Australian activist takes dolphin slaughter town to court

Picture expired. Sarah Lucas, head of the "Australia for Dolphins" group, speaks to reporters Friday after the first hearing on the lawsuit against the Taiji Whale Museum in Wakayama Prefecture AFP

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    "The lawsuit claimed that the museum’s barring of “foreign-looking visitors” violated Japanese law, which prohibits discrimination based on race or creed."

    What a load. To quote many Australians who were against the Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean, go do it in your own country. Hope this case gets dismissed and these activists are never allowed back into Japan. They damage the image of all foreign visitors, the majority of whom would think these people are idiots.

  • 2

    oldman_13

    Yet another attention seeking wanna be 'viral hero.'

    No doubt she thinks the 'evil and heartless' Japanese are easy targets to garner world and Australian support behind her.

  • 3

    kimuzukashiiiii

    I wonder what this woman was doing or saying inside the museum that got her thrown out in the first place.

    This statement "The activist had been on her way to check on the condition of an extremely rare albino dolphin calf which had been captured a month earlier." kind of says it all. Shes not a vet, or an employee of that museum. So her "checking up" sounds more like interfering and making a scene.

    I agree with Ossan. These people are embarrassing.

  • -1

    mikihouse

    publicity and Japan is buying it

  • 0

    The Avenger

    The probability that this man can win the case is about the same as the probability of him landing on Mars.

  • 1

    Benji7

    Logically if a museum or any establishment that feels someone who is impeeding on their business or causing problems would contact the local law enforcement to remove them, especially a museum you would imagine, if they/girl did something wrong?

  • 2

    Daijoboots

    Ahh way to tarnish the word Australia with your self-satisfying emotional blah blah.

    Anyone notice that the poorly constructed notice re: entry was shown when she came back a few days later after causing trouble the first time?

    A notice of those who disagree being unable to enter is wrong and poorly played, but what's this -

    museum's barring of "foreign-looking visitors"

    She was there days before!!!! Causing trouble. Not hard to spot her again down there. The sign doesn't say anything about appearance either.

    Typical twisting of fact and playing of pretty much any card available to get that emotion going.

  • -13

    Tsunayoshi

    “No gaijin are allowed inside the museum.”

    /fixed

  • 5

    Akkio

    Go back to Australia if you're just going to cause trouble. I agree with Ossan 100% Do it in your own country (I'm Australian as well and I think what this person is doing is beyond idiotic.)

  • 6

    Frungy

    However, the museum’s director, Katsuki Hayashi, earlier said that “we welcome (foreigners) who are clearly tourists.

    I'd love to hear what he actually said, because I really don't like it when reporters put words in brackets... it means he didn't actually say that. If the subject was implied he could have said something different, for example, "We welcome (those) who are clearly tourists"... which with the amount of domestic tourism in Japan may have had nothing to do with foreigners at all.

    That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if Ms. Lucas arrived in her "save the whales" t-shirt and is now trying to spin this into a racial discrimination issue. If she was wearing clothing clearly identifying her as someone opposed to aquariums then I would completely understand not admitting her as a security decision.

  • 2

    nedinjapan

    The title of this news is misleading. She is not taking the town to court, but a business, a museum. Apparently, they are very defensive and are afraid of being negatively presented so they overreact and this is a good chance for the activists to used law against them. I hope the court decision will show that rule of law still exists in Japan and you need to be tolerant of different views. It is sad to see many comments here are against spirit of democracy.

  • 12

    Strangerland

    The probability that this man can win the case is about the same as the probability of him landing on Mars.

    Which man?

  • 4

    sighclops

    Still struggling to understand why she was there in the first place... She isn't exactly a marine biologist!

    She has no chance in court...

  • 2

    M3M3M3

    It sounds like an interesting case, but I think Ms. Lucas is probably the wrong plaintiff to have filed it and the racial discrimination arguement does not apply to her.

    As I see it, the only way Ms Lucas can win is if she can establish that it was completely disproportionate for the public museum to ban all visitors who are also activists. In my opinion, any acts of racial discrimination are actually irrelevant in Ms. Lucas' case for the following reason:

    First, let's asume the court decides that it was proportionate to ban activists from the museum. Then, even if Ms. Lucas is entirely correct that the museum simply ejected every foreign person based solely on their race, she will still need to establish that she has suffered damage as a result of this discrimination. Because she actually was an activist it seems that she would have been ejected irregardless, making any discrimination a mute point as far as her damages go. In other words, even if we accept that racial discrimination did occur, there is no causal connection between Ms. Lucas being asked leave the museum and the racial discrimination. Any disadvantage that Ms. Lucas suffered as a result of the alleged discrimination would have resulted anyway because she also happened to fall into another group of people who could be lawfully asked to leave.

    I think the case would be very different and would succeed if the plaintiff was just an ordinary western tourist who was asked to leave based solely on their race, and there was no other reason that could justify asking them to leave.

  • -3

    Dolphin Burgers

    I wonder what this woman was doing or saying inside the museum that got her thrown out in the first place.

    A fair question that no one seems to have an answer to. Yet, many assume it was something even though it could have been nothing. Do we allow businesses to discriminate for what customers may be thinking now? Do we not need proof that somebody did something, or do we just side with those whose ideology we favor and against those we oppose?

    Is it possible she simply asked to see the dolphin, was told they would get back to her, and then later escorted her out? Is it a crime to ask such a question now? Do we assume she did not ask nicely? If you have enough interest to read this article and comment, would you not like to see the albino dolphin yourself?

    We foreigners should get together and test the discrimination theory this summer. Half should go with nothing conspicuous, and the other half should go with T-shirts that say "I love Taiji Dolphin Burgers" written in Japanese, which would clearly indicate that we do support Taiji dolphin sales and meat slaughters. Oh, but they may insist on complete neutrality on the issue, as if a whale museum in Taiji is somehow neutral to the issue.

  • 0

    BuBuBu

    Let me start off by saying that I'm not anti- or pro- anything in this debate. As an outside observer it appears to me that the majority of the posters here are focusing on the wrong issue in this discrimination suit. The fact that the museum is trying to bar people based on their thoughts and beliefs is unconstitutional in Japan. As the plaintiff's lawyer stated,

    “It is against various statutes including the constitution and international covenants on human rights.”

    If she were barred based on her actions then I would agree with the museum, but judging from the information presented in this article, that isn't the case.

  • 3

    chikv

    Bububu.

    Either the museum has some magic ways to identify thoughts or she did something as an activist there. I find much more likely that she just did not include all that she did when she was escorted out.

  • 1

    BuBuBu

    Either the museum has some magic ways to identify thoughts or she did something as an activist there. I find much more likely that she just did not include all that she did when she was escorted out.

    They don't need magic when they have a sign, in English, designed with the intent to bar people from entering based on their thoughts. The sign and the intent are unconstitutional regardless of the way they enforce it. If an establishment had a sign that said you couldn't enter somewhere because you believed in god, would that be ok?

  • 3

    Frungy

    BuBuBuJul. 05, 2014 - 09:34AM JST Let me start off by saying that I'm not anti- or pro- anything in this debate. As an outside observer it appears to me that the majority of the posters here are focusing on the wrong issue in this discrimination suit.

    You have the wrong end of the stick, this is an issue because the lawsuit makes it an issue.

    The lawsuit claimed that the museum’s barring of “foreign-looking visitors” violated Japanese law, which prohibits discrimination based on race or creed.

    The fact that the museum is trying to bar people based on their thoughts and beliefs is unconstitutional in Japan. If she were barred based on her actions then I would agree with the museum, but judging from the information presented in this article, that isn't the case.

    And this is likewise just barking up the wrong tree. Businesses are private individuals. You are not ENTITLED to service or entrance any more than you are entitled to walk into my home. During the Starbucks protests in the U.K. people wearing or carrying anti-Starbucks slogans were refused entrance (and service) as they might pose a security risk.

    This is why, INTERNATIONALLY, you will see protesters OUTSIDE the business, not standing in their lobby disrupting business. Ms. Lucas could have done that, she could have stood outside and passed out pamphlets. Her right to free speech wasn't impaired.

    Also consider for a moment that an aquarium is thousands of tons of water separated from the public by glass, with little or no security personnel. There are real and legitimate security concerns.

    They don't have a case, they don't have a point, and the Japanese courts should rule against them. This lawsuit is idiotic.

  • -2

    Dolphin Burgers

    Either the museum has some magic ways to identify thoughts or she did something as an activist there.

    Until you clearly identify what she did you simply have no leg to stand on in this discussion.

    Its just as likely that they have a list of known activists and security identified her by her face after she entered the museum.

    Her story is that she was watching a dolphin show when they escorted her out. Their story is...is what exactly? For you to leap to the side of the museum without that story is a clear indication of bias.

    And here. They made a sign that said: “No anti-whalers are allowed inside the museum.” Clearly that shows the museum is discriminatory and seeks to bar people based on their thoughts rather than their actions.

  • 3

    M3M3M3

    The museum is owned by the city, that is why the anti-discrimination provisions in the constitution will apply. It is not a private business that can exclude whoever they wish.

    I think this case is going to boil down to whether the museum must always allow everyone entry and only ask those who actually cause a disruption to leave, or whether they can preemptively bar some customers when a reasonable person would say that the objective likelihood of that customer causing a disruption is very high.

  • 3

    shanabelle

    Publicity stunt. Zero chance of winning.

  • -3

    Dolphin Burgers

    Frungy, at Starbucks, first there were protests, then people with shirts were barred as security risks. Actions came first.

    Then you say protesters are not inside disrupting business. Of course they aren't! They would be thrown out based on their actions!

    Just do this. Its really easy. Tell us exactly what she did or someone in some way related to her did that day to her thrown out. Don't bring up false equivalences please. Don't guess or suppose or assume. Just tell us in plain words what she did. Simple.

  • 0

    Pandabelle

    Can a business or even a public establishment bar visitors if they feel they are going to cause a disruption? I'm asking genuinely, not trolling. Don't government buildings bar protestors from entering?

  • 1

    The Avenger

    @Strangerland

    Thanks for the correction. I meant the woman.

  • 5

    It"S ME

    What was she expecting walking into a private venture/company and getting the royal treatment after her views about such placed became known.

    From what I read she was escorted out on her 2nd or 3rd visit after repeatedly asking for access to the animals aka company items.

    She didn't just want to protest but also visit and collect data from their animals.

  • 0

    paulinusa

    Over the years I've been to local museums where either guards followed me or in one case an older female attendant told me certain sections were "closed" and of course they weren't (pretty obvious when I subsequently saw Japanese strolling into those areas) . So while I won't pass judgment on what happened in this incident I will say treatment like this would never happen in a museum in the west.

  • 0

    Anna Louise

    Hopefully, the two trouble-makers will be barred from even entering Jaoan,now! There are plenty of things back home in Australia they could be actively getting involved in, go home and stay home!

  • -6

    Mike Critchley

    She's an activist, people. Which means that this is not likely about the money, nor about getting any kind of justice (I'm sure even she accepts the right of an institution to bar people who previously caused problems). This will be to raise awareness of the slaughter, most likely with a focus of getting more Japanese people to even know that the place exists. I asked my students on the day if they were aware of what was going on in the media outside of Japan that day, or if they were even aware of what was happening in Taiji that day -- NOPE! And there was nothing on the news anywhere that day in Japan except for about one 3-second blurb I saw. So for right or wrong, she's just doing what activists do -- creating noise so that people look up from their smartphones and at least become aware of what is going on.

  • 7

    USNinJapan2

    This woman (and others) entered the museum/aquarium under the guise of tourism four days prior to this and illegally and without permission attempted to film on location for a TV program/documentary inside the facility. They were expelled and told not to return. The museum's refusal to admit her isn't based on discrimination but based on her prior (very recent) history of disruptive behavior on the premises. The museum had every reason to believe that if admitted she would engage in disruptive behavior again and it was their responsibility and duty to other patrons to prevent this from occurring. Ms. Lucas has absolutely no case.

  • -1

    NeoJamal

    She's an activist, people. Which means that this is not likely about the money, nor about getting any kind of justice (I'm sure even she accepts the right of an institution to bar people who previously caused problems). This will be to raise awareness of the slaughter, most likely with a focus of getting more Japanese people to even know that the place exists. I asked my students on the day if they were aware of what was going on in the media outside of Japan that day, or if they were even aware of what was happening in Taiji that day -- NOPE! And there was nothing on the news anywhere that day in Japan except for about one 3-second blurb I saw. So for right or wrong, she's just doing what activists do -- creating noise so that people look up from their smartphones and at least become aware of what is going on.

    It would be ironic if the museum attracts more visitors who just want to see the white dolphin. I'm talking about people who take their families to the zoo on the weekends and don't care about animals being put in captivity.

    On a sincerely note,the museum is a public institution run by the Town of Wakayama, and the article does state out that they discriminate visitors based on ideology.and the purpose of visit. This wouldn't have been the case if the town was open about their customs and their treatment of marine mammals differ from everywhere else in world because of difference preference.

  • -3

    Dolphin Burgers

    based on her prior (very recent) history of disruptive behavior on the premises.

    What "disruptive behavior"? Why can't you guys just tell us what the big secret you allude to is?

  • 4

    AiserX

    Deport her..

  • 9

    USNinJapan2

    Dolphin Burgers

    She, and others from her crew, tried to film a TV program inside the museum without permission and were forcefully removed from the premises just four days prior. This constitutes disruptive behavior because it disrupts the museum's normal operation as well as the other parons' ability to normally/peacefully visit the museum. Because of this she and everyone else who was part of the film crew were no longer welcome at the museum and would no longer be granted admission. Obviously. Because the activists had already previously gained access to the museum under false pretenses and caused an incident, it was absolutely reasonable for the museum to assume that, if any of these activists returned, they would engage in similar unauthorized conduct again necessitating their forceful removal by staff and security personnel.

  • 3

    Frungy

    Dolphin BurgersJul. 05, 2014 - 11:10AM JST Frungy, at Starbucks, first there were protests, then people with shirts were barred as security risks. Actions came first.

    As USNinJapan2 points out, there were protests before this.

    Then you say protesters are not inside disrupting business. Of course they aren't! They would be thrown out based on their actions!

    Oh don't be so naive. You're saying they should wait until a couple of dozen protesters have entered the premises and handcuffed themselves to the railings before they take action? It is entirely reasonable to simply say, "Okay, no protesters inside the museum."

    There is no slippery slope free speech argument here, these people have a LONG track record dating back a couple of years of making pests of themselves. This isn't the first, second or even tenth time they've tried to disrupt business in the town.

    I love dolphins. I used to swim with a pod of them that regularly visited a beach where I lived when I was a kid. I cannot condone what happens in Taiji. However I also believe that being an ass and trying to harass and bully the people in Taiji into doing what I want would be equally unacceptable.

    These "protesters" have to learn the line between informing people and expressing their opinion in a socially acceptable way and when they cross over into harassment and illegal activities. This law suit just demonstrates very clearly that they have no clue about the difference.

  • 5

    It"S ME

    Waiting for them todo the same to all other countries.

    Is Australia free of all dolphin, snake, croc, etc shows?

    If not be can see some painful and expensive lawsuits.

  • -7

    Dolphin Burgers

    USNinJapan2

    Tried to film a TV program inside the museum without permission? Does that not require a lot of equipment? How could they sneak in with all that stuff? What TV program? What is your source for that?

    And if they banned her, how did she and her father get in the second time? Strange that the article mentions none of that and the museum is not quoted as citing that reason at all. Or any reason beyond "no anti-whaling" people.

    And why is the museum banning all anti-whalers instead of just not admitting people trying to film a "TV program". Why would they make a sign about anti-whalers instead of "people trying to film a TV program?

  • -4

    Danny Bloom

    When I was doing some research in Taiwan a few years ago about local restaurants serving dolphin dishes served, how shall we say, under the table, with the police looking the other way, sold to the restauarnts by coastal fisherman who got the dolphins in their nets by accident but nevertheless sell the meat for profit all over south Taiwan....I accompanied a TV crew into the local eatery, and we were served dophin meat in a kind of delicious dolphin stew, cooked with lots of spices and ginger, and while I would never do this again, other than for research, to know the taste, i must admit, although I am a environmental activiast and suppot the Ausie woman's lawsuit, -- more power to her, she is right! -- i must confess that the dolphin tastes....oishii, delicious, tasty, yes. I 've also eaten beaver in Oregon, bear in Alaska, and whale meat and seal meat in north Alaska. All delicious. But hey, leave the dolphins alone. It's not Japanese culture. It's Japanese YARASE. sigh

  • 5

    Mike O'Brien

    Does that not require a lot of equipment?

    No it does not. In today's world a simple hand held camera can take video for a TV program just fine.

    Strange that the article mentions none of that

    You obviously haven't read many JT articles.

    the museum is not quoted as citing that reason at all.

    And did the museum get to decide which of their statements the article used?

  • -2

    Thunderbird2

    If nothing else it might raise awareness of the cruel slaughter of dolphins in Taiji.

  • -4

    Dolphin Burgers

    In today's world a simple hand held camera can take video for a TV program just fine.

    Disregarding microphones and other equipment still used by modern TV program makers, are hand held cameras allowed at the museum only with special permission?

    If this is the case, then surely there must be some footage from when they started filming available on the net. Could you kindly direct us to it?

    I have actually been searching the net for news about the alleged filming and also for footage that was filmed. I am coming up completely empty here.

    I did find a video at youtube called "Dolphin / Whale show Taiji, Japan ". It shows a lot of people filming with cameras.

    You obviously haven't read many JT articles.

    No need to be flip. Just link me up or give me a date and article title. I have not attacked anyone here. I am just asking for evidence, rude as some people think that is.

  • 4

    Strangerland

    I accompanied a TV crew into the local eatery, and we were served dophin meat in a kind of delicious dolphin stew, cooked with lots of spices and ginger, and while I would never do this again, other than for research, to know the taste

    I don't get it. What's wrong with eating dolphin? It's not an endangered species.

  • -3

    budgie

    There's no way she can win because she's challenging Japanese 'culture'. In the new right-wing resurgence the constitution doesn't matter - 'culture' comes first. In the public consciousness foreigners were never entitled to the same rights as Japanese.

  • -2

    AustPaul

    Haven't seen anything on the TV here about this... Budgie, aren't foreigners in Japan afforded the same rights as locals? I mean Japanese do overseas to a certain extent.

  • 1

    M3M3M3

    @Pandabelle

    Can a business or even a public establishment bar visitors if they feel they are going to cause a disruption? I'm asking genuinely, not trolling. Don't government buildings bar protestors from entering?

    Yes they can, but there are limits.

    Under Article 13 of the constitution, the freedom to protest can be limited if it interferes with public welfare. This is why you can't disrupt the operations of a government building by protesting inside. Also, under Article 233 & 234 of the Penal code, it's a criminal offence to forcibly disrupt a business or to spread 'false rumors' about that business. So if the museum believes that someone is attempting to commit a crime in the museum, they should in theory be able to lawfully prevent them from entering. What objective evidence they need and how long the ban can last are all unclear.

    However, the government cannot disadvatage anyone or reach their conclusions based on race, creed, sex, social status or family origin. This is prevented by Article 14 of the constitution. So in theory, they could say 'we will bar all activists due to fear of protests and distruptions' but they cannot say 'we will bar, or give extra scrutiny to all caucasians because 99.9% of them are probably activists'. I think the later is what is being alleged here.

    In the case of a private business, the situation is less clear because the constitution applies only to the government and there is no general law on racial discrimination that applies to private businesses. However, there was the Ana Bortz case in Hamamatsu where she successfully sued a private business for excluding her based solely on racial discrimination and the fear of crime. It was a lower district court decision and the defendant chose not to appeal, so it's difficult to say that another case would be decided the same way.

  • 2

    Theo Lubbe

    "Right of admission reserved" Does Japan not allow private places to hold such a stance? If I don't want to let someone enter my studio (not that I have one, but let's say I did) based on any criteria I deem suitable, should I not be within rights to do so? I'm not barring them from entering a public space not under my jurisdiction, after all; I'm barring them from entering a private space 'belonging' to me.

  • 1

    B.B.Q.Demon

    If she was being disruptive in a big way, then they have the right to kick her out, but if she was just wearing a "Save the Whales/Dolphins" shirt, then it's really lame to kick her out. After all, it's a place to watch live marine animals. If they kicked her out for that, it's just because they're afraid their hypocrisy will be unveiled. If she was overly disruptive, then kicking her out was warranted.

  • 0

    M3M3M3

    @Theo Lubbe

    Does Japan not allow private places to hold such a stance? If I don't want to let someone enter my studio (not that I have one, but let's say I did) based on any criteria I deem suitable, should I not be within rights to do so? I'm not barring them from entering a public space not under my jurisdiction, after all; I'm barring them from entering a private space 'belonging' to me.

    The law on this in Japan is not particularly clear unlike in sone other countries. There is no general law in Japan explicitly prohibiting discrimination in public accomodations such as retail stores, restaurants etc that are open to the public, but this does not necessarily mean that it is legal to do so. There is however a specific law preventing hotels from discriminating. In the Japanese Bortz case, the court used existing tort law to say that discrimination was prohibited. It basically said that discriminating against someone without justification was just like any other harm inflicted on that person, just the same as if they had instead been threatened or punched in the face.

    So regarding your example of the studio, the fact that you own the property is irrelevant. The government allows you to register your business and therefore has the legal right to regulate what your business can or cannot do (ie, health and safety standards for customers, minimum wages for employees etc). Also, according to the Bortz decision, you simply cannot go around harming people, whether that is by assaulting them or discriminating against them.

  • 0

    hidingout

    Pitiful case of a rich Westerner with too much time on her hands. Back to Australia with you.

  • -1

    Fouxdefa

    Who knows what she did in the museum. In the U.S., trying to film a show or pestering about "checking" animals would probably get you asked to leave or escorted out as well. I think Taiji's people are probably sore because activists have been harassing them for some time now, hence why they've got an English sign ready-made. I don't see enough information to judge whether she has a case though.

    As an exchange student in Japan, I made it a point to visit every WWII memorial/museum I could, and I once even visited Yuushuukan museum in Yasukuni Shrine. Though I found it ridiculous and somewhat frightening I kept my opinions to myself and was not in the least made to feel unwelcome. There is no history of white foreigners protesting Yasukuni. But in places where there is history people get jumpy, like airport security targeting Middle-Eastern-looking folks. Doesn't make it right but it happens. There's not enough info to judge if the fault lies with this museum jumping the gun or this Australian lady being a nuisance.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    "The activist had been on her way to check on the condition of an extremely rare albino dolphin calf which had been captured a month earlier."

    Interfering with the Museum's operation. Attempting unauthorized access to Museum property. Bring criminal charges against these losers.

  • -5

    Patricia Yarrow

    Most of the comments above are just red herrings. Sarah Lucas and her father are right. Dolphins should not be held in captivity. They should not be hunted and slaughtered. Leave them to their life in the open sea. Otherwise, the cruelty is too much to bear. Taiji needs to change instead of putting up offensive and ridiculous signs.

  • 1

    tinawatanabe

    If they kicked her out for that, it's just because they're afraid their hypocrisy will be unveiled.

    What hypocrisy do they have? It seems it's the woman who is displaying her hypocrisy and arrogance. Japanese courts are busy, she shouldn't bother them and waste tax payers money.

  • 3

    Strangerland

    Dolphins should not be held in captivity. They should not be hunted and slaughtered. Leave them to their life in the open sea.

    I can understand why they should not be slaughtered, and why people would be against the slaughter at Taiji. But I don't understand why they shouldn't be hunted for food, the same as any other animal that is hunted for food. Dolphins are not endangered.

  • -3

    Dolphin Burgers

    I don't get it. What's wrong with eating dolphin? It's not an endangered species.

    Honestly, that is a complete side issue to this piece of news. The point is that this dolphin calf had her mother slaughtered for food. The key here is not so much that some dolphins were slaughtered for meat. The key is that leaving infant animals without their mothers is horribly cruel.

    And now that calf is in a tank which is much too small and crammed in with other dolphins which seem to be being mean to her. But the people there have no compassion. To them, the albino is just a freak that will bring them money.

  • 1

    USNinJapan2

    Patricia Yarrow

    Most of the comments above are just red herrings. Sarah Lucas and her father are right. Dolphins should not be held in captivity. They should not be hunted and slaughtered.

    Wait, what? This lawsuit is about dolphins? And here I was under the impression that Ms. Lucas was suing the town of Taiji because she was discriminated against. Really Patricia, speaking of red herrings...

  • 2

    USNinJapan2

    Dolphin Burgers

    Sarah Lucas and her activist friends attempted anti-dolphin hunt guerrilla filmmaking without permission inside the museum several days prior, were stopped by museum staff, forcefully removed from the premises, and told not to return. This is considered disruptive and interfering anywhere where people have common sense.

    She returns several days later, is immediately recognized, and is refused admission. (Japanese articles covering this case all state that she was stopped from entering the museum at the gate, not removed once inside.)

    For Lucas to claim, “I believe the museum had no right to assume, based only on a single glance, that my father and I are troublemakers or bad people,” when she herself was thrown out of the very same museum just days prior for misconduct is laughable. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is an attempt by Lucas and her fellow Australia for Dolphins activists to harass the museum and its owner/operator, the town of Taiji, with a frivolous discrimination lawsuit because they have no legal grounds for suing them for anything they've done/do in regards to dolphins. If you don't see this and continue to insist that this case has nothing to do with the Lucas' dolphin agenda, then it means that you actually believe her claim that she's genuinely concerned about discrimination against foreigners in Japan based on race and creed, and I would naturally have to question your intelligence. As for repeatedly demanding proof, please stop. Why don't you go Google for the countless Japanese news articles that refer to the guerrilla filming and removal incident yourself. Can't read Japanese? Well, that's a shame. Then maybe you should stop demanding proof because not only will the links to the articles not do you any good, it's something one would expect of a grade-schooler.

  • 0

    Mike O'Brien

    @USNinJapan2 Would links to those articles in Japanese be translated by Google Translate? I know it doesn't do a great job with Japanese, but the general information of the story usually comes through.

  • 1

    Theo Lubbe

    @M3M3M3 Fair enough, that's why I was asking. In South Africa, by South African law, private property is private property, and a business (be it a retail store, a convenience store, a 'gas' station, restaurant, government-run museum or even a 'public' park) all constitute private property for which the managing party has the right to reserve admission to the premises.

    Businesses registered here are not so much owned as regulated by the government, and that regulation only goes so far as ensuring the premises are only used in the manner permitted and that the activities conducted on the premises remain lawful. There is no law here against turning someone away at the door for whatever reason you may want; their clothes, their hair, piercings, the language they speak, even their race.

    Yes, race as well. People will certainly get into one hell of a huff here if you tell them people of race X may not enter the premises, but that doesn't make it illegal.

    Interesting to know Japan is the opposite in this regard. I'd always been under the impression things were similar there. I mean, if someone doesn't want me entering a place or making use of facilities because of any factors they may feel warrant it, by default I'd just go with their wishes to minimize any potential problems for them and myself.

  • 0

    M3M3M3

    @Theo Lubbe: Thanks for the info on South Africa, its very interesting. I would have assumed the law would be slightly different after apartheid and maybe more like that in the US. I would also guess that most business owners in Japan actually believe the law in Japan is like that in South Africa.

    The problem with the situation in Japan is that absent any specific legislation like Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act in the US, each case in Japan will turn on its own unique facts to see if the person has suffered any damage. Its really impossible to say how a case will turn out, and there have been so very very few that its hard to say with any real confidence what the law actually is.

  • -4

    Eppee

    “No tall Australian blond are allowed inside the museum.” Or they could use one of those famous "Japanese only" signs we see in the onsens.

  • 4

    USNinJapan2

    Eppee

    A pro-dolphin activist, with a history of disruptive conduct at the very facility sues the museum/town known for its controversial practices regarding dolphins and you honestly believe that this law suit is about discrimination in Japan based on race? Really? Go ahead, take a minute and actually think about it for a minute, as I'm pretty sure (or hope) that you have yet to do so...

  • -6

    ka_chan

    She will lose not because she is right or wrong or have a case, she will lose because she is gaijin.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 海外営業事務

    海外営業事務
    株式会社セドナエンタープライズ、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥220,000 ~ ¥400,000 / Month Negotiable
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based

More in National

View all