coverup Wrote:I'm still asking my question - which ought to come first? A groundswell of well-meaning, well-adjusted foreigners making Obama-esque Japanese speeches, or a top-down law that *might* be grudgingly and painfully enforced by a bloated, farting beaurocracy over the next 50 years until Japan can raise and educate a generation accustomed to living under that law? Are we going to ask for affirmative action in Japan?

Neither. What is already happening is Japanese courts finding in favour of plaintiffs (both citizen and non-citizen) in some racial discrimination cases involving private businesses even in the absence of any new anti-discrimination legislation. They are invoking UN's Elimination of Racial Discrimination, existing Japanese tort law and an awkward, seemingly results-based interpretation of other laws such as their Civil Code.

huh? Who's "we" and who would we be fighting for affirmation action on behalf of? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Lobbying by Japanese speaking foreigners isn't going to do much in the way of legal reform. Speaking politely isn't going to remove the signs. It's not really clear to me what you are opposed to (activists? whiners who don't take polite action? foreigners who don't speak Japanese?) or what you are recommending?

btw, re Nuke's post: merely differentiating and different-but-fair treatment aren't discrimination. Other examples are of discrimination that isn't acceptable - just hard to prove.

Thora Wrote:btw, re Nuke's post: merely differentiating and different-but-fair treatment aren't discrimination. Other examples are of discrimination that isn't acceptable - just hard to prove.

Separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks? It may seem ridiculous now, but there was that separate-but-equal segregation system before. There is really no reason why public washrooms cannot be coed in the future for example. Or for a more realistic example, no reason why an ugly man shouldn't get a job as a receptionist (try finding one). All of Nuke's examples are discrimination, even assuming someone is a man/woman because of their appearance (why can't wen wear makeup and dresses? why should women laser off their moustaches if they have one?).

Talking politely in Japanese does get signs removed. A search on japanprobe for Debito should bring up a few cases where Debito's rants failed and his critics succeeded.

Equal treatment for foreigners in Japan requires time more than anything else (legislation or Gaijin-Obama). The number of foreigners making Japan their home instead of a post-graduation one year party is increasing, and so Japan and its people will change as a result.

This is taking us farther OT, but I'll respond. I think we're tossing around terms without any consensus on what they mean. The thread is about discrimination based on race/ethnicity. So it's legal discrimination which involves an action that adversely affects someone and which is based on prejudice related to someone's race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It doesn't mean discrimination in the general sense of making a distinction. Mistaking a man for a woman isn't discrimination.

Having personal preferences isn't legal discrimination (unless those preferences affect protected groups in certain situations). Ugly is not a protected group. Discrimination also doesn't apply to a person who feels pressure to groom or dress in accordance with conventional gender roles. Who is the discriminatory actor?

Different but equal treatment is not the same as race segregation laws. Some laws treat groups differently in order to obtain an equal result. Analogy: we think its fair to feed a 200 lb brother more than his 90 lb sister. Similarly, some laws which treat groups equally but have a disproportionate negative effect on a particular group would be unconstitutional because the effect is discriminatory (even though the intent wasn't). In this case, both brother and sister are fed the same small amount and the 200 lb son becomes malnourished.

An eg of acceptable discrimination is affirmative action. Discrimination based on sex and age isn't acceptable. If sex and age are relevant, then it's not grounds for a claim of discrimination. So I'm not sure what Nukemarine meant by such discrimination being acceptable to the masses.

The washroom example isn't about equality. 2 washrooms doesn't privilege one sex and neither sex is being unfairly excluded. It's funny, so long as separate rooms exist, some are proposing that fairness requires a proportionately greater number of toilets for women at public facilities b/c women need more time therefore have longer waits (precise avg times given! ) Here, different equal treatment = more toilets, not separation.

The Sign Saga: I guess I wasn't clear. I'm talking about legislation or societal change that would eliminate such signs in Japan, not the removal of one sign. A court case that awarded a foreigner compensation for being excluded from a shop decided not to order such signs banned. (Though to allow it would also presumably be in contravention of Japan's UN commitments.) But there are currently conflicts between the various levels of governments on how to deal with issues related to foreigners. There is a tendency in Japan to bandage symptoms without tackling the underlying cause ... a tendency to create narrow exceptions to rules on a case by case basis, rather than re-evaluate the rules. Change is slow. Media coverage and legal action haven't gotten very far yet. Framing it as forum whining vs. asking politely in Japanese just strikes me as an overly narrow perspective.

Thanks to Thora for this long and thoughtful post. As you explained, separate washrooms for men and women are not a case of discrimination because women have nothing to complain about in this case. In fact, they would probably complain if there were no separate washrooms.

And Jarvik, I understand from your post the type of problems caused by foreign tenants and why Japanese landlords would not want them. But that's not unique to Japan and foreign tenants can cause some problems over in Canada too due to being uninformed about certain customs. Still, we don't allow landlords to reject foreigners. Also, some Japanese landlords do accept foreigners and it seems that they've managed to find a way to deal with them properly. So, I don't think that it would be the end of the world if landlords were forced to accept foreigners into their apartments. They would just have to adjust themselves a bit.

@Thora - I see your point. Thanks for the thoughtful post, and taking a stab at answering that question - I'll consider how I can reframe my perspective on this. I suppose that in part I am thinking out of frustration WRT people and circumstances around me. However, I wasn't trying to frame it as forum whining vs. polite jp - more as willfully neglecting opportunities vs. taking firm control of existing circumstances for self-betterment. Forum whining and Japanese ability are only two instances of these larger themes that I see as essential to the western foreigner's experience in Japan.

I'm also interested in what is happening already, so I will look further into the court cases you referred to, if you would be so polite as to provide some links regarding these cases.

Coverup - I understand your frustration and your desire to see folks channel their energy more positively. Pls take my 'answer' as a bit tongue in cheek. There obviously isn't just one solution, I just wanted to suggest other possibilities, some already underway. Also, taking people to court is not a common thing in Japan. But the idea of Japan meeting the int'l community's human rights expectations will be good for education/awareness, I think.

We all have our vantage points. I tend to focus on the gov't and law angle, but I do recognize the importance of actions on a more individual level. Sounds like you will make a positive difference. Sure, I'll see if I can locate the article/paper on those cases again. If not, iirc:

1) a caucasion male foreign national and ? male foreigner refused entry to an onsen (the Debito case?) (applied CERD)
2) a brazilian female reporter refused entry to a store. (applied CERD)
3) a black male foreigner refused entry to a store. I think he was insulted and sent out. (here they relied on tort law- basically that the treatment was harmful)

Background: Under the UN CERD, Japan agreed to prohibit racism, provide legal remedy for victims of discrimination and go through its laws to make sure they're consistent with that. afaik, Japan doesn't yet have an anti racial discrimination law. CERD doesn't require the same treatment of non-citizens. Also some talk about a law to protect refugees and non-citizens (like some other countries have), but I don't know any details.

Trivia:The Japanese constitution also has an article declaring all people equal. (13?) It applies to nationals. Apparently when it was drafted, however, there was a separate article covering non-nationals. Someone convinced the occupational forces that the wording of Art. 13 would cover both, so they took out the other one. It's seems odd to me that the courts interpreted it differently later.

btw, this is from my head - don't quote it I really wasn't planning another wall of text oops