Court Statement
A reply to the reasons (page1, page2,page3,page4) given by Yunohana for their appeal.
Olaf Karthaus, one plaintiff
1. We wanted publicity.
At the time, we decided to go to Yunohana, I got a telephone call to my home.
A reporter from Hokkaido Shinbun asked me, if he could accompany us. We agreed.
We thought it would be a good idea, since then we would have a neutral third
party who could witness what happens to us.
I indeed knew that a sign says that no foreigners may enter Yunohana. But
I went to Yunohana, because I thought that discussions with the management
would show that this sign is unreasonable. Especially the fact that I was
in company of my Japanese wife and my three Japanese children should have
been enough to show the management of Yunohana that I knew the bathing manners.
2. 600 yen entrance fee does not justify 1 million yen compensation.
I completely fail to see the relevance. There are many offenses, actually
most offenses, which do not cost any money, but are anyway a violation of
criminal code. The amount of an entrance fee has nothing to do with the severeness
of mental damage.
Consider the ruling against a house rental agency in Saitama. An Indian national
was asked on the phone if his skin color was normal. He sued and was awarded
500,000 yen as compensation. The question of the housing agent did not cost
any money, still it was discrimination.
In front of my three little children and my wife, I was humiliated. My children
had to see that their father was discriminated against. My children had to
encounter a situation where they were treated differently because of the
nationality and race of one of their parents. Compared with the Saitama case,
where a foreigner was awarded 500,000 yen compensation for a simple question
over the phone, my case of being refused in front of my wife and my children,
even after a long conversation with the Yunohana staff, is much more serious,
and a much graver offense. It gave me the feeling that I was not welcome
in the Japanese society. Nobody could help me, a foreigner, to get access
to the most basic human right ﾐ to enter a public space. This feeling of
helplessness even made me think of leaving the country and going back to
Germany. After I was refused at Yunohana, whenever I reserved a hotel, or
went to an onsen, always the thought of a possible denial of entry was in
my mind. Even now, I cannot help thinking that I might be refused service
or entry to a public facility, just because I am a foreigner. Furthermore,
in August 2000, a full 11 months after being refused, our son Daniel died.
That he died without hearing an apology from Yunohana is a very serious issue
for me. As a little handicapped boy he for sure deserved to receive and apology.
Only after he died, and I recovered from the schock of it, I decided to sue.
3. On the moral justification of the appeal
It is of course within the legal rights for Yunohana to appeal the district
court decision. But I question their moral right to appeal.
Yunohana does not consider banning foreigners and their Japanese family members
a violation of human rights.
4. Now in the appeal court, I have to go through the whole process of describing
what happened to me at Yunohana, the humiliation of me and my family, and
the death of my son, again. I find this very sad, and I take serious offence.
Thus I will appeal the first court decision and demand the full amount of
2 million yen in compensation. I only do this, because Yunohana forces me
to appear in court again. If Yunohana would not have appealed, I would have
been content with the disctrict court decision of 1 million yen.
Sapporo, Sept. 4th, 2003
Olaf Karthaus (signed)