recourse to
no avail, the plaintiffs, an American, Ken
Sutherland, a German, Olaf Karthaus, and
a naturalized Japanese citizen, David Aldwinckle
(Debito Arudou), sued the bathhouse and the
city government.
They sued on the basis that the district
took insufficient and ineffective action
as the area's administrative body to stop
refusals by race.
"The U.N. Convention calls for 'immediate
and effective' remedies," says Arudou.
"Six years of ineffectiveness is too
long."
Having previously failed to convince Japanese
officials on their obligations under international
treaty, the trio decided that the only course
of action left open to them would be an attempt
to establish a legal precedent.
To be sure, discrimination and racism exist,
often to a far more severe extent, in most,
if not all the world's developed nations.
Unlike most nations, however, Japanese law
on the subject is so vague as to be completely
arbitrary.
The English text of Japan's Constitution,
adopted in 1947, states that "all of
the people are equal under the law and there
shall be no discrimination . . . because
of race, creed, sex . . . or origin."
In the Japanese version of that text, however,
"all of the people" is written
as kokumin, or citizens, implicitly excluding
non-Japanese from the protection of its terms.
In effect, there is no law governing unequal
treatment on the basis of race.
"If you want your rights protected,
appealing to the government or the police
will still not help.
"You have to sue, in an expensive and
time-consuming system where mandated compensations
often do not even cover legal costs,"
says plaintiff Debito Arudou. He hopes to
set a precedent where people, regardless
of race, nationality or physical appearance,
are protected by under law against discrimination.
"If Japan does not protect residents
in a comparably minor matter of human rights
like refusal of entry to a public space,
how much can the foreign community hope to
be protected in more difficult times?"
asks Olaf Karthaus.
"I could understand somebody leaving
the country because he or she feels they
are not being equally protected under Japanese
law."
That foreign residents of Japan should feel
that state-sponsored discrimination has made
it impossible for them to remain in Japan
is at odds with that most popular of Japanese
buzzwords -- kokusaika, or internationalization.
But despite a drive to internationalize,
Japan's longtime perception of itself as
a proudly mono-ethnic nation makes the integration
of foreign individuals difficult.
Japan has the lowest percentages of immigrants
and expatriate workers of any advanced nation
and naturalization is extremely difficult.
Japan's difficulty in reconciling the concept
of kokusaika and foreign residents can manifest
itself in some bizarre ways. One Japanese
nightclub, named Club International, for
a long time carried a sign on its door saying:
"No foreigners."
"No country is as obsessed as Japan
with the word internationalization . . .
yet few modern nations have erected such
barriers against foreign people and ideas,"
author Alex Kerr has argued.
"The Japanese are so cut off from meaningful
contact with people from other countries,"
he says, "that they are unaware of ethnic
or national sensitivities."
Thus can Tokyo Gov. Ishihara Shintaro declare
that foreigners will riot and loot in the
event of a massive earthquake in the city
and see his popularity ratings soar.
His statement, which he refused to retract,
would almost certainly have cost him his
career in any of the countries that signed
up to the U.N. convention. Not so in Japan.
Under these circumstances, it's hardly surprising
that foreigners are routinely targeted as
a serious social bane, both in the media,
and in official literature. In public schools
around the country, students are provided
with government literature warning that foreigners
loitering around train stations are probably
trying to peddle drugs and should be avoided
at all costs.
Japanese security companies tout "foreigner-proof
locks," while one local politician warned
in the runup to the World Cup that Japan
should prepare for unwanted pregnancies caused
during the competition by football-supporting
foreign rapists.
The nation's media trumpets and attributes
burglary waves and skyrocketing crime figures
to foreigners, sometimes with no factual
basis at all. Recently, Tokyo police warned
against "suspicious foreigners,"
accused of being behind a surge of bag-snatchings
in wards where robberies actually declined.
However, the Otaru bathhouse case is not
the first of its kind.
Perhaps the biggest involved Brazilian journalist,
Anna Bortz, who won over 1 million yen in
compensation from a jewellery store in Hamamatsu
City, Shizuoka, that threw her out because
it had a policy of not serving foreigners.
Her case was based on the U.N. convention.
But applying international law in the absence
of domestic safeguards against discrimination
is unsatisfactory.
This is particularly true for Japan, about
which both the United Nations and a government
commission have said needs to attract more
immigrants, not less.
"If Japan truly wants to prop up its
sagging tax base and aging society, it must
address the issues inherent to an internationalizing
society," says Arudou. "Protecting
the rights of international residents is
one of those issues."
The Japan Times: Nov. 8, 2002
(C) All rights reserved
毎日・北海道版 2002/11/12
外国人入浴拒否訴訟 原告側「法整備が必要」−−札幌地裁判決
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
◇小樽市の責任否定で
札幌地裁で１１日言い渡された外国人入浴拒否訴訟の判決は、会社の入浴拒否を「人種差別」にあたると明確に認定したが、原告側の主張を退け、「条例制定を義務づけた法律がない以上、小樽市の不作為を違法とすることはできない」と市の責任を否定した。原告側は「自治体は何もしなくていいことになる。人種差別撤廃法などの法整備が必要」と訴えた。一方、敗訴した入浴施設側は不満を述べた。
◆有道さんら
判決後、地裁で開かれた会見には原告の米国出身の大学講師、有道出人（あるどうでびと）さん（３７）ら３人と代理人の伊東秀子弁護士が出席。伊東弁護士は「会社の入浴拒否を『条約の趣旨に照らして人種差別にあたる』とし、人種差別撤廃条約を間接的に適用した点は評価できる」とした。だが、市の違法性を認めなかった点については不満を表し「人種差別を禁ずる法律を作らないと、今日のような判決がまた出てしまう」と話した。
有道さんも「判決の中にある『不合理な差別』とは何なのか不明確。法律が必要」と主張した。控訴は「市のみを相手に検討している」と述べた。
◆入浴施設会社ら
賠償を命じられた会社側は「納得していない。今後については、判決内容をもう一度確認してから考えたい」とコメント。小樽市の山田勝麿市長は「今回のような事件は残念だが、行政の立場でできることは限られており、それを明確にした判決は妥当。法律的な義務とは別にこれからも市として努力したい」とした。
小樽公衆浴場商業協同組合（２７軒加盟）の小平円（まどか）事務長は「普通の公衆浴場が外国人を締め出すことはないが、最近は日本の習慣も理解されてトラブルは聞かない」と話す。
小樽港に近い公衆浴場では５、６年前からロシア人船員らが目立ち、浴槽で飲酒したり大声を出すなどして市民が敬遠するケースもあった。このため、３年ほど前からロシア語、英語などで公衆道徳を呼びかけるポスターを掲示し、番台でチラシを配布した。今は大半がマナーを守っているという。
また、小樽観光協会の大井勝治常務理事は「入浴拒否は生活習慣の違いなどいろいろな背景があった。関係団体と市が連携して外国人に対応し、相互理解が進んでいる」と話した。【立松敏幸、西端栄一郎】
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
■解説
◇差別撤廃への意識高揚促す
入浴拒否を人種差別にあたるとして違法性を認めた今回の判決は、人種差別に対する市民意識の高揚をうながすものだ。
日本社会は人種差別に対する意識が鈍いと言われる。人種や皮膚の色、言語などが異なる人と日常的に接触する機会が少ないからだ。しかし、外国を訪れる日本人観光客の数は年々増え、国際結婚カップルは年間３万組も誕生。外国人労働者も増加傾向にある。このような状況下では、人種差別への理解を深めていくことが重要になる。
国連採択から３０年後にようやく日本が批准した人種差別撤廃条約は、締約国に立法などの措置を義務付けている。差別で被った損害に対する賠償や救済を裁判所に求める権利を確保することも定めている。人種差別への理解に向けた行政の取り組みを明確にするために「人種差別撤廃法」制定が必要だ。【立松敏幸】
■写真説明 判決内容について会見する原告の有道さん（左）ら＝札幌地裁で
朝日新聞・北海道版 2002/11/12
外国人入浴拒否訴訟で温泉業者に賠償命令
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
札幌地裁 小樽市の責任認めず
小樽市内の大型温泉施設の利用を拒否された外国出身の男性３人が「人種差別撤廃条約や法の下の平等を定めた憲法に反する」として、施設の運営会社と市に損害賠償などを求めた訴訟で、札幌地裁は１１日、施設側に計３００万円の支払いを命じる判決を言い渡した。坂井満裁判長は「憲法や条約の趣旨に照らして施設側の行為は人種差別にあたり、原告は人格権を侵害された」と述べた。市の責任については「私人間の人種差別を終わらせる法的義務は市にはない」と否定した。
９５年に日本も批准した同条約は、差別を禁止、終わらせるために適当な措置を遅滞なく取ることを締結国に義務づけている。裁判では、民間施設での「差別」を解消する義務が地方自治体にもあるかどうかも争点の一つになっていた。
米国出身で日本国籍を取得した空知支庁南幌町の大学講師有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（３７）と、札幌市に住む米国籍とドイツ国籍の男性２人が「人間としての尊厳を傷つけられ、人格的名誉を侵害された」として計６００万円の支払いを求めていた。
判決によると、「小樽天然温泉 湯の花 手宮殿」は９８年８月から「外国人の方の入場をお断りいたします。ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥ ＯＮＬＹ」との張り紙を掲示。３人は９９年から翌年にかけてそれぞれ施設を訪れた際、従業員から利用を拒否された。
判決は、「湯の花」側の「外国人の迷惑行為に苦情が相次ぎ、営業防衛というやむを得ない措置だった」との主張について、同条約などを間接適用したうえで「不合理な差別で社会的に許容される限度を超えている」と指摘した。
また、「条約で差別撤廃の義務を負うのは国だ」と反論した市については、「入浴マナーを書いたチラシを関係機関に配り、市内の公衆浴場経営者に差別行為をやめるよう指導した」などと責任を認めなかった。
「湯の花」は市の指導などに基づき、０１年１月以降、「マナーを守る」「日本語が理解できる」などの条件付きで外国人の入浴を認めている。
（１１／１１）
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
差別なくなるか疑問
原告側会見 市責任問い控訴も
日本で長い間暮らし、言葉や生活習慣を理解している。そして日本国籍を取得した。それでも入浴を断られた――原告の一人、有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（３７）のことだ。小樽市内の温泉施設で起きた外国出身者に対する入浴拒否問題で、札幌地裁は１１日、「人種や皮膚の色などによる差別」と認め、施設側に計３００万円の損害賠償を命じた。原告側は人種差別撤廃条約を間接適用した点を評価しつつも、小樽市の責任を認めなかったことなどに疑問を投げかけた。
(写真)判決後、記者会見する有道出人さん（左端）ら原告＝札幌市中央区で
判決後の記者会見で、有道さんは「非常に複雑な気持ちです」と神妙な表情をみせた。「今回の判決は、『外国人お断り』はいけないと認めてくれた。でも、ほかに差別があった時、同じように適用されるか、人権は守られるか分からない」
有道さんは判決にある「不合理な差別」の表現を取り上げ、「合理的差別とは何か。非常に不明確だ」と批判。「社会的許容の限度といっても、その限度はどこにあるのか。別の差別があれば、その都度、裁判しなければならなくなる。日本に人種差別撤廃の法律がないからだ」と法整備の必要性を指摘した。
ほかの２人の原告も、会見に臨んだ。千歳科学技術大助教授のオラフ・カートハウスさん（３９）＝札幌市西区＝は「日本で自由に住むことが認められ、感謝する。賠償金は東南アジアの孤児院に寄付したい。法律違反で苦しむのは子どもたちだからだ」。プログラマーのケネス・リー・サザーランドさん（３８）＝同市北区＝は「サポーターの皆さんに感謝している」と話した。
原告代理人の伊東秀子弁護士は「一定の成果はあったと思うが、判決が小樽市の責任を認めなかったことで、地方自治体は差別撤廃に向けて有効な措置を取ろうとは考えないだろう」と述べた。今後、市について控訴を検討するという。
条約精神推進 自治体に責務
村上正直・大阪大大学院助教授（国際法）の話 判決は、人種差別撤廃条約の規定を民法の一般的な解釈の補助として用いて「間接適用」し、入浴拒否を違法と判断した。類似例に９９年の静岡地裁浜松支部判決があるが、今回は論旨の明快さからみて、初の本格的判決といえる。
小樽市の責任を認めなかったことは一概に誤りとはいえないが、地方自治体には公権力の担い手として、条約の規定と精神を積極的に推進する責務がある。個々の業者の対応には限界がある。法律上の規定がないことも問題で、日本としても人種差別禁止法の制定が求められる。
問題の根源に国の立法不作為
結城洋一郎・小樽商大教授（憲法）の話 この問題は、基本的には利用者である市民の人権問題が問われている。外国人拒否のきっかけは「入浴の際に飲酒したり、騒いだりした」などだが、マナーを守らせれば済む問題だった。施設側の一連の対応は悪すぎ、誠意が見られなかった。「外国人一律拒否」は、世界の常識ではまったく通用しない論理だ。小樽市は差別解消に一定の努力を重ねてきたが、差別撤廃条例の制定には消極的だった。本来、一地方自治体の問題ではなく、国の立法不作為に根源があると言うべきだ。
（１１／１２）
産経新聞 2002/11/11
人種差別撤廃、立法化を 原告の有道さんら訴え
札幌地裁で１１日、外国人であるのを理由に入浴を拒否するのは不当として、入浴施設運営会社に計３００万円の支払いを命じる判決が言い渡されたのを受け、原告の大学講師、有道出人さん（３７）らが札幌市内で同日会見、「今回の問題は氷山の一角。一番必要なのは、国が人種差別撤廃を法律化することです」と訴えた。
代理人の伊東秀子弁護士は、判決を「人種差別撤廃条約を間接的に適用し、入浴拒否を差別行為と明確に認定した」とある程度評価したものの、小樽市への請求が棄却されたことについては「国連、ひいては国際社会に対して恥ずかしい内容だ」と不満を隠さなかった。
有道さんも判決文を手に「外見で外国人を差別してはいけないと判断しているが、どうやって人権を守っていくのか全く不明。『合理的な差別』などあるのか。『社会的な限度』って？」と身ぶり手ぶりを交えながら話した。
３人は「このままでは、自治体は何もしなくていいと認めることになる」と述べ、判決のうち小樽市に関する部分は不服として、控訴を前向きに検討する方針という。
東京新聞 2002/11/11
入浴施設側に賠償命じる
外国人入浴拒否に札幌地裁
米国出身で日本国籍を持つ大学講師有道出人さん（３７）＝北海道南幌町＝と外国人の計三人が、外国人を理由に入浴を拒否されたのは人種差別撤廃条約に反するとして、小樽市の入浴施設運営会社と同市に、計六百万円の損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の判決が十一日、札幌地裁で言い渡された。
坂井満裁判長は、入浴施設の運営会社に計三百万円の支払いを命じた。小樽市に対する請求は棄却した。
判決によると、有道さんらは一九九九年九月、小樽市内の入浴施設を訪問。「外国人の入場はご遠慮下さい」との張り紙を無視して入ろうとしたが、トラブルが起きて日本人が敬遠するとして、入浴を拒否された。有道さんは日本国籍取得後の二〇〇〇年十月、運転免許証を見せ、入場しようとしたが、再び拒否された。有道さんらは九九年九月以降、差別をやめさせるよう小樽市に要請していた。
有道さん側は「小樽市は国際都市を標ぼうしているのに有効な対処をせず、人種差別撤廃条約上の義務を果たしていない」と主張。小樽市側は「施設への改善指導や市民への啓もうなど、努力してきた。同条約は地方自治体に個々の差別を解決する義務を課していない」と反論していた。
読売新聞 2002/11/11
「外国人の入浴拒否は違法」札幌地裁判決
外国人であることを理由に入浴を拒否されたのは憲法や人種差別撤廃条約などに違反するとして、北海道南幌（なんぽろ）町の大学講師有道（あるどう）出人（でびと）さん（３７）（米国出身）ら男性３人が、小樽市の入浴施設経営会社と同市を相手取り、慰謝料計６００万円の支払いと謝罪広告掲載を求めた訴訟の判決が１１日、札幌地裁であった。坂井満裁判長は「外国人一律入浴拒否は不合理な差別で、社会的に許容される限度を超えた不法行為」と述べ、同社に計３００万円の支払いを命じた。同市への請求は棄却した。
訴えによると、有道さんらは１９９９年９月、家族と入浴施設「湯の花」を訪れた際、「外国人の入場はご遠慮下さい」との張り紙があり、施設側から「外国人が入るとトラブルが起き、日本人の客が敬遠する」と入場を拒否された。日本国籍を取得後の２０００年１０月にも、運転免許証を示したが入場を断られた。
有道さん側は「外国人差別というより人種差別。小樽市も差別撤廃措置を怠ったため、精神的苦痛を受け続けた」と主張。これに対し、同社側は「入浴拒否はロシア人船員らのマナーの悪さから苦情が相次いだため。違法性までは認められない」、市側も「外国人へのマナー説明チラシの配布など十分な対策をとった」と反論していた。
(11月11日22:13)
毎日新聞 2002/11/11
入浴訴訟：
外国人拒否は不合理な差別と慰謝料認める 札幌地裁
外国人の入浴を拒否したのは人種差別撤廃条約などに違反するとして、米国出身の男性らが小樽市内の入浴施設の経営会社と同市に慰謝料計６００万円などを求めた訴訟の判決が１１日、札幌地裁であった。坂井満裁判長は経営会社に計３００万円の支払いを命じた。市への請求は棄却した。
市が人種差別撤廃の実効的措置をとらず、差別を放置したとする原告の主張については「違法と言うべき不作為は認め難い」と述べた。会社については「入浴拒否は不合理な差別で社会的な許容を超えている」と述べた。
原告は、米国出身の大学講師、有道出人（あるどうでびと）さん（３７）＝北海道南幌町、００年９月に日本国籍取得▽ドイツ人の大学助教授、カルトハウス・オラフさん（３９）＝札幌市西区▽米国人のコンピュータープログラマー、サザーランド・ケネスリーさん（３８）＝同市北区。
判決などによると、有道さんらは９９年９月と００年１２月、「外国人の入場を禁止しています」などと小樽市内にある入浴施設入場を拒否された。有道さんは日本国籍取得後の００年１０月にも断られた。
入浴施設は０１年１月から入浴マナーを理解していることなどを条件に外国人の利用を認めた。 【立松敏幸】
［毎日新聞１１月１１日］ ( 2002-11-11-18:15
)
産経新聞 2002/11/11
外国人入浴拒否で浴場側に300万円支払命令
外国人であるのを理由に入浴を拒否されたのは人種差別撤廃条約に反するとして、米国出身で日本国籍を持つ大学講師有道出人さん（３７）と外国人の計３人が、小樽市内の入浴施設運営会社と同市に計６００万円の損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の判決が１１日、札幌地裁であった。
坂井満裁判長は「会社の行為は社会的に許容される限度を超えている」として入浴施設運営会社に、３人にそれぞれ１００万円ずつ、計３００万円の支払いを命じた。小樽市については「外国人の入浴拒否をやめさせるための対策を取っていた」として請求を棄却した。
判決によると、有道さんと原告の１人は家族とともに１９９９年９月、小樽市内の大型の日帰り入浴施設で、「外国人が入るとトラブルが起き、日本人が敬遠する」として入浴を拒否された。有道さんは日本国籍取得後の２０００年１０月、再び施設を訪ねたが、拒否された。小樽市は、地方自治体の事務の一環として市民への啓もう活動や、会社に対する改善指導を続けていた。
坂井裁判長は今回の入浴拒否を明確に「人種差別」と認定。「原告らは人格権を侵害され精神的損害を受けた」と会社の責任について原告の主張を認めた。
しかし、人種差別撤廃条約違反との主張については「自治体に個々の人種差別をやめさせるのを義務付けていない」と退けた。
■人種差別撤廃条約 国連総会で１９６５年採択され、６９年に発効した。締約国は、あらゆる形の人種差別を撤廃する政策をとり、すべての人に差別の結果として受けた損害について、裁判所に賠償などを求める権利を確保すると定めている。日本は国連の採択から３０年後の９５年１２月、１４６番目に批准し９６年１月に発効したが「憲法上の権利と抵触しない限度においてこの義務を履行する」との留保事項が付けられ、人種差別を違法とする法律は作られていない。
朝日新聞 2002/11/11
外国人入浴拒否で業者に３００万円賠償命令 札幌地裁
北海道小樽市内の大型温泉施設の利用を拒否された外国出身の男性３人が「人種差別撤廃条約や法の下の平等を定めた憲法に反する」として、施設の運営会社と市に損害賠償を求めた訴訟で、札幌地裁は１１日、施設側に計３００万円を命じる判決を言い渡した。坂井満裁判長は「施設側の行為は人種差別にあたり、原告は人格権を侵害された」と述べた。市の責任については「私人間の人種差別を終わらせることに法的義務はない」と否定した。
９５年に日本も批准した同条約は、差別を禁止、終わらせるために適当な措置を遅滞なくとることを締結国に義務づけている。裁判では、民間施設での「差別」を解消する義務が地方自治体にもあるかどうかも争点の一つになっていた。
米国出身で日本国籍を取得した北海道南幌町の大学講師有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（３７）と、札幌市に住む米国籍とドイツ国籍の２人が計６００万円の支払いを求めていた。
訴えによると、小樽天然温泉「湯の花」手宮殿は９８年８月から「外国人の入場はご遠慮下さい」との張り紙を掲示。３人は９９年から翌年にかけてそれぞれ施設を訪れた際、「日本人の客が敬遠する」などと利用を拒否された。市にも対応を求めたが、十分な措置は取られず、「人間としての尊厳を傷つけられ、人格的名誉を侵害された」と主張していた。
市側は「条約で差別撤廃の義務を負うのは国だ」と主張。施設側も「外国人の迷惑行為に苦情が相次ぎ、経営難になる危険性が極めて高いと判断し、営業防衛というやむを得ない措置だった」と反論していた。
判決は「人種差別撤廃条約は直接適用されない」としたうえで、「入浴拒否は不合理な差別で、社会的に許容される限度を超えている」と指摘。市については「差別行為を中止させるための施策を実行してきた」と責任を認めなかった。
施設側は０１年１月になって、市の指導などに基づいて「マナーを守る」「日本語が理解できる」などの条件付きで外国人の入浴を認めるようになった。
(13:58)
共同通信 2002/11/11
賠償命じる、外国人入浴拒否
米国出身で日本国籍を持つ大学講師有道出人さん(37)＝北海道南幌町＝と外国人の計３人が、外国人を理由に入浴を拒否されたのは人種差別撤廃条約に反するとして、小樽市の入浴施設運営会社と同市に、計600万円の損害賠償などを求めた訴訟の判決が11日、札幌地裁で言い渡された。坂井満裁判長は、入浴施設の運営会社に、計300万円の支払いを命じた。小樽市に対する請求は棄却した。
時事通信 2002/11/11−18:22
行政の責任認めず「不満」＝外国人入浴拒否訴訟で原告側
外国人の入浴拒否を違法とし、北海道小樽市の入浴施設経営会社に損害賠償を命じた１１日の札幌地裁判決について、原告側代理人の伊東秀子弁護士は同日午後、札幌市内で記者会見し「一応評価できるが、小樽市の責任が認められなかったのは大変不満だ」と述べた。
時事通信 2002/11/11−13:52
外国人入浴拒否は違法＝業者に賠償命令−札幌地裁
外国人であることを理由に入浴を拒否したのは人種差別撤廃条約違反だとして、米国出身で日本国籍を持つ大学講師有道出人さん（３７）＝北海道空知管内南幌町＝と札幌市在住の米国人、ドイツ人の３人が、小樽市内の入浴施設経営会社「アースキュア」と同市を相手取り、総額６００万円の損害賠償を求めた訴訟の判決が１１日、札幌地裁であった。
北海道新聞 2002/11/11
小樽入浴拒否訴訟 会社側に３００万円支払い命令
「不合理な差別」
小樽市内の入浴施設で入浴を拒否された道内在住の外国人らが、入浴施設を経営する会社（本社・小樽）と小樽市を相手取り、計六百万円の損害賠償と謝罪広告の掲載を求めた訴訟の判決で、札幌地裁は十一日、会社側に計三百万円の支払いを命じた。謝罪広告の掲載と小樽市に対する請求については棄却した。
判決理由で坂井満裁判長は「外国人の入浴を一律に拒否したことは不合理な差別。社会的に許容される限度を超えており不法行為に当たる」として会社側の賠償責任を認定。一方、市については「入浴拒否を中止させる諸施策を実行しており、違法とすべき行政の不作為は認められない」として責任を否定した。
原告は大学助教授のカルトハウス・オラフさん（39）＝札幌市、ドイツ国籍＝、コンピュータープログラマーのサザーランド・ケネスリーさん（38）＝同、米国籍＝、大学講師の有道出人（あるどう・でびと）さん（37）＝空知管内南幌町、米国出身で日本国籍取得＝の三人。
訴訟で原告側は「人種差別である入浴拒否と市の不十分な対応は、人種差別撤廃条約に反しており、人格的名誉を侵害された」と主張。
これに対して会社側は、外国人らの入浴を約一年半にわたって拒んだ事実を認めたうえで「入浴拒否は、外国人らのマナーが悪く他の入浴客に迷惑をかけるため。民間の事業者としてやむを得ない措置で違法とはいえない」と反論。小樽市も「条約は差別をやめさせるための措置を締約国には義務付けているが、地方公共団体は国際法上の義務を負わない。入浴拒否問題を真摯（しんし）に受け止め、必要な対策を取った」と争っていた。
◇
入浴拒否問題 有道さんらは1999年９月、入浴施設を訪れたが、「外国人の入場はご遠慮下さい」という張り紙があり、入浴を拒否された。有道さんは日本国籍取得後の2000年10月、再び入浴施設を訪ねたが拒否され、人種差別行為をやめさせるよう小樽市に要請。しかし「市は有効な措置を取らず人種差別行為を放置した」として昨年２月に提訴。入浴施設は昨年１月から、入浴マナーを守るなどの条件付きで外国人を受け入れている。
北海道新聞・社説 2002/11/12
入浴拒否訴訟＊差別はもう許されない（11月12日）
外国人の人権を守るうえで、大きな一歩となる司法判断が示された。
小樽市内の入浴施設が、外国人や外国出身者であることを理由に入浴を拒否したのは人種差別撤廃条約に違反するとして道内在住の米国出身者らが起こしていた訴訟で、札幌地裁は入浴施設を経営する会社に損害賠償を命ずる判決を下した。
入浴を拒否する理由が「ガイジン」では不合理だし、人種差別のそしりを免れない。他の入浴施設で「いれずみをしている人」や「酒を飲んでいる人」を断っているのとはわけが違い、到底、許されるものではない。
判決は至極もっともであり、妥当である。
国内では一九九九年十月、静岡地裁浜松支部がブラジル人であることを理由に入店を拒否した宝石店に対し、人種差別行為があったとして慰謝料などの支払いを命ずる判決を出していた。
この流れに沿って判決が下されたことの意義は大きい。「私人」間といえども、人権が優先されるべきだとの司法判断が決定付けられる形になったからだ。私たち国民も、判決の重みをしっかりと受け止めるべきであろう。
判決は小樽市に対する損害賠償請求については「違法とすべき行政の不作為は認められない」として棄却した。
確かに市は入浴拒否をやめさせるため、対策をとってきたし、それなりの効果もあった。それに地方公共団体が、とりうる施策は限られているのも事実だ。
原告側は不服だろうが、この判決はやむを得ないのではないか。
問題は、判決を教訓にして差別をいかになくしていくかだ。
訴訟で問われたのは、当該の会社や市だけではない。日本社会の閉鎖性そのものだろう。
会社側が当時、外国人の入浴を拒否したのは、日本人客が遠のき、経営が成り立たなくなることを恐れたためだった。小樽に限らず道内・国内には、外国人の入場を拒否している浴場やレストラン、スナックなどが数多い。
わが国が島国で、外国人との交流が少ないことも災いしているのだろう。
だが、国際化は今後、ますます進展する。今こそ外国人に開かれた社会に変える必要がある。
第一に望まれるのは、人種差別を禁止する国内法の制定だ。どのような行為が差別に当たるかを明示すれば、無用な混乱も招かずに済む。
行政をはじめ国民も、積極的に外国人と交流する場を設けることが大事だ。その中で「郷に入っては郷に従え」で、外国人に日本社会のルールへの理解も深まるだろう。
国境がなくなりつつある中、みんなの努力で国際社会から尊敬される国にしたい。
朝日新聞・社説 2002/11/18
「外国人の方の入場をお断りします。ＪＡＰＡＮＥＳＥ ＯＮＬＹ（日本人だけ）」の看板が、ことの発端だった。
外国人の入浴を断った北海道小樽市の温泉施設に対し、ドイツ人や日本国籍を取った元米国人らが「人種差別撤廃条約や法の下の平等を定めた憲法に反する」として損害賠償を求めた裁判で、札幌地裁は「人種差別にあたる」との判決を言い渡した。
当然の判断だ。肌の色などの違いを理由に人間を差別することは許されない。
入浴施設の中には「入れ墨を入れている人」や「泥酔者」の入浴を断るところもあるが、それとはわけが違う。
入れ墨や飲酒は本人の意思によるもので、その結果としてある程度の制限を受けることもありうるだろう。しかし、人種や性別など生まれながらのことで人を差別することはあってはならない。
「外国人お断り」をめぐるトラブルは各地で起きている。静岡県浜松市の宝石店が外国人の入店を拒否したケースは訴訟になり、裁判所が損害賠償を認めた。
スナックなどの飲食店で「外国人お断り」の看板を掲げている店は多い。外国人の入居を断るアパートも後を絶たない。せっかく留学生を招いても、アパートさがしが困難では最初から印象が悪くなる。
日本は９５年に「人種差別撤廃条約」に加盟した。それからすでに７年たったにもかかわらず、人種差別を禁止する国内法はいまだに制定されていない。
国連の人種差別撤廃委員会は昨年、条約に実効性を持たせるための特別法制定を日本に勧告した。政府は、早急に人種差別禁止法の制定に取り組むべきだ。
この法律に罰則規定をつけるべきかどうかは、議論が分かれている。しかし入浴や入店を断られるたびに、外国人が裁判所の判断を求めなければならないという異常な状態は、これ以上放置できない。
人種差別撤廃に向けた第一段階として罰則規定は伴わなくても、どういう行為が人種差別にあたるのかをきちんと法律で定めて、周知させることが必要だ。
入浴や飲食では、人種や国情の違いからマナーが異なることはままある。
だからといって受け入れを拒むのではなく、日本のマナーやルールをきちんと説明して理解してもらうことが必要だ。それでも言うことを聞かないならば、拒否ということもあるかもしれない。
今回の訴訟の原告も「ルールに従うのは当然のことだ。私たちはルール以前の段階で差別を受けた」と話している。外国人にマナーを教える際には、ＮＧＯ（非政府組織）の協力を得るのも一策だ。
いろいろな人たちと一緒に風呂に入り、一緒に食事をして、一緒に働き、一緒に学ぶ。そういう当たり前の社会をつくっていきたい。日本社会の閉鎖性はもう過去のことにしようではないか。
Japan Times 2002/11/18
EDITORIAL
Good neighbors to diversity
Japanese are increasingly waking up to find
that their new neighbors are foreigners who
have settled in this country. What should
be done to build an affluent multicultural
society in Japan? The Sapporo District Court
recently handed down a ruling that makes
us think about this question. Three foreigners
had claimed that the refusal of a public
bathhouse in Otaru to grant them admission
amounted to a violation of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination, which Japan has
ratified. They filed a suit seeking 6 million
yen in compensation from the operator of
the bathhouse and from the Otaru city government.
The court ruled that the bathhouse's refusal to grant them admission was an act of racial discrimination and ordered the operator to pay a total of 3 million yen, saying that the defendants had suffered a violation of their human rights as well as psychological injury. The court also ruled that the city government had taken measures to end the ban against foreigners and that it should not be held responsible for the actions of the bathhouse, since a local government is not obliged to perform duties under international law.
This trial is notable for three reasons. First, how should we strike a balance between business rights and human rights? Second, how should we distinguish between foreigners and Japanese? And, third, is Japan making sufficient efforts to eliminate racial discrimination?
Regarding the first point, bathhouse facilities in Otaru began putting up "no entry for foreigners" signs in the early 1990s, when the number of visits by Russian sailors suddenly increased following the end of the Cold War. Some of those Russians displayed extremely bad manners in the bathhouses, such as drinking and reveling noisily on the premises. Such behavior threatened to turn Japanese customers away; as a result, the bathhouses started to refuse entry to all foreigners.
According to one nongovernmental organization that is involved in the problem of discrimination against foreigners in Japan, as of 2000, the move by facilities to ban the entry of foreigners had spread from Hokkaido to Okinawa. The court decision in Sapporo sounds a warning to such business practices.
As for the second point, one of the defendants, a university lecturer named Debito Arudo, hails from the United States but actually has Japanese nationality. He is married to a Japanese woman and has two daughters. Arudo, though, was treated as a foreigner because of his appearance. This makes us wonder about the definition of a Japanese. Indeed, many Japanese seem to have a fixed idea of what a Japanese should look like. They have no trouble digesting the reality of a Japanese-Peruvian or Japanese-American, but reverse the words and they have a strong resistance to the notion of Peruvian-Japanese or American-Japanese.
However, we now live in an age in which more than 30,000 "international marriages" are reported in Japan each year. Eventually, terms like Chinese-Japanese and American-Japanese will probably become commonplace. It is time for the Japanese to recognize that the age of diversity has hit home.
The third point is related to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Following the spread of neo-Nazism in Europe, the convention was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1965. Japan eventually ratified the convention 30 years later in 1995 -- the 146th country, and the last of the advanced countries, to do so. Even then, Japan was slow to establish related domestic legislation. In March 2001, in a final opinion paper on Japan, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination strongly urged Japan to enact legislation on the elimination of racial discrimination that carries penalties.
A U.N. study report issued in March 2000 notes that Japan's low birthrate and the increasing average age of its population will force it in 50 years to accept about 310,000 immigrants a year to maintain its labor force. That's the equivalent of the population of a medium-size city. When a relatively uniform society takes in large numbers of people with different cultural backgrounds, there will be some anxiety and friction.
According to the recently issued white paper on the police, as the number of foreigners entering Japan has increased over the past decade, the number of crimes involving foreigners has risen 2.3 times and the number of arrests has jumped 1.6 times. Such problems will not be solved by harboring a dislike of new neighbors and shutting them out. We must build a society that gently and kindly embraces different peoples and minorities. It is important for each of us to be prepared. That should be the lesson of the Sapporo District Court case.
The Japan Times: Nov. 18, 2002
(C) All rights reserved
The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 18(IHT/Asahi: November
19,2002)
EDITORIAL: Opening our society
There is no room for discrimination in any
form.
Asign at an onsen in Otaru, Hokkaido, triggered
a court fight with the Japanese-language
notice ``Entry by foreigners not allowed,''
with two words in English: ``Japanese only.''
A recent Sapporo District Court ruling found
the onsen's refusal to admit ``foreign-looking
people'' constituted racial discrimination,
and ordered the operator to pay 1 million
yen in damages to each of the three plaintiffs-a
German, an American, and a naturalized Japanese
of American extraction. They had claimed
the onsen policy violated the Constitution's
guarantee of equality before the law, as
well as international conventions that ban
racial discrimination.
The ruling was a natural result of fundamental
tenets. We must not tolerate any form of
discrimination.
Some public bath houses refuse people with
full tattoos or those who are roaring drunk.
But that is another matter. People wear tattoos
or drink of their own volition. Restricting
them because of their tattoos or drunken
behavior could be justified in some situations.
But discrimination on account of race, sex
or other attributes of birth is not acceptable
in any circumstances.
Problems and feuds resulting from businesses
refusing foreigners have been reported nationwide.
A jeweler in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka Prefecture,
was also involved in a suit after denying
a foreigner, and was ordered to pay damages.
There are countless bars and restaurants
that post ``no foreigner'' signs, and apartments
refuse to accept foreign tenants. The central
government program to encourage foreign students
is being undermined by this persistent discrimination.
It makes finding an apartment both difficult
and distasteful for foreign students, and
naturally makes a very bad first impression
of the nation.
Japan signed the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination in 1995. In the seven years
since then, there is as yet no domestic law
against racial discrimination.
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination urged Japan last
year to adopt such a law to ensure enforcement
of the international treaty here. The government
should prepare such legislation immediately.
One question is whether such a law should
provide punishment for violation. But there
is no question that the present abnormality,
in which foreigners must go to court whenever
they are barred from a shop or a public bath,
must be addressed now.
An important first step toward greater public
awareness of the issue would be to define
what constitutes racial discrimination, even
if there are no penalties for violating the
law.
People of different cultural or ethnic backgrounds
may have different bathing and eating customs.
Such differences should not be made an excuse,
however, for barring foreigners. It is important
to try to help non-Japanese understand Japanese
customs and rules through clear explanation.
After such explanation, foreigners could
be rejected if they refuse to follow the
rules.
The plaintiffs in the Hokkaido onsen suit
acknowledged the need to follow local custom
and said they had been barred in apparent
racial discrimination before violating any
rule. Nongovernmental organizations might
provide help in introducing our customs to
help foreigners understand them.
Japan needs to try harder to be a more open
society in which people of varied cultural
backgrounds can live without encountering
discrimination in public baths or onsens,
restaurants, offices or schools. Our closed
society should become history as soon as
possible.
--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 18(IHT/Asahi: November
19,2002)