Joint Civil Society ReportonRacial Discrimination in Japanto the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for its
Consideration of the Tenth and Eleventh Combined Periodic Report of Japan(CERD/C/JPN/10-11), August 2018

submitted by ERD Net(Japan NGO Network for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination)

ERD Net is a network of NGOs working for the elimination of racial discrimination in Japan.
Since the launch of networking in 2007, it has continually intervened the review of humanrights situations of Japan by the CERD and other UN human rights mechanisms.

Contact: International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism （IMADR）
1-7-1, Irifune, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

imadr@imadr.org

Introduction
Since the previous examination of the periodic reports of the Government of Japan by the UN Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2014, few positive steps have been taken to combat
racial discrimination in the country. In 2016, the legislature adopted two new acts including the ‘Act on the
Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour against Persons
Originating from Outside Japan (Hate Speech Elimination Act)’ and the `Act on the Promotion of the
Elimination of Buraku Discrimination`. While those measures are welcoming, the gap between thenational human rights framework and international human rights law, in particular the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), remains wide.
Despite the repeated requests from Japanese civil society including ERD Net and the UN human rights
mechanisms, the Government has been unwilling to enact a comprehensive anti-discrimination law which
includes discrimination based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin. In the latest outcome of
the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in March 2018, the Government failed to support therecommendations on adopting a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.1 Moreover, the Government has
not established an independent national human rights institution (NHRI) in line with the Paris Principles,nor it has accepted the individual communications procedure under any human rights treaties it has
ratified. As a result, victims of racial discrimination are left with limited, often not at all, resources toexercise their access to justice.
While the enactment of the Hate Speech Elimination Act was a certain step forward towards theelimination of racial discrimination, racist hate speech and hate crimes remain widespread in Japan, bothoffline and online. Yet, the Government has not withdrawn its reservation under Article 4 of the ICERD,
and its measures to address the issues of manifestations of racism and racial discrimination continue tobe insufficient.
ERD Net has been engaging constructively with the Government of Japan to implement the Committee’s
recommendations, but the Government’s 10th-11th combined periodic report does not provide a clear
picture with regard to concrete steps taken to implement the recommendations contained in the 2014concluding observations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9). For example, the Government’s report fails to provide
sufficient up-to-date statistical data disaggregated by nationality and ethnic origin, in spite of therecommendation from the Committee.
In the aim of full implementation of ICERD, this joint report provides the Committee information on thesituation and concerns of indigenous peoples, minorities, migrants and refugees in Japan including
indigenous Ainu, people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, Burakumin, resident Koreans, and technical interns.
July, 2018
Japan NGO Network for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ERD Net)

1

A/HRC/37/15/Add.12

contents
Page No.

Introduction

2

Contents

3■Table: Implementation of Recommendations of the Previous Review

4■NGO Report
Absence of anti-discrimination legislation (8)6Establishment of a national human rights institution (9)8Article 4 and Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (10) (11)Racist Statements by Politicians and Public Officials (11)The right to education for Korean school children (19)The right to leave and return to one’s country of permanent residents ( - )Limits on appointment and on promotion of foreign residents in public service (13)Discriminatory treatment in appointment of foreign teachers (13)

10
21
23
25
26
28

Access by foreign nationals to the national pension scheme (14)Access to Public Places and Facilities (15)3032Discrimination against Koreans and other immigrants when seeking tenancy (15)Migrant Workers and the Technical Intern Training Program (12)Violence against foreign and minority women (17)

33
35
39

Long term detention of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (23)Rights of foreigners to receive public assistance and to appeal ( - )Trafficking in persons (16)Refugee Applicants, further from protection of their human rights (23)Ethno-religious profiling of members of Muslim communities (25)
Buraku discrimination (22)Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination
Surveys to understand the actual situation of Buraku women (22)
Recognition of the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as indigenous peoples (21)Violation of Ryukyuan/Okinawan People’s Right to Self-determination (21)
Human rights/rights of children in Ryukyu/ Okinawa (21)

41
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62

Rights of the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as indigenous people (21)Rights of the Ainu as indigenous peoples (20)Minority languages and text books (24)The right to education for children of foreign nationalities ( - )Korean women residents and multiple forms of discrimination ( - )Returnees from China ( - )

65
68
69
72
75
79

*** (

) Number in the bracket indicates the paragraph number in the Concluding Observations of the previous cycle■List of participant groups in the NGO Report813Implementation of CERD Recommendations of 2014 Review
IssuesParas

CERD/C/JPN/CO7-9

Recommendations

as of July 2018

prepared by ERD Net

Implememntation as ofJuly 2018assessment

done

insuffi
cient

inapp
ropriate●●

partial

none

●

NGO
ReportPage No.
〇

4

Information of implementation

Include information of implementation of recommendations of the previous cycle

6Ethnic compositioncollect disaggregated data by nationality and ethnic origin

●

〇

7

Definition

adoption of a definition of racial discrimination as per art 1, para 1●

52, 58-67

8Law prohibiting racial discrimination

adoption of a comprehensive law prohibiting racial discrimination

●

6

9

National human rights institution

adoption of a law to establish an independent NHRI●

8

Reservation to Art 4 (a) (b)11(a) Hate Speech and hate crimes

review its position in regard to Art 4 (a) (b), revise law accordingly

●

10~20

(b)

Combat hate speech in the media including the Internet●(c)

Investigate hate speech/crimes and take criminal procedures●(d)Pursue sanctions against public officials disseminating hate speech●(e)Address the root causes of hate speech and strengthen measures

10

12

Migrant workers

firmly address manifestation of hate and racism

14
15

Access by non-citizens to public-service Allow competent non-citizens to act as mediators in family court
jobs
Promote participation of non-citizens in public life
Access by non-citizens to the national
pension scheme

●

●

●
●

26

●

28

●

Allow non-citizens to be eligible to join the national pension scheme●

Allow non-citizens to apply for the Basic Disability Pension

●
●

30

32, 33●●(b)

Intensify efforts to combat trafficking in persons including migrant women●(c)

Provide assistance and protection to victims●(d)Investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible●(e)Provide specialized training to law-enforcement officials●(f)Inform the situation of trafficking of migrant women to the Committee

●

4

35
●

Adopt legislation against trafficking in persons

16（a） Trafficking in persons

21●

Submission of comprehensive and disagreed data on their participation

Access by non-citizens to public places Take measures to protect non-citizens from discrimination in access toand facilities
Sanction such acts and enhance public-awareness raising

●

10-20

●

Reinforce legislation to combat racist discrimination against migrants
Reform the technical intern training program to protect rights of interns

13

●

46

Violence against foreign and minority
women

Take measures to address the issue of DV against migrant women●

Ensure victims of domestic violence with permanent visas not to be expelled●

Conclude investigations on violation of human rights of comfort women●(b)

Pursue comprehensive, impartial and lasting resolution of the issue●(c)Condemn any attempts at defamation or denial of the events●

Ensure no discrimination in providing educational opportunities●

Allow Korean schools to benefit the High School Tuition Support Fund
Accede to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education●

17

18（a） Comfort women

19

Korean schools

Increase the number of Ainu representatives in the policy Council(b)(c)Take measures to reduce the gaps in the living conditions(d)Protect the rights of the Ainu people to land and resources(e)

Ratify the ILO 169 Convention●

Recognize Ryukyu as indigenous peoples and protect their rights●

Enhance the consultation with Ryukyu representatives on their rights●

Protect Ryukyuan languages and facilitate education in their languages●

Change the position on the interpretation of descent●

Provide information on living conditions of Buraku people at the time oftermination of special measures●

22

Situation of the Ryukyu/Okinawa

Situation of the Burakumin

Protect Buraku people from the illegal access to their family data

23●

20(a) Situation of the Ainu people

21

39

68
●
●

●

58-67

52

●

23(a) Refugees and asylum seekers

Promote non-discrimination and understanding among the local authorities●(b)

Guarantee detention as a measure of the last resort●(c)Develop a stateless determination procedure, and accede to the conventions●

Facilitate education in minority languages for minority children●

69

Revise textbooks so as to reflect the history and culture of minorities

●

63

●

50

24

Minority languages and textbooks

25

Profiling of Muslim communities

Ensure law-enforcement officials not rely on ethno-religious profiling

26

Tolerance and mutual-understanding

Redouble efforts to promote human rights education

●

48

●

●

11

Train media and journalists on human rights

●

〇
〇

27

Ratification of other instruments

Ratify the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and others●

31

Declaration under Article 14

Introduce the individual complaints system●〇: referred to in different pages5■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Absence of anti-discrimination legislation
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9

paragraphs 7 and 8■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 101 and 104■ Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ Problems
In Japan, serious human rights violations motivated by racial discrimination are being committed.
While the attack against the Kyoto Korean school in 2009 is a leading example for such humanrights violations, the hate crime against the Headquarters of General Association of Korean
Residents in February 2018 was another recent shocking example. Despite the serious scale ofracist hate speech and hate crimes against minorities and indigenous peoples, there is no law inJapan to prohibit racial discrimination.
The Government of Japan has not enacted a law which prohibits direct and indirect discriminationin accordance with article 1 of the ICERD, in spite of the recommendations from the previous
cycles: paragraph 9 (2001); paragraph 9 (2010) and the paragraph 8 (2014). Although the “Act on
the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminated Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour Against
Persons Originating from Outside Japan” was enacted in 2016, the Act is only philosophical as it
does not contain any provision to prohibit hate speech.
The Government reports that “the Government of Japan regulates racial discrimination as follows,
and therefore does not recognize that it must adopt comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial
discrimination as the concluding observation urges” in the paragraph 101 of the 2017 State party’s
report, and it refers to article 4 of the Constitution in the paragraphs 102 and 104. However,according to the Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey published by the Ministry ofJustice in March 2017, approx. 40% of respondents experienced discrimination in housing, approx.
25% experienced discrimination in employment, and approx. 30% received insult in the last 5
years. It revealed the situation of serious discrimination. It indicated that the Constitution alone
cannot combat such serious discrimination, and the existing laws and regulations are not sufficientto address the situation. The Government’s position, which “does not recognize that it must adopt
comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial discrimination”, is not based on the actual situation ofserious discrimination revealed by the survey. There is no rational explanation on why theGovernment holds the view that anti-discrimination law is not necessary.
Furthermore, the 2014 recommendation (paragraph 7) urged the Government to adopt acomprehensive definition of racial discrimination in line with the definition in article 1 (1) of theConvention. But, the Government has not adopted such definition in its legislation. The definition of
racial discrimination in article 14 (1) of the Constitution does not include race, colour, descent, nor
national or ethnic origin. The definition in the Constitution is insufficient to provide protection forminorities and indigenous peoples from discrimination which makes it difficult to assess whether
proper protection in compliance with the Convention is provided or not.

6

Moreover, comprehensive, reliable and up-to-date statistical data on socioeconomic indicators on
the situation of all groups covered by the Convention have been requested in the 2001
recommendation (paragraph 7), the 2010 recommendation (paragraph 11) and the 2014
recommendation (paragraph 6). While the Government has not collected such statistics, it
conducted the abovementioned survey on foreign residents in March 2017. Yet, it is not clear whena next survey will be conducted, in spite of the situation of serious discrimination revealed by thesurvey. Up-to-date disaggregated data are essential to design concrete policies to combat racial
discrimination. Such statistics need to be collected on a regular basis. Therefore, a provision to
mandate such data collection should be included in a comprehensive anti-discrimination law whenenacting.
■ Suggested recommendations
a. Enact comprehensive anti-racial discrimination law.
b. Adopt a comprehensive definition of racial discrimination in line with article 1 of the Convention.
c. Collect comprehensive, reliable and up-to-date statistical data on socioeconomic indicators on thesituation of all groups covered by the Convention.
■ Prepared by the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)

7

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Establishment of a national human rights institution (NHRI)
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 9■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 108 and 109■ Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ Problems
In its concluding observations on the 4th periodic report in 1998, the Human Rights Committee
recommended the Government of Japan to “set up an independent mechanism forinvestigating complaints of violations of human rights”. CERD has recommended theGovernment to set up an independent national human rights institution (NHRI) in its concluding
observations in 2001 (paragraph 12), 2010 (paragraph 12) and 2014 (paragraph 9). Despite
the repeated recommendations from the UN human rights bodies since 1998 to establish a
NHRI, the Government has not set up such institution as of 2018.
In 2002, the Government submitted the Human Rights Protection Bill to the Diet. However theBill was not passed due to the dissolution of the House of Representatives in 2003. As
reported in the paragraph 109 of the 2017 State party’s report, “the Government of Japansubmitted the Human Rights Commission Bill to establish a new human rights institution to the
181st session of the Diet in November 2012, but the bill was scrapped due to the dissolution of
the House of Representatives that same month”.
Nevertheless, such bill has not been submitted nor any new initiative to establish a NHRI has
been taken since November 2012. While the Government reports in the abovementioned
paragraph that “[a] desirable framework of the human rights remedy system is being
appropriately discussed based on the past progress of discussions as well”, progress andcontent of those discussions are not made public. It has been 20 years since the Government
was first recommended to establish a NHRI. Also, it has been 6 years since the Human Rights
Commission Bill was considered last time. The absence of a new initiative regardless of thelong-standing recommendations is nothing but the legislature’s negligence. There has been norational explanation to understand how long the Government needs to make consideration on
this matter.
Furthermore, the Government reports in the same paragraph that “the Ministry of Justice has
the Human Rights Bureau which acts as an administrative organ engaging in human rights
protection and promotion. As its subordinate organs, the Human Rights Departments of theLegal Affair
Bureaus (eight locations nationwide), the Human Rights Divisions of the District Legal
Affairs Bureaus (42 locations nationwide), and their branches (261 locations (as of October
1, 2016)) have been established”.
However, CERD requests for an independent NHRI in compliance with the Paris Principle. The
administrative organ cannot guarantee its independence. Although the Act on the Promotion of
the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and the Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate
Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour Against Persons Originating from Outside Japan8

were enacted in 2016, the effects of these Acts are not guaranteed in the absence of a NHRI.
■ Suggested recommendations
Immediately submit a bill to establish a national human rights institution which should have,among others, the following functions and status.
a) To assume a role in implementing the international human rights standards at the domestic
level.
b) To have roles of 1) making human rights recommendations to the Government and its
institutions; and 2) cooperating with the United Nations, UN human rights mechanisms andnational human rights institutions of other countries.
c) To be separated from any governmental agencies in order to ensure its independence in linewith the Paris Principle.
d) To be empowered to address human rights violations committed by the government and its
ministries, public institutions, local municipalities and politicians.
■ Prepared by the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)

9Hate Speech and Hate Crimes
1. Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Reservation on the Article 4 (a) (b), and hate speech and hate crimes
Paragraphs 10 and 11 (CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9) 2014,
Paragraph 13 (CERD/JPN/CO/3-6) 2010
Paragraph 14 (CERD/C/304/Add.114) 2001
ICERD Articles 4 and 2
2. Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report (CERD/C/JPN/10-11)
Paragraphs 105-107, and 124-139

3. History and Present Situation of Hate Speech and Hate Crimes(1) Background - discriminatory policy of the government.
The major targets of the hate speech in Japan are those from Japan’s former colonies including
Korea and China, and their descendants born in Japan. After the World War II, the Government ofJapan has failed to take responsibilities to what it had done on the former colonial countries. On thecontrary, it has been treating those citizens as aliens without any rights and applying discriminatory
policies against them including surveillance on a daily basis. Against this backdrop, there have been
continuous incidents of hate speech and hate crimes, until today, committed by both public andprivate figures against Korean residents in Japan.
At the summit meeting between Japan and North Korea on 17th September 2002, the North
Korean leader acknowledged more than ten cases of kidnapping of Japanese citizens committed in
the 1970s and 1980s and apologized. It led to severe Korean bashing by the government as well as
by the mass media which continues until today. As a result, it created a general atmosphere allowing
people to say whatever they want to Koreans, and deteriorated the situation with the increasing
number of hate speech and hate crimes against them. In just half a year after the 2002 summit, morethan 1,000 incidents of hate speech and hate crimes against Korean school students were reported
nationwide, and the Korean schools in Japan were forced to instruct the students not to wear
uniforms of ethnic style outside the school for the protection and safety of children.
(2) Increase and daily occurrence of hate demonstration
Since the 2000s the widespread use of the Internet led to increase in anonymous online hatespeech. In January 2007, a racist group named "The Citizens Group That Will Not Forgive Special
Privileges for Koreans in Japan" (Zaitoku-kai) was formed by recruiting members through the Internet.
They have increased its popularity by repeatedly organising hate demonstrations, propaganda
speeches and events posting videos of these activities on the internet.
As an example, racist groups including Zaitoku-kai attacked Kyoto Korean School (primary school),
three times in 2009 and 2010. In the first incident, 11members of them gathered in front of the schoolgate and yelled "North Korea's spy training institution", "You eat shit" and other insults for an hour.
Also, they cut the wiring cords with a nipper that were connected to the park across the school to
use the speaker in the park. There were about 150 children in the school then, and they were soscared that they started crying, which made it impossible to continue their classes. In the second
incident, about 30 members of them gathered in the park across the school, marched around theschool while crying out with loud speakers "Koreans must be executed at the public health center"

10and other insults. In the third incident, dozens of members demonstrated in the vicinity of the school,
shouting "Koreans are cockroaches, Koreans are maggots, go back to the Korean Peninsula" andso on. As for these cases, Civil Liability (See the State party’s report CERD/C/JPN/10-11 para. 138)
and Criminal Liability (the same, para 130) of the Zaizoku-kai were confirmed in courts.
In December 2012, the Abe administration of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was formed, and it
did not wait long to exclude Korean schools from the High School Tuition Support Fund Program. In
addition, it also took the position making the Japan’s accountability to the colonialization and war of
aggression vague. Since then, the frequency, number and size of xenophobic demonstrations haveincreased, organized in various cities nationwide almost every weekend. According to the survey
conducted by the Ministry of Justice at the end of 2015 for the first time, there were in total 1152 hatedemonstrations and propaganda speeches organized from April 2012 to September 2015, one casea day on average.1(3) The Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behaviour
against Persons Originating from Outside Japan (or “Hate Speech Elimination Act”, in short)
In the middle of the strong criticism by anti-racist protesters and human rights groups, victims andaffected groups, media and others about the lack of effective actions from the authority, sevenmembers of opposition parties submitted the “Bill for the promotion of measures to eliminate racial
discrimination” in May 2015, which prohibits racial discrimination including hate speech. In reaction,
the coalition ruling parties, LDP and Komei Party, submitted the “Bill on the Promotion of Efforts to
Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons Originating from Outside
Japan” in April 2016. It was enacted in May and enforced in June 2016. The outline of the Act is as
explained in the State party’s report paras. 105-107 (CERD/C/JPN/10-11). The English translation of
all 7 articles of the Act can be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice.
(http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001199550.pdf).
(4) Hate demonstration after enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act
After the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, the number of hate demonstrations has
nearly halved, while the number of their participants decreased. Although there were less hatefulspeeches and messages that directly threat, extremely insult or incite exclusion of target groups indemonstrations organized immediately after the enactment of the Act, such expressions seem to be
increasing again as time goes by. The Act itself does not prohibit, nor punish, any speech, acts or
behaviour. There are no changes in the number of hate propaganda speeches on the street, whichis over 200 times a year.
(5) Establishment of a political party by racist group after the enforcement of the Hate Speech
Elimination Act2
The founder of Zaitoku-kai ran for the election of the Governor of Tokyo in July 2016 with amanifesto including elimination of social welfare to foreigners. Although he was defeated, he won
113,000 votes (1.7% share of votes). In October the same year, he formed "Japan First Party". In
November 2017, a candidate favored by this party won a seat in Katsushika Ward in Tokyo for the1

Hundreds of hate speech rallies held across Japan annually: Justice Ministry report (Mainichi Japan, March
31, 2016)

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160331/p2a/00m/0na/003000c

2

How should hate-filled statements from candidates on the campaign trail be handled? (Mainichi Japan, October
2, 2016) https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161002/p2a/00m/0na/011000c

11

first time. The party announced that 15 candidates from the party would run in the unified local
election in 2019. The party is registered as a political organization as defined in the politicalorganization regulation law with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications in 2016.
In addition, the former vice representative of the Zaitoku-kai applied for the registration of a politicalorganization named "Association for Japan without Koreans" to the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications, which was approved and registered in 2016. The Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications does not have the legal authority to examine activities of the registered organization,
but it has a policy not to approve registration, if the name or purpose of the applying organization isagainst public order and morals. In June 2018 at the national assembly, the opposition lawmakerargued that the name of the organization itself fell under the definition of Article 2 of the Hate Speech
Elimination Act and that it was against public order and moral, but the Minister for Internal Affairs andCommunications replied that it was not clear whether the name of the organization is discriminatory.
(6) Online hate speech after the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act
Even after the enforcement of the Act, hate speech, mostly by anonymous people, is overflowing
in the internet. In Japan, the number of twitter users reached 45 million in 2017, and such large
amount of anonymous hate speech against minority groups and individuals on a daily basis has
extremely damaging impact.
In July 2015, a discriminatory hoax was circulated on SNS including twitter, which said Korean
residents in Japan lost their residential status and were subject to deportation. As a result, a large
number of anonymous reports were made to the immigration office about whereabouts of Korean
residents, which led to a crash of the immigration office server.
Discriminatory hoax is always being circulated on SNS including twitter, whenever there is natural
disaster, accident or criminal incident, claiming that Korean or Chinese are culprits or that they takeadvantage of such disaster to commit crimes. After an earthquake in Osaka on 18 June 2018, there
were numerous tweets claiming that foreign residents are carrying out terrorist attacks or committing
crimes. 3 When the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred in 2011, discriminatory hoax was
circulated on SNS and other social media claiming that Chinese theft group were rampaging in theaffected areas. According to a survey by private researchers, it was found that nearly 90% of those
who received such hoax information believed it to be true.4
According to the survey on the foreign residents in Japan conducted by the Ministry of Justice inautumn 2016, 40% of foreign residents in Japan who are users of internet have seen hate speechagainst foreigners on the internet. 20% of the total respondents answered that they refrained fromusing the internet to avoid seeing such posts, whereby same answer was given by 47.8% of thepersons having Choson* nationality and 37% of those having South Korean nationality. (See page
49 of the Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey-Revised Edition-submitted by the State party.
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INTCERD_AIS_JPN_30363_E.pdf ).
(*Choson refers to the Korean Peninsula as a whole, and does not necessarily denote Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea citizenship.)(7) Hate crimes after the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act
The situation of hate crimes is worsening both in terms of quality and quantity. Violence by hate
3Japan must root out all false racist rumors during disasters (The Asahi Shimbun, June 21, 2018),
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201806210026.html
4 Rumours after 2011 Japan earthquake pinned blame on Chinese, Koreans for crimes that didn’t
happen (The South China Morning Post, March 17, 2017), http://www.scmp.com/print/news/asia/eastasia/article/2079137/rumours-after-2011-japan-earthquake-pinned-blame-chinese-koreans12demonstration participants against the counter-protesters had been taking place even before the Act.
For instance, in August 2014, dozens of members of Zaitoku-kai assaulted a few participants ofcounter-demonstration, saying "Die Koreans!". One of the victims suffered severe injuries such as
rib fractures, which took about two months to make full recovery. Five were arrested for assault andsentenced for fines.
In March 2015, the wall of the Korean Cultural Center was set on fire, and the perpetrator wasconvicted for the damage to the building.
In May 2015, participants in the hate demonstrations were arrested for assaulting the counterprotesters.
In July 2016, discriminatory flyers against Korean residents in Japan were put on the wall of
washrooms of department store and other places in Fukuoka prefecture, whereby the perpetrator
was found guilty for penetrating the buildings.
In May 2017, there was an arson attack against a credit union in Nagoya, which had Korean
executives, and the perpetrator, who was dissatisfied with the position of the South Korean
government regarding the Japanese military “comfort woman” issue, was convicted.
Since 2017, there have been increasing requests for disciplinary action against executive
members and dozens of Korean lawyers of bar association, because they published a written opinion
advocating for restoration of the subsidies to Korean schools. It was triggered by a discriminatory
hoax blog post by a far right group, and number of such request went up to total of 130,000 cases
nationwide within a year, according to the JFBA.5
In February 2018, two right-wing activists, one of whom have repeatedly carried out hatedemonstrations and street campaign against Korean residents in Japan, appeared in front of themain entrance of the Headquarter of General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, and fired
five bullets from inside the vehicle, which hit the gate. Perpetrators were arrested and indicted fordamaging the property and for bearing firearms. However, right after the incident, there were many
posts on the internet to support this "act of justice", and street campaigns calling for shooting at sameplace have been taking place till today.6
As for Korean residents in Japan who criticize hate speech with their real name published,especially women, countless acts of threats, defamation, insults and harassment have been inflicted
upon them, both on the internet and in real life.7(8) Involvement of public institutions in hate speech after the enforcement of the Hate Speech
Elimination Act
The Cabinet Office had kept the discriminatory post against Korean residents on its public policy
monitoring page until the media pointed it out in May 2018. Such posts included "We have to deportthem to avoid situation where the opposition movement against the construction of US military bases
5

Lawyers flooded with complaints in row over Korean schools (The Asahi Shimbun, May 18, 2018),

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805180042.html
6

Chongryon calls shooting an act of ‘inhumane terrorism’ (The Asahi Shimbun, March 1, 2018),
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201803010039.html
7

Korean resident of Japan's legal battle for dignity ends in her favor but problems remain( Mainichi

Japan , March 20, 2018), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180320/p2a/00m/0na/003000c

Online hate speech case sent to prosecutors for the first time (THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, May 25, 2018),
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805250047.htm

13

in Okinawa is made up by Koreans and Chinese", Also similar incidents happened, whereby
discriminatory opinions were posted on the citizen opinion page of websites managed by local public
institutions in Nagano prefecture and Mie prefecture.8
Some local public bodies such as Kawasaki City and Kyoto Prefecture have developed andpublished guidelines restricting the use of public facilities for hate speech purposes, but mostmunicipalities allow hate gatherings at public facilities.9
For hate speech by public officials, see page 24 of this report.
4. Implementation of the Recommendations of the Committee and Our Comments on the Related
Parts of the State Party’s Report of Japan(1) Withdrawal of reservation under article 4 (a) (b) (para 10 CERD/JPN/CO/7-9 )a) Paragraphs. 124 – 126 of the State party’s report of Japan (CERD/C/JPN/10-11) are complete
copy of paragraphs 72 - 74 of the 1st and 2nd combined State party’s report (CERD/C/350/Add.2)
submitted in 2000. There has been no consideration of the withdrawal of the reservations on article
4, and in an extremely insincere way, any action or measures were not taken at all in this regard. In
the paragraph. 126 of the current State party’s report of Japan (CERD/C/JPN/10-11), theGovernment argues that certain acts punishable as long as compatible with the Constitution, but
relevant provisions of the current criminal code were created before the ratification of the Convention
by Japan, and nothing has been done to clarify the compatibility of the provision of the Convention
with the Constitution.
General Recommendation 35 of CERD made it clear that ICERD Article 4 requests criminal
regulation only for hate speech of significant and grave degree. However, the position of thegovernment as stated in its report is based on false assumption that criminal regulation is necessary
in all cases and therefore it requires a careful consideration.
In the last review by CERD in 2014, the Committee asked, referring to para. 23 of CERD General
Recommendation 35, what kind of regulation of expression stipulated by article 4 conflicted with theConstitution, in particular whether the regulating incitement of violence against particular ethnic
groups such as "kill the Koreans" was against the Constitution, but the current State party’s report
does not give any answer.
b) In the para 89 of the national report of Japan submitted for the 3rd cycle Universal Periodic Review(UPR) in August 2017 (A/HRC/WG.6/28/JPN/1), the government argued "The government does notrecognize that there is not any prevalent racial discrimination or incitement thereto in Japan currently.”
Although this is not written in the current State party’s report to CERD, this view was re-confirmed at
the meeting between the NGO(ERD Net)and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 2017.
However, as mentioned above, the situation of hate speech in Japan is still quite concerning evenafter the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, and the understanding of the government
in this regard is simply wrong. According to the survey on the foreign residents in Japan conductedby the Ministry of Justice in autumn 2016, 30 % of respondents said that they were directly thrown
8

Commenting on the debate over hate speech on government websites(The Japantimes, MAY 26,2018),

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/26/national/media-national/commenting-debate-hatespeech-government-websites/#.WzytntX7Tcs)
9

Kawasaki issues Japan's 1st guidelines on public facility use based on risk of hate speech(Mainichi Japan, November 10, 2017), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20171110/p2a/00m/0na/001000c

14

at discriminatory remarks (page 37 para 2.4.4 of Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey - Revised
Edition” submitted to CERD by the Government as additional information). It implicates that the view of thegovernment is in contradiction with the findings of the Ministry of Justice. Although the report of thesurvey was published in March 2017, there was no reference thereto in the current State party’s
report, which was finalised in July 2017. This Report was provided to CERD only after strong requestfrom the civil society and it could be even seen as attempt of Japanese government to conceal
important facts.
(2) Amendment of laws for the implementation of Article 4 (par. 10, verse 2 of CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)a) The Hate Speech Elimination Act is the first anti-racial discrimination legislation in Japan, and canbe seen as a progress. However, its effectiveness and impact is extremely limited, as describedabove, and has following problems.
i) It does not have any provision to prohibit racial discrimination or punish such acts, and thus cannot
prevent any acts of discrimination with such intention.
ii) The protection is provided to only those foreign residents and their descendants in Japan withlegitimate residential status, and thus, does not comply with General Recommendation 30 of
CERD. Other grounds of discrimination as well as various acts of discrimination defined under
Article 1 of the Convention are not included in the Act. In any case, the Act on the Promotion of
the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination was enacted to address Buraku discrimination. See
Page 52 of this report for reference.
iii) It does not stipulate any obligation of the government to adopt specific policy, action plan, or
concrete measures or allocate any specific budget for the purpose of eliminating hate speech. It
does not stipulate any obligation either to investigate the actual situation of hate speech or listen
to the views of the victims, or to establish a third party mechanism to investigate, study effective
measures or relieve the victims.
b) The current State party’s report maintains the government’s assertion that the existing law cancope with racial discrimination, but as the discrimination itself is not illegal or criminal act, hate speech
is only illegal when it meets with the related stipulation of existing laws such as unlawful acts undercivil code or intimidation under criminal code. Moreover, most victims do not file the suit in fear of
reprisals by racists, on top of the cost as well as time ( for several years) required for filing a case incourt.
c) The biggest deficiency in the current legislation is that there is no provision addressing hate speechagainst an unspecified group, and such acts are left alone to take their course. For example, undercurrent legislation, putting placards at a restaurant saying “Reject entrance of Chinese” is legal andeven law enforcement bodies cannot remove such materials.
d) Before the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, the action of the police towards
counter-protesters had been quite hostile, engaging in direct and open repressive acts and arrestingthem with minor offences. After the enforcement of the Act, there have been some improvements,
but its excessive protection of the hate demonstrators remains including enclosure of the counterprotesters with a fence, preventing them from approaching the hate demonstration, and taking
pictures and videos of them.
After the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, there were some cases where the15police made speeches calling for the elimination of hate speech on site, but there is no unified
national standard in this regard and the number of such speeches by the police is gradually
decreasing.
The police officers are not receiving enough training, and some of them even do not know theexistence of the Hate Speech Elimination Act.
Even today, organizing hate demonstration and making hate speech against unspecified
groups are legal and the practice of the police protecting a small number of hate demonstrators
by a large number of officers almost every time, restricting counter-protests and protecting
discriminatory demonstrations continues.

(The picture shows a row of hundreds of police officers who surround and protect about 30 participants ofhate demonstration who holds "recapture the abduction victims" in Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture on June
3, 2018. Credit: Rio Akiyama.)e) The State party’s report states that “racially discriminatory motive is proven as vicious motive
accordingly in the criminal trials in Japan and that the court takes it into consideration in sentencing”(para 136 CERD/C/JPN/10-11, which refers to para. 93 of CERD/C/JPN/7-9). However, thegovernment has not carried out any study or taken any other measures to confirm whether raciallydiscriminatory motive is actually taken into consideration by the court, thus, there is no factual basisof the government’s view. On the contrary, as far as the civil society is aware, there has not been any
case, in which discriminatory motivation was taken into account concerning hate crimes against
foreign residents in Japan.

16In para. 130 of the State party’s report (CERD/C/JPN/10-11), the government refers to the case of
the attack against Kyoto Korean School (please refer to above chapter 3 (2) ) as “one example of a
successfully prosecuted case. However, at each of the three attacks, no arrests were made on site
by the police officers present, who came to the scene upon the report from the school. Moreover, thepolice was so reluctant to properly investigate the incident, while it also took a long time before they
accepted the criminal complaint submitted by the school. In the sentencing by the court, no racist
motivation was taken into consideration, nothing was treated as hate crime, and all were given
suspended sentences. Perpetrators including those convicted, are continuing hate crimes and hatespeech even after the sentence. On the other hand, in civil trial, the case was recognised and treatedas an intentional act of racial discrimination, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, this case is rather an example, where the police, prosecutors, and court have notrecognised any elements of hate crimes or treated it as hate crime, and as such, shows strong
necessity for clear regulation of hate crimes by law.
(3) Efforts to eradicate hate demonstration and hate crimes (para 11 (a) CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)10a) The Ministry of Justice conducted a study on the situation of hate demonstrations and propaganda
speeches against foreign residents in Japan in 2015 and on the situation of discrimination against
foreign residents in Japan in 2016. However, despite requests from the civil society, it does not haveany plan to regularly and continuously carry out such researches / studies.
b) The Hate Speech Elimination Act contains a provision with some definition (Article 2), but the
Ministry of Justice is yet to develop guidelines for proper identification of hate speech cases. The
Ministry of Justice itself has been avoiding taking any position or expressing clear views as to whatkind of expression is regarded as hate speech. It does not take any such action unless the victim
applies for legal remedies for the violation of human rights, and even if it happens, it recognizes only
crystal-clear case as hate speech. Hate speech against unspecified group is excluded from theprocess.
c) The Ministry of Justice invited relevant government agencies in September 2016 to a meeting on
hate speech countermeasures (para. 133 CERD/C/JPN/10-11). However, it was only exchange of
information, while there have been no meetings for nearly two years since then and there is currently
no plan to hold such meetings in the future. We have been requesting the government to establish
head quarter within the government with authority to work across ministries and agencies in order totake countermeasures and to eliminate racial discrimination including hate speech, or at the very
least to set up meeting bodies across agencies. There has been no answer from the government inthis regard.
d) The Ministry of Justice also invited to the abovementioned meeting representatives from local

10

Lacking direction from Tokyo, Japan’s municipalities struggle to implement anti-hate speechlaw(The Japantimes, MAY 24, 2018),

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/24/national/lacking-direction-tokyo-japans-municipalitiesstruggle-implement-anti-hate-speech-law/#.WzyvcNX7TcsDifferent

17governments in areas where serious hate demonstrations were taking place. At the meeting, these
representatives made several requests to the Ministry to realize effective implementation of the Hate
Speech Elimination Act including "to develop overall framework of countermeasures against hatespeech, and implement various measures in a unified way with the leadership of the national
government and also share its concrete content and schedule with local governments", “to suggest
clear division of tasks between the national and local governments" and "to identify and suggest whatkind of concrete countermeasures should and can be taken by local governments". There has been
almost no proper reaction from the Ministry in this regard. There is no future plan for another meetingof this kind either.
e) More than 2 years have past since the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act. However,its implementation is not properly done. There is also delay in development and enactment of local
ordinances to prohibit hate speech or prohibit racial discrimination including hate speech. Only
example is the case of Setagaya Ward in Tokyo, which enacted a local ordinance on 1 April 2018that includes provisions prohibiting discrimination based on nationality and ethnicity. The city of Tokyo,
which hosts Olympic games in 2020, announced its intention to enact human rights ordinance byMarch 2019 and published its framework in June 2018. However, it does not include any provisions
prohibiting racial discrimination or setting punishment thereto.
(4) Measures against hate speech in media including the Internet (para. 11 (b) CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)a) Despite the request from the civil society, the government has not been taking any measures tofind out actual situation of hate speech in the internet.
b) In case of anonymous hate speech against specific individuals, the victim can request the service
provider to disclose information as to who has made such speech online according to the basis law
on the responsibility of providers. However, even if this law is applied, it usually requires at least two
civil trials, costs hundreds of thousands of Japanese Yen and takes about a year till the requested
information is disclosed. As such, almost all the victims are forced to give up.
c) As for local governments, Osaka City enacted a hate speech prevention regulation in January
2016. If a case is determined as hate speech, it will publish the outline of the speech and the nameof the person who made such speech. However, many incidents are perpetrated anonymously on
the internet, and there is no provision under existing laws under which public institutions, instead of
the victim, can request disclosure of information from the service provider concerning who haveposted those hate speeches. Since it cannot identify the perpetrator of anonymous online posting,the effectiveness of the regulation is extremely low.
d) The Human Rights Defense Bureau of the Ministry of Justice began requesting service provider
to remove hate speech contents from the Internet, but only in case there is such request from thevictim and it recognize clear illegal conducts. However, it is merely a request to the provider, which
does not have any legally binding effect. On the other hand, there is no system or procedure available
for victims in case of online hate speech against unspecified groups.
We have been requesting the government of Japan to consult with social media service providers
including those abroad including Twitter and Facebook, and to request quick removal of hate speech,
but the government of Japan has not taken any action.

18e) Some local governments conduct online monitoring of the hate speech incidents in the area, andactually requested providers to remove hate speech contents. However, the national government
has not made any such efforts and there is no plan to do so.
(5) Investigation and indictment of perpetrators (para 11 (c) CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)
After the enforcement of the Hate Speech Elimination Act, a small part of the police has started
accepting complaints from the victims of hate speech, however, there is no overall initiatives, systems
or measures in place making the judiciary or law enforcement as a whole to actively investigate casesand prosecute perpetrators of hate speech or to eradicate hate speech. There is no specificdepartment which deals with hate speech and hate crimes.
(6) Sanctions against public figures and politicians (para 11 (d) CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)
Nothing has been done or planned. Refer to Page 24 of this report.
(7) Dealing with prejudice and educational measures. (para 11 (e) CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9)a) The government started more general campaign (para 133 CERD/C/JPN/10-11), such as creating
posters saying "Hate speech not allowed" (para. 133), but despite the request from the civil society,it has not made any public condemnation of serious hate speech, discriminatory and damaging hoax
and hate crimes. For example, concerning the shootings of the Headquarter of General Associationof Korean Residents described above, the government has not given any public comment tocondemn it even though it is a hate crime and a terrorist attack. As the government continues public
bashing on North Korea, it seems that the government is intentionally and silently allowing hate crimeto happen.
b) The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has no designated section totake measures to eradicate hate speech. Even after the enactment of the Hate Speech Elimination
Act, it does not have any concrete plan or programme for school education and social awarenessraising aimed at elimination of hate speech.

5. Suggested Recommendations(1) Reservation of Article 4 (a) (b), and legislation
a. Withdraw its reservation of Article 4 (a)(b) of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
b. For the state and local governments, enact a comprehensive law/ordinance to prohibit racial
discrimination including hate speech and discriminatory treatments, for the purposes ofeffectively combating hate speech and providing effective remedies to victims.
c. Explicitly prohibit hate speech in legislation including the one against unspecified groups.
d. Provide criminal regulations on such hate speech including incitement to genocide or hatespeech by public figures that would give a serious and large-scale damaging impact.
e. Revise the legislation so as to deal racially motivated crimes as hate crime.
(2) Measures against hate speech in the Internet
a. For the state and local governments, conduct a fact-finding survey on hate speech in the internet

19

including monitoring, in collaboration with the civil society, and request a provider for a deletion ofhate speech whenever it is found.
b. Consult with internet providers including large multinational companies on counter measures
including making a request for quick deletion of hate speech.
c. For the state and local governments, develop a legislation to authorize public agencies todemand providers a disclosure of identification information on the sender of a hate speech.
d. For the state and local governments, respond quickly to discriminatory post on the website it
manages.
(3) Other counter-measures
a. Create a cross-agency task force on hate speech and hate crimes, conduct a fact-finding survey
on regular basis, and develop and implement comprehensive policy and program for theelimination.
b. Develop specific regulations on hate speech by public figures, and create a review system to be
conducted by an independent body.
c. For the state and local governments, refrain themselves from authorizing those groups thatpublicly and openly hold racist objectives in their names, objectives or activities, as a politicalbody or endorsing such groups in whatever form.
d. For the state and local governments, make guidelines to restrict the use of public facilities
including a setting-up of a review system by an independent body, in order not to permit the useof public facilities for hate speech purposes on one hand, and to avoid an excessive control on
the freedom of speech on the other.
e. For the state and local governments, condemn immediately and publicly any incident of hatespeech or hate crime that would have serious damaging impacts.
f. Develop counter-measures against hate speech during an election campaign.
(4) Improvement of Education and Training
a. Set up a nationally uniform hate speech response team in the police, and give training on hatespeech to all law-enforcement officers uniformly for the purposes of stopping excessive
protection of participants of hate demonstrations and excessive guarding the counterb. Require all civil servants including judges, prosecutors and immigration officers to take a humanrights training program focusing on racial discrimination including hate speech and relevantinternational human rights standards.
c. Develop and implement an education program for the elimination of racial discrimination
including the learning of history and actual conditions of racial discrimination existed andpracticed in Japan and the international human rights standards. Such a program should be
implemented not only in schools, but also in public institutes, private companies, universities,
media and social welfare facilities, so that the idea of no tolerance to racial discrimination will bepermeated in all sectors of society. In developing the education program for the elimination of
racial discrimination, representatives of minority communities, bar associations and human rights
experts should be consulted.
■Prepared by Japan Network towards Human Rights Legislation for Non Japanese Nationals& Ethnic Minorities

20■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle

Racist Statements by Politicians and Public Officials
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para. 11■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report

N/A■Implementation of the recommendations

The recommendation has not been implemented. Racist statements by politicians and public
officials have continued, but appropriate measures have not been taken against them.
■Problems
1. Government’s failure to acknowledge derogatory remarks regarding Okinawa people made byriot police officers of Osaka Prefectural Police Headquarters as discriminatory expression
According to reports, on October 18, 2016, two riot police officers from the Osaka Prefectural
Police who were keeping guard over the relocation work of the helicopter landing zone (helipad) of
the U.S. Forces’ Northern Training Area said “Where do you think you are grabbing, idiot. You Dojin”
and “Shut up, hey, you Shinajin” to individuals protesting the relocation work. Osaka Prefectural
Police reprimanded the police officers who made these remarks on the grounds that the remarks
were inappropriate, as they were highly offensive and would likely harm the public’s trust in thepolice. Ichiro Matsui, Governor of Osaka Prefecture, wrote on Twitter on October 19 that he hadseen the remarks in a video on the Internet and “Although the expression may be inappropriate, I
understood that the officers of Osaka Prefectural Police were earnestly performing their duties as
instructed. Thank you for the work away from home.”
The remarks revealed a discriminatory mindset against the people of Okinawa. Protests arosefrom within and outside Okinawa against Mr. Matsui’s tweet which seemed to defend the remarks.
In the Diet, members of the opposition parties asked the government whether “dojin” was adiscriminatory expression, but Yousuke Tsuruho, Minister for Okinawa and Northern Territories
Affairs, stated that “it can hardly be concluded that saying ‘dojin’ is discriminatory.”1
Multiple Diet members from opposition parties sought to confirm the government’s position that“dojin” was a discriminatory expression, and if so, to revise Mr. Tsuruho’s answer. The government
denied that it was a discriminatory statement, by adopting Written Answers by a Cabinet decision
which stated that the remarks made by the policemen were truly regrettable, and appropriate
measures were taken by subjecting them to discipline, but it was difficult to say unequivocallywhether the term “dojin” was discriminatory; Mr. Tsuruho had stated that he could not conclude
whether it was discrimination, which view was shared with the government, and the government
had no intention to request Mr. Tsuruho to withdraw his statement or offer an apology, or to remove
him from office2.
“Dojin” is defined in the dictionary as “(1) A person who was born and lives on the land. A native.
Domin. (2) Uncivilized native. Used with contemptuous intent.” (Kojien); it is consideredinappropriate and not used in mass media.

1

2

Answer to question from Tomoko Tamura, Diet member, at the Cabinet Committee of the House ofCouncilors on November 8, 2017.
Written Answers, dated November 18, 2017, to Written Questions from Diet members Kensuke Onishi,
Akihiro Hatsushika and Toshinobu Nakazato (Naikaku shushitu 192 Nos. 130, 131 and 132).

21

2.

Mr. Taro Aso’s remarks on “armed refugees”

According to reports, on September 23, 2017, Taro Aso, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister ofFinance, mentioned the possibility of a large number of refugees flooding into Japan from the
Korean Peninsula while giving a lecture, and stated that “They may be armed refugees. Will thepolice cope with them? Will the Self-Defense Forces be called in? Will we shoot them to death?
We must seriously think about this.” These remarks led to concerns and protests from organizations
that support refugees and others as indicating the Japanese government’s lack of willingness tofulfill its obligation to protect refugees, and describing refugees as though they are a threatening
existence, needlessly inflaming anxiety.
The government adopted a Written Answer by a Cabinet decision stating that the remark wasmade by Mr. Aso as a politician and the government was not in a position to respond, and thegovernment “had understood that the statement was intended to evoke the audience’s awarenessof various situations that may occur in an emergency.”3
3.

Mr. Kozo Yamamoto’s derogatory remark regarding Africa

According to reports, on November 23, 2017, Kozo Yamamoto, member of the House ofRepresentatives (former Minister for Promotion of Overcoming Population Decline and Vitalizing
Local Economy) mentioned, while giving a speech at a seminar held by a fellow member, that the
fellow member had a long history of exchanges with Africa, and stated “Why does he like such
black ones?” When asked what he intended by this remark, Mr. Yamamoto explained that “It was acomment I made on the spur of the moment, having in mind the fact that Africa used to be called
the ‘Dark Continent.’ I had no discriminatory intent, but would like to withdraw the expression.”
Written protests asking for Mr. Yamamoto’s introspection and apology were submitted by children
having parents of African origin and groups of scholars, pointing out that the “Dark Continent” itself
was a discriminatory term.
The government adopted a Written Answer by a Cabinet decision stating that this remark was
the individual opinion of a politician, and thus the government would refrain from responding4.
■ Suggested recommendations
a. When a racist statement is made by a politician or public official, properly acknowledge thestatement as racist, and criticize strongly and oppose to the same, while taking appropriate
measures to prevent it from occurring again.
b. Strengthen efforts to promote human rights training for all public officials, including education on
racial discrimination.

■Prepared by The Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU)

3

4

Written Answer, dated November 14, 2017, to Written Question from Diet member Akihiro Hatsushika(Naikaku shushitsu 195, No. 19).
Written Answer, dated December 5, 2017, to Written Question from Diet member Seiji Ohsaka (Naikaku
shushitsu 195, No. 61).

22

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
The right to education for Korean school children
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 19■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 169-175■Implementation of the recommendations: Not implemented■Problems
A. Exclusion of Korean schools from the High School Tuition Support Fund Program andthe suspension of subsidies by local governmentsa)Exclusion of Korean schools from the High School Tuition Support Fund Program

1.

Despite the previous recommendation by the CERD, the Government of Japan has failed toapply the High School Tuition Support Fund Program to 10 Korean high schools. However, asof March 2018, it subsidizes 42 other foreign high schools. Approximately 5,000 Korean highschool students were excluded from the Program and the total financial loss is estimated atover 1.7 billion yen (16 million dollars).

2.

The Japanese Government argues that it excluded Korean schools from the Program because
they were unable to confirm the schools meet the criteria for the Program (CERD/C/JPN/1011, para 169-172). Despite this assertion on criteria it excluded the Korean schools due topolitical and diplomatic tensions between Japan and the Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea (DPRK). In December 2012, the Minister for Education, declared that the Government
would legally remove the screening standard of Korean schools for the Program andimmediately excluded the schools due to a lack of progress in the abduction issue. It is incorrect
for the Government not to state the true reason of exclusion in its report.

3.

Although the Government report states that the exclusion was not discrimination, the CESCR
stipulated in the Concluding Observation of Japan in 2013 that it is discrimination(E/C.12/JPN/CO/3, para27). It also seems that the Government has intentionally erased thepolitical and diplomatic reasons from exclusion on its report. This matter was also pointed out
as inappropriate by the members of the CESCR and the CERD in the previous sessions.

4.

At the 3rd cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of Japan, Portugal and the DPRK
recommended that the Government extend the High School Tuition Support Fund Program to
Korean schools (A/HRC/37/15, para161.145, para161.151). However, the Government has
failed to accept both recommendations.

b) The suspension of subsidies by local governments to Korean schools
5.

Despite the previous recommendation by the CERD, the Government has failed to request
local governments resume or maintain the provision of subsidies to Korean schools. Contrary
to the CERD recommendation, the Government issued a notice to local governments, which
seemingly encouraged them to suspend the subsidies in March 2016. Consequently five more
prefectural governments have suspended the subsidies since the previous session of Japanby the CERD.

B. No adequate funding by the central government
6. Despite several concerns and recommendations expressed by treaty bodies and the Special
Rapporteur (CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6, para22(c), CCPR/C/79/Add.102, para13, E/C.12/1/Add.67,
para 60, E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.2, para56, A/HRC/17/33/Add.3, para 64), the Government still
fails to ensure the adequate funding of Korean schools. National subsidies are not allocated to
Korean schools and although donors to other private schools and western international schools

23receive tax benefits on school donations, donors to Korean schools do not qualify for the sametax benefits. Furthermore, the Government also excludes Korean school children from national
scholarship programs.
7.

In order to implement these changes, the Government should accredit Korean schools as
schools equivalent to “regular schools” as stipulated in the School Education Act. Korean
schools are recognized for education standard equivalent to Japanese schools which areclassified as “regular schools”.
Although the Government stipulates that the Korean schools can only be accredited as “regularschools” if they meet the criteria, it is impossible for Korean schools to meet these conditions
if they want to continue to offer an ethnic education in the Korean language. The criteria for“regular school” classification require the implementation of national guidelines, which would
not provide Korean children with adequate time to teach the Korean language and would also
require the use of textbooks written in Japanese language.

C. Discrimination in access to higher education
8. The 2003 reform by the Ministry of Education granted access to university entrance examinations
to graduates of foreign schools, and only graduates of Korean schools were excluded from theapplying due to a lack of diplomatic ties with the DPRK. Consequently, only graduates of
Korean schools do not have automatic access to Japanese universities. Instead, Korean
school students are required to sit for special qualification examinations set by universities,
and some universities still refuse to allow them to take the entrance examination.
Although the CERD, other treaty bodies and the Special Rapporteur have expressed concerns
and issued recommendations (CERD/C/304/Add.114, para 16, E/C.12/1/Add.67, para 60,
CRC/C/15/Add.231, para49(d), CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, para 31, E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.2, para 89,
A/HRC/17/33/Add.3, para 81(e)), the Japanese government still fails to grant graduates of
Korean schools equal access to higher education.
D. Non-ratification of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education of 1960
9. Despite the two recommendations by the CERD (CERD/C/JPN/CO/3-6, para22, CERD/C/
JPN/CO/7-9, para19), the Japanese government is not considering ratifying the UNESCO
Convention against Discrimination in Education.
■Suggested recommendations
A. The exclusion of Korean schools from the High School Tuition Support Fund constitutes
discrimination. The Committee reiterates its recommendation included in paragraph 19 of its
previous concluding observations that the State party revise its position and allow Korean
schools to benefit from the High School Tuition Support Fund, and invite local governments toresume or maintain the provision of subsidies to Korean schools.
B. The Committee recommends that the State party accredit Korean schools as schools equivalent
to “regular schools” as stipulated in the School Education Act. In addition, ensure there isadequate funding for Korean schools by granting State funding equivalent to funding for otherprivate schools, applying the national scholarship programs and the same fiscal benefits todonors of Korean schools as to donors of other western international schools.
C. The Committee recommends that the State party recognize diplomas from Korean schools as
direct university entrance qualifications.
D. The Committee recommends that the State party accede to the UNESCO Convention against
Discrimination in Education of 1960.
■Prepared by Human Rights Association for Korean Residents in Japan24

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle：

The right to leave and return to one’s country of permanent residents - Article 5 (d) (ii)■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report: No■Implementation of the recommendations. If not, a relevant article of the Convention violated
Violation of the Article 5 (d) (ii)
■Problems
1. At the discretion of the Minister of Justice, Article 26 of the Immigration Control and Refugee
Recognition Act stipulates that only resident foreigners who have a re-entry permit may beallowed to re-enter Japan. Those who fail to leave on a re-entry permit will forfeit their right topermanent residence. Under the current “Re-entry Permission System”, the Korean minority
who are second and third generation permanent residents may be deprived of their right toleave and re-enter Japan.
2. Although the Human Rights Committee strongly urged Japan in 1998 to “remove from the law
the necessity to obtain a permit to re-enter prior to departure, in respect of permanent residents
like persons of Korean origin born in Japan” (CCPR/C/79/Add.102, para 18), the Japanese
government continues to enforce the “Re-entry Permission System” on Koreans born in Japan.
3. Furthermore, in the past the Government has been discriminatory in refusing to issue the “Reentry Permission” to Koreans whom refused to be fingerprinted for their Alien Registration Card.
Furthermore, as a result of the Government of Japan’s unilateral sanctions against the
Democratic People’s Republic of Kora (DPRK), certain people have been denied a re-entry
permit.
4. The Government has also discriminated against more than 30,000 Koreans in excluding themfrom the “Special Re-entry Permission System” (*1), which was introduced in July 2012. This
new system permits foreign residents to leave Japan and return within one year without a reentry permit.
5. The term “one’s own country” in the Article 5 (d) (ii) of ICERD should include the country where
the person resides permanently, as well as the country of one’s own nationality. The
Government therefore should guarantee the right to all permanent foreign residents including
the Korean minority born in Japan to leave and re-enter and not be dependent on the
Government’s discretion.
(*1) “Special Re-entry Permission System” – The system exempts a foreign resident from the requiring aformal re-entry permit prior to departure, if he/she possesses a residence certificate and a valid passport
when he/she departs. The Japanese government does not recognize DPRK passports as valid, thus underthe “Special Re-entry Permission System” DPRK holders cannot access this system. On the other hand,
Japan does not have diplomatic ties with Taiwan or Palestine but allows these passport holders to access the“Special Re-entry Permission System.”■Suggested recommendations:a. In respect of permanent residents such as Koreans born in Japan, the Committee recommends
that the State party remove from the law the requirement to obtain a permit to re-enter prior to
departure.
b. The Committee recommends that the State party apply “Special Re-entry Permission System” toall permanent foreign residents including Koreans born in Japan.
■Prepared by Human Rights Association for Korean Residents in Japan25

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Limits on appointment and on promotion of foreign residents in public service
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 13■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 148, 149■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ Problems
1. The initial and second periodic report states in para. 32 (50) that “Japanese nationality is requiredfor civil servants who participate in the exercise of public power or in public decision-making, but
it is understood that Japanese nationality is not necessarily required for civil servants who do not
engage in the above-mentioned work.” The government continues to repeat this phrase in
response to the Committee’s recommendation.
2. In Japan, there is no nationality requirement in either the National Public Service Act (1947/11)
or the Local Public Service Act (1951/2), except in the Diplomats Act (1952/3).
3. But in 1953, the government excluded foreign nationals from public service employment stating
that, “although there may be no existing explicit provisions in law, but it should be understood as
an obvious legal principle, that to be a civil servant who exercises public authority or who
participates in formation of the intent of the state, Japanese nationality is necessary.”
4. The government calls this view the “obvious legal principle.” This principle allows the exclusion offoreign nationals without express legal provisions and is a denial of the rule of law. It also clearly
violates international human rights treaties.
5. The government expanded on its views regarding the “obvious legal principle” in 1973 to coverlocal public service. The limitation, “participation in the formation of the intent of the state,” fornational public service, was reinterpreted to cover “local civil servant who exercises public authority
or who participates in formation of the intent of the local government.” Such local public servants
would require Japanese nationality.
6. This criterion, however, is extremely vague. Although there are no limitations placed on
appointment of foreign residents in local public service and the jobs and positions are not affectedby their nationalities, the “obvious legal principle” provides the grounds for limiting appointment andpromotion of foreign residents in local public service. At some local governments, nationality
requirements are placed on some jobs, and there are even some where foreign nationals are
ineligible to take the employment examination itself, due to nationality requirement.
7. Yokohama City for example, restricts appointment of foreign nationals. The City formulated a
guideline in which it stated that it would not appoint foreign nationals in work involving unilateral
restrictions of the rights and freedoms or placing obligations or burdens on citizens, or compulsory
execution on the basis of exercise of “public authority,” in positions of managers or higher positions,26

which require participation in planning and decision making, or in positions of section head or higher
positions, which require involvement in decisions on the City’s basic policies, on the basis of“participation in the formation of intent.” This means that foreign civil servants are excluded frommany areas that involve close contact with citizens, including tax affairs, welfare, social insurance
and pensions. There is a nationality requirement for sanitation inspectors and firefighters.
8. A foreign public health nurse of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government sued the local government
for not being allowed to take the exam for promotion, but the Supreme Court in 2005 dismissed
her claim supporting the views of the “obvious legal principle.” Since Japan has not acceded tothe individual communication procedures, she has no access to redress through the UN treaty
bodies.
9. Because of the impact of the “obvious legal principle” as well as the Supreme Court decision,according to a survey of local governments on foreign residents in 2016 conducted by Kyodo
Tsushin, only 23.4% of prefectural governments and 32.2% of municipalities allowed foreign
nationals to apply for administrative jobs. The universality of the right is being denied, as foreign
nationals can apply for local public service in some local governments, while they are unable toapply in others because of the nationality requirement.
■ Suggested recommendation
a. Abolish the previous official views (obvious legal principle) and remove all restrictions on
appointment and promotion of foreign nationals in public service, on the basis of CERD General
Recommendation No. 30 on discrimination against non-citizens.
■Prepared by Hyogo Association for Human Rights of Foreign Residents and Kanagawa Mintoren

27

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Discriminatory treatment in appointment of foreign teachers
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 13■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 148, 149■Implementation of the recommendation
Not implemented■Problems
1. Of the 903,569 full-time teachers in Japanese elementary schools (6 years), junior high schools(3 years) and senior high schools (3 years), 881,080 are public school teachers, comprising 90.5%(as of May 2016). Public school teachers are local civil servants, and although there are noprovisions excluding appointment on grounds of nationality in the Local Public Service Act, suchdiscrimination exists. Currently there are estimated 300 foreign teachers (the government does not
publicize the number). From a demographic perspective, there should have been around 15,000
foreign teachers in public schools.
2. The reason for the discrimination against foreign teachers is because it is considered that
“Japanese nationality is required for civil servants who participate in the exercise of public power
or in public decision-making” (paragraph 149 of the government report). Public school teachers areappointed by the education board of the 47 prefectures and 20 government ordinance-designatedcities. Earlier, some local governments allowed foreign applicants to take the employment
examination, while others did not. In March 1991, the then Ministry of Education, Science andCulture issued a notice to all local governments that foreign applicants are allowed to take theexamination, and successful applicants should be appointed full-time lecturers for indefinite
periods. There is a clear “distinction,” as successful Japanese applicants are appointed as“teachers.”
3. Foreign “full-time lecturers” have the same teaching certificate as Japanese “teachers” and havesuccessfully passed the same employment examination, yet are ineligible for promotion regardlessof how long they are in service (and are not appointed to curriculum coordinators or head teachersof a grade, let alone to management positions), and are not allowed to participate in school affairs
other than teaching children. Further, with the 2007 amendment of the School Education Act,
positions in schools were further divided into vice principals (vice directors), senior management
teachers, and senior advising teachers, and the pay scales were amended accordingly. As a result,foreign teaching staff will remain “full-time lecturers” until retirement, and are excluded from these
posts. The lifetime pay difference with Japanese teachers who retire as principals will amount to 18
million yen including various benefits (estimate in Yokohama City, a government ordinancedesignated city).
4. Apart from public schools, there are private schools that are operated by approved incorporated
legal institutions in Japan. Teachers in these schools are not “civil servants” and are not treateddifferently on grounds of nationality. There are no conceivable differences in the teaching jobs in28

public and private schools. Therefore, the difference in treatment on grounds of nationality is
unreasonable.
5. Article 3 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates explicitly that “(e)mployers shall not use thenationality,… of any workers as a basis for engaging in discriminatory treatment with respect towages, working hours or other working conditions.”(Article 119 provides for punishments.) The
Japan Federation of Bar Association has examined an application for remedies from foreignteaching staff, and concluded in March 2012, that the situation “amounted to unreasonablediscriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and violates the freedom of theforeign residents who want to become teachers to choose their occupation.” The Association sent
its recommendation to Minister of Education, but the government has ignored the matter.
■Suggested recommendation
Recalling the General Recommendation No. 30 on discrimination against non-citizens (2004),
eliminate all discriminatory treatment of foreign teachers.
■Prepared by Hyogo Association for Human Rights of Foreign Residents, and Kanagawa Mintoren.

29

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle

Access by foreign nationals to the national pension scheme.
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 14■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraph 165■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■Problems
1. The Employees’ Pension Act of 1941 (applicable to working persons) contained a “nationality
clause” that excluded foreign nationals from coverage. However, this clause was removed in1946 with the Order for the Prohibition of Discrimination based on Nationality by the occupation
authorities, and coverage was extended to foreign nationals. This remains the case until today.
2. A “nationality clause” reappeared in the National Pension Act of 1959 (applicable to nonworking persons), thereby excluding foreign nationals from coverage once again. At that time,the majority of foreign nationals living in Japan were Koreans in Japan (approx.650,000), wholost their “Japanese citizenship” when the 1952 Treaty of Peace with Japan came into effect.
3. In 1981, upon Japan’s ratification of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the“nationality clause” was removed from the National Pension Act and coverage was extended toforeign nationals. However, no transitional measures were taken to prevent the exclusion of someforeign nationals.
4. The National Pension Act is a system under which a person pays insurance dues for a certain
period, then receives pension payments upon reaching a designated age. Therefore, when theprevious system was initiated and at times when eligibility was expanded (for example when
Okinawa returned to Japan, or when Japanese in China retuned to Japan), transitional (relief)measures were taken. But no such transitional (relief) measures were taken when Japan ratified
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. As a result, Koreans and other foreign
nationals in Japan with disabilities, who were aged 20 or older on January 1, 1982, were left
excluded from the pension system.
5. The National Pension Act was revised in 1986, but, again, no relief measures were taken for
un-pensioned foreign nationals. Therefor elderly Korean and other foreign nationals born in 1926
or earlier were left without pension coverage.
6. Un-pensioned Koreans in Japan who are disabled, or elderly, have initiated multiple legal
actions in Japanese courts to demand rectification of the “discrimination based on nationality.”
But the courts, recognizing the state’s wide-ranging power of discretion and stating that thevarious international conventions on human rights hold no direct binding force, have ruled against
every one of these claims and sealed those verdicts. Because the government of Japan has not
accepted the right of an individual to appeal to the United Nations, un-pensioned foreign nationals
in Japan are unable to appeal their plight to UN human rights institutions.
7. The Japanese government adopted the “Act on Special Disability Payment for Specified
Persons with Disabilities” in 2004, which provided relief measures for Japanese nationals who
acquired disabilities while being students, before entering the pension system. This law was
adopted in response to a trial verdict that ruled in favor of an un-pensioned disabled student
seeking relief. The un-pensioned student became an un-pensioned disabled person by chance,
due to having not yet entered the pension system when the disability developed, but such
Japanese nationals received relief through special legislation.
The judiciary gave no relief to un-pensioned Koreans in Japan with disabilities, despite the fact30

that they became un-pensioned because they were unable to enter the pension system due tothe “nationality clause.” Furthermore, un-pensioned Koreans in Japan with disabilities were again
excluded under the special legislation of 2004. A supplement to this law stated that “Measures
will be considered for un-pensioned foreign nationals,” but the problem remains neglected 14
years later.
8. This problem has been previously noted in the HRCttee “Concluding Observations, Paragraph30” (CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5) and, in the “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms ofRacism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Doudou Diene, on his
mission to Japan” (E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.2, para 95). Also, Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities, which Japan ratified in 2014, stipulates that “States Parties recognize
the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and theirfamilies, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement ofliving conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization ofthis right without discrimination on the basis of disability.”
The Government of Japan has received numerous recommendations to promptly remedy thesituation of foreign nationals living in Japan who are left without pension, but no measures havebeen taken until now.
The basic financial source of the pension system is, one half is covered by insurance dues andthe other half by taxes. All foreign nationals residing in Japan are required to pay taxes, and there
exists no “nationality clause” or “discrimination according to nationality” in the sphere of taxation.
9. As explained above, in order to realize “equality in dignity and rights” (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Article 1) for un-pensioned Korean and other foreign nationals in Japan who areelderly, or have disabilities, it is necessary for the government of Japan to expeditiously andpromptly take corrective measures against discrimination.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Expeditiously and promptly provide relief measures, including revision of legislation, to enable
persons who became un-pensioned foreign nationals with disabilities because they were age
20 or older on Jan.1, 1980, as well as those who became un-pensioned aged persons offoreign nationality because they were age 60 or older on Apr.1, 1986.
■Prepared by the National Network for the Total Abolition of the Pension Citizenship Clause31

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Access to Public Places and Facility
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 15
Article 2 and 5■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 177~179■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ Problems
In Japan, there is no law which prohibits the denial of access to public places and facility based onnationality or race in general. As explained by the Japanese government report, in the field oftransportation or hotels, business owners are prohibited from denying the offer of service without
reasonable reasons. However, in other areas, no law or regulation clearly prohibits the denial ofaccess to public places and facility.
According to the Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey commissioned by the Ministryof Justice, 6.2% of respondents, have been refused entry or service at a store or a restaurant etc.
because they are foreign nationals in the past five years in Japan.
There are number of reported cases recently. For example, in a franchise store of POLA cosmetics,
a paper including a message “No Chinese Allowed” was pasted in the entrance door of the store.
Also, a Sushi-shop in Osaka was reported to add a large amount of Wasabi for customers from
Korea as a measure of harassment.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Take appropriate measures to protect non-citizens from discrimination in access to public places,in particular by enacting a law prohibiting such discrimination, and ensuring effective applicationof such las.
b. Investigate and sanction such acts of discrimination, and enhance public awareness-raising
campaigns on the requirements of the relevant legislation .
■ Prepared by Kim Changho, Attorney at Law

32

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Discrimination against Koreans and other immigrants in Japan when seeking tenancy
Article 5 (e) (iii)
Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants (2011.3.21 “Report on
Fact-finding Mission to Japan”: Paragraph 83) A/HRC/17/33/Add.3■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraph 160■ Implementation of the recommendations: no recommendations■ Problems

For foreigners, the “freedom to choose residence” is one of the most basic rights necessary to livein Japan. However, there is no law in Japan that clearly prohibits tenancy discrimination, or
guarantees the right to residence “for all people.”
According to the Japan Ministry of Justice “Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey”(March [English=June], 2017), of 2,044 non-Japanese respondents who had searched forresidence in the previous 5 years, 42.8% “➀ Got refused tenancy because I was a foreigner”, and46.0% “Got refused tenancy because I didn’t have a Japanese guarantor.” When we look at
respondents by “Nationality and Region”, especially those who come from the Asia region—51.0%
of Chinese, 50.0% of Korean, 46.4% of Vietnamese, 43.8% of Taiwanese, 53.1% of Thai, 46.7% ofIndian, 41.7% of people from Myanmar—have met with tenancy discrimination.
When we further consider the Japanese language abilities of those who experienced tenancy
discrimination, fully 90.9% of these responded that “I can speak well enough for work or study”, or“I can speak well enough to have no trouble in everyday life”, or “I can speak on the same level asJapanese people”. In other words, they met with tenancy discrimination simply “because they areforeigners”, not according to whether or not they can speak Japanese.
Even among Koreans in Japan, who are primarily 3rd- and 4th-generation and born in Japan, 27.2%
have received tenancy discrimination. Also, among non-Japanese who have a Japanese partner,
31.5% of them have been refused tenancy “Because I had no Japanese guarantor.”
Since the 1970s, there has been a struggle, primarily by Koreans in Japan, against tenancy
discrimination, and the citizenship requirement for public housing was eliminated. Litigation was
also initiated, and won, against tenancy discrimination in private rental housing.
Meanwhile, the government (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) created in2009 “guidelines” to facilitate smooth acceptance of non-Japanese as tenants in private rental
housing, has provided instruction to regional and municipal governments, as well as the realestate sector, and further issued a notice demanding correction of tenancy discrimination.
Despite these measures, the terrible situation of tenancy discrimination toward Koreans in Japanand immigrants has not been corrected, and continues in an unbroken line.

33

Non-Japanese who have met with tenancy discrimination in the last 5 years
Country of Origin

Overall

China

Republic

Chosoni

Philippinesof Korea➀ Refused tenancy for being a foreigner

42.8%

51.0%

29.8%

50.0%

36.5%

➁ Refused tenancy for having noJapanese guarantor

46.0%

57.4%

31.5%

42.9%

35.0%

[Source] Table created based on information in Excel table within the Japan Ministry of Justice “Analytical Report of the Foreign
Residents Survey.” (Percentages computed by subtracting non-respondents from the total, and using this as the denominator.)■ Suggested recommendations
a．Institute a legal framework to prohibit tenancy discrimination against foreigners according to therecommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants (para 83,
A/HRC/17/33/Add.3.
b．Survey current residency situations and housing environments among foreigners, and institute acomprehensive housing policy.
■ Prepared by Center for Minority Issues and Missioni“Choson” refers to the Korean Peninsula as a whole, and does not denote Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

citizenship.

34

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Migrant Workers and the Technical Intern Training Program
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 12■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 46-48■Implementation of the recommendations
1. Regarding “reinforc[ing] its legislation in order to firmly combat racial discrimination against
migrants in employment and access to housing and improve migrants’ employment status”(CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 12), no particular strengthening of legal measures was
implemented.
2. Regarding “tak[ing] appropriate steps to reform the technical intern training program in orderto protect the working rights of technical intern trainees” (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 12), the“Act on Proper Technical Intern Training and Protection of Technical Intern Trainees” wasenacted.

Results of the implementation:
Although a law was enacted (2. above), there has been no change in the discrepancy between theofficial aim to provide international assistance through the transfer of skills through the TechnicalIntern Training Program, and the reality that small- and medium-sized companies experiencing
labor shortages use of the Program as a means to secure labor.
Although punishments for human rights violations have been stipulated, and the Organization forTechnical Intern Training was newly established to oversee on-site examinations and consultations
and reporting, there’s nothing stipulated concerning punishments for the forced repatriation oftechnical intern trainees, as well as punishments for the sending organizations and their affiliates.
Furthermore, the Organization for Technical Intern Training has 13 regional offices throughout thenation and 346 personnel, but these resources are far from adequate to oversee the over 2000
supervising organizations, and close to 40,000 implementing organizations (receiving companies).
Additionally, there is no change in the overall structure of the Program in which technical interntrainees must shoulder large loans before coming to Japan, and the debt servitude-like situation
has not been improved.
■Problems
1. Overview of foreign workers in the country
As of October 2017, the number of registered foreign workers in Japan, excluding special
permanent residents (persons from the former colonies and their descendants), is approximately
1,280,000, and this figure is a 195,000 (18%) increase from the previous year. In terms of nonpermanent residents, part-time work by international students (permission to engage in activity
other than that permitted under the status of residence previously granted) and technical interntrainees both compose over 20% each, thereby making up a large portion of the labor force.
If we take the number of technical intern trainees, there were 167,626 in 2014; but by 2017, thisnumber had increased by 63.6% to 274,233 in three years. In terms of new entrants, in 2014 there
were 82,533, but by 2017, this figure was 127,688 – a 54.7% increase. This increase in foreign
workers is a reflection of Japanese society's declining population and labor shortages, and it isexpected that this trend will continue into the future.
2. The realities of Technical Internships
The human rights violations against technical intern trainees do not cease to exist, and many
serious concerns have been voiced to migrant workers support groups.

35

(1) Low Wages, Unpaid Wages, and Long Working Hours
In addition to low wages set at the minimum wage level or below, the withholding of wages is also
widespread. Additionally, although there is a system for unpaid wages reimbursement in situations
in which the receiving company goes out of business, only 6 months are covered, and the provisions
remain inadequate.
Even the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's study found that “8 technical intern trainees were
hired for ¥65,000 a month, and were only paid wages below the minimum wage,” “regarding
overtime work, the hourly wage for first-year interns was ¥300, ¥400 for second-year interns, and¥450 yen for third-year interns,” “there was 5.2 million yen of unpaid overtime wages and wages
below the minimum wage for 4 technical intern trainees,” and “11 technical intern trainees worked
for up to 130 hours of illegal overtime work (per month) during peak periods in which their company
encountered labor shortages.”(2) Forced Repatriation and Debt Servitude
Recently, there have been a noticeably large number of cases in which technical intern trainees
who assert their rights or complain about their working conditions or living environment are forced
against their will to return home. Such forced repatriation, not only forfeits their right to receive
technical training, but also puts many technical intern trainees, who often shoulder large amountsof loans to pay for the expenses to come to Japan (for example, in Vietnam from which the largest
numbers of technical intern trainees come, it costs about ¥1 million yen – about 4 to 5 years’ salaryin Vietnam), in debt if they return before completing their contract. In this way, threats of “returning
you to your country” by receiving companies and supervising organizations, instill great fear in thetechnical intern trainees, and prevent them from justly asserting their rights, thereby serving as
central means by which the various problems of the technical intern program are made “invisible.”In this way, technical intern trainees are placed in debt-servitude-like situations.
(3) Deposits, Verbal and Physical Abuse, and Decontamination Work
Since around in 2017, the deposits that were often problematized in the past have decreased, atleast on the surface; however, the amount of debt that technical intern trainees accrue in order tocome to Japan has not decreased, as these deposits have simply changed in name and shape topredeparture and processing fees.
Instances of verbal and physical abuse against technical intern trainees are numerous, and theMinistry of Justice has also reported a case in which there was “a worker at a construction company
participating in the Technical Intern Program that regularly hit, punched, kicked, etc. a technicalintern for ‘not understanding Japanese.’ In 2017 a Cambodian technical intern trainee who suffereddepression after being verbally and physically abused, was approved for as industrial accidents.
Furthermore, it surfaced in 2018 that technical intern trainees were involved in decontamination
work to remove the large amounts of radioactive contamination that had widely dispersed acrosslarge areas from a nuclear power plant following the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Not only
were they not informed of this task before coming to Japan, but they were also not informed of thedangers of such decontamination work and the measures to protect them from radiation were notsufficient. Decontamination work is completely unrelated to the transfer of technical skills thattechnical intern trainees are supposed to acquire.
3. Effects of the Newly Implemented Law
With the “Act on Proper Technical Intern Training and Protection of Technical Intern Trainees”(hereafter, Technical Intern Training Act) implemented on November 1, 2017, punishments forhuman rights violations, approval procedures for supervising organizations, recognition proceduresfor technical intern training plans, on-site examinations and responses to concerns carried out by
the newly-established Organization for Technical Intern Training, and provisions to help technicalintern trainees change their receiving company, were laid out. Additionally, large expansionary36

revisions were made on the receiving end involving the extension of the length of work for technicalintern trainees from a 3-to a 5-year maximum. Even receiving companies with 6 full-time
employees, could now receive up to 36 technical intern trainees.
(1) The Viability of the Regulation
As of May 25, 2018, there are 783 organizations classified as excellent supervising organizations
that are allowed to receive technical intern trainees for 5-year, and 1,361 other supervisingorganizations that are allowed for terms up to 3 years; in total, there are 2,144 organizations thathave received approval. These figures point to the fact that almost all supervising organization
applications were approved. This reflects the reality that the “checks” of the approval procedures
are not functioning.
As for the on-site inspections, these are only carried out on supervising organizations once a year,
and on the receiving companies once every 3 years; as such, viable regulatory oversight is notpossible.
Regarding the low-wage labor of the technical intern trainees, it is now required for the receiving
companies to prove that their wages should be “no less than a Japanese would receive for thesame kind of work,” but as the criterion for deciding what is “no less than” is relative and vague, so
any improvements will not be realistic.
(2) Responses to Forced Repatriation
Punishments for the aforementioned forced repatriations are not stipulated in the punishments forhuman rights violations, and the punishments for sending organizations and their affiliates are also
not stipulated. Therefore, it is difficult to expect decreases in the number of cases of forced
repatriation, and the large amount of debt accrued by technical intern trainees through what could
be called exploitation at the hands of sending organizations, has not decreased.
In order to prevent forced repatriation before the passage of legislation, from September 2016, theJapanese government began issuing “intent confirmation forms” at embarkation counters totechnical intern trainees returning home before the end of their contract to check their intentions toreturn. However, up until December 2017, there were only a total of 26 instances of early return
requests, and none of the cases were classified as forced repatriations. Given that there are wellover 10,000 technical intern trainees who return home early, from these figures, it is clear that thiscountermeasure is not effective.
(3) Changing One's Training Site
The Technical Intern Training Act allows for changes to one’s training site right before the fourthyear but changing one’s training site at any other time is in principle, not permitted. However, theprohibition of changing one’s training site makes a technical intern’s position vis-à-vis that of thereceiving company, extremely vulnerable, and creates conditions that make human rights violations
more likely. Therefore, it is paramount that revisions be made to the Program so that technicalintern trainees can flexibly change their training site when one encounters trouble at that site.
(4) The Efficacy of Memorandums of Cooperation
With the implementation of the Technical Intern Training Act, Memorandums of Cooperation wereconcluded. The aim of these Memorandums is to regulate sending organizations through thecooperation of sending countries. However, these Memorandums are not legally binding, and even
without the concluding of such an agreement, inflows of technical intern trainees would still continue
from that country; as such, whether to regulate sending organizations is up to the discretion of thesending country, thereby throwing into question the viability of these agreements.
As the aforementioned circumstances illustrate, the new law’s effect on the improvement of theProgram is extremely weak, and because of this, it is difficult to observe any improvements to theextant conditions of the slave-like conditions of technical intern trainees.

37

■Suggested recommendations

a. As it is observed that no improvements have been achieved for the reduction of human rights
violations against technical intern trainees since the enactment of the new law, abolish theTechnical Intern Training Program, which serves as a breeding ground for human rights
violations, and shift towards a new policy that allows the acceptance of foreign workers.
b. Revise the present law with the following changes as long as the Technical Intern Program is inplace; a new sanction clause on forcible deportation of trainees, acceptance of a change ofcompany for a trainee to have a training, legally binding a bilateral agreement with a sending
country, and reinforcement of the structure of the Organization for Technical Intern Training.
c. Take measures to minimize violation of human rights of technical intern trainees by curbing theongoing expansion of the Program as no improvements have been observed in the present
program.
■Prepared by Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)

Web news reference:https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/13/national/least-four-firms-used-foreign-trainees-cleanradioactive-contamination-fukushima-nuclear-plant-ministry/

38

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle：
Violence against foreign and minority women
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 Paragraph 17 as a follow-up recommendation■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
To the follow-up report of August 2016 submitted by the government, the Committee replied withthe same recommendations as per in the Concluding Observations of 2014, and requested thestate party to include additional information in its next periodic report to the Committee. However,
the report does not contain any additional information pertaining to paragraph 17.
■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ProblemsDespite the recommendations made in the 2014 Concluding Observations by CERD, no newmeasures have been taken regarding violence against migrant women. The Government has noteven conducted a survey on the situation that is necessary to design policies addressing violenceagainst migrant women and domestic violence. The Japanese Government has not made any
progress in making concrete efforts regarding prosecuting those responsible for the violence orproviding remedies and protection for the victims.
In regard to domestic violence against migrant women, it has become apparent from the data on
the number of people receiving temporary protection published by the Ministry of Health, Labor andWelfare, and the population ratio of foreign women and Japanese women, that migrant women are
given protection at a rate close to five times higher than Japanese women. The Act on thePrevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims states that their human rights will be
respected, “regardless of their nationality,” but a national minimum standard on specific policy
measures has not been established. Support measures for migrant women who are victims ofviolence are left to the efforts of local Government s. Apart from a few progressive areas, these
efforts have been lagging.
Furthermore, there are no police figures available to indicate the number of arrests ofperpetrators, or the number of complaints/accusations made by victims according to their
Japanese/foreign nationality, so it is impossible to deduce the prosecution cases in which migrant
women are the victims of violence.
With regard to the guarantee of status of residence for migrant women DV victims, since 2014,
in addition to CERD, there have also been recommendations by the United Nations Human Rights
Committee (Jul. 2014) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW) (Feb. 2016).
It was emphasized in the CERD general findings that the revocation of spouse status of residence
in the revision of the Immigration Law (Article 22.4.1) was of particular concern for its impact on
victims of DV, and it was recommended that this system be reviewed.
The problem with the procedures of residence status revocation is that, regardless of the numberof actual cases of revocation (31 cases in 2014, 30 cases in 2015, 32 cases in 2016, 23 cases in2017), the mere existence of the procedures threatens many migrant women, who reside with thestatus of spouses of Japanese nationals and permanent residents, which causes hesitation to39

escape from the harms of domestic violence. The procedures have become factors in making thesituation more serious for the victims.
The Japanese Government explains that victims of domestic violence are excluded from therevocation procedures, but migrant women are not informed of the exclusion provisions, and it isdifficult for the affected women to explain their circumstances to the immigration authorities.
Because of this, NGOs report of cases in which women had had their resident status revoked, eventhough they were married, had suffered violence, and had been abandoned. Although therevocation procedures require that the authorities hear the views of the affected women prior to
revocation, there has been no information on how these hearings are conducted. On the residence
status of victims of domestic violence, the Japanese Government explains that it has formulated an
Outline of Measures Related to Cases of Domestic Violence within the Immigration Bureau, andwhen a victim of domestic violence is identified, it gives special consideration in renewing andchanging residence status, giving priority to the protection of victims. Yet the number of victims ofdomestic violence identified by the Immigration Bureau around the country, 75 in 2014, 95 in 2015,
64 in 2016, is only the tip of the iceberg compared with the number of potential victims. This isagainst the backdrop of the lack of an environment enabling migrant women to bring forward theirclaims of domestic violence to the Immigration Bureau, as well as the lack of adequate training on
domestic violence for immigration officials, and that these officials are not well informed about the
Outline. As a consequence, there is a concern that only limited cases, such as those in which
lawyers are able to explain the circumstances and provide documents, are identified as domestic
violence cases. Therefore, there are a great number of cases in which victims can not renew orchange their status and have no choice but to return home.

■Suggested recommendationsa.

Collect data from the police detailing the numbers of consultations and claims according toJapanese or foreign nationality, so that he numbers of migrant women victim to violence, andthe number of prosecutions taken against the perpetrators in these cases will be available.
b. Review Article 22.4.1 of the Immigration Law which outlines the annulment of spouse visas,from the perspective of protection for victims of DV
c. In order to make consideration towards the residence status of DV victims, take measures topromote greater recognition of DV victims within the immigration bureau■Prepared by Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)40

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Long term detention of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants at the discretion of the
Immigration Bureau.
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 23 (a)(b)■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report No■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■Problems
Since the revision by the Immigration Bureau of various procedures in the process of Application
for Refugee Status from 2015 onwards there has been a significant increase in the numbers ofrefugee applicants (applicants for asylum) being detained due to visa status restrictions. As aresult of this the problem has also developed of detained refugee applicants being held for long
periods of time.
In addition to this there is also the problem of long term detention of undocumented migrants who
have been issued with a deportation order. Those who are detained often resist deportation as it
would separate them from their families and in many cases a return to their country would meansuffering persecution from their government or other organizations/individuals, placing them atphysical risk. There are even those who are stateless or whose countries refuse their extradition as
seen in cases of Vietnamese refugees who came to Japan after the Vietnam War for example.
The problem of long term detention of refugee applicants and undocumented migrants came to thefore in the 2000s, and as a result of criticism from civil pressure groups the Immigration Bureau has
made some changes to its response to this situation. As of 2010 onwards, all detention centers
have been required to report the situation of detainees held over 6 months to the Immigration
Bureau/Ministry of Justice and as a result the number of long term detainees was reduced. (27thJuly 2010, Ministry of Justice Ordinance 172 issued by the Director of the Immigration Bureau)
However, in November 2015 the issue of provisional release permits was largely frozen which led
to an increase in long term detainees. Provisional release allows someone who has been issued
with a deportation order to remain at home until they are prepared for departure. However due tothe impossibility of deportation, fears of persecution on return to their country or family ties in Japanetc, there are more and more people who have been on provisional release for over 10 years. Thereare even some who have been on provisional release for 17 years. Currently there are 3194 people
on provisional release as of September 2017.
On 18th September 2015 an order was issued by the Director of the Immigration Bureau “Ministryof Justice Ordinance 263” and since then applications for provisional release have rarely beenrecognized. The Ordinance was entitled “The Issue and Monitoring of Provisional Release Permit
for Detainees Issued with a Deportation Order” and as a result of this ordinance the numbers ofdetainees being held over 6 months rapidly rose. October 2014 recorded 301 detainees held over
6 months which in October 2017 rose to 474. Then the longest detention went over 5 years, whilein other detention centers there were several people being detained over 3-4 years. The orderstated that anyone who it seemed “inappropriate” to recognize, including those who were refusedrefugee status or were undocumented and with no foreseeable chance of deportation should be
refused provisional release by the Immigration Bureau.

41Under Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law then those who have been issued with adeportation order can be detained for an indefinite (infinite) amount of time based on the judgementof the Immigration Bureau. But it other cases outside Immigration Law it cannot be allowed forauthorities to make on their own arbitrary decisions to put someone into such long term detention
or not. It is not acceptable to detain someone without the judgement of a court.
Detainees have stated “It is a great mental strain to be in detention with no idea when you will be
coming out”. On 13th April 2018 an individual of Indian nationality who had applied for refugee
status, committed suicide at the East Japan Immigration Detention Center. One month before his
death he had been denied provisional release. After this case there were 3 further suicide attempts
in the same facility.
Many detainees have also complained about the problem of medical services. On 29th March 2014
an Iranian man and the on 30th March a Cameroonian man were withheld appropriate medical
support and died. On 22nd November a man of Sri Lankan nationality also died due to lack ofappropriate medical attention. On 25th March 2017 at the same East Japan Immigration Detention
Center a Vietnamese man also died due to subarachnoid bleeding. He had complained of feelingunwell 1 week prior to his death but as he was not provided with appropriate treatment he died. It
is very difficult to make clear the truth of deaths in the immigration detention centers. Currently
there is no third party investigation into the situation, not even an investigation by the independent
Immigration Detention Facilities Visiting Committee, merely a report filed by the immigration bureau.
In Oomura Detention Center there is a man of Chinses nationality who is unable to move due to ahernia who is merely being treated with pain killers. He continues to be detained without any othertreatment. If he continues in this way he fears that he may be disabled from this illness. In all the
response of the immigration officers to those who are unable to endure detention is to continue topressurize detainees by saying they have the choice to leave detention through returning to theirhome countries. It can be said that this detention which has no restriction in length and is decided
purely at the discretion of the Immigration Bureau continues to place physical and psychologicaltorture on detainees.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Ensure that detention of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants be the very last resort,and make a detention as shortest as possible.
b. Establish a check system into a long-term detention, and give a priority to alternatives todetention.
c. Guarantee the investigation and follow up by the Immigration Detention Facilities Visiting
Committee
d. Improve medical access in detention facilities of the Immigration Bureau
Prepared by Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)
Web news references:https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/04/f6336dc157d0-dozens-of-detainees-go-on-hungerstrike-at-japanese-immigration-center.html

42

6/16/18 Kyodo NewsThe Detention of Foreigners-Calling for the improvement of the system and its application／the continuous reports
of death in the facilities／Lawyer Komai Chie
An Indian male was confirmed dead after being found in the shower room of the Higashi Nihon
Immigration Center in April. He was discovered in a shower room unconscious with a towel around his neck. It isbelieved that he committed suicide due to the intensified hopelessness arising from the never-ending detention.
Ever since the incident, there are continuous reports of attempted suicide in detention facilities of the Ministry ofJustice, including at the same center as mentioned above, and as well as of the Tokyo Regional Immigration
Bureau. These are not just suicide incidents, as the death of repeat detainees raises serious human rights issues.
There are around 1,500 detainees who have overstayed their permitted residence lengths and are heldin detention facilities in Japan. Since there is no limit regarding the maximum number of days that one can stayfor detention from the deportation order, there is a trend of prolonged stays. As the number of detainees, including
the applicants applying for refugee status, is rapidly increasing, 13 cases of death have been reported since 2007.
In 2014, a Cameroonian male died at the same center (Higashi Nihon Immigration Center). He wassuffering and struggling in his bed, writhing in pain on the floor, and fell down from his bed numerous times.
However, he was not sent to the hospital for over 7 hours.
In 2017 a Vietnamese male died from subarachnoid bleeding at the same center. He vomited blood andfell down around one week before his death. Why was he not being sent to the hospital at the time?
There is also a report about a detainee from Turkey who was not sent to the hospital at the Tokyo Regional
Immigration Bureau. The male suffered from appendicitis and peritonitis and was not heard, despite his continued
reporting of pain for over 20 hours. According to the staff, they chose not to send the detainee to the hospital since
there was nothing clearly abnormal from his outward appearance.
The above incidents are considered only the tip of the iceberg. There are many detainees who are
suffering from serious diseases. Nevertheless, it is said that it is time consuming to get the request form for medical
treatment at some detention facilities. For those not fully recovered after receiving treatment at these facilities, it
is not unusual to see patients keep waiting to receive treatment from outside hospitals.
In addition to medicine, the living conditions of detainees are also extremely harsh. At the same center,the usage of air conditioners is limited. At the same time, hot showers are limited to only a few hours each day.
Last month a lawsuit regarding a Turkey male hurt by staff worker at the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau was
filed. The male’s right arm was broken in the incident.
Many of the detainees who are facing this harsh detention are asylum seekers. The long period ofdetention blocks them from connection to the outside world. Obviously, this severely hurts the chance of asylum
seekers collecting evidence. Instead of concentrating on claims for reviews, asylum seekers are forced toconcentrate on surviving. For those who come to Japan and seek for asylum status because they were tortured
or persecuted in their home county, it is certain that the indefinite detention in Japan hurts them further, both
physically and mentally.
The incidents have also been reported by international media. The system is also being questioned dueto the extremely low asylum acceptance rates (lower than 0.2%). Organizing the Olympic Games, the focus of theworld towards Japan is not limited to “Japanese omotenashi” (hospitality) in the performances and games. It isurgent to improve the detention system and its use.
The government should abolish this unnecessary and inappropriate “Detain All Principle” and establish
an appropriate time limit for the detention. Japan should approve applicants for provisional release in a timely andflexible way. The system should also ensure that detainees can follow all necessary application procedures while
maintaining their health.
A society which cannot protect the rights of the most vulnerable people is cannot guarantee the humanrights of anyone. Those in Japan will realize this situation when they are driven into a disadvantaged position.

43

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Rights of foreigners to receive public assistance and to appeal
No recommendations in the previous concluding observations
In violation of Articles 5 (a), 5 (e)-(iv) and 6 of the CERD Convention■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11, paragraphs 140 and 163■ Implementation of the recommendations■ Problems
Paragraph 140 of the above State party’s report quotes Paragraph 135 of its report(CERD/C/350/Add.2) which states, “with regard to public assistance, that “as an administrative
measure, identical protection … is given, under the same conditions as for Japanese nationals, to[foreigners]”.
Article 1 of the Public Assistance Act, however, restricts the application of the scheme to “citizens”
and excludes foreigners who do not have Japanese nationality. The Government has maintained theposition that foreigners do not have the right to claim public assistance, which is only a favor rather thanan entitlement for them.
In addition, the Government does not recognize the right of foreigners to appeal against administrativedecisions concerning public assistance, which is recognized for Japanese nationals, on the ground thatpublic assistance is granted to them without legal basis; thus foreigners cannot seek for remedies when
they are not satisfied with the decisions, including in court. While foreigners are legally entitled to makeappeals under other social security schemes, only the public assistance scheme excludes them fromthe complaint system. (Question 6 of Concerning the provision of public assistance to foreigners in need,
Notification issued by the Chief of the Social Welfare Bureau, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
on 8 May 1954 [revised on 30 June 2014]; Concerning the treatment of appeals from foreigners in
relation to public assistance, Notification issued by the head of the Protection Section, Social Welfare
and War Victims’ Relief Bureau, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 15 October 2001)
The rights to appeal and to challenge decisions in court are indispensable from the right to receive
public assistance. When foreigners When foreigners are not allowed to appeal, being left without themeans to remedy illegal and/or unreasonable decisions, it cannot be regarded at all that “identicalprotection … is given” to them.
In the case lodged by a permanent resident in Oita Prefecture who had been rejected her application
for public assistance, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Public
Assistance Act has the nationality clause, stating that “the Court does not find the grounds forinterpreting that the Public Assistance Act currently in force applies directly or mutatis mutandis to certain
categories of foreigners” and that “foreigners are not entitled to the protection under the Public
Assistance Act and does not have the right to receive assistance under the Act”.
The public assistance scheme is regarded as the last safety net in social security (the guarantee ofthe right to survive) in Japanese society. The exclusion from the scheme means that, in principle,
foreigners do not have the right to survive in Japan.
Article 2 of the Public Assistance Act states, “All citizens may receive public assistance under this Act… in a non-discriminatory and equal manner as long as they satisfy the requirements prescribed by thisAct. The Government changed its previous position concerning the Act in 1990 and started to apply the
Act mutatis mutandis only to foreigners who special permanent residents, who are listed in the Schedule44

2 of the Immigration Act (permanent residents, long-term residents etc.) and who are refugees underthe Act. Foreigners with other statuses of residence are virtually unable to receive public assistanceeven when they are in need, which represents discriminatory treatment contrary to the principle ofequality between nationals and foreigners.
Although the former Public Assistance Act of January 1946 did not have nationality clauses, the Public
Assistance Act of 1950, which is currently in force, provides that the Act applies to “citizens” and not toforeigners. One of the drafters explained that this was because “the scheme originates from Article 25of the Constitution” and stated that “perhaps this issue should be explored in the light of the United
Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. He went on to state that the nationality
clause was introduced because the Immigration Control Ordinance, which was in force at the time,
provided that “foreigners who are poor, vagrant, physically disabled, etc. and who may be burdens on
the state or municipalities for their livelihood” shall be denied permission for landing in Japan and thatsuch foreigners may be deported (KOYAMA Shinjiro, Interpretation and Application of the Public
Assistance Act [commentary published in Japanese]).
The circumstances have changed, however, illustrated by the ratification of a number of international
human rights treaties by Japan and the deletion of poverty and other factors from the grounds ofdeportation. It should be understood that the exclusion of foreigners from the scheme can be no longer
justified.
With a view to making it possible for Japan to ratify the Convention on the Status of Refugees,
legislative amendments were made in 1981 to remove the nationality requirements from the welfare andsocial security schemes. Consequently the nationality clauses were removed from the National Pension
Act, the Child Allowance Act, the Child Rearing Allowance Act, the Special Child Rearing Allowance Act,etc. The nationality clause was not removed, however, from the Public Assistance Act. At the Diet, theGovernment explained why it did not amend the particular Act by stating: “Since the establishment of
the scheme in 1950, public assistance has been granted in the same manner in effect to nationals andforeigners alike. With regard to the International Covenants on Human Rights, which was discussed
previously, and the Refugee Convention currently under consideration, we consider that there are no
barriers to the ratification of these treaties, because we treat foreigners in the same manner withnationals through administrative and budgetary measures” (the replies by a government delegate at thejoint meeting of the Committees on Judicial Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Social and Labour Affairs of theHouse of Representatives, 27 May 1981). As a result, the Public Assistance Act is the only piece oflegislation with the nationality clause in the social security and social welfare schemes, demonstratingthat the Government does not treat foreigners in the same manner with nationals”.
In addition, the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice does not grant permanent resident status
to foreigners who receive public assistance through “administrative measures”. The negative impact of
the non-recognition of a right to receive public assistance thus contributes to discriminatory treatment.
■ Suggested recommendations
a. Remove the nationality clauses in Articles 1 and 2 of the Public Assistance Act, with a view torecognizing the right of foreigners to receive public assistance.
b. Grant public assistance to foreigners in need, regardless of their statuses of residence.
c. Abolish the practice of refusing permanent resident status to foreigners who receive public
assistance.
■ Prepared by Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)45

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Trafficking in persons
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 16■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs through 55 to 71■Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■Problems(a) In July 2017, the government accepted the Protocol to Prevent Trafficking in Persons,supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. However, it claims
that by the revision of Penal Code in 2005, criminalization of human trafficking has been
completed, therefore it states that adopting specific legislation against trafficking in persons is notnecessary. However, NGOs find legal flaws in regard to protection and restoration of rights ofvictims and prevention (cf. there is no legal platform for protection of male victims and preventive
education at school, etc.). Therefore, they think that specific legislation including creating a
specialized agency for trafficking in persons is necessary, so have been requesting thegovernment to consider it.
The government has not ratified ILO Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930.
(b) Human trafficking of foreign women still continues. Out of the 42 trafficking victims that the police
agency identified in 2017, 14 were foreign women; 21 out of 46 in 2016, and 36 out of 49 in 2015.
All of them were forced to work either as hostesses or as prostitutes in sex entertainment facilities.
There are cases such as: (1) Seven women in Cambodia were tricked by sweet talk such as, "Youcan earn a lot if you work in Japan as hostesses,” but upon arrival, were forced to prostitute inbars and the money they earned was confiscated. (2) Four Thai women were tricked by sweet talksuch as, "You can go sightseeing in Japan for free,” but upon arrival, a debt was imposed on themin the name of travel expenses, thus were forced to prostitute in “delivery health” (escort
prostitution) to “pay back the debt” and the money they earned was confiscated. (3) Three Filipino
women were fraudulently married to Japanese men and came to Japan, but upon arrival, their
passports were taken away, they were forced to work as hostesses, and the money they earned
was confiscated. As the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games are approaching, there is aconcern that human trafficking will increase as the purchase and sale of women will increase.
Preventive measures to address the root causes of trafficking are insufficient. When the victim
is a child (under 18), the following acts are prohibited in the Anti-Child Pornography/Child
Prostitution Law and the Child Welfare Act and are subject to punishment: prostitution; trafficking
for the purpose of prostitution or production of child pornography; supply of child pornography;
production, possession, and transportation of it in order to supply it; and simple possession, etc.
However, when the victim is 18 years or older, perpetrators are in reality left unregulated. Sexual
exploitation or human trafficking are rarely the subject of social education or school education.
(c) The government does provide support for acknowledged trafficking victims such as provision of
shelters, granting status of residence including special permission for residence, support for
returning to home country, etc. However, individual support for each victim such as economic
support, extension of the period of stay, and change of residence status is insufficient. Also,establishing shelters for male victims has been on the agenda for a long time. Financial support
for non-governmental support organizations is meager.

46

In the first place, victims are not provided with support unless they are properly identified as“victims,” however the government only acknowledges a very small portion of the actual victims.
(Some NGO estimates there are 54,000 victims currently in Japan.) NGOs are excluded from thevictim identification process, and although NGOs have repeatedly asked the government toinclude them in the process, the government does not intend to do so.
(d) Because penalties for perpetrators are generally light, they do not provide enough restraint or
curtailment. Although most suspects of trafficking cases that the police arrest are indicted by theprosecutors, the punishment that the court hands out is rather light; most receive either jail timewith suspended execution or only fines. For example, out of 20 perpetrators indicted in 2017, only
2 received actual jail time, while 9 received jail time with suspended execution and 6 only received
fines (as of March 31, 2018, three are still in the trial process).
(e) Police Agency, Immigration Bureau, and Public Prosecutors Office provide training for theirrespective officials. However, the program is not provided for all the officials that may potentiallydeal with trafficking cases, and the training time is very limited. For the judges, there is barely
some mention in the lectures provided by international law researchers who deal with various
problems in regard to international laws. Therefore, foreigners who have violated immigration law,such as those who have overstayed, entered irregularly, etc., , even though they might bepotential victims of trafficking, were sometimes treated as suspects and arrested for violation of
the immigration law.
(f) JFC（Japanese-Filipino Children, mainly children born between Japanese men and Filipino
women）are taken advantage of due to their eligibility to apply for the status of residence in Japanor Japanese nationality, and cases to recruit them and bring them to Japan are occurring. The
government, during the period of 2013 through 2017, identified 28 JFC and mothers as trafficking
victims. Also, there are cases to exploit foreigners with "student” visas by having them obtain theCertificate of Authorized Employment and making them work as a cheap laborer. One such laborer
was identified as a trafficking victim.
Further, regarding the acceptance of foreign domestic workers that are being permitted only
inside National Strategic Special Zones, caution should be taken due to the following risks thatmight lead to labor exploitation: possible harassment in the closed space of houses; possible
inappropriate control of work hours and wages by the employer; workers being compelled to obey
employers’ orders because they could become illegal residents once dismissed.
■Suggested recommendations
a Enact the “Act on Support for Victims and Prevention of Trafficking in Persons” (tentative name)that comprehensively prescribes support for trafficking victims and prevention of trafficking
including eradication of the demand.
b Allow civil society organizations to take part in the identification process of the trafficking victims.
■ Prepared by Japan Network Against Trafficking In Persons (JNATIP)

47

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle

Refugee Applicants, further from protection of their human rights
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph. 23■ Relevant paragraphs in the state party’s report

CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs through 82 to 100■Implementation of the recommendations
Para.23 (a): Yes, but no improvement since the previous concluding-observation.
Para.23 (b): Yes, but no improvement.
Para.23 (c): Not implemented.
■Effects of the implementation
Para. 23 (a): The Foundation for the Welfare and Education of the Asian People annually holds a Festival
for Resettled Refugees in Japan.

Para.23 (b): The implementation of provisional stay permission introduced by the 2005 amendment
has been limited, which only one-tenth undocumented refugee applicants were given this permission.
Only limited number of refugee applicants have been benefited from MOJ-NGO cooperation in housing
for refugee applicants at ports. As a result, almost all refugee applicants at ports found themselves inprolonged immigration detention.
■ Problems
1. Destabilization of stay and detention of asylum seekers
All irregular migrants including refugee applicants are in severe situations. Refugee applicantswithout residence status at the time of refugee application shall remain irregular throughout the refugee
application procedures. Although granting a temporary stay permission suspends deportation
procedures, less than 10 percent of the relevant refugee applicants were able to receive the permission.
Now many refugee applicants are forbidden to work, despite limited public support for refugee
applicants. Some refugee applicants reportedly face immigration detention before receiving a decisionat the first instance.
Restrictions on residence status and work permit, which applied to only refugee applicants without
residence status at the time of refugee applications, have extended to refugee applicants with regularmigrant status since September 2015. Lives of an increasing number of refugee applicants become
unstable during the refugee procedures.
In March 2017, trials to promote the return of asylum seekers to their home countries werelaunched, in which subsequent refugee applicants are basically not permitted for provisional release.
Even if a provisional release were permitted, strict surveillance on movement of those with
provisionary release permission including cases suspected of infringement of privacy rights, is carriedout. A number of migrants were reportedly re-detained for bleaching provisional release conditions. For
example, not a few cases were reported that migrants were raided on house, were investigated receipts
and interrogated on their illegal work. One migrant with provisional release permission was reportedly
re-detained after he made ex-post report of the address change to the immigration authorities. His
detention continued over 2 years. He remained in detention at the time of this report.
Furthermore, refugee applicants are forced to make a choice if he/she is certainly detained in Japan48

or return to his/her home country where he might have a small chance to avoid persecution, and he/shechoose to return to a country of persecution.
2. Discrimination on the basis of country of origin
Refugee applications are reportedly dealt in discriminatory manner based on his/her country oforigin at application reception of local immigration services. If a refugee applicant is found to be fromsuch countries as the Philippines, Nepal or Indonesia, he/she are advised that he/she would not begiven an update for any current residence status during the refugee recognition procedures and be
strongly encouraged not to apply for refugee status.
It is suspicious that refugee status recognition is also implemented in discriminatory manner basedon country of origin, whether from a friendly country of the Government of Japan or not. While there
have been over 6,000 refugee applications made by persons from Turkey including Turkish Kurds, nota single person has yet been given refugee status.
3. StatelessRegarding the accession to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and introduction of a stateless determination
procedure, no progress has been seen since the previous recommendation.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Stop detention of refugee applicants that suspected of indirectly violating the principle of nonrefoulement.
b. Ensure that detention of asylum seekers is used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
possible period.
c. Facilitate alternative measures to detention for refugee applicants.
d. Develop a statelessness determination procedure to adequately ensure the identification andprotection of stateless persons.
e. Accede to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and to the 1961 Convention
on the Reduction of Statelessness.
■Prepared by Japan Lawyers Network for Refugees49

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Ethno-religious profiling of members of Muslim communities
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 25■ Relevant paragraphs in the state party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraph 142■ Implementation of recommendations
Not implemented■ Problems
In 2010, documents regarding investigations into terrorism, believed to have been produced by thethird foreign affairs division of the Metropolitan Police Department’s public security bureau, werereleased on the internet. It became clear from the leaked documents that Japanese police had
been performing surveillance on every Muslim in Japan and those from Muslim majority countries
who reside in Japan. The surveillance involved the MPD systematically collecting private andconfidential information.
The MPD admitted the leaked documents “contained information highly likely to have been handled
by out staff” and practically admitted that they were internal documents on December 24th,
2010. Concerning the 2014 judgment of the lawsuit against the national and Tokyo prefectural
government in regards to the illegality of profiling, its investigations and leakage of said documents;
the court admitted to the fact that the documents were of the MPD and that the Japanese police
had been surveilling all Muslims as well as all those from Muslim countries who lived in Japan. The
High Court upheld this admission, and the Supreme Court also did not overturn it.
However, the Japanese government has denied the fact that any surveillance had taken place, on
the 10th and 11th combined periodic reports by the government, stating that the police "in fact, do
not perform surveillance on Muslims of foreign origin, which may constitute as ethnic or ethnoreligious profiling”(para142). Apparently, the government does not have any countermeasuresagainst activities that it “does not do”, so it hasn’t done anything to ensure that its law enforcement
officials do not rely on the ethnic or ethno-religious profiling of Muslims.
As judicial decisions in regards to the aforementioned lawsuit, the court issued their first and second
instances of the judgement which stated that surveilling all Muslims as well as all those who arefrom Muslim countries who lived in Japan and systematically collecting confidential private
information is necessary in order to prevent the occurrence of international terrorism. The supreme
court upheld this ruling in 2016.
In addition, it is apparent that Japanese police have been continuing their surveillance of Muslims
from the fact that there have been many witnesses of the policemen who revealed their identity inmany places such as mosques.

50

■Suggested recommendations
a. Facilitate guidelines which prohibit surveillance using ethnic or ethno-religious profiling andcollection of confidential private information of Muslims.
b. Make all law-enforcement officials know that it is unacceptable to use ethnic or ethnographicreligious profiling.
c. Observe the Convention as judicial standard in court.
■Prepared byJunko Hayashi, Attorney at Law
Web news article:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/top-court-green-lights-surveillance-japan-muslims160629040956466.html

51

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Buraku discrimination
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 22■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
D/C/JPN/CO/7-9/Add.1, paragraph 22 (Situation of the Burakumin)■ Implementation of the recommendations
While the following two of the four recommendations have been partly implemented, the others
have not been implemented.
■ Impact of the implementation
Since the expiration of the Act on the Dowa Special Measures in 2002, certain administrative
measures have been taken to resolve the socio-economic problems faced by the Burakumin within
the general administrative framework. In addition, the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of
Buraku Discrimination was adopted in December 2016, which has led to the issuance of thecirculars by several central ministries concerning the measures conducive to the elimination of
Buraku discrimination. The Social Welfare Act was amended to integrate discrimination issues into
local welfare plans, giving Rimpokan (settlement houses) more active roles in the elimination of
discrimination. Debates are currently underway concerning surveys on the actual situation of
Buraku discrimination.
With regard to the issue of illegal access to family registries, criminal administrative sanctions havebeen imposed on the concerned research agencies as well as administrative scriveners and otherlegal professionals who have been involved in such cases.
■ Problems
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Since the Government has not changed its official position that Buraku discrimination is notcovered by the ICERD, the State Party’s report itself has no reference to Buraku discrimination.
The relevant administrative measures have been taken separately by several ministries,
including the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare, which means that consistent development and implementation of the policies has
not been necessarily ensured.
There has been no discussion concerning the definition of the Burakumin. Due to its nature asan act listing the relevant principles, the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku
Discrimination does not define the Burakumin, either.
Those who are affected by discrimination has not been given effective opportunities toparticipate in the debates concerning how the surveys on the actual situation of Buraku
discrimination under the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination
should be conducted. Although such surveys are to be conducted concerning the public attitude
on discrimination issues, discriminatory information on the Internet and concrete cases of
Buraku discrimination, the current prevailing view is that the relevant socio-economic indicators
are not to be covered in such surveys in spite of the reference in in the previous concluding
observations of the CERD Committee, which is a problem.
In spite of the amendment to the Social Welfare Act, requiring that the role of Rimpokan(settlement houses) in dealing with discrimination issues should be mentioned in local welfareplans, some municipalities have failed to do so, neglecting their duties to take measures

52

6.

conducive to the elimination of discrimination.
Buraku discrimination has an aspect of the exclusion of the Burakumin from employment andmarriage, resulting from discriminatory attitudes and prejudice; for this purpose, individuals are
sometimes subjected to personal background inquiries to know whether they are Burakumin
or not. In recent years, it has been observed that the location of Buraku districts or theaddresses and contact numbers of individual Burakumin are publicized on the Internet. One of
the main perpetrators has taken moving images of Buraku images and uploaded them on avideo hosting website. While civil proceedings are underway against him, he has not obeyed
the court orders that these kinds of information and images should be removed because they
constitute the acts of promoting discrimination.

■ Suggested recommendationsa.

Modify its interpretation of the concept of “decent”, with a view to apply the ICERD to theissues of Buraku discrimination.
b. Establish a comprehensive coordinating body on the Buraku issues within the Cabinet Office.
c. include surveys to collect disaggregated data on the socio-economic conditions of living
among the Burakumin when conducting surveys on the actual situation of Buraku
discrimination as per stipulated in the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku
Discrimination.
d. Promote the effective implementation of the Social Welfare Act at the municipal level, so that
Rimpokan (settlement houses) can play their roles in the elimination of Buraku discriminatione. Take more effective measures, including legislative ones, to curtail the act of making thelocation of Buraku districts public.
■ Prepared by Buraku Liberation League** Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination follows in the next page.

53

Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination
Adopted by the Diet on 9 December 2016

(Purposes)
Article 1

In the light of the fact that Buraku discrimination

still exists

even today and that the situation of Buraku discrimination has been changed
along with the increased use of information technologies, and given theimportance of the challenge to eliminate Buraku discrimination on the basis of
the recognition that such discrimination is not acceptable in line with theprinciples of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees the enjoyment offundamental human rights for all citizens, the present Act aims at promoting
the elimination of Buraku discrimination, by establishing the basic principle
and defining the responsibilities of the State and local governments in relation
to the elimination of Buraku discrimination as well as by providing for the
consolidation of advisory mechanisms and other measures, thereby realizing asociety free from Buraku discrimination.
(Basic principle)
Article 2Themeasuresconcerningtheeliminationof

Burakudiscrimination shall be taken with a view to realizing a society free fromBuraku discrimination, by seeking to improve the understanding of each andevery citizen on the need to eliminate Buraku discrimination, in accordancewith the principle that all citizens shall be respected as unique individuals who
enjoy fundamental human rights on an equal basis.
(Responsibilities of the State and local governments)
Article 3(1)
In accordance with the basic principle set out in thepreceding Article, the State shall be responsible for taking measuresconcerning the elimination of Buraku discrimination as well as for providing
necessary information, guidance and advice for the promotion of suchmeasures by local governments.
(2) In accordance with the basic principle set out in the preceding Article,
local governments shall seek to take measures, consistent with their local
conditions, concerning the elimination of Buraku discrimination on the basis ofappropriate division of roles with the State and in collaboration with the Stateand other local governments.

54

(Consolidation of advisory mechanisms)
Article 4(1)
The State shalltakemeasurestoconsolidate

mechanisms to respond to requests for advice and support concerning Buraku
discrimination in appropriate ways.
(2) Local governments shall seek to take measures, consistent with theirlocal conditions, to consolidate mechanisms to respond to requests for advice
and support concerning Buraku discrimination in appropriate ways, on thebasis of appropriate division of roles with the State.
(Education and awareness-raising)
Article 5(1)
The State shall conduct necessary education andawareness-raising in order to eliminate Buraku discrimination.
(2)
Local governments shall seek to conduct necessary education andawareness-raising, consistent with their local conditions, in order to eliminate
Buraku discrimination, on the basis of appropriate division of roles with theState.
(Surveys on the actual situation of Buraku discrimination)
Article 6With a view to contributing to the implementationof themeasures concerning the elimination of Buraku discrimination, the State shallconduct surveys on the actual situation of Buraku discrimination incollaboration with local governments.

＜Supplementary provision＞
The present Act shall come into force as from the day of promulgation.
＜Supplementary Resolution＞
The Government should pay attention to see to it that measures for theelimination of Buraku discrimination under the present Act widely reflectvarious understanding of the issue existing among different generations andactual conditions of each local community, while making efforts at appropriate
and careful operation of the present Act towards the realization of society freefrom Buraku discrimination to be achieved through the promotion of theelimination of Buraku discrimination as the purpose of the present Act.

<unofficial translation by IMADR>

55

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Surveys to understand the actual situation of Buraku women
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 22
CERD/C/PER/CO/18-21 paragraphs 6 (b) and 22 of■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
D/C/JPN/CO/7-9/Add.1, paragraph 22 (Situation of the Burakumin)■ Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented. See CERD/91st/FU/GH/SK/ks, paragraph 22.
■ Problems

Buraku women have suffered from different forms of disadvantages because of belonging to the
Buraku community and of being women.
1.

Surveys to understand the actual situation of Buraku women had not been conducted underthe Act on the Dowa Special Measures, which had been in force for 33 years. In order to makethemselves visible, Buraku women conducted their own questionnaire survey in 2005 andfound out their status in the fields of literacy, employment, discrimination and domestic violence.
1,405 women from the Buraku community took part in the survey.

2.

Similar surveys were conducted by the Ainu women and Korean women residents. Thesesurveys, conducted by the women belonging to minority and indigenous communities who had
been invisible for long years, as well as the efforts to lobby on the Diet members and theGovernment on the basis of the findings, made the existence and status of minority women in
Japan visible, albeit to a limited degree.

3.

Before these surveys were conducted, the CERD Committee had adopted its General
Recommendation 25 on Gender Related Dimensions of Racial Discrimination, recommending
the States Parties to understand the actual situation of the exercise by women of their civil,
political, social, economic and cultural rights, with a view to dealing with the special situation of
the women belonging to disadvantaged communities in appropriate ways.

4.

When the CEDAW Committee considered the State Party’s reports of Japan in 2003 and 2009,it recommended Japan to conduct a comprehensive study on the situation of minority women.
Nevertheless the Government has never conducted such surveys. When Japan’s report wasconsidered by the CEDAW Committee in 2016, the Government did not submit the relevant
data in this regard; at present, it has no plans to conduct such surveys.

5.

As a result of the lobbying efforts by minority women, the Government confirmed, for the firsttime, the needs to recognize the difficult situation of minority women and to create anenvironment for them to live with a sense of safety and security, in the Third Basic Plan for
Gender Equality (Priority field 8) in 2010. Thereafter, however, specific measures have notbeen taken to fulfill the needs, including surveys to understand their actual situation; there are
no plans to do so, either.

6.

In December 2016, the Act on the Promotion of the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination was
adopted and came into force. The Act is a piece of legislation listing relevant principles,consisting of three pillars (human rights education, advisory services and surveys on the actual
situation). The Government has not indicated specific plans for surveys on the actual situation,

56

which is one of the three pillars of the Act. The Foreign Resident Survey, published by the
Ministry of Justice in March 2017, was based on the findings from the questionnaire survey ofthe foreigners living in 47 municipalities across the country; gender-specific figures are notprovided under any of the survey items, however. Given this, gender-specific statistics andanalysis should be provided under all the survey items in official surveys on the Buraku
community in the future, as is explicitly indicated in the above-mentioned General
Recommendation 25.
7.

According to a survey conducted by Buraku women and researchers in 2010-2012, 68% of
single mothers from the Buraku community had experienced domestic violence during
marriage. The survey also found that the rate of low-level education is higher among the single
mothers from the Buraku community than the national average among single mothers, while
their annual household income is less than the national average among single mothers.
According to the calculation by the Osaka Prefectural Office in 2011, undertaken on the basisof the administrative data, the proportion of the single mother households on public assistancein the total number of households was higher in the Buraku community. Since the Dowa Policy
Council Report was issued in 1965, measures have been taken in the fields of welfare, health,
medical services and protection for “mothers and children”, including the establishment ofsocial welfare facilities and the measures to improve public health, in response to the demands
from Buraku women. After the termination of the Dowa Special Measures in 2002, however,
the measures to support persons in need within the general policy framework have not reached
Buraku women; efforts have not been made to involve them in the implementation of thesemeasures.

8.

Buraku women have been involved in the development of the relevant local ordinances and in
the relevant councils, proposing that specific measures for Buraku women should be integrated
in general administrative measures. This has been limited to some municipalities, however;there are few opportunities for minority women to be involved at the national level.

■ Suggested recommendationsa.

Acknowledge that the intersection of racial discrimination and gender discrimination brings
about multiple forms of discrimination and difficulties among Buraku women, Korean women
residents, indigenous women and migrant women, in reference to the CERD GR 25..
b. Collect data on social and economic indicators, disaggregated by gender and other factors.
c. Conduct surveys on the actual situation of the Buraku community promptly and publish genderspecific findings in accordance with the provision of the Act on the Promotion of the Eliminationof Buraku Discrimination.
d. Develop and implement measures to remedy the disadvantages suffered by Buraku womenand indigenous minority women as a result of discrimination, ensuring that the views of minority
women are reflected in the development of such measures.
■ Prepared by IMADR (International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism)57

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Recognition of the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as indigenous peoples
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 21
Article 29, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report■Implementation of the recommendations: not implemented■ProblemsUpon the return of facilities/land areas where U.S military exclusively uses in Japan, theGovernment of Japan exempts the U.S. military from the responsibility of returning the area to its
original state1. The U.S military does not provide all record regarding the use of the lands, including
possible contamination that they returned to the Government of Japan. Therefore, the people of
the Ryukyu/Okinawa know about serious contamination of their lands only after the lands are
retuned from the U.S military and they start to develop those lands. Under the circumstance, thepeople of the Ryukyu/Okinawa who use those lands are revealed to risks of their health without
knowing serious contamination.
One of the examples is that 108 discarded drums with the logo of an herbicide manufacturer,
thought to be abandoned by the U.S. military were discovered until today from June 2013, at asoccer field that was returned to Japan by the Kadena Air Base in 1987.The Government of Japan
conducted an onsite inspection and it was found out that the soccer field was seriously
contaminated by various toxic substances, such as dioxin, PCB and PCB. Also, concentrated
dioxin, 2,4,5-T which is highly toxic and one of the two elements to consist defoliant and the most
toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD were found from the drums. It was confirmed by environmental expertsthat the highly dioxin had been continuously leaking from the drums to the soccer field for a longtime.
Although the Government of Japan removed contaminated soil after an inspection, any
examination on influence of the contamination to the local citizens has not been conducted. Also,
participation by the local citizens in Okinawa in all the land recovery processes has been
eliminated.
Moreover, In August 2013, a U.S. Air Force rescue helicopter from Kadena Air Base crashed inCamp Hansen near a dam in Ginoza which is a source of drinking water for the people living inGinoza. However, onsite investigation request by the Okinawa Prefecture nor Ginoza City a tocheck water safety in the Dam by the crash was not allowed. As a result, it took more than a year
to restore the water intake from the Dam. As this case demonstrates, a water source that isessential to the Okinawan people faces a constant risk of contamination caused by U.S. militaryactivities.
In addition, in 2016, it was revealed that perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) was discovered in rivers
near U.S Kadena Air Base that feed water to the Chatan Water Treatment Plant and a well within
the Base2. Even though Kadena Air Base was urged to stop using PFOS-tainted products, theingredient is still being recorded, and no on-site investigations have been conducted to date. In
response to this, the Okinawa Prefectural Government had to put a halt to the water intake from1
2

U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement Article 4 Item 1
http://english.ryukyushimpo.jp/2016/02/02/24468/

58

one of the rivers. The Okinawa Prefectural Government requested an onsite investigation of the
airbase however, their request has not been approved. The Okinawa Prefectural Government
conducted a survey throughout in 2016 on PFOS contamination of water sources around the U.S
military bases in Okinawa. According to the mid-term report, PFOS contamination was foundaround a spring near U.S Marine Corps Futenma Air Station.
Furthermore, DDT which is highly toxic and banned in Japan, was detected recently from the soilof the Northern Training Area of U.S military which was returned to the Government of Japan in
December 2016. The Government of Japan conducted an examination of the contaminated soil
and said that the soil and the water environment are relatively good, according to the examination.
However, the Government of Japan has failed to take any effective measures to ensure the peopleof Ryukyu/Okinawa of their right to know about any possible contamination information on theirland and participate in decision making process of them.
In order to protect the right to life and health of the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa and ensure themof their right to participate in decision making processes of their land, the principle of Free, Prior,and Informed Consent (FPIC) is an indispensable component.

■Suggested recommendations
a. Ensure that the people of the Ryukyu/Okinawa hold the right to access information regarding
the contamination of the land and the environment, in accordance with the Article 29, Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
b. Ensure the right to health, as well as the right to the safe and sustainable environment of peopleof Okinawa thoroughly through the prior consultation and agreement through the principle of Free,
Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
■prepared by All Okinawa Council for Human Rights

59■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle

Violation of Ryukyuan/Okinawan People’s Right to Self-determination.
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 21■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report

CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 34, 35 and 36■

Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented***
1. The Government of Japan has had the authority to formulate the budget for the Promotion andDevelopment of Okinawa. Yosuke Tsuruho, Minister of State for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs,
said that progression in the construction work of a U.S. marine base at Henoko will be influencing the amountof the Okinawa development budget. In fact, the government budget plan for Fiscal Year 2017 had asubstantial reduction of 20 billion yen (approximately 180,000,000 US dollars), about 6% compared with theinitial budget for Fiscal Year 2016. The misuse or abuse of budget formulation authority has become aproblem.
2. Currently the Government of Japan refuses to recognize the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as indigenous
people,and the governmet insist that Ryukyuan/Okinawan People have enjoyed the right as same as otherJapanese People, and no special protection to them are necessary.

■Problems
1. Violations of the economic, social and cultural rights including the right to development.
Since 1972, the Government of Japan has had the authority to formulate the budget for the
Promotion and Development of Okinawa in order to realize the Plan for the Promotion andDevelopment of Okinawa. In this formulation of the budget, structurally, a large weight is placedon public work projects for a long time.
First, Priority on public work projects made big amount of public sector oriented constructionindustries in Okinawa, But those are so dependent and week to promote Okinawan economic
development.
Second, budgets for education and welfare of prefecture and municipal governments are notenough. The result of lack of budgets, relative poverty rate in Ryukyu/Okinawa is 34.8%, almost
twice as high as Japanese average, 18.3%.(1)Particularly in recent years, the misuse or abuse of budget formulation authority has becomea problem. He has threatened to reduce the policy budget for Ryukyu/Okinawa's development
if there is continued opposition to the U.S. military base. This clearly violates the right to selfdetermination of the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa.
2. Refusal to recognize the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as indigenous people.
Currently the Government of Japan refuses to recognize the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as
indigenous people, and does not acknowledge their rights to land and natural resources whichconstitute the "ancestral territories". Nor does it give special protection to them.

60

3.Non-respect to the Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) principles
In November 2014, the current governor who was elected based on his electoral pledge tooppose the Henoko base construction, has cancelled the approval of the previous governor.
Then a lawsuit was brought by the Government of Japan to invalidate this cancellation, andthe Supreme Court has ruled for the claims of the Government of Japan, deciding that thecancellation was invalid. The Japanese Supreme Court completely failed to consider the rightto ancestral territories recognized in international human rights law, and also failed toacknowledge the need to form consensus based on the FPIC principle. No Judicial remedy are
possible in this case.
4. Human rights violation by disrespecting the FPIC principles regarding the Ryukyuan/Okinawan
people's ancestral territoriesi) The construction of the U.S. Marine Corps Osprey's landing site in Kunigami village of
Takae ward.
ii) The construction of base for the Japanese Self Defense Force (SDF) in Yonaguni island.
iii) The plan to build a SDF base in Ishigaki island and Miyako islands.
■Suggested recommendations

1.Improve the decision-making process to be more inclusive concerning the people of Ryukyu/
Okinawa’s economic, social and cultural development. move the authority of formulation national
budgets for Okinawa Promotion from central government to Okinawa Prefecural Government.
2.Recognize the rights of the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa to ancestral territories, and fully comply
with the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) principles.
■Prepared by All Okinawa Council for Human Rights(1) Kensaku Tomuro, “poverty rate, working poor rate,children’s poverty rate, capture rate in eachprefecture in Japan”. Yamagatadaigaku Jinbunkenkyunenpo,No13,Mach2016,pp33-53.

61

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Human rights/rights of children in Ryukyu/ Okinawa are not guaranteed equally as in other areasin Japan
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraphs 6, 11 (e), 17, 21, 24, 26 (a) (b)■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
Problems of sexual violence to young women →9 to 16
Problems of education →34 to 36, 122, 126, 157, 198 to 200, 202 to 210■Implementation of the recommendations
Paragraph 17: Partially implemented.
Paragraph 21: Not implemented.
■Problems
A. Discrimination against Okinawa under presence of the U.S. military bases is reflected on the factthat the protest of the parents against the flight of the U.S. military aircrafts is totally ignored.
They are demanding discontinuation of the flights because of sequential occurrences of part
falling from the U.S. military aircraft in 2017 in Ginowan City. The signatures to a written request
exceeded 130,000 but the flight of the U.S. military aircrafts has continued even after the seriesof accidents. It will not be surprising if another accident occurs at any time. The clear zones
defined by the U.S. safety criteria is being observed in the U.S. or other countries, but tosurprise, the clear zone of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma is densely populated withthe buildings including educational facilities (See Reference 1 to 8). Robert B. Nellar,
Commandment of the Marine Corps, said decisively that nobody had resided near Futenma,
which was against the fact that the U.S. military had seized Okinawans’ traditional ancestral landsince 1945. The MCAS Futenma should be immediately and unconditionally closed so that it will
never cause any more casualties in the future.
A problem on the poverty of children in Ryukyu/ Okinawa has remained unresolved after the
Battle of Okinawa due to a 27-year absence of child welfare, along with the harmful effects of the
U.S. military bases. Since the Government, relying on private sectors, has not taken
fundamental measures against the poverty of children, even now, many children cannot takeenough foods or appropriate medical care in Okinawa. The efforts to support places protecting
children after school have not been made sufficiently. In addition, child abuse and neglect occur
due to economic difficulties. The survey performed at a juvenile detention center showed 34.8%of the detainees who had grown under the condition of “neglect” and “letting alone” by theirparents (2014). In 2013, child abuse occurred in 348 cases, including 143 (41.4%), 24 (6.9%),59 (17.0%) and 122 (35.0%) of physical, sexual, psychological abuses and neglect(negligence/refusal of childcare), respectively.
B. The Government should conduct a detailed survey on actual situation of sexual violence thathas frequently occurred in Okinawa since the end of the war, and should take measures against
the situation. The voices of the victims have not been sufficiently heard. In Okinawa, the age ofwomen who work in the sex industry has been remarkably lowered, and the early childbearing
rate has been elevated. 22 of 159 female high school students found to be pregnant or havegiven birth left voluntarily their school (14%). The pregnancy rate of the teenagers was 2.6%
(2014) in Okinawa, twice the national average (1.3%). The Cabinet Office has started to discussestablishment of places specific for young pregnant women. It is required to monitor the above
activity so that the funding is provided to persons concerned with administrative responsibilities.

62

Schools can play a uniquely important role for every child, but in fact, have a tendency to removea certain type of children.
C. Okinawan children have the right to receive education of Ryukyuan languages, history of the
Ryukyu Islands etc., which respects for the life and peace, but the Government has not yet
guaranteed their rights as indigenous people. Ryukyuan languages have been disparaged as
dialects, using “a dialect tag” effectively before/after the war, but now, approved by twointernational organizations, UNESCO and SIL International, as independent languages. In spiteof that, Ryukyuan languages are not still taught at school. Quite the contrary, lately, the rulingparty proposed English education at school by the U.S. military. The Government should takehistorical responsibility for the critical situation of Ryukyuan languages.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Initiate negotiation on flights of the U.S. military aircrafts over educational facilities including
nurseries and schools including strict observance of the clear zones defined by the AICUZ
program.
b. Promote establishment of places for protecting young women exposed to sexual violence andperform surveys such as detailed hearing.
c. Promote school education emphasizing on the human rights/rights of the Okinawan children,
including those as indigenous people.
■Prepared by All Okinawa Council for Human Rights
References
1. “What Okinawa Wants You to Understand about the U.S. Military Bases” issued by Okinawa
Prefectural Government
http://dc-office.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/E-all.pdf
2. “Traffic patterns of the aircrafts etc.” cited from the data prepared by Yoichi Iha Office with thecharts/photos from Okinawa Defense Bureau, with the captions translated by Aiko Kato (seeattached “References”)
3. Crashes Caused by Aircrafts Based on Futenma Air Station (Since 1972)
http://www.city.ginowan.okinawa.jp/DAT/LIB/WEB/1/00854_00005.pdf
4. Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program (for clear zones, see 3-6 to 3-7)https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCO%2011010.16.pdf
5. Newspaper articles on the cases of falling of matters from the U.S. military aircrafts in Ginowan
City“Futenma: The Most Dangerous Base in the World, It’s time to shut down the Futenma air basein Okinawa, before the unthinkable happens.”
https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/futenma-the-most-dangerous-base-in-the-world/“Okinawans demand end to US military flights over schools, Recent `mishaps` have amplified
calls to ban military aircraft from flying over educational institutions.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/okinawans-demand-military-flights-schools-18022210
4205546.html“Object, possibly from U.S. military plane, falls on Okinawa nursery school”
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/07/national/alarm-object-possibly-u-s-military-plane-falls-okinawa-nursery-school/“Object from US military helicopter falls onto elementary school in Okinawa”
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20171213/p2a/00m/0na/004000c“Abuse of school over chopper window accident shows discrimination against Okinawa”

63https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20171225/p2a/00m/0na/013000c“Hundreds protest US military flights over Okinawa schools after 2 dangerous incidents”
https://www.rt.com/news/414661-okinawa-protest-us-military-flights/
6. “Network and School Experience of Women Working in the Sex Industry”, Yoko Uema,
p.87-108, Vol.96, The Journal of Educational Sociology (2015)
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/eds/96/0/96_87/_article
7. “The Ryukyus and the New, But Endangered, Languages of Japan”, Patrick Heinrich, Fija Bairon
and Matthias Brenzinger
https://apjjf.org/-Patrick-Heinrich/3138/article.html
8. “Full text of the resolution of protest by Ginowan City Council”, cited from an article of Ryukyu
Shimpo, Jun26, 2018 and translated by Aiko Kato

64

◼

Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Rights of the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as indigenous people

CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 21◼

Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report:
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs 34, 35 and 36◼

Implementation of the recommendations
The Government of Japan refuses to recognize the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as indigenous
people. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe does not accept that Ryukyu was an independent kingdom.

◼ Problems
Although the Government of Japan expressed the view that “[t]hose who live in Okinawa
prefecture or natives of Okinawa are of the Japanese race, and generally, in the same way asnatives of other prefectures, they are not considered to be a group of people who share biologicalor cultural characteristics under social convention, and therefore, we do not consider them to becovered by the Convention” 1 , it has not provided objective grounds for its view. While theGovernment recognized the Ainu as indigenous people, a unique ethnic group different fromethnic Japanese, it has not provided any explanation regarding the different position towards thepeople of Ryukyu nor any standards to recognize indigenous people.
Ryukyu had been an independent kingdom until the Government of Japan annexed it by force in
1879. The Ryukyu Kingdom had concluded treaties with the Governments of U.S., France andthe Netherlands. When it annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom, the Government of Japan held a viewthat the people of Ryukyu belonged to a different race from Japanese. In protest to theannexation by Japan, the people of Ryukyu called for help by sending a letter of appeal toWestern States and China. Later Japan planned to split and govern Ryukyu together with China,
but the plan aborted due to the objection of China. After the annexation, the Government of Japan
implemented the assimilation policy in order to eliminate the identity of the people of Ryukyu, by
wiping out their languages, history, culture and belief. While the Japanese government andsociety demanded Ryukyu to assimilate, the people of Ryukyu have not been treated equally, butrather discriminated against in society as an inferior group.
In the final stage of the Pacific War, Japan had the ground battle against the Allied Forces in
Ryukyu. Consequently, over 25% of the population of Ryukyu died. Cultural heritages, historicalcities and villages, landscapes, historic documents, which Ryukyu had developed over hundredsof years, were lost. During the Battle of Okinawa (Ryukyu), the Imperial Japanese Army banned
the use of the Ryukyu languages and killed those who violated this rule. A great number of thepeople of Ryukyu lost their lives during the War, when the Army killed them for suspecting themas spies, subjected them to forced labor, seized their food, and forced them out of shelters. The
Army took the land that belonged to the people of Ryukyu to build military bases, many of whichhave not been returned yet. Those areas became U.S. military bases and facilities as well as the1

Comments of the Japanese Government on the Concluding Observations adopted by the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 20, 2000, regarding initial and second periodic report of theJapanese Government, Paragraph 1.(2).a, https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/comment0110.html

65

bases of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. After the War, Japan gained its independence byplacing Ryukyu under the U.S. military’s control.
Currently, the Government of Japan is constructing a new U.S. military base in Henoko in the
Nago city. During the Battle of Okinawa, the U.S. military put the people of Ryukyu to theOurasaki camp, where hundreds of the people of Ryukyu lost their lives, but there has been no
investigation or burial as of today. The U.S. military constructed the Camp Schwab on the site
after the War. The Government of Japan is constructing a new base there, which is built on theremains of the people of Ryukyu who were killed in the War. While in the Iwo Island, the Prime
Minister Abe declared that the Government will recover the remains of those killed in the War byremoving the base’s runway. The differentiated treatment of the remains of the dead clearly
demonstrates discrimination against the people of Ryukyu.
Despite the opposition from the people of Ryukyu to the decision to deploy Ospreys to the U.S.
Marine Corps Futenma airbase, the Government of Japan went ahead with the decision in 2012.
In the press conference for his resignation, the then-Minister of Defense, Satoshi Morimoto said,“[w]hile there is no military reason to put U.S. military bases in Okinawa (Ryukyu), they arestationed due to a political reason”. Since then, there have been incidents caused by the U.S.
military such as crashes of Osprey and U.S. military aircrafts, fallings of U.S. military helicopter’s
parts, including a window frame which fell over an elementary school and a nursery near U.S.
military base. Yet, there has been no proper investigation to determine the cause andaccountability. U.S. military aircrafts, including those which dangle goods for training purposes, fly
over civilian residences on a daily basis, exposing the residences to the constant risk of being
destroyed by dropped goods.
Japanese police officers made hateful remarks against the people of Ryukyu protesting for theconstruction of U.S. military helipads in Takae in 2016, where they called the protesters “Dojin”
and “Shinajin” 2 . However, the Government of Japan failed to recognize those terms as
discriminatory, and even some politicians defended the police officers in question. This kind ofdeliberate omission to such discriminatory practice is unthinkable in other parts of Japan. The
document “A Master Narratives Approach to Understanding Base Politics in Okinawa” preparedby the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also describes discrimination against Okinawa by
the Government of Japan.3
The people of Ryukyu have been discriminated against as described above. The United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized Ryukyu as a group withunique languages and culture. The Japanese government’s claim, that “they are not considered
to be a group of people who share biological or cultural characteristics under social convention”,
cannot be accepted.

“Dojin” is a discriminatory word which means “primitive people” with highly negative implications such as“backwards” and “uncivilized”. “Shinajin” is a derogatory term to call Chinese people.
3 http://app.okinawatimes.co.jp/documents/cia20180528.pdf
266

Moreover, the Government expressed the view that “[w]e know that some people claim that the
population in Okinawa is a different race from the Japanese race; however, we do not believe that
this claim represents the will of the majority of the people in Okinawa”4. However, the loss ofidentity is a result of the assimilation policy by the Government of Japan in the annexation in
1879. At the same time, the Government divided the Ryukyu society by creating conflicts ofinterest through influence-peddling. The assimilation policy, politics of influence-peddling andmeasures to divide the society are the reasons why some people in Ryukyu/ Okinawa cannot
have their identity as the people of Ryukyu and be supportive to the Government’s policy.
◼

Suggested recommendation

a. Recognize the people of Ryukyu as indigenous people, and respect, protect and promote their

human rights in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UNDRIP)◼

Prepared by the Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR)

4

Comments of the Japanese Government on the Concluding Observations adopted by the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 20, 2000, regarding initial and second periodic report of theJapanese Government, Paragraph 2.(1), https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/human/comment0110.html

67

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Rights of the Ainu as indigenous peoples
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 20■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraphs through 18 to 33■ Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■

Problems
Currently, the Government of Japan plans to open the Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony in
Hokkaido on April 24, 2020, which will accommodate the National Ainu Museum and amemorial facility for the dead. The government aims to develop a new policy on indigenous
peoples for the Ainu including an enactment of law to define “Who are the Ainu” before theopening in 2020.
With the forthcoming Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic in 2020, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido
has worked on different programs relating to the rights of the Ainu peoples including theprocedures of FPIC (free and prior informed consent) in the use of lumbers with international
forest endorsement, promotion of SDGs (sustainable development goals), and the promotionof the revision of domestication of two international FSCs and PEFC/SGEC (Program for theEndorsement of Forest Certification Scheme/Sustainable Green System Council). It is
important to have solid foundations on which we continue our efforts to achieve a mutuallycomplementary and socially inclusive agendas.
Legal definition of who the Ainu are is expected to help improve living conditions and humanrights situations of the Ainu.

■Suggested recommendations
a. Realize the rights of Ainu people to land and resources based on the revised international forest
endorsement system taking into the CERD General Recommendation 23 of 1997 as well as theILO Convention 169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and through sufficient dialogues
with Ainu Peoples.
b. Ratify the ILO Convention 169.
c. Protect the rights of the Ainu Peoples as prescribed in the article 5 of the ICERD as perrecommended in Paragraph 20 of CERD/JPN/CO/7- 9 of 2014. .
■ Prepared by the Ainu Association of Hokkaido

68Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Minority languages and text books
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraph 24■■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report
CERD/C/JPN/10-11 paragraph 166(CERD/C/JPN/3-6 paragraphs 124-132)■ Implementation of the recommendations
Not implemented■ Problem
1. Concerns of foreign parents about their children’s education
The `Analytical Report of the Foreign Residents Survey (Revised Edition)` was published in March2017. According to it, the Ministry of Justice commissioned a public interest incorporated foundation
called the `Center for Human Rights Education and Training` to grasp the human rights situation offoreigners. The Report was submitted to CERD. In response to the question - “Is there anything that you
desire or worry about in relation to your children’s education?”(2.6.2), those living with children answered
the followings1.
Extracted number from respondents who are living with their children
n=1551 (multiple answers allowed)
1. I am worried if they will be able to keep up in class because their Japanese

272 (17.5%)

ability is insufficient.
2. They only use Japanese at school, and can no longer use their native

517 (33.3%)

tongue/language. I want facilities where they can learn their native
tongue/language.
3. I am worried because I don’t know how to get my children into school. I need

189 (12.2%)

guidance to learn more about the Japanese school system.
4. I want my children to go to or beyond high school in Japan.

500 (32.2%)

5. I am worried that my children will be bullied or teased at school because of630 (40.6%)

their name (real name) or nationality etc.
6. I want the government to set specialists in multicultural education and human

549 (35.4%)

rights education in schools.
7. Nothing special.

302 (19.5%)

8. Other

92 (5.9%)

The above table shows that foreign parents have various serious concerns regarding their children’s
education. In particular, over 30% of the respondents expressed concerns on the mother tongue
education in their answers (answer 2), and over 40% of them expressed worries about bullying in their

Ministry of Justice, Spreadsheet for the Foreign Residents Survey, http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001221783.xlsx(available in Japanese)
1

69

answers (answer 5).
2. The absence of State policy on education of mother tongues
In the paragraph 128 of the 7th to 9th periodic reports, the Government reported that “[i]ncidentally,learning about native languages, native cultures, etc. can also be included in extracurricular activities.
Several local governments are implementing such activities in practice”. In fact, only a few local
governments implement such activities. Moreover, many of the implementing local governments do nothave sufficient financial support, therefore the management of mother tongue education is unstable. For
example, the Osaka prefecture and the Osaka city provide “ethnic classes” in public schools for children
with foreign roots including Zainichi Koreans where they can study their mother tongues and cultures after
school. However, in recent years those classes have been under pressure to close down or downsize. A
number of legislators who deny the education of mother tongues, have also contributed to such pressure.
The Government needs to guarantee the education of mother tongues as a right of children of foreignroots.
3. Shortfalls in the State policy on the bullying issues
In the `Basic Policy for the Prevention of Bullying` (Revised in March 2017), the Government (Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)) states, “taking account that children withforeign backgrounds such as those returned from abroad, foreign children, and children of international
marriage often face difficulties in school education due to linguistic and cultural gaps, (the Government)
promotes understanding about those children among teachers, school children and guardians, and aschool as a whole pays close attention and provides necessary support to them, in order to prevent
bullying due to those differences“. Yet, it does not address the differences in those children’s country oforigin or ethnicity. Moreover, concrete measures such as the `Emergency Survey on the Situation of
Addressing the Bullying Issues (2011)` and the `Guideline on Investigating Grave Cases of Bullying(2017)` do not refer to children with foreign backgrounds.
Such absence of measures have profound impacts in schools. For example, in 2010, a girl in the 6th
grade of elementary school with a Filipina mother and a Japanese father in the Gunma prefecturecommitted suicide due to bullying. Newspapers reported that she was told by other children that “[y]our
mother is like a gorilla”, “(you are) gross”, “(you) stink” etc. Her mother also spoke that the cause of thebullying was “because I am gaijin (foreigner)”. However, since her school and the city took a position thatthe bullying cannot be identified as a direct cause for the suicide, the deceased's family brought a lawsuit
against the city, the prefecture and the families of perpetrators. 6 years later, it reached a settlement in2017 for the deceased's family to receive a consolation payment. During the trial, the deceased's family
was subject to online abuses. Supporters of this lawsuit pointed out that the refusal of the school and the
public administration to recognize discrimination against foreigners is a cause for this incident.
4. Weak systematic support for schools for foreign children
National schools and international schools (hereafter schools for foreign children) are important options

70

for foreign children and their guardians, due to aforementioned concerns. However, the systematic
support for schools for foreign children is weaker in comparison to private Japanese schools which arerecognized under Article 1 of the Basic Act on Education. In the paragraph 132 of the 7th to 9th periodic
reports, the Government claims that it respects the autonomy of schools for foreign children, which are
categorized as“miscellaneous schools”. In other words, the Government’s position is that “you can founda school, but the Government will not offer its support”. The operation of schools for foreign children isundergoing difficulties which negatively impact the children’s right to education.
*Additional resources for the issue of schools for foreign children:⚫

Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (2017), NGO Information on Migrants and Asylum Seekers
for the UN Human Rights Committee, 121st session: List of Issues Prior to Reporting, Japan, page
25-27,
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fI⚫

CS%2fJPN%2f28279&Lang=en
NGO Network for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Japan (ERD Net, 2014) , Civil Society
Report on the Implementation of the ICERD, page 36-39 (`Education of Minority Children – legal
status of schools for foreign children`),
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CERD_NGO_JPN_1753
8_E.pdf■ Suggested recommendations
a. Conduct a regular survey on the status of education for foreign children
b. Adopt a national policy measure on mother tongue educationc. Include racial and ethnic discrimination in the measures against bullying issues
d. Strengthen the institutional support for schools for foreign children, at least to the same level ofJapanese public schools■ Prepared by Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)/ Korea NGO Center)71

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
The right to education for children of foreign nationalities and those with foreign backgrounds■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report : N/A■ Problems
1.The non-inclusion of foreigners in compulsory education leading to possible deprivation of theright to education

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) declares that
“Japanese public elementary and secondary schools accept foreign children free of charge if theywish to enter them, and the opportunity of receiving the same education as Japanese students isguaranteed to foreign children, while compulsory education is not imposed on foreigners”. In effect,
children with foreign nationalities are excluded from the scope of compulsory education, andtherefore their right to education as rights-holders is not guaranteed.
According to an article in Nihon Keizai Shimbun dated March 13, 2016, the school enrolment
status of 16% of foreign children aged 7 to 14, or 13,000 children was found to be “unknown” in the2010 national census. This proportion is considerably higher than the 0.01% of Japanese children
with an ‘unknown’ status. About 430 of the foreign children, or 0.55 % of the total group, responded
that they were not enrolled in schools. In addition, within the unknown category, there may havebeen many children who were not enrolled in school despite being school age. It is usually up to the
local governments to check the enrolment of all children of compulsory education age. However,since children of a foreign nationality are considered not to be within the scope of compulsory
education, many local governments fail to check the status of their school enrolment.
As evidence, “Foreigners are excluded from the survey” is written in the footnotes of a survey
sheet for unenrolled school age students as part of the ‘School Basic Survey’, conducted every year
by MEXT.
2.Lack of support for children of foreign nationalities and foreign backgrounds to receive
sufficient education

The number of children who need additional Japanese language lessons has been increasing
since the start of the MEXT survey in 1991. In 2016, 60% of children with foreign nationalities,
whose age corresponded to the age for compulsory education, were enrolled in public schools inJapan. Among them, approximately 35,000 children needed additional Japanese language lessons,amounting to 40% of foreign children enrolled in Japanese public schools. After more than 25 years
since the survey started, there is still a considerable number of foreign children who are fluent inconversational Japanese but have difficulties in learning activities. They are often thought to have alimited learning ability. This indicates that the large majority of schools, which “treat foreign children
in the same way as Japanese children” are not being able to take into account foreign children’s
language and learning abilities, in order to guarantee their right to education. In addition, thenumber of Japanese children with foreign backgrounds who need Japanese coaching is increasing
in recent years.
While MEXT has developed the curriculum to overcome this situation, it is difficult to state thatsuch curriculum is widely used, except in cities with research institutions including universities,
areas with a large population of foreigners, or a “special area” where education for foreigners haslong existed. The current educational support by the Government and local municipalities cansignificantly differ depending on where children live.
In 2014, a “special education course” that provides special support services, when necessary, wascreated, but over 80% of municipal education boards have responded that preparation is necessary
to introduce the course in practice. This means that the MEXT’s policy is not sufficient for foreign72children, and consideration is not given to their linguistic, cultural or ethnic particularities when they
are learning in Japanese schools. Also, because of the absence of the idea that these children havethe right to education, incidents such as the following have been happening since the 1990s.
Furthermore, children of foreign nationalities and those with foreign backgrounds who may havedisadvantages in learning skills including Japanese language are usually considered ineligible forenrolment in senior high schools for not being able to complete the courses.
3.Deportation of migrant children who were born, brought up and educated in Japan

There have been deportation orders given to migrant children born and/ or raised in Japan who
desire to receive education in Japan. The Immigration Bureau’s measures to strip the children’s
right to education based on immigration status are concerning. For example, currently a Peruvian
woman and her two teenage children are appealing against the deportation order which has been
issued by the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau. The mother and children are hoping to be
granted special residence permission on humanitarian grounds.
The parents entered Japan with fake passports bearing another person's name, and they marriedin Japan. Their two children were born and raised in Japan (15 years-old and 14 years-old when thefamily brought a case). The children are attending a high school and a junior high school.
In 2011, the husband was arrested under suspicion of violating the Immigrant Law. In 2012, allfamily members were ordered to leave the country by the Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau. The
family tried to get the deportation order overturned but they lost their case at the Supreme Court in2015. The following year the father was deported to Peru.
The children have never visited Peru, and they have received education only in Japan. While they
consider continuing their education in Japan, their case is pending in the court. Their lives are
unstable due to the deportation of the father. Given their age, it is nearly impossible for them toreceive education in Peru, as it is unknown to them. Such situation would cause them
immeasurable despair.
■Suggested recommendations

a. Prevent the non-enrolment of children of foreign nationalities at the compulsory education stage,
take legislative measures, such as including foreign children in the survey form for non-enrolled
school age children, and provide for a system in which education boards around the country andeach school can accept foreign children under the same conditions as Japanese children,
thereby guaranteeing the children’s right to education.
b. Guarantee the right to education for children of foreign nationalities and those with foreign
backgrounds, by developing curricula that address language abilities and learning skills such as
Japanese language teaching and retention of native languages. For this purpose theGovernment should train and assign experts to implement the curricula in every school in Japan.
c. Take measures that prioritize the best interests of the child, such as regarding treatment offamilies in cases of undocumented migrant children.
d. Take measures to guarantee that children of foreign nationalities and those with foreign
backgrounds are not excluded in their access to the secondary education due to theirdisadvantages in Japanese language and other learning skills.
■Prepared by Yukari Enoi, Osaka University

73

16% of foreigners’ school enrolment is “Unknown”. Many not
responded to the 2010 national census
The Nikkei Newspaper, 21:26 13 March 2016
The analysis of the Kyodo News revealed on 13th March that 16% of foreign children aged between
7 to 14 years old, approximately 13,000 children, were put in the category of “unknown” for theirstatus of school enrolment in the 2010 national census. While this was due to their non-response to
the census, the difference from 0.01% for Japanese children under the category “unknown” issignificant. It highlighted the difficulties for a survey targeting foreigners.
Outcomes related to foreigners from t the 2010 census, the most up-to-date statistics, were extracted
and analyzed by the Kyodo News.
The census asked respondents to choose from “enrolled in school”, “graduated” or “not enrolled inschool” regarding education. It asked whether a child was attending a kindergarten or a nursey if she/he was not enrolled in school. Those who left the this question unanswered were recorded as“unknown”, according to the Statistics Bureau’s Population Census Division in the Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications.
Nationalities which had a high rate of “unknown” were Peru (15.91%), Vietnam (14.93%) and China(14.63%). About 430 people (0.55%) responded that their child aged between 7 to 14 years old was“not enrolled in school” nor attending a kindergarten or an equivalent institution.
Experts on the education issues for foreign residents in Japan consider that the reasons for
not-responding to the census included that some could not understand the meaning of the census orthey were concerned about facing disadvantages. The experts also believe that there is a highpossibility that those respondents did not answer about school enrolment, since their school age
children were not attending an elementary school or junior high school.
Normally, local municipalities inquire about all school age children’s status of school enrollment intheir area. However, many local municipalities do not inquire about foreign children’s school
enrollment status as they are exempt from the obligation to enroll in school. Therefore over 10,000
foreign children’s status of school enrollment is unknown throughout Japan. 〔Kyodo〕

74

■ Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Korean women residents and multiple forms of discrimination
CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 paragraphs 6 (b) and 17
CERD General Recommendation No. 30 on discrimination against non-citizens■ Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report: N/A■ Implementation of the recommendations: Not implemented.
■ Problems
Korean women residents, a minority group in Japan, are subject to multiple forms of discrimination in
their lives, namely discrimination on the grounds of their ethnicity and gender. The Government has
never conducted surveys on the actual situation of Korean women in Japan, and their voices have
hardly been reflected in official policies. The Government has not paid attention to the challenges facedby Korean women nor adopted targeted measures to solve their problems, stating that their situation
can be assessed through the national census and that their issues are covered by the Basic Plan for
Gender Equality. While APRO has organized biennial negotiations with the relevant ministries, incooperation with other minority and indigenous women, the government officials have not listened tothe demands of the minority women at all therefore no improvements have been achieved.
With a view to make the actual situation of Korean women in Japan visible, which has been madeinvisible within the general policy framework due to the lack of seriousness on the part of theGovernment of Japan with regard to racial discrimination, APRO conducted a survey in 2016, thesecond survey conducted by the affected community themselves, and published a report of thefindings. 888 questionnaires were returned from Korean women in 22 prefectures. The age groups ofthe respondents ranged from teens (1.9%), twenties (15.9%), thirties (12.8%), forties (17.9%), fifties(24.9%), sixties (14.9%) to over seventies (6.6%). Their nationalities were divided into the Republic ofKorea (71.7%), “Korea” (17.3%; indicating that they or their ancestries were from the Korean Peninsulaand not necessarily means that they are nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) andJapan (10.1%). The main findings are as follows:
1. Names (both family names and given names) are linked to discrimination on the ground of
ethnicity.

Since it is difficult in Japanese society to identify themselves with their ethnic names, which
reveal their origin, approximately 80% of the respondents use Japanese-style names in their
daily lives.

In response to the question asking whether or not they “realize that there is discrimination
against Korean residents in Japan” when they identify themselves with their ethnic names, therespondents replied as follows: “I think so” (38.3%), “I think so a bit” (26.7%), “I don’t think sovery much” (18.5%) and “I don’t think so” (5.3%).
This means that 65% of the respondents recognized that the use of ethnic names is linked todiscrimination on the ground of ethnicity. It is because the use of ethnic names continues tolead to discrimination and disadvantages up until today. The followings are some examples ofsuch forms of discrimination:-“I was told that Koreans cannot become tenants” (respondent in forties)“When I identified myself with my real (ethnic) name [at an interview for a job], they got veryinquisitive and, eventually, made sarcastic and abusive remarks and physical expressions

75

explicitly and without disguise” (respondent in fifties)-“When [a Japanese neighbor] asked me, ‘What is your Japanese name?’ and I answered, ‘I
don’t have that’, the neighbor blamed me, saying, ‘It’s strange, you usually have Japanesenames. Korean names are hard to pronounce. You should use Japanese names’” (respondent

in fifties)
As these examples show, they have experienced discrimination because of the use of theirethnic names. Korean residents often start to use Japanese-style names instead of theirethnic names when they seek for employment and work, which indicates difficulties for them to
use their ethnic names in public life. Even those with Japanese nationality are subject todiscrimination as foreigners if they identify themselves with ethnic names that reveal their
origin. Many Korean residents in Japan have led their lives under Japanese-style names
instead of their ethnic names because they do not want to be subject to prejudice anddiscrimination against them, which has continued since the colonial period. The Governmentof Japan has not taken any measures to address this issue.

Experience of prejudice/discrimination due to the use ofethnic names (multiple choices)
家を借りるのが難しい
ホテルでパスポートの提示

11.1%
7.8%

電話で名前をききかえされる

34.3%

態度が変わる
名前のからかい
その他

13.0%
10.1%
6.8%

ない
0.0%

39.3%
10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

(from the top to down) Difficult to become tenants / Need to show passports at hotels / Asked to repeat
the name on the phone / Change of attitudes / Teasing about the name / Others / No experience2.

About 40% of the respondents who had experienced violence “did not seek for help to anyone”. In
response to the question about second victimization (N=370), 4.1% of the respondents answeredthat they had experienced it. They are deterred from using the relevant services because they had
experienced offensive responses from counselors or were not able to obtain useful information andadvice when they sought for help before. In addition to the isolation caused by violence, Korean
women in Japan face lack of effective services to which they can seek for help with security; even if
there are public services for providing advice and help, it is very difficult for them to make use of.

76

To whom victims of violece sought for help (multiple choices;
excluding no replies and "unknown") 154 replies
38.3%

どこにも相談しなかった

24.7%
19.4%

家族・親戚

6.5%
3.2%
2.6%
1.9%
1.4%
1.4%
0.6%
0.0

警察
行政の相談窓口
弁護士
医療機関
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

ケースの％

<from the top to down> Did not seek for help to anyone / Friends and acquaintances / Families andrelatives / Others / Police / Women’s centers / Administrative advisory services / Privately-run advisory
services / Attorneys-at-law / Toll-free helpline / Medical institutions
Proportion (%) of the victims

3. Korean women suffering from the mental anguish and disadvantages brought on by the multiple
effects of discrimination on grounds of ethnicity and gender in the workplace. Around 40% of themhad experienced some form of discrimination because of their ethnic origin or nationality. Korean
women, who decided to live using their real (ethnic) names to fight back against racial
discrimination that is prevalent in Japan, were faced with near coercion to use Japanese-stylenames. They were asked whether they used Japanese names, or whether it would be better if theydid. A teacher was criticized by her colleague when she changed her Japanese-style name to her
ethnic name. The survey revealed other concrete cases of discrimination based on nationality orfor having graduated from ethnic (Korean) schools. For example, a home-visit care staff heard
unpleasant comments about her nationality at the homes she visited. A sales staff was asked by aclient if she was a North Korean spy. There were other cases of women unable to take exams,
because they only had Korean school diplomas. Another was asked repeatedly which country she
was from, although her application form did not inquire about her nationality. The massive
distribution and prevalence of discriminatory texts such as anti-Korean or anti-Chinese
publications was also pointed out. Some had heard humiliating comments from their clients
discriminating them on the ground of their ethnicity.
4. The Government of Japan, faced with a labor shortage due to decreasing birthrate and ageing
population in the society, became interested in using women as labor force, and created the “theHeadquarters for Creating a Society in which All Women Shine” in 2014 under the policy of
promoting women’s participation in the labor market. In 2016, the Act on Promotion of Women’sParticipation and Advancement in the Workplace was enacted. This Act, however, has no policy
addressing the multiple forms of discrimination in the labor market mentioned above. The
Government is completely indifferent to the situation of minority women including Korean womenin general, and repeats the view that there are no problems, since minority women are included in77the Act, as well as the Basic Plans for Gender Equality. Yet these have been formulated with the
majority women in mind. It has been repeatedly pointed out by CERD, that the problems particular
to minority women cannot be resolved or improved in this way.
■ Suggested recommendations
a. Conduct surveys on the actual situation of the living conditions including work conditions andhuman rights status among women belonging to Korean and other minority groups. Prompt
measures should also be taken to consolidate and publish the information that can be obtained byprocessing the already available statistics and data.
b. Human rights education and training should be provided for the staff of the relevant public services
to provide advice and help, particularly in terms of multiple forms of discrimination against minority
women, so that these women can seek for help at ease when they face difficulties in life andhuman rights violations (including, among others, verbal abuse and other forms of multiple
discrimination). Minority women should be heard in this process.
■ Prepared by APRO Korean Women’s Network in Japan78

■Issues and relevant recommendations in the previous cycle
Returnees from China

relevant articles of the Convention: art. 1 art 5 (d) ii, art 2 (c)■Relevant paragraphs in the State party’s report■Implementation of the recommendations■Problems

None

None

1, “Returnees from China” means former War-displaced Japanese in the North West part of China(Manchuria) around joining of former Soviet Union Army to the war against Japan, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th
generations of the displaced Japanese who returned to Japan, their spouses and the children bythem of previous marriages. “War-displaced orphans in China” and “War-displaced women in
China, etc.” are the 1st generation of returnees from China after they returned to Japan. The numberof the 1st generation who returned by Japanese national expense is approximately 6700, calculatedby the Japanese Ministry of Social Welfare. The total number of returnees from China and thefamilies is about seventy thousand, calculated from the result of research of actual condition of
War-Displaced Japanese in China, etc. by the Japanese Ministry of Social Welfare. However, theAssociation for War-displace Japanese in China, Returnees from China and the Families (hereafter,
the Association) can estimate one hundred and twenty thousand people from the experience of the
Association’s assistance for the returnees’ procedure of immigration and learning of Japanese
language.
2, In September 1931, the Army of Japan made the Manchurian Incident and the Army establisheda puppet administration “Manchuria” in the North Western China in March 1932. Japaneseimmigration to Manchuria was done along formal decision of Cabinet of Japan in 1936. The
government of Japan promised with Japanese immigrants that Army of Kanton, a part of army ofJapan will protect the Japanese immigrants when the army of the Soviet Union, the China National
Party, or the China Communist Party would attack Japanese immigrants in China. Nonetheless, theArmy of Kanton in Manchuria withdrew from there to Korea without protecting of Japaneseimmigrants in May 1945. Therefore, when the Former Soviet Union declared war against Japan,
the Japanese immigrants in China must to begin to go back to the big cities of China and Japan bythemselves, and the elders dropped off from the Japanese immigrants groups. Many Japanesechildren at that time were sold to Chinese residents or left the children with Chinese residents.
3, The government of Japan after April 1952, occupation by the United Nations, made diplomatic
relation between China National Party in Taiwan and China Communist Party was thought asenemy of Japan. Therefore, displaced Japanese were deserted by Japan. Diplomatic relations
between Japan and Mainland China was restored in 1972. Research visit to Japan of “Wardisplaced orphans” by the government of Japan began in 1981 from pressured by assistancegroups for displaced Japanese and the former immigrants big scaled return to Japan was delayed.
The government of Japan has called Japanese who were not sure their identities and were under
13 years old in 1945 as “Displaced Orphans”. They were treated as objects of return project toJapan. On the other hand, the government has called Japanese who were more than 13 years old
in 1945 as ‘Displaced Women, etc.” and the government thought displaced women has stayed in
China because of their will to stay in China. Displaced women were not recognized as objects ofreturn project by the government.

79

In 1993, 12 “displaced women” enforced return to the Narita Airport, Japan and asked forabolishment of condition that a guarantee is necessary for residing in Japan and consent by a blood
relation on return to Japan. This incident leaded the legislation of “Act to promote smooth to returnof War-displaced Japanese in China, etc., and to assist self-help living after return to reside inJapan permanently (hereafter, the Assistance Act)” in 1994. However, this condition of guarantees
for the 1st generation of returnees continue to be obligated for return to Japan for residing in Japan
permanently as of July, 2018.
4, Concepts of descent and linage in the International Convention of Elimination of Racism andDiscrimination (hereafter, the Convention) also means language of the group of persons.
Discrimination to Returnees from China by general Japanese is same as that to the other linguistic
minorities in Japan. Index of discrimination to returnees from China is their language; Chinese. It is
common that Japanese residents recognize a person’s nationality in front of the Japanese from theperson’s language. The Japanese people can recognize the true nationality of persons in front ofthem only when the foreign nationals show their passports or residents cards. The government
research of returnees’ real condition had been practiced 11 times and the result shows nationalities
of returnees are 4 patterns, Japanese nationality, Chinese nationality, Non-nationality, and double
nationalities of Japan and China.
5, Approximately 60% of 1st generation of returnees from China are on social security reportedly byreal condition research by Government of Japan. Moreover, life assistance pay is paid to the 1 st
generation by the Government along the amended assistance act, 2007. Amendment in 2007 was
led by national compensation suits of the 1st generation of returnees. Apprehension of the 1st
generation was not their life after retirement but lives of the 2nd. 3rd and 4th generations. The
amended assistance act describes necessity of assistance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations.
However, an officer of Ministry of Social Welfare pointed out that Assistance for the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th
generations is obliged by local municipalities, at the time of the 2007 amendment. There arescattering among local governments’ assistances for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation of returnees
and many of the 1st generations are on social security as of July 2018.
There is property gap between returnees and general Japanese and assistance groups
receives information that immigration bureaus in Japan tend to set the term of resident qualification
only 1 year for poor returnees. This practice seems de facto racial discrimination and violation of
the Convention.
■Suggested recommendations
a. Protect returnees from China as a descent in the Article 1 of the Convention from thediscrimination by majority in Japan.
b. Abolish the condition that requires guarantees when the 1st generation of war-displaced
Japanese intend to permanently return to Japan.
c. Guarantee a more stable resident qualification for returnees from China more stable resident
qualification, which is distinct from general control of foreigners.
■Prepared by the Association for War-displaced Japanese in China, Returnees from China to Japanand the Families.

80List of Participant Groups in the NGO ReportJapan NGO Network for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ERD Net
The International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
Japan Network towards Human Rights Legislation for Non-Japanese Nationals & Ethnic Minorities
Solidarity Network with Migrants Japan (SMJ)The Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU)
Human Rights Association for Korean Residents in Japan
Korea NGO Center
Center for Minority Issues and Mission
Buraku Liberation League (BLL)The Ainu Association of Hokkaido
Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyus (AIPR)National Network for the Total Abolition of the Pension Citizenship Clause
Japan Network Against Trafficking In Persons (JNATIP)
Japan Lawyers Network for Refugees
Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center
Hyogo Association for Human Rights of Foreign Residents
Kanagawa MINTORENAll Okinawa Council for Human Right (AOCHR)
APRO Korean Women’s Network in Japan
Association for War-displaced Japanese in China, Returnees from China to Japan and the Families(in random order)
Individuals:
Changho Kim, attorney at law
Junko Hayashi, attorney at law
Yukari Enoi, professor at Osaka University

81