www.debito.org
JAPAN SUPREME COURT DECISION
ON THE OTARU ONSEN CASE
APRIL 7, 2005
REFUSES EVEN TO HEAR THE
CASE
AFTER ONLY TWO MONTHS OF DELIBERATION
(most refusals to hear a case take at least six months or more)
indicating how seriously Japan's highest court takes
issues of human rights
and racial discrimination in Japan.
FULL TEXT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION FOLLOWS
関連記事
RELATED ARTICLES
ENDS
Delivered-To:
debito@debito.org
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 11:37:16 +0900
To: debito@debito.org
From: Arudou Debito <debito@debito.org>
Subject: 小樽温泉入浴拒否訴訟、最高裁が上告棄却
（転送歓迎）
皆様こんにちは。有道 出人です。お久しぶりです。ただいま！先日ピース ボートから帰国したので、後程レポートを書きます。しかし、帰国した当日、
記者からご連絡があり、既に小樽温泉訴訟の最高裁結果が下されたようです。 道新の記事を転送します。その後コメント。
==========================
被告の小樽市、勝訴確定 入浴拒否訴訟 有道さんの上告棄却 2005/04/08 00:41
http://www.hokkaido-np.co.jp/Php/kiji.php3?&d=20050407&j=0022&k=200504070937
外国出身者であることを理由に温泉施設への入浴を拒否されたのは人種差別 撤廃条約などに違反するとして、日本国籍を持つ米国出身の大学助教授有道出
人（あるどうでびと）さん（４０）＝空知管内南幌町＝が小樽市に賠償を求め た訴訟の上告審で、最高裁第一小法廷（才口千晴裁判長）は七日、有道さんの
上告を棄却する決定をした。
「人種差別撤廃条約や憲法は市に差別撤廃条例の制定を義務付けていると はいえず、市は入浴拒否をやめるよう指導もしていた」などと判断して市の賠
償責任を否定した一、二審判決が確定する。
原告側はこの訴訟で、施設経営会社（小樽）と小樽市に計二百万円の損害 賠償などを求めた。一、二審判決は会社側にのみ一人百万円（当時原告は有道
さんを含め三人）の賠償を命じ、こちらは原告側の勝訴が確定している。上告 したのは有道さんのみで、「差別是正に向けた小樽市の取り組みは不十分で違
法」などと主張していた。
有道さんは一九九九年九月、この施設で日本人客が敬遠するとして入浴を 拒否された。日本国籍取得後の二○○○年十月にも施設を訪れたが、外見は外
国人であることに変わりはないとして再び入浴を拒まれたため提訴した。
==========================
コメント：最高裁は早かったですね。筋によると、棄却ならたいてい半年や １年間検討上で連絡が来ます。１月で敗訴した東京都看護士の在日の鄭さんの
場合、７年間もかかりました。私たちの場合は２ヶ月わずか（本年２月１日に 上告した）がかかったですね。これでどれくらい人種差別を重視しないのかは
ある程度把握できると思います。
次のステップは国連の人種差別撤廃委員会で挙げることです。（いままでそ うしなかった理由は、国連の指令で国内の司法制度を徹底的に通さないといけ
ないのです）。そして、ほぼ１０年間前に国連人種差別撤廃条約を発行して法 制化などを公約した日本国を不作為の根拠で相手取る訴訟を年内に起こしたい
と思います。(http://www.debito.org/kunibengodan.html)
のちほどこの件についてお知らせします。とりあえず、帰国して勤務先など でキャッチアップ中です。宜しくお願いいたします。
有道 出人
April 9, 2005. ENDS
Delivered-To: debito@debito.org
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:01:19 +0900
To: debito@debito.org
From: Arudou Debito <debito@debito.org>
Subject: Otaru lawsuit ends--Supreme Court rejects appeal
Hi all mailing lists and Reporters. Arudou Debito here. Just got back
from a month
abroad with the Peace Boat (http://www.peaceboat.org/english/voyg/48/spe/050330/index.html).
More on that later, but for now, a shocking bit of news received on the
very day
of my return. Comment follows article:
///////////////////////////////////////////////
City off hook over bathhouse barring of foreigners
Japan Times, April 8, 2005
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050408a4.htm
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal by a naturalized
Japanese seeking
damages from a city government in Hokkaido in connection with a
bathhouse's policy
of barring foreigners from the facility.
The top court upheld district and high court rulings that found the
Otaru Municipal
Government had no obligation to pay damages sought by David Aldwinckle,
a university
associate professor and local resident, and two foreign nationals.
The two lower courts said a treaty Japan signed against racial
discrimination does
not oblige local-level authorities to enact specific ordinances. The
Otaru government,
for its part, had instructed the bathhouse to stop rejecting foreigners.
The three, including Aldwinckle, filed suit on Feb. 1, 2001, seeking a
combined 6
million yen in damages from the city government and the bathhouse
operator. Aldwinckle
is now a naturalized Japanese who goes by the name of Debito Arudou.
In November 2002, the Sapporo District Court dismissed the suit for
compensation
against the city but ordered the bathhouse operator to pay 1 million
yen each to
the three plaintiffs.
Taking the case to the Sapporo High Court, the plaintiffs argued that
the city had
a duty to meet the requirements of the International Convention on the
Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Japan signed in December
1995, by introducing
an ordinance to ban racial discrimination.
The high court upheld the lower court ruling, calling the bathhouse's
refusal to
admit non-Japanese "unreasonable discrimination."
But it added, "The convention has only general, abstract provisions
recommending
appropriate measures to eliminate racial discrimination, and the Otaru
government
does not have any obligation to institute ordinances to ban such
discrimination."
The court also said the city did instruct the bathhouse to stop its
policy of barring
foreigners.
In September 1999, Arudou, then still a U.S. citizen, and German Olaf
Karthaus visited
the Yunohana Onsen bathhouse in the port city and were refused entry
because they
were foreigners. Ken Sutherland, another American, was denied admission
there in
December 2000, according to the high court.
The bathhouse had put up a multilingual sign that in English said
"Japanese
only." It gave as a reason that trouble with drunken Russian sailors at
similar
facilities in the area had caused Japanese customers to stay away.
Arudou filed the complaint with the district court after the bathhouse
again barred
him from entry in October 2000, after he had become a Japanese citizen.
He even presented
his driver's license as proof of citizenship, to no avail...
The Japan Times: April 8, 2005
///////////////////////////////////////////////
COMMENT:
That sure was quick. Sources tell me that it usually takes about six or
so months
before the Supreme Court sends down bad news that a case won't be
heard. They told
us in barely two (we filed papers on February 1). It took the Court a
full seven
years to even tell Zainichi local government health worker Ms Chong
Hyang Gyun (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20050201zg.htm
) of her recent court defeat. But at least they gave an opinion.
Not in this case. The Supreme Court refused to even hear an issue
fundamentally related
to the constitutional protections of people against racial
discrimination accorded
by local governments. Summarily, too. Tells us how seriously they take
issues of
human rights and constitutionality--even when a UN treaty Japan signed
back in 1995
(which has the power of law in Japan) requires the government take all
and immediate
steps to eliminate racial discrimination.
c00t1es
Next steps? Take the issue before the UN Committee on Racial
Discrimination (we couldn't
until now--had to exhaust all domestic legal recourses first; consider
it done),
and launch a new lawsuit this year against the national government (as
opposed to
local), for negligence under international treaty for refusing to
outlaw racial discrimination
in Japan. More on that later.
Background on this case at
http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html
The next lawsuit
http://www.debito.org/kunibengodanenglish.html
Thanks for reading!
Arudou Debito
Sapporo
April 9, 2005
ENDS