Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[16PacRimLPolyJ0631] Bortz v. Suzuki, Judgment of October 12, 1999, Hamamatsu Branch, Shizuoka District Court

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Webster, Timothy (translator)
dc.date.accessioned 2011-02-03T17:53:31Z
dc.date.available 2011-02-03T17:53:31Z
dc.date.issued 2007-06
dc.identifier.citation 16 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 631 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1066-8632
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/584
dc.description.abstract Translator: Law clerk, District of Massachusetts. Translator’s note: The Bortz case links a series of truly comparative moments. In the first, the unsuspecting foreigner crosses into another culture’s blind spot, and emerges a very different person. Ana Bortz was shopping for a necklace in a Japanese jewelry store when the owner asked her where she was from. A westerner in Japan, Bortz likely thought little of the question, having answered it many times. She answered first in Japanese, and then in English, “from Brazil.” Neither response pleased the storeowner. Foreigners, or perhaps just Brazilians, were not allowed in the store. Their ensuing argument revealed other comparative moments. Enraged by unapologetic discrimination and unsympathetic police, Bortz did what many westerners would: she threatened to sue. For the storeowner, Suzuki Takahisa, the threat seemed hyperbolic, or perhaps just odd. One does not sue over such things in Japan. But Bortz made good on her threat; she hired a lawyer, filed her claim, and eventually won damages of 1.5 million yen ($12,500) from the Suzuki family. The Japanese racial discrimination lawsuit was born. To be sure, other foreigners—Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese, Filipinos—have experienced racism in Japan. But racism operates differently between the races. Phenotypically, Asian people experience subtler, perhaps more deeply-rooted, forms of discrimination in Japan. Resident Koreans, many of whom have lived in Japan for generations yet remain “foreigners” by law, routinely encounter discrimination in employment and education. When they sue, their claims are not framed in the language of race, but of nationality. Latin, 1 African-American, 2 and European-American3 foreigners, on the other hand, experience more overt forms of discrimination: ejection from a store, denial of entrance into a store, rejection on a housing application, being shooed away. These acts clash with notions of fundamental fairness that westerners expect in society. For the westerner, the lawsuit is the preferred method of restoring persons injured by such behavior. The challenge for Bortz was where to find relevant law. The Japanese Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, but only for its own citizens. Bortz’s lawyer had the vision to invoke the U.N. Convention to End All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which Japan signed in 1996. Judge Soh Tetsuro likewise exhibited creativity in applying international law domestically, via tort law, to fashion a modest, but unprecedented, remedy for Bortz. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Translation en_US
dc.title [16PacRimLPolyJ0631] Bortz v. Suzuki, Judgment of October 12, 1999, Hamamatsu Branch, Shizuoka District Court en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2007 by Pacific Rim Law & Policy Association en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account