The Buraku Liberation Movement and Legislative Measures towards Elimination of Discrimination –The Japanese Experience
Kenzo Tomonaga (Note1)
This article is an English translation of the presentation, "Buraku Liberation Movement and the Efforts for the Improvement of Legislation towards the Elimination of Discrimination" by Mr. Kenzo Tomonaga, Director of the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute. The presentation was given at the Symposium on the Movements against Discrimination in Asia and Human Rights Law organized by the CNU Law School Center for Public Interest & Human Rights Law in Gwangju Metropolitan City in Korea on November 11, 2010. The original article is in Japanese, and is published in three parts in the January to March 2011 issues of the monthly publication, "Human Rights." It has been translated into English by Ms.kimiko
Okada of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center.
1. Introduction
The Buraku problem is a serious human rights problem with roots in the Japanese history and culture. The movement for the elimination of Buraku discrimination has been continuing for 88 years, since the founding of the Suiheisha (National Levelers Association) on March 3, 1922.
The movement has consistently taken denunciation strategies to protest against discrimination against Buraku occurred in marriages, employment, schools, workplaces, and other aspects of the daily lives. Along with this, it has also sought improvement in the laws for the solution of Buraku problem through negotiation with the national and local governments.
From the second half of the 1970s, while seeking close cooperation with the human rights activities of the United Nations, it started the campaign for the ratification and implementation of human rights treaties by the state of Japan.
This paper will provide an overview of the efforts of the Buraku liberation movement regarding legal improvements for the elimination of Buraku discrimination.
2. Buraku Problem
Buraku problem has its remote cause in the discrimination based on social class of senmin (humble people)(most of whom were called eta (extreme filth)), which existed in the pre-modern society in Japan. The people who reside in or who are originally from the areas, in which the senmin had lived, continue to be discriminated against even in the current society.
Similar forms of discrimination can be seen in other countries; for example, the discrimination against the Dalits, based on the caste system in South Asia, including India. (Note 2) Discrimination against Paekjong in Korea is also one of similar forms of discrimination. (Note 3)
The Dowa (the administration uses this term instead of Buraku) Policy Council Report (August 1965) was the beginning of the post-war government’s efforts to seriously address the Buraku problem, and it described the Buraku problem with the following words.
"The so-called Dowa problem is a most serious and important social problem for Japan because of the fact that a segment of the people of Japan, owing to discrimination based on a class system that was formed in the process of the historical development of Japanese society, is placed in such an inferior position economically, socially and culturally that their fundamental human rights are grossly violated even in present day society and that, in particular, their civil rights and liberties, which are ensured to all people as a principle of modern society, are not fully guaranteed in reality."
The Council also raised the following characteristics of the problem.
“A major characteristic of the problem is that large numbers of people live together in particular districts and form separate communities within these districts on account of actual discrimination in social life. In recent times, a growing number of persons have been leaving these particular districts to live in other ordinary districts but even these people, because of their birth in the traditionally separated communities, are subjected to discrimination based on social standing either directly or indirectly. In former days, such separated communities were contemptuously called tokushu Buraku (special communities), koshin Buraku (backward communities) and saimin Buraku (indigent communities).” (Note 4)
3. Buraku Overview
The government conducted a survey on the condition of the Dowa areas in the country in 1993. The overview of the Buraku situation according to the survey was as follows.
There were 4,442 Dowa areas (discriminated Buraku) in 36 prefectures, or 1,081 municipalities around the country. (Note 5)
The number of households of Dowa-related residents (Buraku-min) was 298,385 and the population 892,751 (737,198 households and population of 2,158,789, including non-Dowa-related residents in Dowa areas).
This survey was limited to areas in which projects under Dowa measures were implemented, and did not include areas where no such projects were implemented. Also, those people who were originally from Dowa areas and moved out to live outside were not included.
4. The Progress of the Buraku Liberation Movement and Legal Improvements to Eliminate Discrimination – until the Second World War
Japan experienced the Meiji Ishin (Restoration) in 1868, and became a member of the community of modern nations. In August 1871, the government issued the Emancipation Edict prescribing the abolishment of the mean names eta and hinin and removal of the restriction on free choice of occupations imposed on these groups of people. (Note 6)
Although the government issued the Edict, it did not elaborate any policies to specifically eliminate the age-old discrimination. As a result, Buraku discrimination was reorganized also owing to other factors such as the imposition of duties of tax payment and military conscription on these people, the installation of the new class system with the emperor on the top, and the orientation towards a modern nation-state giving excessive emphasis on educational achievements and hygiene. (Note 7).
On March 3, 1922, seeking to eliminate Buraku discrimination, the National Levelers Association (Zenkoku Suiheisha) was founded in Kyoto. The Suiheisha Declaration (Annex 1) is said to be the first declaration on human rights in Japan.
The National Levelers Association organized daring denunciation activities against blatant discrimination in marriages, schools, local communities, and even in the military, to appeal to the society about the injustice of the Buraku discrimination.
The denunciation activities in 1933 against the discriminatory judgment of the Takamatsu court case were among the largest mass activities in the Association’s movements. The denunciation campaign was organized against the public prosecutor’s argument and the subsequent discriminatory judgment holding a man from Kagawa Prefecture in Shikoku guilty (kidnapping for marriage). All he had done was to get married without telling his prospective wife, that he is from the Buraku area. The campaign used the Emancipation Edict in its slogan, stating, “Cancel the discriminatory judgment, or else cancel the Emancipation Edict.” As a result, the man, who had been incarcerated, was released before his sentence was completed, and the public prosecutor was demoted. (Note 8)
The National Levelers Association worked in solidarity with the Hyongpyongsa founded in Jinju, Korea in April 1923, as well as participated in the international solidarity movements, for example, the protest movement against the persecution of the Jews (1933). (Note 9)
However, the suppression of the Association’s movement intensified during the Japan-China War, which began in 1937, and the following Pacific War until the Association was compelled to cooperate with the war efforts.
5. The Progress of the Buraku Liberation Movement and Legal improvements to Eliminate Discrimination – from the defeat to 1955
In August 1945, Japan was defeated. In February in the following year, representatives of the Buraku gathered in Kyoto, to rebuild the Buraku liberation movement under the new name of the National Committee for Buraku Liberation.
The Committee began its activities to include provisions that could be useful in eliminating Buraku discrimination in the Constitution of Japan, which was promulgated in November 1946 and came into force in the following May.
Consequently, a general prohibition of discrimination was included in Article 14 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which states, “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.” Article 24 paragraph 1 stipulates that, “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.” (Note 10)
With the legislation of the Constitution of Japan, discrimination was prohibited in general, but since no further legislation or policies were adopted to eliminate Buraku discrimination specifically, the poor conditions in which the Buraku and its people were placed were left unaddressed.
Denunciation campaigns were conducted after the “All Romance” discrimination incident in October 1951. In realizing that the dismal conditions the Buraku and its people found themselves in were the result of discrimination, the campaigns were also directed against local governments, which were to be blamed on. (Note 11)
As the experience of the campaigns spread nation-wide, the Buraku liberation movement became increasingly a movement of the masses, and in August 1955, the organization was renamed the Buraku Liberation League.
6. The Progress of the Buraku Liberation Movement and Legal Improvements to Eliminate Discrimination – from 1956 to 1985
A movement calling for the establishment of a national policy to address Buraku problem began in earnest since 1958, on the basis of the experiences gained in the administrative struggle at the local level.
As a result, in 1960, the Law for the Establishment of the Cabinet Dowa Policy Council was adopted in 1960, and in August 1965, the Council submitted its Report. Representatives of the Buraku Liberation League participated in the Council, and nation-wide marches were organized to demand a Report, which would be useful in solving the Buraku problem.
The Report of the Dowa Policy Council (Council Report) pointed out that the immediate solution of the Buraku problem was “the government’s responsibility” and “a problem for the general population to confront.” It also included that the improvement of living environment, enhancement of social welfare, stabilization of industries and employment, improvement of education, protection of human rights among others needed to be comprehensively and systematically enforced. (Note 12)
While campaigns for the full realization of the Council Report were organized, the government adopted the Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects in response to the Report. The term of the Law was limited to 10 years. (Note 13) Subsequently, various policy measures were taken to improve the situation of Buraku using the Council Report and the Special Measures Law.
In November 1975, there was an incident known as “Buraku List Scandal.” In the process of clarifying the incident, it became apparent that no legal provisions prohibited these discriminatory practices including investigations by detective agencies into the identities of people leading to discrimination, the publication and sales of directories listing the names of Buraku areas, and discrimination in employment by the companies. (Note 14)
Later, there were movements demanding from the national government a prohibition of background investigations by detective agencies, publication and sales of directories listing the names of Buraku areas, as well as discrimination in hiring by the companies. However, because the government was slow in responding, the movement turned to local governments, calling for legislation of ordinances. The result was the legislation of the Osaka Prefectural Ordinance Regulating Personal Background Investigation in Buraku Origin in March 1985. (Note 15) Since then, ordinances regulating background investigations in Buraku origin were adopted in the Prefectures of Kumamoto (March 1995), Fukuoka (October 1995), Kagawa (March 1996) and Tokushima (December 1996).
The International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), as well as on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which were treaties developed from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, came into force in 1976. This led to a rise in public calls for the ratification of the Covenants. The Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute (Note 16) were active in the movement for the ratification, believing that the treaties will be useful in eliminating Buraku discrimination and establishing human rights. Consequently, Japan ratified the Covenants in June 1979.
7. The Progress of the Buraku Liberation Movement and Legal Improvements to Eliminate Discrimination – from 1985 to the present
(1) Efforts aimed at the national government
The 1969 Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects was originally valid for a period of 10 years, but with the anticipation that 10 years would not bring about any distinctive achievements in eliminating Buraku discrimination, the BLL then staged the campaign calling for the extension of the Law, and in October 1978, it was extended for another 3 years. After the extended three years, the Law on Special Measures for Regional Improvement was adopted in March 1982, for the term of 5 years. (Note 17)
During these developments, the recognition that it was difficult to attain a fundamental solution to the Buraku problem with the extension of the Special Measures Law alone spread among the BLL, other civil society organizations and researchers. In May 1985, a campaign calling for the legislation of a Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation was initiated. The bill was prepared by the movements and researchers and was based on the following:(1) the situation of the Buraku discrimination, (2) the basic idea in the Dowa Policy Council Report and (3) the basic international principles of the elimination of discrimination as represented by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The draft consists of the following parts; (1) declaratory provisions, (2) provisions regarding measures, (3) regulatory provisions and those regarding remedies, (4) educational and awareness-raising provisions and (5) organizational provisions. (Note 18)
In March 1987, when the Regional Improvement Law was about to expire, the Law on Specific Governmental Budgetary Measure Concerning the Projects Designated for the Area Improvement was adopted for the term of 5 years. (Note 19) After 5 years in March 1992, the Law was extended for another 5 years with some partial amendments.
In 1993, the government conducted a survey to clarify the situation of Buraku discrimination. The survey had three parts; (1) survey on the general situation, (2) survey on the living conditions and (3) survey on national opinion. The survey revealed that although there were improvements in the living environment, including roads and housing in the Buraku area, there were remaining gaps in the living conditions, employment and education. For example, the number of people receiving welfare benefits was seven times higher and the numbers of people in precarious employment twice the national average. Regarding the national awareness of the Buraku problem, close to 60% of the people were against a marriage between their children and someone of Buraku origin. The survey also laid bare the situation, in which only 0.6% of the residents of the Dowa districts who had experienced discrimination (1 out of 3 residents) had used the existing remedies system for human rights violations, including the Legal Affairs Bureau and the Human Rights Volunteers. (Note 20)
The Council on Regional Improvement Measures, a government advisory organ, published its report in May 1996. The report had the objective of proposing the direction of efforts towards the solution of the Buraku problem, based on the situation of Buraku discrimination identified by the above survey, and taking into consideration the expiry of the Special Measures Law. In the section titled “Basic Recognition”, the report pointed out that; (1) although the Dowa problem was moving towards solution, it remained an important problem, (2) solution of various human rights problems, such as that of Dowa was an international responsibility, (3) both the national and local governments, as well as each Japanese should subjectively make an effort to solve the Dowa problem, based on the spirit of the Dowa Policy Council Report, and that (4) future efforts towards solution of the Dowa problem would be linked to solution of all problems involving human rights.
It set forth the following 4 proposals based on the recognition; (1) eradication of the still existing discriminatory attitudes, (2) remedies for damages due to human rights violations, etc., (3) correcting the remaining gaps in education, employment, industries, etc., and (4) appropriate policies to overcome new factors leading to discriminatory ideas. (Note 21)
The Japan Socialist Party (Social Democratic Party of Japan), the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Party Sakigake set up a new government in June 1994. Tomiichi Murayama, President (Chair) of the Japan Socialist Party was elected Prime Minister. Under the government, the government party project team on human rights and discrimination was organized, which published an interim report in June 1995. The report recognized that, “Today, the international call for the realization of human rights is increasing daily… For this reason, it is necessary to consider a human rights policy as one of the basic policies of this country.” Specifically, it pointed out the need to; (1) ratify swiftly the ICERD, (2) take the initiative in implementing the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995 – 2004), (3) consider the government standpoint regarding remedies for victims of human rights violation, and (4) consider legal measures for the early solution of the Dowa problem.
The project agreed on the following three issues in June in the following year; (1) to consider the legal measures regarding the promotion of human rights education and awareness-raising, (2) to consider legal measures regarding remedies for victims of human rights violation, and (3) to take legal measures regarding projects for regional improvement.
In response to the three issues, the Law for the Promotion of Human Rights Protection (with 5 year term) was adopted in December 1996. The Law provided for the establishment of a Council to discuss the measures for human rights education and awareness-raising as well as remedies for human rights violations. (Note 22) Also, in March 1997, the Law on Fiscal Measures was extended for another 5 years after partial revisions regarding prescribed measures.
The Council on the Promotion of Human Rights Protection submitted its report on human rights education and awareness-raising in July 1999. The report merely proposed the need for “required administrative measures” for a more effective human rights education and awareness-raising. This, in turn, led to the movements and local governments to strongly point out the need for a legal basis, and the Law on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising was adopted in December 2000. The Law includes provisions stating (1) the need for promoting education and awareness-raising to eliminate discrimination, including Buraku discrimination, and human rights violations, (2) that the promotion of human rights education and awareness-raising must be pursued in schools, communities, homes, workplaces and various other places, (3) that the contents of human rights education and awareness-raising must include the understanding and mastering of the idea of human rights, (4) the responsibilities of national and local governments as well as the people, (5) that the government formulate a basic plan on human rights education and awareness-raising, (6) that the government report annually to the Diet on the implementation of the basic plan, and (7) that the national government may take fiscal measures for local governments. (Note 23)
In March 2002, the Cabinet adopted the Basic Plan for Human Rights Education and Awareness-Raising. It published the White Paper on Human Rights Education and Awareness-Raising in following March, which since then is published annually.
Meanwhile, the Council for Human Rights Promotion of the Ministry of Justice published its Report on the Framework of the Human Rights Relief System in May 2001. The Report pointed out the problems in the existing human rights relief system, and indicated a need for a new human rights commission, as well as new competences, including those to conduct special investigations, publish recommendations, initiate law suits, and issue orders with a view to initiate such suits, apart from the voluntary investigations and warnings in the existing system. The Council issued another report in December of the same year, titled, Reform of the Civil Liberties Commissioners System. This Report called for the need to select appropriate people in the nomination of civil liberties commissioners, and recommended the removal of the nationality clause to enable foreign residents to be nominated.
The Cabinet adopted the Human Rights Protection Bill based on these Reports and the government submitted it to the Diet in March 2002. The draft Bill would have established a new human rights commission as an extra-ministerial department of the Ministry of Justice, which would provide remedies for victims of discrimination and human rights violation. There were provisions for general remedies as well as special remedies. (Note 24) However, there were criticisms against the draft including the following voiced by organizations such as the Buraku Liberation League, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, as well as the Democratic Party, which at that time was in the opposition; (1) the commission would not be independent, if it was established as an extra-ministerial department of the Ministry of Justice, and (2) the commission would be located only in Tokyo, and would not be effective (since discrimination and human rights violation happen in local areas, commissions must be established in all prefectures). The draft Bill also provided remedies including special remedies for human rights violation by the mass media and it led to the near unanimous opposition to the draft by the mass media and related bodies. As a result, the draft was abandoned with the dissolution of the House of Representatives in October 2003.
There has been a persistent campaign for a Human Rights Remedies Bill (tentative title), based on the Council Reports, the UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) and other relevant documents, but as of March 2011, there has been no new legislation to establish a human rights commission.
The ninth general meeting of the Central Executive Committee for the National Movement to Demand a Legislation of a Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation was held in July 2002. In the meeting, the name of the body was changed to the Central Executive Committee to Demand the Formulation of a Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Policy. The change was made to reflect the need to develop the movement into one that calls for elimination of all discrimination including Buraku discrimination and the establishment of human rights, based on the achievements of the 17 years of campaigning for the legislation of a fundamental law for Buraku liberation as well as the new situation. (Note 25)
Moreover, the Employment Security Act was amended in June 1996, to prohibit employment placement business providers to gather personal information, which may lead to social discrimination.
(2) Efforts aimed at local governments
Along with campaigns aimed at national governments, there have been campaigns for the elimination of Buraku discrimination aimed at local governments. These can be categorized in three stages. The first stage is the period in which we campaigned the Osaka Prefecture and other governments for legislation of local ordinances prohibiting investigations into personal backgrounds and publication and sales of directories of Buraku areas, as part of the movement protesting the Buraku directories incident in 1975.
The second stage includes campaigns calling for the realization of the provisions in the draft Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation by the local governments beginning around the early 1990s. These campaigns were aimed at changing the reluctance of the national government to legislate the draft Law, by changing the attitudes of local governments. As a result of these campaigns, Anan City of Tokushima Prefecture adopted the Ordinance on the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and the Promotion of Human Rights in June 1993. (Note 26) In September of the same year, Izumisano City of Osaka Prefecture enacted the Ordinance on the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and All Discrimination. (Note 27) Since then, similar ordinances have been passed by various local governments.
Following the trends reflected in the recommendations from the Consultative Council on Regional Improvement Measures of May 1996 as well as the decentralization trend, the Tottori Ordinance for the Development of Society with Full Respect for Human Rights was adopted in August 1996. (Note 28) This marked the beginning of the third stage. Since then, similar ordinances have been passed in Mie Prefecture (July 1997), Osaka Prefecture (October 1998), Oita Prefecture (December 2008) and other local governments. These ordinances would explicitly state that the purpose was to build a society, which was free from discrimination and in which human rights were respected. They also include provisions stipulating the responsibilities of local governments and residents, the formulation of basic policies or plans, establishment of councils and other requirements.
The Law for the Collective Promotion of Decentralization of Authority was enacted in April 2000. As a result, legally, the national, prefectural, city and village governments became equal instead of being in a hierarchical relationship. This meant that the local governments had a larger role in the elimination of Buraku discrimination. Also, since the second half of the 1990s, there was a stronger move towards disclosure of information in Japan, and ordinances on information disclosure were passed by not just the national but also by local governments. Consequently, it became difficult for local governments to allocate budget or personnel without explicit grounds. The significance of the legislation of ordinances to eliminate Buraku discrimination and to establish human rights further increased with these changes.
As of May 12, 2009 16 out of 47 prefectures had legislated 17 ordinances on human rights. (Note 29) Also, 410 out of 1,804 cities and villages had passed 410 such ordinances. (See table 1)
The human rights ordinances can be categorized into the following; the largest group is comprised of 222 ordinances that would build a society that respects human rights (53.8%), the next is the group of 122 ordinances that would eliminate all discrimination including Buraku discrimination (29%), then followed by the group of 41 ordinances for elimination of Buraku discrimination and protection of human rights (9.9%), and another of 28 other ordinances (6.8%). (Note 30)
In a new move by local governments, there were efforts towards legislating ordinances to provide remedies for human rights violations. In October 2005, the Prefectural Council of Tottori adopted the draft Tottori Prefecture Ordinance for Remedies for Human Rights Violations, which was submitted by the Members of the Council. The Ordinance prohibited discrimination including Buraku discrimination as well as various human rights violations. It would also have set up a human rights commission, which had the authority to investigate, formulate and publish recommendations. But the Ordinance faced criticisms from the Bar Association as well as the media, for giving too much independence and authority to the commission. And in March 2006, an ordinance to suspend enforcement of the above Ordinance was adopted, and a review was conducted by the review committee. In November 2007, the committee submitted its views, and the Ordinance was abolished. Meanwhile, the Tottori Ordinance for the Development of Society with Full Respect for Human Rights was amended to develop a network to provide human rights counseling. (Note 31)
(3) Working with the UN human rights activities
The Buraku liberation movement has continued its activities with a view towards international solidarity, ever since the foundation of the National Levelers Association in 1922. Particularly, since the second half of the 1970s, it has emphasized working with the United Nations human rights activities, and has been actively involved in campaigns to ratify the International Covenants mentioned above.
Since the ratification of both International Covenants in June 1979, the Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute conducted campaigns to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the ICERD. As a result, Japan ratified the CEDAW in June 1985 and the CRC in April 1994. It also acceded to the ICERD in December 1995. (See Table 2)
One of the visible achievements of the ratification of these instruments that was useful not just for the elimination of Buraku discrimination but also discrimination against women was the abolishment in 1985 of the gender difference in the amount of public assistance which had existed for 110 years. (Note 32)
To ensure their implementation, the international human rights treaties, which Japan has ratified, has a system, which requires state parties to submit regular reports. The report will be examined and the results (with recommendations) will be published. For these examinations of the reports, the Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute have prepared reports identifying problems in the government report from an movement’s perspective (counter report, parallel report) and submitted these to the committees, which have been established to ensure compliance with the treaties. The two organizations have also sent representatives to the examinations, to conduct lobbying and other activities. Consequently, the concluding comments issued by the treaty monitoring bodies based on the Japanese government report under the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW and ICERD, recommend measures to be taken by the Japanese government to solve the Buraku problem.
The relationship between ICERD and the Buraku problem is of particular note. Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Convention stipulates that the term "racial discrimination" under the Convention means discrimination based on (1) race, (2) colour, (3) descent, or (4) national or (5) ethnic origin. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has clearly shown in its views that the discrimination against the Buraku people in Japan as well as against the Dalits in India and other countries is discrimination based on descent. (Note 33)
The Concluding Observations (March 2001) based on the first and second report from the Japanese government and those (March 2010) based on the third to sixth report of the Committee indicated clearly that Buraku discrimination was included in the discrimination based on descent stipulated in Article 1 paragraph 1, and recommended that the Japanese government take measures required by the Convention to eliminate Buraku discrimination. (Note 34)
The Concluding Observations (November 1998) of the Human Rights Committee based on the fourth report from the Japanese government on the ICCPR included recommendations requiring “disclosure of evidence;” an issue that was closely related to the criminal court case in which a person of Buraku origin was falsely convicted. Also, in the CEDAW Concluding Comments (July 2003) issued after the examination of the fourth and fifth report, as well as in those (August 2009) after the examination of the sixth report urges the government to clarify the situation in which minority women, including Buraku women are placed, and to take effective policy measures. (Note 36)
Apart from the efforts above using the treaties, we have engaged in activities involving the Special Mechanisms established under the Commission on Human Rights (replaced by the Human Rights Council since June 2006) and the Sub-Commission on Human Rights (replaced by the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council since 2008).
Since 1981, representatives of the Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute have presented the situation of Buraku discrimination to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights. In August 2000, the Sub-Commission adopted a resolution on discrimination based on work and descent. It called for the elimination of discrimination against the people of Buraku in Japan and the Dalits in India and other areas. Also, based on the resolution, Special Rapporteurs were appointed to conduct a study and identify what forms of similar discrimination existed in other areas around the world, what legal and other measures there were to eliminate such discrimination, as well as what efforts were needed to eliminate such discrimination. A report including the Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent was published in June 2007. (Note 37) The Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute played an active role in the preparation process of the report.
An official visit to Japan by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance established under the UN Commission on Human Rights was conducted from July 3 to 11, 2005, and his report was submitted to the Human Rights Council in January 2006. His report concluded that racial discrimination and xenophobia existed in Japan and it affected three groups of people, (1) national minorities such as the Buraku people, Ainu people and the people of Okinawa, (2) people of the former colonies of Japan and their descendants, including those from the Korean peninsula and China, and (3) other foreigners and migrants from Asia and other parts of the world.
- The Rapporteur also proposed recommendations including the following; (1) the government should recognize the existence of racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan, as well as express its political will to combat it, (2) the government should adopt a national law prohibiting discrimination, (3) a national commission for equality and human rights should be established with a mandate that should bring together the most important and related fields of contemporary discrimination; race, colour, gender, descent, nationality, ethnic origin, disability, age, religion and sexual orientation, and (4) Focusing on the process of rewriting and teaching of history.
In order to effectively promote human rights activities in cooperation with the UN, the Buraku Liberation League and the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute brought together organizations and activists around the world working to eliminate discrimination, to found the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) in January 1988. IMADR has been granted consultative status by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1993. (Note 39)
8. The Current Status of Buraku Discrimination
The implementation of special policy measures to solve the Buraku problem based on the Special Measures Law that continued for 33 years from 1969 to 2002, as mentioned above, resulted in the significant improvement of the living environment of the Buraku areas. There were also other achievements, such as the increase in the rate of Buraku children going to senior high school. Public understanding of the Buraku problem has also increased to a certain degree.
However, there are remaining problems; there are some gaps in the rate of children going to senior high school (lower by 10 points at the time of graduation), the number of people enrolling in universities comprise only about 60% of national average, and the unemployment rates of young people and women are high. There is also persistent tendency to avoid the Buraku area and its people in marriage, employment and in real estate transactions such as housing.
For example, in a human rights awareness survey conducted in 2006 by Sennan City in Osaka Prefecture, to the question when the members of the general public would be conscious of Buraku people (multiple response), 65.3% of the respondents said they would be conscious when they were getting married, 22.2% when they were living as neighbors, 17.1% when they went to the same school, and 13.6% when they were hiring people. (23.3% responded that they thought people were not particularly conscious.) (Note 40)
As it was explained above, since the Buraku problem is essentially discrimination arising from difference in social status within the same racial and ethnic group, it is difficult to distinguish from the appearance whether someone is of Buraku origin or not. Then, how do people identify Buraku people? In order to answer this question, I would like to introduce the results of the survey on the awareness on human rights issues of the people of Osaka Prefecture, conducted by the prefectural government in 2005. The survey asked how the general public determined whether someone was of Dowa origin, and the responses (multiple response) were as follows; 50.3% thought people would determine someone was of Buraku origin when the person was currently living in a Buraku area, 38.3% said when the address on the family register was in a Buraku area, 36.6% said when the person was born in a Buraku area, 29.1% said when the parents or grandparents were living in a Buraku area, 27.5% said when the address on the family register of the parents or grandparents were in a Buraku area, 26.0% said when the parents or grandparents were born in a Buraku area, 23.6% said when the person had at one time lived in a Buraku area, and 18.9% said they determined by the occupation of the person. (See table 3)
The results of the survey show that Buraku discrimination remains persistent in the Japanese society in matters involving marriage, employment, living as neighbors and children’s schools. It is not easy, however, to identify where a Buraku is, or whether someone is of Buraku origin. It is particularly difficult in cases of people who have relocated to live outside of the Buraku areas. Therefore, the practice of hiring investigation or detective agencies to investigate the personal backgrounds of people is still not unusual in Japan.
Investigation agencies that have been hired to investigate the backgrounds of prospective brides, bridegrooms, or employees, will first of all, obtain the person’s certificate of residence and a copy of the family register, because these documents include the current address, the address on the family register, as well as other family members. Because of the use of these documents in discriminatory practices, the relevant laws including the Family Registration Law have been amended and access to them has been restricted. But the restriction had been less strict for people of eight professions, including public notaries, judicial scriveners, and lawyers, who may need to obtain certificates of residence and copies of family register in the course of their work. Subsequently, a series of incidents in which scriveners and notaries were found to have obtained these documents unlawfully happened since 2003 in areas such as Kyoto, Hyogo, Osaka, Aichi, Tokyo and Saitama. In investigating these incidents, we discovered that the scriveners and notaries were unlawfully obtaining the certificates and registers on request from investigation agencies. (They were receiving a fee of around 5,000 yen per document.) As a result the Family Registration Law and the Basic Resident Registration Act were amended in 2007, to restrict disclosure in principle. (Note 41)
The investigation agencies can find out the current addresses or addresses on the family register of the person concerned by obtaining the certificate of residence or family register, but the documents themselves do not show whether the address is in a Buraku area or not. In order to ascertain whether the addresses are in a Buraku area, the agencies must compare them with the information in the Buraku List. When the addresses match, the agencies would report that the person in question is of Buraku origin, and when they don’t match, the person is considered not of Buraku origin. (Note 42)
Diagram 1 shows the concept of what I have explained so far. Three versions of Buraku List have been confiscated from investigation agencies in Osaka since the end of 2005, and in September 2006, a floppy disc with an electronic version of the directory has been confiscated from an agency in Osaka.
These facts show the latent Buraku discrimination today in the Japanese society in matters involving marriages and hiring.
We are currently facing a stage of worsening Buraku discrimination with the expiry of the Special Measures Law in March 2002 and the cutbacks in welfare related budgets under the Koizumi government. The move towards deregulation leading to an increasingly and rigidly unequal society has made poverty as a social problem in Japan. There has also been a rise in anti-human rights, racist and xenophobic tendencies. These also add to the worsening discrimination.
Consequently, there seems to be a retreat in the hard-fought for improvements in the Buraku discrimination in recent years. The results of the survey on the situation of living conditions in the Dowa areas in Tottori Prefecture conducted by the prefectural government in July 2005 reveal the following situation; (1) 19.7% of the households receive public assistance (three times the rate, 6.4%, of the surveyed municipalities as a whole). The rate shows an increase from the 14.7% in 1993 and 16.0% in 2000. (2) Regarding forms of employment, 55.6% were in regular employment (8.7% lower than the prefectural average), which is 2.4% lower than in the 2000 survey. Meanwhile, 13.6% were in temporary employment and 7.5% were day laborers. These two making up the group of people in precarious employment comprise 21.1% (twice the prefectural average of 11.0%), which is a 3.8% increase from the 2000 survey. (3) Regarding annual income of Buraku people in employment, 45.4% earned 2 million yen or less (5.6% more than the prefectural average of 39.8%), which is 4.6% more than the 2000 survey. (Note 43)
With the background of declining economy, increasing unemployment as well as the rising rightist tendencies, there have been serious cases of Buraku discrimination. In one case, 400 postcards with threatening discriminatory messages were sent to a Buraku Liberation League office and the homes of many League members in a year and a half from May 2003 to October 2004. The perpetrator (34 years old) was arrested for intimidation in October 2004. In July 2005, the Tokyo District Court convicted him of intimidation and defamation and sentenced him to 2 years in prison, but he was not convicted of acts of discrimination against the Buraku people. (Note 44)
In recent years, there has been propaganda and incitement to Buraku discrimination on the internet, some including alarming contents reminiscent of the eugenic ideas against Jews and others under the Nazi regime. For example, comments such as the following were posted on the “2-channel” bulleting board; “Hinin eta-ko (derogatory suffix) should practice birth control. Don’t leave the rotten genes behind. You are a disgrace to Japan. Die, Buraku Liberation League.” (November 10, 2006) “From my experience in dealing with them, the Buraku people have physical characteristics, the color of their skin, naturally curling hair, doubtful look in their eyes, the jaw bones, the alignment of their teeth, etc. The fact that the recessive genes are carried on may be the result of incest. Yes, it is the look of cattle-killers. The recessive genes of eta and chon should not be left to future generations. Japan may rot.” (November 15, 2006) (Both from the survey by Mr. Shigeshi Tabata, Representative of the Network against Discrimination and for Research on Human Rights (NDRH).)
The Democratic Party led coalition came to power in the general election in August 2009, but the governing parties were defeated in the House of Councillors election in following July. The majority is held by the coalition in the House of Representatives, but in the House of Councillors, by the opposition, creating a deadlocked Diet. The campaign to eliminate Buraku discrimination and to establish human rights continues under such circumstances.
9. Future Challenges in the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and Establishment of Human Rights – Focusing on Improvement in Laws
The following is a list of future challenges in the elimination of Buraku discrimination and establishment of human rights, focusing on improvement in laws, based on the above overview of the situation of Buraku discrimination.
First, there are following challenges in the cooperation with UN human rights activities. (Note 45)
(1) The human rights treaties ratified by Japan must be faithfully implemented in the country. In particular, the recommendations included in the Concluding Observations by the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women based on the examination of the reports of Japan must be implemented.
(2) International human rights treaties that are useful in eliminating Buraku discrimination, and are not yet ratified, must be ratified. (Note 46)
(3) The Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination based on Work and Descent prepared by the Special Rapporteurs of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights must be implemented in Japan.
(4) The recommendations included in the report based on the official country visit to Japan by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance must be implemented.
Next, the issues that need improvements in laws at the national level are the following.
(1) Human rights education and awareness-raising must be promoted in all areas using the Law on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising.
(2) Legal measures must be introduced to establish a human rights commission with the independence and effectiveness to provide remedies for victims of human rights violations and discrimination in Japan.
(3) A law prohibiting discrimination must be adopted.
(4) The Family Registration Law and the Basic Resident Registration Act must be amended. (Note 49)
(5) A basic law for the elimination of social discrimination must be adopted. (Note 50)
(6) A basic law on human rights must be adopted, and a ministry on human rights must be established. (Note 51)
Further, at the local government level, the following problems need improvements in laws. (Note 52)
(1) Local governments that have adopted human rights ordinances must take measures to implement the ordinances.
(2) If there are problems in the human rights ordinances, they must be amended.
(3) Local governments that have not adopted human rights ordinances must do so.
１０ Conclusion
Finally, I close this article with lessons learned from the campaigns for legislations for the elimination of Buraku discrimination in Japan.
Generally, laws, especially laws related to the elimination of discrimination, will not be adopted unless there are campaigns with the victims of discrimination at its core.
Even if laws are adopted after active campaigns, in the end these laws are the products of “power relationships” and they will not include everything the campaign bodies had demanded.
Therefore, even if laws were adopted, further campaigns calling for their implementation, as well as efforts towards their amendment are indispensable.
Moreover, surveys to illuminate the facts underlying the legislation are extremely important for adoption of laws. The survey must regularly show not just the incidents of discrimination suffered directly by the people who are discriminated, but also other problems, such as the living conditions of these people, as well as the awareness of the people who are discriminating.
In the 21st century, the role of the state will not disappear, but will decline relatively, compared with the past century. Meanwhile, within the country, the role of local governments will increase, as will that of international organizations, such as the UN in the international sphere.
Bearing these characteristics of the 21st century in mind, the efforts to call for adoption of anti-discrimination and human rights ordinances by local governments, and to demand their implementation, are critical. Also, efforts towards elimination of discrimination in other countries and cooperation with UN human rights activities play an important role. (Note 53)
There have been major turning points in Japanese history. The Meiji Restoration, for example, was a turning point for Japan to develop into a modern society. Seen from the perspective of the elimination of Buraku discrimination during this period, the promulgation of the Emancipation Edict was significant. Similarly, the defeat of Japan in the Second World War was also a major turning point, and the Constitution adopted in the period included provisions that prohibit discrimination. In the period from the second half of the 1990s to the present it is not just Japan, but the whole world that is facing a major turning point. Legal measures linking partial to a fundamental solution of the Buraku problem, as well as legal measures leading to the elimination of all discrimination including Buraku discrimination and the establishment of human rights is needed in this period. It is the responsibility of us, living in this age, to achieve these legal measures.
Note 1 Profile of Kenzo Tomonaga
Born in Osaka City in 1944. Graduated from the Philosophy Course, Faculty of Literature, Osaka City University in 1969. Later, he worked in the Department of Education and Public Relations, Osaka Branch of the Buraku Liberation League, also at the same time, was staff of the Osaka Buraku Liberation Research Institute (current Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute). He then took the offices of the Secretary General, Director, the Chief Director of the Institute successively, before retiring in March 2009. Currently, he serves as the Director of the Research Institute, Vice President of the Human Rights Research Institute Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism – Mie, Deputy-Secretary-General of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Secretary General of Osaka Liaison Conference for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Part-time Lecturer at Kwansei Gakuin University and the Osaka City University.
His publications include Jinken Booklet, “Ikasou Jinken Kyouiku-Keihatsu Suishi nhou (Let’s use the Law for the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Awareness-Raising),” Kaiho Shuppansha (2001), Human Rights Basic “Ima Aratamete ‘Buraku Chimei Soukan’ Sabetsu Jiken o Tou (Asking once more about the Buraku Lists),” Kaiho Shuppansha (2006), and publication co-authored with Toshio Watanabe, “Burakushi Kenkyu kara no Hasshin (Messages from the Research in Buraku History) Vol. 3 Gendai-hen (Present age),” Kaiho Shuppansha (2009).
Note 2 It has been revealed through the UN human rights activities, that forms of discrimination similar to buraku discrimination and the discrimination against Dalit based on the caste system in India exist not just in South Asian countries, but also in some countries in Africa, such as Senegal, Mali and Nigeria. Also, it has been noted, that discrimination against Dalit may be found in the migrant Indian communities in countries such as Malaysia, U.K. and the U.S.. See for example, “Nihon kara Sekai e no Hasshin -Shokugyo to Seikei ni Motozuku Sabetsu (Messages from Japan to the world – discrimination based on work and descent)” ed. Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute, Kaiho Shuppansha, 2005.
Note 3 On the discrimination against the Paekjong, see “Kohei Undo – Chosen no Hisabetsu-min – Paekjong Sono Rekishi to Tatakai (Hyonpyonsa Movement – the discriminated people of Korea – the history and struggle of the Paekjong)” by Kim Jungsop, translated by Koh Chonja, under supervision by Kan Donho, Kaiho Shuppansha, 2003.
Note 4 I would like to provide some basic explanations on the terminology related to the Buraku problem. Buraku has two meanings in Japanese. In general, the word means ‘village’ in the rural area, but it also means the discriminated village. Activist organizations and researchers often use the word, “hisabetsu (discriminated) buraku” or just buraku, but the word the government administration uses is the Dowa chiku (district). Similarly, activist organizations and researchers uses the term Buraku problem, while the term used by the government administration is Dowa problem.
Note 5 At the time of the 1993 survey, the number of municipalities was 3,234. Since then, some municipalities have merged, and as of March 2010, the number is 1,727.
Note 6 The Emancipation Edict was issued as a proclamation of the Council of State on August 28, 1871. “The titles of eta and hinin shall be abolished; and henceforth the people belonging to these classes shall be treated in the same manner both in occupation and social standing as the common people (heimin). In cases, when they are subject to tax exemption, for example for land tax, amendment to the measures should be considered and the Ministry of Finance should be consulted. Dajoukan (Council of State)”
Research on the Emancipation Edict include “Meiji Ishin to Senmin Haishi Rei (Meiji Restoration and the Edict to Abolish the Senimin),” Satoshi Uesugi, Kaiho Shuppansha, 1991. Other laws, reports ordinances and treaties related to the elimination of buraku discrimination are written in bold letters.
Note 7 On the relationship between the formation of the nation state of Japan and the Buraku problem, see “Sabetsu kara miru Nihon no Rekishi (History of Japan Seen from the Discrimination),” Masaki Hirota, Kaiho Shuppansha, 2008. In this book, the author points out that in the process of developing the nation state of Japan since the Meiji period, not only was the Buraku problem reorganized and newly created, but the discrimination against the Ainu and Okinawa people was also created, and led to invasions in Taiwan and Korea.
Note 8 On the founding of the National Levelers Association, the movement and the denunciation campaigns against the Takamatsu Court judgment, see “Shinpan Sabetsu to Tatakai tsuzukete (New Edition –In Continuous Struggle against Discrimination),” Zenosuke Asada, Asahi Shinbunsha, 1979.
Note 9 On the relations between the National Levelers Association and the Hyonpyonsa, see publication introduced in note 3.
Note 10 Research on the relationship between the Constitution of Japan and the Buraku problem includes “Nihon koku Kenpo to Buraku Mondai (The Constitution of Japan and the Buraku problem),” Masumi Takano, Kaiho Shuppansha, 1984. Moreover, according to the government’s interpretation, the Buraku problem is included in the “social status” in Article 14 paragraph 2. This is also the majority view in the academic societies.
Note 11 On the All Romance incident, see publication introduced in note 3.
Note 12 The Report of the Dowa Policy Council is an important document, which marked the beginning of the serious efforts by the national and local governments to solve the Buraku problem after the Second World War. 42 general meetings, 121 sectional meetings and 21 sub-commission meetings were held. The Report consists of the Preamble, Part 1 “Understanding Dowa Issues”, Part 2 “Implementing Dowa Strategies”, Part 3 “Proposed Specific Dowa Measures”, and the Conclusion. The whole document can be downloaded from http://blhrri.org/library/library_hourei_001.pdf
Note 13 The Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects consisted of 11 articles; Article1 (Purpose), Article 2 (Dowa Projects), Article 3 (Responsibilities of Japanese people), Article 4 (Duties of national and local governments), Article 5 (Aim of the Dowa Projects), Article 6 (National policies), Article 7 (Special assistance), Article 8 (Local government policies) , Article 9 (Local government bonds), Article 10 (Incorporation of the repayment of the principal and interest into the basic financial requirements), and Article 11 (Cooperation among relevant government organizations). For Dowa projects implemented by the local governments by the cities and villages in particular, the national government provided support for two thirds of the expenses, and allowed the municipalities to issue bonds for the remaining third, of which up to ten eighths could be calculated as part of the tax revenue allocated to local governments, with the approval of the Minister of Local Autonomy. As a result, when the provision was fully approved, the local governments could implement the projects at one fifteenth of the cost. The Law can be seen at http://law.e-gov.go.jp/haishi/S44HO060.html
Note 14 Burak Lists include information on names, addresses, the number of households and main occupations in 5,300 buraku around the country according to prefectures. It is known that as of September 2010, there are 10 versions of Buraku List, that these have been sold to companies and other entities through direct mail for 5,000 to 45,000 yen each, that these have been prepared and sold by investigation agencies including detective agencies, and that most of the buyers were companies, with over 200 companies purchasing copies. Reference material includes Human Rights Basic “Ima Aratamete ‘Buraku Chimei Soukan’ Sabetsu Jiken o Tou ((Asking Once More about the Directory of Buraku Area Lists),” Kenzo Tomonaga, Kaiho Shuppansha (2006).
Note 15 The objectives of the Osaka Prefecture Ordinance Regulating Personal Background Investigation in Buraku Origin were to require investigation agencies refrain from investigating in buraku backgrounds, providing lists of locations of buraku areas or revealing those locations. For these purposes, the ordinance (1) requires self-regulation, (2) allows the Osaka Prefectural Governor to issue “instructions” when a violation is found, (3) provides for orders for suspension of business, when the “instruction” is not complied with, and (4) provides for fines when the business suspension order is not complied with. Texts and commentaries of the Ordinance can be seen at http://www.pref.osaka.jp/jinken/measure/kojinl.html
Note 16 The Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute was founded in August 1968 by researchers, activist organizations, Osaka Prefecture, Osaka City and others. In 1970, it changed its name to Buraku Liberation Research Institute, and in 1974, became an incorporated body approved by the Osaka Prefectural Education Board. It changed its name to its current one in June 1998. The Institute engages in activities including research, organization of lecture courses, and publication. The website is at http://222.blhrri.org/
Note 17 When compared with the earlier Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects, the Law on Special Measures for Regional Improvement is similar in its contents, but there were a number of features, such as (1) the number of articles decreased from eleven to five, (2) the unity of the area in question with the surrounding areas was to be ensured in implementing projects, and (3) a government ordinance limited the projects to 44, instead of providing for them in a comprehensive article in the Law. The text of the Law can be seen at http://law.e~gov.go.jp/haishi/S57HO016.html
Note 18 Reports on the discussion process of the Committee on the Draft Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation includes, “Buraku Kaihou no Tenbou o Mezashite – ‘Buraku Kaihou Kihon Hou’ Kentou Iinkai Houkokusho (Towards a Prospect of Buraku Liberation Report of the Committee on the Draft Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation),” ed., Committee on the Draft Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation, 1985. A brief commentary can be found in Jinken Booklet 28 “Buraku Kaihou Kihon Hou towa (What is a Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation),” ed., Central Executive Committee for the National Movement to Demand a Legislation of a Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation, Kaiho Shuppansha, 1991. The text of the draft Law can be seen at http://www.bll.gr.jp/siryositu/s-gyo-hoan.html The Central Committee consists of the Headquarters of the Buraku Liberation League, the Japanese Trade Union Confederation, National Dowa Educators’ Association, the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute, Solidarity Conference of Religious Group for the Solution of Dowa Issue, Industrial Federation on Dowa Issues, and other organizations. It has engaged in activities such as collection of signatures, organization of central meetings, and lobbying the government.
Note 19 Law on Specific Governmental Budgetary Measure Concerning the Projects Designated for the Area Improvement consists of five articles, and in its nature, it is a special fiscal measures law. It has therefore no particular provisions regarding the purpose in line with the Law on Special Measures for Regional Improvement, and it has no provisions on the responsibilities of national or local governments, or that of the people. Further, the areas in which the projects were to be implemented as well as the projects were limited to projects whose continuation was stated as being particularly necessary in the government ordinance, in regions in which projects had been implemented under the Regional Improvement Law. The text of the Law can be seen at http://www.houko.com/00/01/S62/022.HTM
Note 20 The current human rights protection system in Japan consists of the Human Rights Bureau in the Ministry of Justice, as well as the Human Rights Departments in the Legal Affairs Bureau in prefectures in which Appeal Courts are located, Human Rights Divisions in District Legal Affairs Bureaus in the other prefectures, and the human rights volunteer system. The legal bases are the Ministry of Justice Establishment Law and the Law on Civil Liberties Commissioners. Problems regarding this system include, the lack of independence, as the Human Rights Bureau is a section within the Ministry of Justice, the fact that the staff engaged in human rights protection are not specialists, and that there are only around 240 of them around the country. Their authority allows them only to conduct voluntary investigations, and even when a violation of human rights is identified, they can only issue warnings (instructions or recommendations). There are about 17,000 civil liberties commissioners in the country. (The head of cities and villages submit their candidates with the agreement of their councils, and the Minister of Justice appoints them. They receive no pay, except travel expenses. Appointees must have Japanese nationality.) The majority of them are in their senior years, and it has been pointed out that few of them are devoted to or expert on human rights and that the post has become an honorary one. Therefore, the above Report of the Dowa Policy Council also indicated the need for a drastic reform of the existing human rights protection system.
Note 21 The projects for the elimination of buraku discrimination through special measures based on the Law on Special Measures for Dowa Projects, which had continued for 33 years ended in March 2002. The Report of the Council for Regional Improvement Measures is still significant today as an official document showing the basic direction towards elimination of buraku discrimination after the expiry of the Law. As of March 2011, this Report is the only existing official document on the elimination of buraku discrimination at the national level. The Report consists of (1) basic understanding on the Dowa issue, (2) the history and current status of efforts towards the solution of the Dowa issue, (3) prospects on the solution of the Dowa issue, and (4) direction of focus policies. The report can be seen at
http://www.pref.kochi.lg.jp/~jinkyou/jinnkenn/horitu/law/ikengushin.html
Note 22 The text of the Law can be seen at http://law.e-gov.go.jp/haishi/H08HO120.html
Note 23 The draft bill of the Law on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Human Rights Awareness-Raising was submitted by Diet Members. A supplementary provision states that “This Law will be reviewed within three years since the day of its enactment based also on the results of the discussions of the Council of Human Rights Promotion on the basic issues regarding improvement of policies on the provision of remedies to victims of human rights violation under Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Law for the Measures for Promotion of Human Rights Protection” but there has been no such reviews as of March 2011. The text of the law can be seen at http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/H12/H12HO147.html
Another brief commentary is provided by Jinken Booklet 58 “Ikasou Jinken Kyouiku-Keihatsu Suishin Hou (Let’s use the Law for the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Awareness-
Raising),” Kaiho Shuppansha (2001).
Note 24 The full text of the draft bill can be seen at
http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000001548.pdf The problems regarding the draft are raised in “Kinkyu Shuppan Jinken Yougo Houan – Bappon Shusei e no Teian – Doko o Dou Kaeru? (Urgent publication- Draft Human Rights Protection Bill – Proposals for a Drastic Amendment – Where and How should it be Changed?),” Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute ed., Kaiho Shuppan, 2002.
Note 25 The legislation of the Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation was not achieved by the time of the Committee’s renaming. But since the Law on the Promotion of Human Rights Education and Awareness-Raising had incorporated and expanded on the sections regarding education and awareness-raising in Article 5 of the draft Fundamental Law, the organization changed its name. Since this General Meeting, the focus of the organization has been the legislation of a law on remedies for human rights violation to realize the sections regarding regulation and remedies in the draft Fundamental Law.
Note 26 The Ordinance on the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and the Promotion of Human Rights of Anan City consists of seven articles, and includes provisions on the purpose, responsibilities of the citizens, measures to be taken by the city, surveys, improvements of the administrative system, councils and other matters. The legislative process is explained in “Zenkoku de ‘Jourei-Sengen ‘ o! (A Call for Ordinances and Declarations Nationwide),” Central Executive Committee for the National Movement to Demand a Legislation of a Fundamental Law for Buraku Liberation, ed., Kaiho Shuppan, 1994. The text of the Ordinance can be seen at http://blhrri.org/kenkyu/data/jourei/tokushima/jourei-tokushima-09.htm
The Ordinance was abolished with the legislation of the Ordinance for Developing a Society with Respect for Human Rights in October 2005.
Note 27 The Ordinance on the Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and All Discrimination of Izumisano City consists of seven articles, and includes provisions on the purpose, the responsibilities of the city, the responsibilities of the citizens, the integrated and planned promotion of measures, surveys, improvement of awareness-raising activities, and the promotion system. The legislative process is explained in the above publication. The text of the Ordinance can be seen at http://www.city.izumisano.osaka.jp/section/jinken/jyourei.html
Note 28 The legislative process of the Ordinance for the Development of Society with Full Respect for Human Rights of the Tottori Prefecture is explained in the above publication. The text of the Ordinance can be seen at http://www.pref.tottori.lg.jp/dd.aspx?menuid=92911 Moreover, a provision on consultations on human rights issues was added since April 2009.
Note 29 There are two Ordinances in Osaka Prefecture; the Ordinance Regulating Personal Background Investigation in Buraku Origin, and the Ordinance on Creating a Society that Respects Human Rights.
Note 30 In June 2006, the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute conducted a survey on the situation on ordinances regarding elimination of buraku discrimination and human rights, in view of the ongoing mergers of municipalities. The situation of the ordinances in the categories introduced in the article is based on the survey results. The report of the survey can be seen at http://blhrri.org/kenkyu/data/survey_on_HRE/index.htm
Note 31 A clarification of issues on the Tottori Prefecture Ordinance for Remedies for Human Rights Violations includes Human Rights Basic “Motomerareru Jinken Kyusai Housei no Ronten (Issues on the Needed Human Rights Remedies Legislation),” Hirofumi Uchida, Kaiho Shuppan, 2006.
Note 32 Article 98 paragraph 2 stipulates that “The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed,” and according to government views, the interpretation of the courts and majority opinion in academic societies, the treaties come under the Constitution and above other laws in the order of precedence. Therefore, laws and systems that do not comply with the treaties must be amended.
Note 33 According to the views of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “descent” “indicates a concept focusing on the race or skin color of a past generation, or the national or ethnic origins of a past generation, and its meaning does not go beyond biological or cultural characteristics,” (“Jinshu Sabetsu Teppai Jouyaku (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) Q & A,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs) explaining that the term does not include buraku discrimination. A similar argument was raised in the examination of the report of India, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination organized a thematic discussion on the topic of “descent.” It also issued a General Comment 29 on “descent. ” In the Comment, the Committee strongly reaffirms “that discrimination based on “descent” includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human right.” The General Comment can be seen at http://www.imadr.org/japan/pdf/CERD29.pdf
Note 34 In the Concluding Observations of the Committee issued in March 2010 the Committee reconfirms that buraku discrimination is included in the term “descent” in paragraph 8, and it proposed the following six recommendations to the Japanese Government in paragraph 19; (a) to assign a specific government agency or committee mandated to deal with Buraku problems, (b) to fulfill the commitments made upon the termination of the Special Measures Law, (c) to engage in consultation with relevant persons to adopt a clear and uniform definition of burakumin (buraku people), (d) to supplement programmes for the improvement of living conditions of burakumin with human rights education and awareness-raising efforts engaging the general public, particularly in areas housing buraku communities, (e) to provide statistical indicators reflecting the situation and progress of the above-mentioned measures, (f) to take into account general recommendation No. 32 (2009) on special measures, including the recommendation that special measures are to be terminated when equality between the beneficiary groups and others has been sustainably achieved. The text of the Concluding Observations can be seen at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/jinshu/pdfs/saishu3-6.pdf
Note 35 The Sayama case was a kidnapping and murder case of a first-year senior high school girl, that happened on May 1, 1963. Mr. Kazuo Ishikawa (24 years old at the time), who was of buraku origin, was arrested and indicted as suspect on May 23 of the same year. He was put on a criminal trial, but after being sentenced to death by the District Court, he asserted his innocence. Later, his sentence for indefinite term in prison became final, and he served his sentence. (He was released on parole in 1994.) A number of problems regarding the investigation process have been pointed out from many circles, and Mr. Ishikawa and his lawyers as well as his supporters are currently seeking retrial, claiming sentencing on false charges. In the process for retrial, disclosure to the lawyers of evidence held by the police and the prosecution was needed, and the Human Rights Committee, after examination of the fourth report of Japan, pointed out in its Concluding Observations at paragraph 26 that it “is concerned that under the criminal law, there is no obligation on the prosecution to disclose evidence it may have gathered in the course of the investigation other than that which it intends to produce at the trial, and that the defence has no general right to ask for the disclosure of that material at any stage of the proceedings. The Committee recommends that, in accordance with the guarantees provided for in article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party ensure that its law and practice enable the defence to have access to all relevant material so as not to hamper the right of defence.” The Committee’s Concluding Observations can be seen at
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kiyaku/2c2_001.html
Note 36 In the Concluding Observations based on the examination of the sixth report of Japan, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended in paragraph 52, that the state, “take effective measures, including the establishment of a policy framework and the adoption of temporary special measures, to eliminate discrimination against minority women. To this end, the Committee urges the State party to appoint minority women representatives to decision-making bodies. The Committee reiterates its previous request (A/58/38, para. 366) that the State party include information on the situation of minority women in Japan, especially with regard to education, employment, health, social welfare and exposure to violence, in its next periodic report. In this context, the Committee calls upon the State party to conduct a comprehensive study on the situation of minority women, including indigenous Ainu, Buraku and Zainichi Korean and Okinawa women.” The Concluding Observations can be seen at http://www.gender.go.jp/teppai/6th/CEDAW6_co_j.pdf
Note 37 The Sub-Commission on Human Rights has accumulated considerable research on the issue of “discrimination based on work and descent.” The following is a brief introduction of the work of the Sub-Commission. In a report published in August 2001 by Sub-Commission Member Mr. Goonesekere, the discrimination against the Dalit in India and other countries in South Asia as well as the buraku discrimination in Japan were introduced. The expanded working paper by Members Mr. Eide and Mr. Yokota in August 2003 reported on similar forms of discrimination in some countries in Africa. The subsequent report by Mr. Eide and Mr. Yokota in July 2004 reported on discrimination against the Dalits that existed in the Indian migrant (diaspora) communities. In the report by Mr. Yokota and Ms. Chung of July 2005, indicated a Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Effective Elimination of Discrimination Based on Work and Descent. Later, the draft incorporated the comments from the governments and NGOs, and in October 2007, the final report by the two Members was submitted to the Human Rights Council. The report was distributed at the 11th session of the Human Rights Council on May 18, 2009.(A/HRC/11/CRP.3 English only) It is now necessary to work towards the adoption of the draft by the Human Rights Council and continued campaigning. Mr. Yozo Yokota is a Professor at Chuo University, Japan, and Ms. Chin-sung Chung is Professor at Seoul National University, Korea. The text of the report in Japanese can be seen at
http://blhrri.org/kokusai/un/un_0045.htm
Note 38 The report of the official country visit to Japan by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance can be seen at http://www42.tok2.com/home/minzokukyoikunomirai/nipponhomon-hokokusho.pdf
Note 39 The International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) has members in Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Malaysia, Argentina, Mexico, U.S., Germany, France, the Netherlands, Nigeria and other countries, as well as in Japan. The headquarters is located in Tokyo, Japan and it also has an office in Geneva. The website is at http://www.imadr.org/japan/
Note 40 The results of the 2006 survey on the human rights of awareness conducted by Sennan City, Osaka can be seen at
http://www.city.sennan.osaka.jp/jinkenkeihatu/1/data/all-2006.pdf
Note 41 There has been three campaigns demanding a change in the Family Registration Law since the end of the Second World War. The first campaign called for a better protection of the non-disclosure of the Jinshin Koseki. (This was the registry created in 1871, and some had entries regarding the former social classes of the people concerned.) The second was the campaign against the present registry. With the subsequent amendment of the law in 1976, anyone asking for a copy of the full registration, or other documents regarding the registry was required to give a reason. If it was unjustified, the local government could refuse provision of the copy. After the third campaign, the law was amended in 2007, and disclosure was restricted in principle. With the amendment, the provision of copies of the registration was restricted to the registered person or his/her family, or people in eight professions including judicial scriveners and public notaries. For the people in the eight professions, there was a requirement to write the reasons for the request for the copy, and when they were found to have acquired copies unlawfully, criminal sanctions would be applied.
Note 42 If we assume that the population of buraku people is 3 million, as the people involved in the buraku liberation movement have been asserting, the proportion of buraku people in the population as a whole, which is approximately 120 million, is 4%. Therefore, the chances of investigation agencies reporting that the prospective bride, bridegroom, or employee is of buraku origin are 4%. For the remaining 96%, the agencies would be reporting that the person in question was found not to be of buraku origin after their investigations. This is also a form of discrimination, but these reports rarely become public. The only incidents that do become public are those of the 4%, and only when the discrimination by the people who received the reports are particularly severe, and when the people who are discriminated have a high awareness.
Note 43 Professor Maomi Kunitoshi, Professor Emeritus of Tottori University, who was in charge of the survey noted on the survey outcomes, “Japan is currently said to be an unequal society. Certainly, as the 2006 Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions clearly show, the society is divided into levels of wealthy people and the people in difficulties. But in the case of buraku, it is apparent that people are concentrated in the level of people in difficulties.” “Buraku Kaiho Kenkyu” No. 175, April 2007.
Note 44 The person who carried out this incident was a man (34 years old) who graduated from university, but could not find a regular job. There was another incident in Aichi Prefecture during the period from October 2006 to February 2007, in which a man (26 year old) posted viciously discriminatory documents on the website he created. He was arrested and convicted for defamation. He also had no regular work. These incidents clearly show the “social raison d’etre” of discrimination, in which people in difficult situation discriminate against people in a more difficult situation, to temporarily vent their frustration.
Note 45 On the relationship with the human rights protection activities at the UN towards the elimination of buraku discrimination, see ‘Kokusai teki Shiya kara mita Buraku Mondai (The Buraku problem Seen from an International Perspective),’ Kenzo Tomonaga, “Burakushi Kenkyu kara no Hasshin (Messages from the History in Buraku History) Vol. 3, ed., Kenzo Tomonaga, Toshio Watanabe, Kaiho Shuppansha, 2009.
Note 46 Human rights treaties that Japan has not yet ratified, and that may be useful in the elimination of buraku discrimination are the Optional Protocols providing for an individual communication system of the ICCPR and ICESCR, as well as the ILO Convention No. 111 on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation).
Note 47 Proposals of draft bills from civil society include the outline and tentative plan for the Draft Law on Remedies for Human Rights Violations (provisional title) by the Central Executive Committee for the Establishment of Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Policies, and the Draft Outline of a National Human Rights Institution System proposed by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. These proposals suggest among others, the creation of the human rights commission as an extra-ministerial department of the Cabinet Office, and the establishment of commissions at the prefectural level, as well as at the center. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations draft can be seen at
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/ja/opinion/report/data/081118_4.pdf
The Democratic Party of Japan has also prepared a draft bill on the Law on the Remedies of Victims of Human Rights Violations and Prevention in 2005, while the Party was still in opposition. The draft is very similar to those proposed by the Central Executive Committee and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and can be seen at
http://www.dpj.or.jp/news/?num=231
Note 48 Proposals from the civil society on laws to prohibit discrimination with a perspective to eliminate discrimination against buraku and other people are being discussed by different organizations, such as the Japan Civil Liberties Union and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. One of the examples related to the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Institute is the personal proposal on a draft Law Prohibiting Racial Discrimination (2002) by Professor Masanao Murakami of the University of Osaka. The main points of the proposal are said to be as follows; (1) the definition will be modeled after the ICERD provision, adding nationality, social status and family origin as grounds for discrimination, and reasonable distinction as an exception to the prohibition, (2) the draft law will cover both discrimination by public officials as well as those between private individuals, (3) the draft law will have a provision on a general prohibition of discrimination, while particular areas, such as employment, housing, provision of goods and services and participation in organizations will be explicitly mentioned, based on the relevant cases in Japan, (4) as means of enforcement, the draft will provide for civil remedies, and (5) regarding regulation of expression, the draft will apply those provided for in the draft Human Rights Protection Bill. In drafting the proposal, Professor Murakami referred to the U.K. Race Relations Act, the Australian Racial Discrimination Act (Federal), and the draft Human Rights Protection Bill, as well as the ICERD. This proposal appears in the “Jinken Yougo Houan – Bappon Shusei e no Teian (Draft Human Rights Protection Bill – Proposals for a Drastic Amendment),” Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute ed., Kaiho Shuppan, 2002.
Note 49 There have been incidents of unlawful acts by people in the eight professions, including public notaries, even since the amendment of the Family Registration Law in 2007. Therefore, it has been pointed out that a system of notification to the owner of the registry, in which a person will receive notification if someone had acquired his/her registry, is necessary. As of October 2010, there has been no amendment of the Law in this regard, but at the local level, cities and villages in prefectures such as Saitama and Osaka are already implementing the notification system. A more essential problem with the family registration system in Japan, is that it is organized according to the family unit and not to individuals. This perpetuates the idea of the “ie (family)” and renders elimination of buraku discrimination more difficult. Suggestions, taking these problems into consideration, have been made on the amendment to change the registration to an individual-based one. An example is the one in Human Rights Basic “Shinpan Koseki to Jinken (New Edition Family Registration and Human Rights )” Shuhei Ninomiya, Kaiho Shuppansha, 2006.
Note 50 Regarding the basic law for the elimination of social discrimination, the draft Outline of the Basic Policy on Elimination of Discrimination has been proposed, based on the discussions in the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute in 1993. See “Nihon no Jinken Seisaku ni Kansuru Teigen – Sekai Jinken Senen 45 Shuunen o fumaete (Proposals on Human Rights Policies – on the 45th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights),” ed., Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute, 1993.
Note 51 On the need of a legislation of a Fundamental Law on Human Rights and the establishment of a Ministry on Human Rights, see “Nihon ni okeru Hou Seido ni kansuru Teigen (Proposal on Legal and Other Systems on Human Rights in Japan)” Citizens' Council for Human Rights Japan, issued in Decmeber 2006, at
http://www.geocities.jp/mkaw8/hrcc/events/hrlp06.html
Note 52 On the current status of and issues regarding local ordinances on human rights, see ‘Buraku Sabetsu Teppai – Jinken Jourei no Seitei no Keika – Genjou – Kongo no Kadai (Process, Current Status and Issues on Ordinances on Elimination of Buraku Discrimination and Human Rights),’ “Buraku Kaihou Kenkyu” Vol. 175, April 2007.
Note 53 For example, there is no human rights commission yet in Japan, but in Korea, the National Human Rights Commission Act was enacted in 2001, and the Commission has been in operation since 2002. NGOs and researchers, who are working towards an establishment of a commission in Japan, have often visited the National Human Rights Commission of Korea and have organized meetings inviting relevant people to learn from their experiences. Also, in Gwangju Metropolitan City of Korea, the Gwangju office of the National Human Rights Commission and other bodies have taken the initiative to learn from the experience of legislation of local ordinances on human rights in Japan and are actively working towards enacting such ordinances in their respective local governments.
table 1
Survey on the Situation of Ordinances on Human Rights
As of June 12, 2009
Prefectures |
Ordinances |
Number of cities, villages |
Number of ordinancess |
Hokkaido |
|
180 |
0 |
Aomori |
|
40 |
0 |
Iwate |
|
35 |
0 |
Miyagi |
|
36 |
0 |
Akita |
|
25 |
0 |
Yamagata |
|
35 |
0 |
Fukushima |
|
59 |
0 |
Ibaragi |
|
44 |
0 |
Tochigi |
Human Rights Ordinance |
31 |
3 |
Gunma |
|
38 |
0 |
Saitama |
adoption of objective |
70 |
0 |
Chiba |
|
56 |
0 |
Tokyo |
|
62 |
0 |
Kanagawa |
|
33 |
0 |
Niigata |
|
31 |
0 |
Toyama |
|
15 |
0 |
Ishiakwa |
|
19 |
, |
Fukui |
Human Rights Ordinance |
17 |
1 |
Yamanashi |
|
28 |
0 |
Nagano |
adoption of petition |
81 |
76 |
Gifu |
|
42 |
0 |
Shizuoka |
|
37 |
0 |
Aichi |
|
61 |
0 |
Mie |
Human Rights Ordinance |
29 |
22 |
Shiga |
Human Rights Ordinance |
26 |
23 |
Kyoto |
|
26 |
1 |
Osaka |
Human Rights Ordinance/Regulation of certain acts |
43 |
43 |
Hyogo |
|
41 |
3 |
Nara |
Human Rights Ordinance |
39 |
20 |
Wakayama |
Human Rights Ordinance |
30 |
10 |
Tottori |
Human Rights Ordinance |
19 |
19 |
Shimane |
|
21 |
0 |
Okayama |
|
27 |
1 |
Hiroshima |
|
23 |
4 |
Yamaguchi |
|
20 |
0 |
Tokushima |
Regulation of certain acts |
24 |
24 |
Kagawa |
Regulation of certain acts |
17 |
16 |
Ehime |
Human Rights Ordinance |
20 |
14 |
Kochi |
Human Rights Ordinance |
34 |
9 |
Fukuoka |
Regulation of certain acts |
66 |
50 |
Saga |
Human Rights Ordinance |
20 |
18 |
Nagasaki |
|
23 |
0 |
Kumamoto |
Regulation of certain acts |
47 |
33 |
Oita |
Human Rights Ordinance |
18 |
17 |
Miyazaki |
|
30 |
0 |
Kagoshima |
|
45 |
3 |
Okinawa |
|
41 |
0 |
Total |
17 Ordinances |
1804 |
410 |
Note: Total number of ordinances adopted by prefectures, cities and villages is 427. |
|||
Table 2
List of UN Related Human Rights Treaties
As of December 24, 2010
|
Title |
Date of Adoption |
Date of Entry into Force |
Number of State Parties |
Treaties ratified by Japan (date of ratification) |
1 |
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights |
1966.12.16 |
1976.01.03 |
160 |
○(1979.06.21) |
2 |
Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights |
2008.12.10 |
|
3 |
|
3 |
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
1966.12.16 |
1976.03.23 |
167 |
○(1979.06.21) |
4 |
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
1966.12.16 |
1976.03.23 |
113 |
|
5 |
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty |
1989.12.15 |
1991.07.11 |
73 |
|
6 |
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination |
1965.12.21 |
1969.01.04 |
174 |
○(1995.12.15) |
7 |
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid |
1973.11.30 |
1976.07.18 |
107 |
|
8 |
International Convention against Apartheid in Sports |
1985.12.10 |
1988.04.03 |
60 |
|
9 |
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women |
1979.12.18 |
1981.09.03 |
186 |
○(1985.06.25) |
10 |
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women |
1999.10.06 |
2000.12.22 |
100 |
|
11 |
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide |
1948.12.09 |
1951.01.12 |
141 |
|
12 |
Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity |
1968.11.26 |
1970.11.11 |
54 |
|
13 |
Amended Slavery Convention** |
|
|
|
|
(1) Slavery Convention |
1926.09.25 |
1927.03.09 |
-*** |
||
(1) Protocol amending the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926 |
1953.10.23 |
1953.12.07 |
61 |
||
(2) Slavery Convention, signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926 and amended by the Protocol** |
1953.12.07 |
1955.07.07 |
99 |
||
14 |
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery |
1956.09.07 |
1957.04.30 |
123 |
|
15 |
Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others |
1950.03.21 |
1951.07.25 |
81 |
○(1958.05.01) |
16 |
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees |
1951.07.28 |
1954.04.22 |
144 |
○(1981.10.03) |
17 |
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees |
1967.01.31 |
1967.10.04 |
145 |
○(1982.01.01) |
18 |
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness |
1961.08.30 |
1975.12.13 |
37 |
|
19 |
Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons |
1954.09.28 |
1960.06.06 |
65 |
|
20 |
Convention on the Nationality of Married Women |
1957.01.19 |
1958.08.11 |
74 |
|
21 |
Convention on the Political Rights of Women |
1953.03.31 |
1954.07.07 |
122 |
○(1955.07.13) |
22 |
Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages |
1962.11.07 |
1964.12.09 |
55 |
|
23 |
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
1984.12.10 |
1987.06.26 |
147 |
○(1999.06.29) |
24 |
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
2002.12.18 |
2006.06.22 |
57 |
|
25 |
Convention on the Rights of the Child |
1989.11.20 |
1990.09.02 |
193 |
○(1994.04.22) |
26 |
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict |
2000.05.25 |
2002.02.12 |
139 |
○(2004.08.02) |
27 |
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography |
2000.05.25 |
2002.01.18 |
142 |
○(2005.01.24) |
28 |
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families |
1990.12.18 |
2003.07.01 |
44 |
|
29 |
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities |
2006.12.13 |
2008.05.03 |
97 |
|
30 |
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. |
2006.12.13 |
2008.05.03 |
60 |
|
31 |
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance |
2006.12.20 |
2010.12.23 |
21 |
○（2009.7.23） |
** The Slavery Convention amended by the Protocol amending the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926 is the Slavery Convention, signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926 and amended by the Protocol. In order to be party to the amended Convention, a state can either (1) ratify or accede to the amended Convention or (2) ratify or accede to the Convention and accept the Protocol. |
|||||
From the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center website.
Table 3
How does the “general public” determine Buraku origin ?
(from the 2005 survey of the awareness on human rights issues, Osaka Prefecture)
(Table 5-3 How do you think does the general public determine, whether someone is of Buraku origin or not?)
|
Prefecture as a whole |
|
|
Number of respondents |
percentage |
Total number of respondents |
3424 |
100 |
The person is currently living in a Dowa area |
1721 |
50.3 |
The person has lived in a Dowa area in the past |
807 |
23.6 |
The address on the family register of the person is in a Dowa area |
1310 |
38.3 |
The person was born in a Dowa area |
1253 |
36.6 |
The parents or grandparents are living in a Dowa area |
996 |
29.1 |
The address on the family register of the parents or grandparents is in a Dowa area |
940 |
27.5 |
The parent or grandparent was born in a Dowa area |
891 |
26.0 |
The person’s occupation |
646 |
18.9 |
Others |
41 |
1.2 |
Do not know |
777 |
22.7 |
No response/ unknown |
59 |
1.7 |
(multiple response)
| Home | Back Number |