Is this supposed to justify anything? That treaty was signed over a decade ago, yet Japan has not enacted one single law to accompany it. None. They let discrimination happen at will and deal with it case by case. Their reason for no laws? They say they can't enforce them. B.S. on their human rights treaty.The moral and philosophical arguments about the views expressed in your post could go on forever. However, Japan has signed and ratified a UN TREATY against racism.
This is not the USA we are talking about, but if they can violate the Bill of Rights in the USA, why don't more people fight such an out and out act of breaching civil rights?well, the Patriot Act gives the US government the authority and right to do anything they want to us civilians and violates the Bill of Rights.
This is not Russia, either. Besides, we are not talking about noticing whether someone cannot speak the language. That example is so strange that one can take the hypothetical anywhere with it. We are talking about printing/photoing people who have lived here for decades (sometimes) and had PR status, done nothing overtly wrong (including being noticed that they cannot speak the language, which in itself is not even a crime).Ok, let me pose this to you: You are in Russia, you are an officer of the law. You happen to see a very dark skinned man walking down the street. Russia is predominantly white, and you see he cannot speak Russian. Would you not in the least bit go over and at least ask him, if not check his passport, if he was there legally?
It can be case by case, but how about the times when people report the cops just sit there and pick only on the foreigners? What about that "case"?Well, you just said it's a case by case thing. To me, that just pretty much nullified your arguement on that point.
Yes you did, by going from generality to specific. Stop it, and we can have a sensible debate.Here's the thing, I didn't move the goalposts.
Yeah, southerners do a lot of racist things, but they are still breaking US law if they discriminate against someone in a housing transaction, so that nullifies whatever racist scribblings are on the deed. I refer you to the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968:this may surprise you,but 90% of all deeds(at least in the south) have a clause saying non-whites cannot buy the house in question. They ignore it, and are trying to get rid of it, but if one wanted to, they could use race as a factor and it'd hold in court. Always read the fine print.
Good god, man. And what if every police officer in Russia took that attitude and a dark skinned man, who was there for completely legitimate reasons, was stopped three times a day for every day he was in the country? Talk about an unfriendly welcome.Ok, let me pose this to you: You are in Russia, you are an officer of the law. You happen to see a very dark skinned man walking down the street. Russia is predominantly white, and you see he cannot speak Russian. Would you not in the least bit go over and at least ask him, if not check his passport, if he was there legally? I don't think anything when a cop asks a Mexican for his greencard, because they have a history of coming illegally.
Glenski said they can't refuse real estate legally, and you said they can. Even if it holds up in court, that doesn't make it legal, so you are wrong.Here's the thing, I didn't move the goalposts. I gave an example of how they are going to phrase it if you call them on it and it goes to court.
Wrong. See above.That is my point, a privately owned business/landowner can refuse anyone they want.
Yes, they have stopped Japanese citizens before for bike registration. People have reported, however, that after they (foreigners) are stopped, then they ask the cops if Japanese are being stopped too, the cops say yes, but totally ignore any passing Japanese at that time on bikes. So, it's a case by case thing, and if you are stopped and are the only one who is stopped, it is suspiciously like discrimination, don't you agree?
Again, I'm not too clear on Japanese law, but I'm pretty sure there's something like that somewhere.
There's nothing like that in Japanese law. It's perfectly legal to discrimate against someone based on any of the things you mentioned.
This really is the crux of the matter.
There's a small coffee shop near my flat, and they were recently advertising for staff.
"Part time staff required.
Japanese woman, under 45 years old."
Which of course is illegal on 3 counts in most developed countries...
Huh?
The Constitution of Japan, 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. "
第14条 すべて国民は、法の下に平等であつて、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分又は門地により、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において、差別されない。
Yep, close--I guess.a Japanese citizen has rights and a non-citizen/gaijin is up the creek without a paddle; but just a guess.
You didn't happen so see this recent and overt act of racism, did you? (Gaijin Hanzai magazine) GAIJIN HANZAI mag | debito.org In essence, your burning cross.I'm not saying Japan hasn't also played foul at times, but really, no one was burning crosses or lynching people in Japan last I checked. I'm not saying everyone's grandfather here did that either, but let's be frank, it happened. We're not talking war crimes here, this is just the day to day.
You didn't happen so see this recent and overt act of racism, did you? (Gaijin Hanzai magazine) GAIJIN HANZAI mag | debito.org In essence, your burning cross.
Or this story on a foreigner held in prison since November 2006 without speedy trial and so far with practically zero evidence.
http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=537
I can't say for sure but I think the racist incident that Glenski was actually referring to is the the publication of Gaijin Crime File, which was stocked in magazine racks throughout the country about 9 months ago:Business takes advantage of the less industrialized and desperate peoples of the world every day. I do not think this is indicative of an intense hatred of the Chinese race, I think its business taking advantage of a loophole situation.
Huh? Read it in English. The authors of the documents were Americans, and the original draft was written in English.Read it in Japanese:
It says, "kokumin".....not "ningen"
Hmmm, I wonder why so many foreigners support this book? If you are against racism, please, don't buy the book!!I can't say for sure but I think the racist incident that Glenski was actually referring to is the the publication of Gaijin Crime File, which was stocked in magazine racks throughout the country about 9 months ago:
Racism in Japan - Wikipedia
この商品を買った人はこんな商品も買っています
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Lonely Planet Hiking in Japan (Lonely Planet Hiking in Japan) (Lonely Planet Hiking in Japan) Mason Florence; Craig McLachlan; Richard Ryall; Anthony Weersing; Chris Roethorn
(1) ¥ 2,475
Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power And Purpose Kenneth B. Pyle
¥ 3,342
Princess Masako: Prisoner of the Chrysanthemum Throne Ben Hills
(15) ¥ 2,946
THE JAPANESE TRADITION ~日本の形~ DVD ~ ラーメンズ
(11) ¥ 3,864
Huh? Read it in English. The authors of the documents were Americans, and the original draft was written in English.
I'm not a lawyer, but seriously, unless foreigners are granted extraterritorial rights and being exempt from the jurisdiction of the local constitution and laws, there is no reason that this particular article doesn't apply to foreigners.
But in Japanese, it looks like there is no clear differentiation being made when the article says "kokumin" (citizen) or "nanibito" (any person within jurisdiction, which may imply anyone, citizen or not). It's used interchangeably. Maybe it's kind of similar to the US Bill of Rights or the amendments in the way it is worded. It's open to interpretation. If the bad translation is to blame, the government can amend it.Read it in Japanese:
It says, "kokumin".....not "ningen"
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
bakakanadajin, you've completely lost me with the above.Business takes advantage of the less industrialized and desperate peoples of the world every day. I do not think this is indicative of an intense hatred of the Chinese race, I think its business taking advantage of a loophole situation.
Well, since this web site is about Japan, I'm not going to deal with the rest of the world. I live in Japan, and I post here because things in Japan affect me here. Thanks for agreeing me, but...I'm not going to run down the list and deny every point you've made there, but I'm not in disagreement with you either. There are definitely some horrible things happening these days in Japan
This IMO is a very lame way of making excuses for the poor treatment foreigners get in Japan. You should really be ashamed of trying to put this point in a serious debate. Let's stop comparing the USA with Japan, ok?Japan simply hasn't had the same influences [as the USA] or the same need to make race an issue in their country.
Who's talking about overhauling the constitution? They signed an international treaty, but they refuse to enforce laws to accompany that signing. Hypocritical, and consequently damaging.the need for Japan to overhaul its constitution and bring it closer to something like America's or Canada's wouldn't guarantee anyone anything.
Again, I'd like to stay off the topic of the west. And, I guess we have to agree to disagree with the "no fault". You really surprise me, though. You agree there are racial/discriminatory problems here, yet you speak out of the other side of your head by saying "no fault".Racism still exists in the West despite having some of the most advanced democracies in the world. As I see it there is no fault with Japan the country, the nation itself.
Again, I totally disagree.I maintain that incidences like the ones people talk about here and the ones in those stories are individuals taking advantage of situations and acting out, they're isolated, it's not systemic.
Huh?And yet by judicial precedence, and by the experiences of thousands of foreigners in Japan, it quite clearly does not apply to foreigners. Come to think of it, in practise it doesn't apply to Japanese citizens either.