What happened to being civil and avoiding insults in this discourse? What planet I belong to has no relation to this argument.
Backup your own drivel. I believe this forum was meant to discuss works by Dr. Clark. If you have read anything or know anything about Japan, then the first thing you should have learned is that the Japanese way of thinking is different than the western way. Westerners are logical and think rationally, Japanese are emotional. Am I the first person to tell you this?
Why do you pick out one thing I said and attack me for it? How about the main topic? Why is your right to take a bath anywhere you like more important than the owner's right to run his business as he sees fit? Nobody has explained that, except to say that "the bible says so." Well maybe the bible is wrong, and maybe this IS just a difference in values between Japan and the West.
The Japanese believe that all businesses have a right to choose their customers. And I would bet that is the reason Otaru refused to pass laws to make them do otherwise.
If there are so many Japanese who want to bathe next to a foreigner, then excluding foreigners should be unprofitable. But the owner should decide that for himself. I do not believe it, because I know that most people would rather mingle with their own kind, if they have a choice. If they want to bathe with foreigners, they can go down the street and bathe at the onsen that allows them.
If you can walk down the street and enjoy a bath at a place where you are welcome, why do you want to bathe in an onsen that does not want you, anyway? To me, that is illogical.
Neither has anyone offered a practical alternative to putting up a "keep out" sign. Well, I will tell you what I would do. As soon as the court made me take down my "keep out" sign, I would put up one that said "members only." Then, I would only pass out membership cards to the people I wanted as customers. And I would find some nice Russian family who spoke Japanese and respected Japan customs and I would make sure they had a membership. That way if anyone accused me of "racial discrimination" I could point to the nice Russians and say, "We do not discriminate." And you may think this is inhuman, but that is just your opinion. It would be more inhuman to stand by and watch my kids starve because some liberal forced me to run my business unprofitably.
The harder you force the Japanese to change, the harder they will resist. That is just human nature.
---------------------------------
Let's Celebrate Together!
Yahoo! JAPAN
I agree that the tone of discussion sometimes leaves much to be desired, but that is the fate of the internet sometimes. We lose the nuance of face to face communication, and try to substitute with words. Let's try to be civilized as much as possible.
As to your points;
1/ "Why is your right to take a bath anywhere you like more important than the owner's right to run his business as he sees fit?"
First, because it is the law. Business owners who serve the public agree to serve the public, not just people they like or whose skin colour they prefer. That is the nature of business. Plus, when Japan signs various international agreements that obligate Japan to maintain standards regarding human rights and then fails to live up to them, a problem arises.
2/ "The Japanese believe that all businesses have a right to choose their customers. "
Please show me some evidence to prove this. Also, onsen are often regulated under more stringent law than other businesses. They are seen as a "necessity of life", and as a result must be more open to the general public than, say, a bar or a night club. I may be wrong, but I think it is related to the Innkeepers Act here.
3/ "If there are so many Japanese who want to bathe next to a foreigner, then excluding foreigners should be unprofitable"
I think you are missing the point. IMHO, most Japanese dont care who they bathe with, as long as that person is polite, follows the rules, and does not create havoc. I guess I have a higher opinion of Japanese sensibilities than you. It isn't a case of WANTING to bathe next to a foreigner at all. Most Japanese have probably never thought about it all that much.
4/"If you can walk down the street and enjoy a bath at a place where you are welcome, why do you want to bathe in an onsen that does not want you, anyway? "
Call it the "thin edge of the wedge" theory. If one business gets away with it, others will follow. This has happened already. What would be next? How about a grocery store that doesnt want my custom? Or a doctor's office?
Plus, how do I tell my son about this? He is Japanese and Canadian- where should HE bathe? At the moment he has the misfortune to resemble me more than his mother. Will he be excluded too?
5/ "Neither has anyone offered a practical alternative to putting up a "keep out" sign."
Here are some alternatives;
a/ a sign saying "no drunks" b/ a sign that posts the rules of the onsen clearly in multiple languages. This was offered to the Otaru onsen, and refused. c/ if ANY customer, regardless of nationality, is disruptive, call the police.
If you are worried about your business profitabity, by all means consult your customers. But do so in a way that is reasonable, and not skewed to the result you want. One onsen did a so-called survey that was laughable. You are being a little over sensational by insinuating that children will starve if foreigners can enter onsen. Also you are assuming that the business will be unprofitable if they cannot ban foreigners.
Politically, I am probably as right wing as they come too. You would be shocked to hear my opinions about other issues- probably they are close to your own. However, this case really is very simple. Why can't a man enjoy a public facility with his wife and two children, just because he has the wrong skin colour? The elemental unfairness and stupidity of it staggers my imagination.
Thank you for starting a new thread on this topic. Others seem to get derailed all the time. I look forward to your response.
DS has already taken the time to show how just about everything you wrote is
either unsupportable or wrong. Allow me to add a comment about your
statement ³"The Japanese believe that all businesses have a right to choose
their customers. "
Iım sure that Aistar, the company that was prosecuted, fined and eventually
forced to close the hotel in Kumamoto where they refused to allow former
leprosy patients to stay, would be interested to know that they really did
have a right to choose their customers.
As DS has pointed out, Japan has signed international treaties on the
elimination of racial discrimination, and their own courts have, on at least
three occasions, confirmed that businesses may not have policies excluding
patrons for reasons of race.
More importantly, I find that in this forum I have trouble taking you
seriously as you're hiding behind an anonymous handle. Tell us who you are,
and why you're here. Take responsibility for what you're writing by signing
your name to your words. Then I'll be happy to try to engage in
constructive debate with you.
---
Scott T. Hards
President
HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)
Even on multiple threads this argument is becoming tired and repetitious. Mr. Clark and various others have every right to their opinion, as does every person living in a free society. However, the point of contention that I, personally, have with the whole argument is based upon the letter or the law. Having a background and some experienc in law and legal proceedings, I can tell you a simple fact. Regardless of what Mr. Clark thinks, feels, or suggests; laws are in place to protect members of, and yes visitors also, of a given society. Were it not for such laws, then people like Mr. Clark could happily pronounce to the world how correct they are. Luckily for us all, such pundits are not in control of the world or Japanese law in this case.
Regardless of your personal beliefs; any person that has attended law school will be able to affirm that laws serve a purpose and are an indication of the values that societies hold dear. Obviously, enough Japanese people think that racism, bias, or cultural jingoism are a bad thing, otherwise these laws would not exist.
Opinion aside. Here are a few facts that have not, nor should they be able to be, refuted.
1. The Onsen in question is/was in violation of Japanese law and international conventions that have been signed by the Japanese government. If in fact their cultural inclination to exclude individuals, for whatever reason, were so important to the Japanese, they should never have signed such conventions and agreed to honor them. This is not superiority nor a looking down on the Japanese by the West; I would hardly think expecting someone to live up to their promises is bullying or being a "do gooder". Other nations were not party to such conventions and do not have protective laws on their books. Such bias, though reprehensible and repugnant, would not be illegal or against the applied morals of these countries. All of this means that, legally, Japanese merchants are not as "free" to choose their customers as they might wish. I would suggest that they research their own legal system or, at the very least, consult an attorney before doing something potentially harmful to their business.
2. In an ordered society, laws that are broken are punished. Whether the Russian sailors that caused damage or the biased shopkeeper, there can be no excuse for breaking a law without expecting and accepting the consequences. Yes, the rowdies that "roughed up" the onsen are to be blamed for the damages they caused but then the Onsen owner should be held to task for whatever wrongs he commits as well. Simply saying that he is Japanese and it excuses him is not adequate; he broke a law, he must pay. To hold a law breaker up as some shining example of all that is holy in Japanese culture is to do the millions of law abiding Japanese a grave disservice.
3. In any nation in the world; there is a caveat. Individuals open businesses with the sure knowledge that chances are the business will fail. Thousands of businesses fail every year in Japan; I'm sure that these businesses are able to find reasons other than "the gaijin did it". Going round and round in your circular argument about the rights of a business owner does not apply here (see points 1 and 2); these perceived rights do not and should not supercede law and the common good.
You may pick away at whatever part of my argument you feel like; however, the facts remain regardless of how poorly I may have stated them (I am hardly an orator). The matter is one of public good and law Vs. biased cultural supremist attitudes.
What did I do, reopen a dead thread? Sorry, but I am new at this.
You guys are tired of discussing the human rights side of this issue and want to talk about the law? Okay. If you have a law that says onsens must be open to all comers, then please provide a link, because I would like to read that law myself.
I do not believe it (but I could be wrong) because half of this law suit was the fact that Otaru would not make the onsen owner take down his sign. If there were a law, then you could just go to the police and file a complaint and not even go to court.
Do not tell me about any treaties. The UN Declaration against racial discrimination sidesteps the question of nationality by outlawing only discrimination based on national origin. Even the UN recognizes the inherent rights of citizens living within their countries borders. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this, too.)
As far as laws in Japan go, articles 11, 12, 13 and 14, dealing with human rights, of Japan's Constitution pertain only to Japanese citizens. This again is not due to any maliciousness toward foreigners, but to a simple cultural difference between Japan and the west. The Japanese would be confounded by the idea of making laws to affect people who are not Japanese.
Of course, the onsen lost their case in court and that proves the owner was wrong. But my opinion is two things. First, the owner went too far by excluding Japanese citizens who looked like foreigners. Although his sign said "Japanese only" his intentions where different. I think the case might have been different if he only excluded foreigners, but I could be wrong. Second, I think the court decision was more political than legal. Japan must show the UN that it is trying to help foreigners. So in this case they pick on the little onsen owner. The case has little social impact, yet the UN is happy to see Japan courts trying to protect human rights.
I hope there is no law to force companies to serve everyone. I believe the less the state restricts our freedom, the better off we are. Having the state dictate to the owner how to run his business is starting to sound too much like Communism to me.
You are correct in that there is no Japanese law on the books regarding racial discrimination or biased behavior. I should have done a bit more research before I added my two cents. However, judicial precedent is considered as standing law wherein no law exists regarding certain cases. This practice is followed in every country of the world and is as old as laws. In essence this allows time for the legislative branch to "catch up" with the mores of society. Again, wherein a law is absent; precedent will stand as law. Lower courts are unable to overturn a higher courts decision; thus allowing for a firm, I'll say "pseudo-law" (for lack of a better term at the moment) until a law, in writing, is put forth.
Since the idea of discrimination is new to Japan (even if it has always existed); it is understandable that there are currently no laws concerning this. Political Action Committees, such as ISSHO (http://www.issho.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si...) are working with the national government in an attempt to rectify this situation. Societies are no as stagnant as some might wish and Japan is not an exception. The Japan of today is not the same Japan that Mr. Clark, and those traditionalists like him, would have it be. If a culture stagnates, it dies or becomes completely self-absorbed like the "hermit kingdom" of North Korea. As Mr. Clark points out, repeatedly, there are both good and bad aspects to culture and I would argue there are good and bad aspects to change as well. It is the job of the younger generation to always forge ahead while the older generation prefers tradition and constancy; this is a universal truth of all cultures.
As to your last paragraph, we have such laws in America and, I'm sure, most people will agree that America is hardly a communist nation.
Another of Mr. Clark's points that I would like to discuss is the "bias is everywhere" statement. I agree that bias and discrmination exist in many facets of society. However, it is the place of government to protect its citizens from harm, whether real or perceived. Whenever such cases come to light, they are fought; one of the great things that Mr. Clark's generation provided during its period of "forging ahead" is the sense of egalitarianism and its rightful place in the human condition.
One more, very small, point that occured to me while reading into this matter. I have lived in Asia for over 5 years now; while this is not a long period of time compared with those in Mr. Clark's position, I have learned some things. The peoples of NE Asia love their public baths nearly as much as the old Romans; people will travel hundreds of kilometers at the mere mention of some spring that is purported to have a certain property or other; simply look at the famous "hells" in Kyushu as an example. When I lived in Korea; the Korean people even have a saying "Kagoshipda Kagoshima" which means "I want to go to Kagoshima" a nice play on words with similar sounds but still this serves as an example that even visiting a different country, simply to visit an Onsen is not too far-fetched in these societies. Why then would it be hard for Mr. Clark to understand why a Japanese man and his family would travel a shorter distance? I understand full well that this individual may or may not have had an ulterior motive; however, the fact stands that such a "trek" is not out of the question nor unacceptable in Japanese culture.
> 2. In an ordered society, laws that are broken are punished. Whether > the Russian sailors that caused damage or the biased shopkeeper, there > can be no excuse for breaking a law without expecting and accepting the > consequences. Yes, the rowdies that "roughed up" the onsen are to be > blamed for the damages they caused but then the Onsen owner should be > held to task for whatever wrongs he commits as well.
Dear Mr. Wall,
thank you very much for your post. I basically agree with what you say. Just one correction: The bathhouse that was sued in Otaru did not suffer any damage from drunk or in any other way rowdy foreigners. I know that Mr. Clark wrote in his Feb. 17 article in the Japan Times that the bathouse was a victim of foreigner's violence. It seems to me that your information stems from that source. Can you confirm this? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I quote the part in question of Mr. Clark's article:
START QUOTE Now we have the problems in Otaru, a Hokkaido port regularly visited by small rust-bucket Russian ships. A bathhouse that had suffered severe property destruction at the hands of drunken Russian seamen had felt it had no alternative but to put up a "No Foreigner" sign. END QUOTE
This is not true. The bathhouse that was sued did not suffer any damage by foreigners.
The court documents have no mention at all about severe property destruction (and, for the record, no mention of any damage of any kind).
How could they possibily suffer damage, since they had the JAPANESE ONLY sign up from nearly day one of their business?
Dear Karthaus-san: By now I suppose your letter has been run (I am out of
town).
. I propose a truce on this matter. If I have made some mistakes along
the line, I apologise. I wish some of your friends would do the same.
They seem mildly fanatical.
In your case, I have no doubt as to your sincerity. And as I have
suggested elsewhere I too have a great dislike and concern over No
Foreigner signs.
Once they become established, they could spread easily in this "against
the red light it is OK if we all cross the road together" society.
Our only difference is the way to handle these things.
Thinking about it all, I realise that much of the problem is the absence
of a seamans club in Otaru. In all large ports it is understood that
there will be problems if seamen straight off ships head off to town for R
and R. So it is taken for granted that there should be such a club, often
with a bar and a bath attached.
I assume there was not one in Otaru, which led to the problems.
I am sorry to hear about your son.
Gregory Clark
Gregory Clark
Head, Research Japan Office
S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower
1-14-5 Akasaka
Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-0052
Tel: 03-3586-4147
Fax: 03-3586-4148
www.gregoryclark.net www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki
