The debate over the onsen cases continue to produce fierce arguments on the pages of the Japan Times as well as on various Internet blogs and forums – even though it has been several years since the case was adjudicated.

Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat, vice president of a Japanese university, and self-described “culturalist”  (as well as a self-described fluent speaker in Chinese, Russian, and Japanese – which, it seems, he feels obliged to mention repeatedly), has written at least three pieces on the onsen case for the Japan Times as well as numerous other forums, with his latest piece (“Antiforeigner discrimination is a right for Japanese people”, January 15) coming several years after the lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The onsen case has been debated many times in the opinion pages as well as in countless other venues, and I’m not sure what good could come out of rehashing it yet again. It seems to generate more heat than light, and it unlikely that any new understanding would come from trudging through the arguments once again.

However, there are a few points of clarification that should be made with respect to this most recent piece and a few questions that readers may want to consider.

Mr. Clark writes: “The antidiscrimination people point to Japan’s acceptance of a U.N. edict banning discrimination on the basis of race. But that edict is broken every time any U.S. organization obeys the affirmative action law demanding preference for blacks and other minorities… Malaysia has also ignored it, with its Bumiputra policy of favoring Malays over Chinese and other minorities. There are dozens more examples of societies deciding to favor one group of people over others in order to preserve solidarity or prevent injustices.”

I’m afraid that Mr. Clark’s assertion is not accurate. The “edict”, known as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was ratified by Japan in 1996.  The Convention specifically excludes policies, such as affirmative action, that are intended to provide protection or ensure the progress of ethnic groups that have traditionally been the victims of discrimination. Article I, Section 4 of the Convention states the following:

“Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals’ equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”

While the issue of whether such objectives have been achieved or not can be debated, it is clear that the policies of the U.S. and Malaysian governments do indeed fall under the exception, and do not, as Mr. Clark claims, violate the terms of the Convention. Furthermore, racial discrimination violates Japan’s own constitution, something that Mr. Clark fails to mention. Is he arguing that the Japanese constitution should also be ignored?

Mr. Clark also writes the following:

“”Japan girai”— dislike of Japan — is an allergy that seems to afflict many Westerners here. If someone handing out Japanese-language flyers assumes they cannot read Japanese and ignores them, they cry racial discrimination… Normally these people do little harm. In their gaijin ghettoes they complain about everything from landlords reluctant to rent to foreigners (ignoring justified landlord fear of the damage foreigners can cause) to use of the word “gaijin” (forgetting the way some English speakers use the shorter and sometimes discriminatory word “foreigner” rather than “foreign national.”).”

The use of the word “gaijin” itself is indeed controversial and much debated. It is not completely analogous with the term “foreigner” in English, as the former is primarily used for white Westerners. The term can be used in a benign manner, and many of my Japanese students and friends have told me that it sounds less formal to them than the term “gaikokujin”. However, it can be used in much less benign circumstances, as the word “foreigner” is sometimes used in English. I have had several students of mixed ethnicity, and they have told me that they were often referred with derision as “gaijin” by other students (even though many of them were born in Japan and are Japanese citizens).

Mr. Clark asks: “How many Western universities would employ, even as simple language teachers, foreigners who could not speak, write and read the national language?” Actually, quite a few. The French and Spanish instructors I had in my undergraduate classes spoke very little English, but they were good teachers. My Chinese physics professor was not completely proficient in the language, and while he may have been a bit difficult to understand at times, he was also a good teacher who tried to make the class interesting for non-science majors. I don’t think my experience is that uncommon. Furthermore, there are many foreign language and content area instructors who are indeed proficient in Japanese yet are unable to obtain long-term contracts at most universities due solely to the fact that they are not Japanese nationals. How does the arbitrary termination of well-qualified teachers good for the students? Mr. Clark fails to address this.

(I would also point out that a Japanese colleague of mine, who is a full professor at the university where I teach, said to me recently that he believes this arbitrary termination of foreign teachers is discriminatory. I wonder if that also makes him part of the “Japan girai” club?)

Mr. Clark places the refusal to hand out Japanese-language flyers to foreign-looking individuals on equal scale with refusing to rent to those of a certain nationality or ethnicity. However, the consequences of not receiving an advertisement are much less serious than being denied housing due to one’s nationality or ethnicity.  The “gaijin ghettos” perhaps exist because many of those “gaijin” were denied housing elsewhere.

What I find most troubling about the above statement, however, is the blanket generalization Mr. Clark makes of all “Westerners” who complain about discrimination in this country bearing a hatred of Japan. First of all, the definition of “Westerner” as it is being used here is not exactly clear. Are we talking about individuals born in Western countries? Would these be only white individuals, or would they include those of other ethnicities as well? Would it include those who have naturalized as Japanese citizens? Would it include those who were born and raised in Japan? Or those of Japanese ethnicity who were born and raised in a Western country, many of whom are the subject of prejudice and discrimination upon returning to Japan?

More importantly, however, is the arbitrary dichotomy that this creates. In this premise, there are those Westerners who hate Japan and those who don’t. Those that complain about discrimination fall into the former category, and those accept discrimination comprise the latter. The “Japan girai” would include those who complain about being denied housing; those who complain that their foreign-looking child was bullied and humiliated at school; and those who are complain about being refused a job because of their eyes being too round or their skin being too dark. If they accept the discrimination without complaint, then they do not bear any hatred of Japan; but if they resist such discrimination and voice their disagreement or protest, then they must harbor animosity towards Japan and its people. The argument is not only illogical, but also unfair and insulting.

I find it ironic how Mr. Clark positions himself as an opponent and even a victim of right-wing extremists in Japan, yet his rhetoric sounds frighteningly similar to that which is blasted from the loudspeakers of their black trucks on the streets.

Mr. Clark ends with the following statement:

“It is time we admitted that at times the Japanese have the right to discriminate against some foreigners. If they do not, and Japan ends up like our padlocked, mutually suspicious Western societies, we will all be the losers.”

This again sets up a false dichotomy. Either racial discrimination must be tolerated in Japan or the society is doomed to a transformation into a distrustful, chaotic, crime-fearing state. The not-so-implicit premise of this statement is that racial discrimination is necessary for a society in order for it to be safe and to prosper. That argument is simply illogical, and dangerous.

If racial discrimination were tolerated, as Mr. Clark advocates, then when would it stop? If one property owner refuses to rent to foreign residents or foreign-looking Japanese citizens, what is to prevent a whole neighborhood association or ward from adopting exclusionary policies? If one shop owner bars individual customers based on their ethnic or national origin, what is to stop a entire street or even an entire town from doing the same? Is there a point for Mr. Clark where racial discrimination becomes unacceptable? If so, what is that point, and how should it be codified under the law?

Mr. Clark’s vision of Japan is of a closed, inward-looking society that is suspicious of foreigners and foreign influences. I have been a member of international friendship associations here in Japan for several years, and I can tell you that the Japanese and foreign residents who are part of these groups share a much different vision – a vision where all residents, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social class, enjoy the rights afforded to them by Japan’s own constitution as well as international law.

In a recent post on the Japan-U.S. discussion forum, Gregory Clark — former Australian diplomat, vice president of a private Japanese university, and apologist for Japanese merchants who practice racial discrimination — made the following statement recently:

The breakdown of the anti-shoplifting ethic is not just in Akihabara
(where precautions today could have something to do with the presence of
many light-fingered foreigners) but more significantly in Harajuku where
young Japanese hang out. Even my local countryside home depot store is in
trouble, though they too have quite a few Chinese customers.

This is truly an astounding statement, particularly given the fact that the overwhelming number of crimes committed in Japan are by Japanese.

Although given Mr. Clark’s apologist rhetoric in support of merchants who engage in ethnically discriminatory practices, I cannot say I am surprised.

Perhaps if Mr. Clark put more effort into directing his criticism at the scourge of human trafficking and sex slavery in Japan (whose victims do indeed consist of a large percentage of foreigners), as well as the Japanese men who make up the demand for it, it may be a better use of his energy.

These kinds of unsubstantiated, xenophobic statements should be condemned.

In a recent op-ed piece for the Japan Times, Gregory Clark — former Australian diplomat, vice president of a private Japanese university, and ardent defender of Japanese merchants who practice racial discrimination — defends the violent response of many Muslim men throughout the world to the infamous cartoons portraying Mohammed as a terrorist.

First, I will concur with him that the cartoons were offensive and that the newspapers should have exercised better judgement in publishing them. I am not denying that the papers had the legal right to print them; however, that still doesn’t take away from the fact that the cartoons were in extremely poor taste, and they should not have been printed. A newspaper with any sense of integrity has a responsibility to decide if what they publish is not only newsworthy, but beneficial for the public interest. Most major newspapers made decisions after the 9/11 attacks as to what images they thought were appropriate to publish and which ones they felt would be too gruesome or too disrespectful to the victims’ families. They weighed the considerations of what was newsworthy against what was responsible and appropriate. Just because a newspaper has the right to print something doesn’t mean they should.

That being said, the violent reaction of many Muslim men around the world was completely inappropriate. For Mr. Clark to defend those who firebombed embassies and killed innocent people as a reaction to the cartoons is outrageous. He goes further, however. He connects this wave of violence with Palestinian violence committed against innocent civilians: “More than anything else, it is this inability to realize cause and effect — that if people lose their rights and their territory by force then they have no alternative but to retaliate with force — that underlies Muslim anger against the West.”

I wonder if Mr. Clark would continue to come to the defense of Palestinian suicide bombers if they claimed one of his sons or daughters as a victim.

Perhaps Mr. Clark should also familiarize himself with the virulently anti-semitic cartoons that have consistently been published in Arab newspapers and websites. One cartoon has Hitler in bed with a small child, smoking a cigarette while saying, “Write this one in your diary, Anne Frank!” Another has “Born to Kill” written across a Star of David. Others have Jews portrayed as hook-nosed snakes, vampires, devils, or as Hitler himself.

I don’t recall waves of Jews taking to the streets and setting buildings on fire after those cartoons were printed in Arab newspapers. And I don’t recall any Arab heads of state taking to the airwaves demanding an apology from those Arab newspapers either.

I also don’t recall Jewish rabbis demanding the death penalty for Jews who converted to Islam, as was done by Muslim clerics in Afghanistan recently regarding the conversion of a former Muslim to Christianity.

Insults reserved for Islam? Hardly. There are plenty of insults and hypocrisy to go around.

Gregory Clark is at it again.

Mr. Clark is a writer who has a history of making unsubstantiated claims and racist remarks about foreigners and other non-mainstream Japanese, even going so far as to fabricate facts to support his views. He consistently resorts to insults and personal attacks when others challenge him. Now he’s posting outrageous and completely baseless claims about burakmin, saying that they “look different” and speculating that they are of different ethnic stock than Yamato Japanese — an assertion that has absolutely no empirical basis whatsoever. Myths that their roots are ethnically different than mainstream Japanese have been largely debunked by the literature on burakumin and by the Japanese government itself. (See this for an excellent post on this subject.) I am amazed that Mr. Clark would make such a claim given his extensive experience in Japan, but given his history of unsubstantiated and fabricated claims , I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

It’s hard to believe that this man is allowed to have a regular column in the Japan Times and is a vice-president of a Japanese university.

It appears that Mr. Clark’s Feb. 17 column, “Racist Banner Looks Frayed,” has been withdrawn by the Japan Times from its website. Links to the article appear with an error message, and a list of Mr. Clark’s columns on the site does not include the column. I am pleased to see that the Japan Times has apparently recognized the distortions and fabrications in this column and decided to pull it from their site. I hope that this is part of an effort by the paper to reevaluate Mr. Clark’s position as a columnist.

Of course, Mr. Clark still continues to publish the original article and translation on his website without correction and refuses to publicly acknowledge his errors, all the while handing out his usual personal attacks and cries of “nitpicking” to those who call on him to take responsibility.

Peter Hatfield, former USA Today reporter who article was mentioned in Mr. Clark’s column, pointed out the errors in an exchange on Mr. Clark’s discussion group. What is notable is that Mr. Hatfield goes out of his way to note that he is not only a colleague, but a friend of his, yet wonders why the article continues to be posted on Mr. Clark’s website without revision or acknowledgement of error.

Mr. Clark’s credibility is non-existent, and continuing to keep him on as a columnist does damage to the credibility of the Japan Times as well. One cannot read his articles anymore without wondering if his claims are indeed accurate or just another fabrication to back up his opinion. If Mr. Clark has to maintain a fiction in order to support his position, then perhaps he has to reevaluate his position — and his choice of profession as well.