トラブル続出のため外国人とは一切取引はしません。
オークション終了後に取引相手が外国人とわかりましたら、落札者都合で削除いたします。
こうした条件にたいして、Japan Times のコラムニストのブログで不満がでた。
Jeff Smith on Yahoo Japan auctioneer denying foreign bidders, and what he did about it
Posted by debito on February 17th, 2012
もっとも、例のごとく御大およびそのメンバーは行動しない。
そこで、私が、出品者およびヤフオクに苦情を書いた。
質問2 （あなたからの質問です）2月 18日 10時 54分
自己紹介・商品の詳細での外国人差別・人種差別的な記述を、憲法１４条や判例の趣旨に違反しないよう、「日本語のみの応対、意思疎通できない方はお断り」、あるいは、日本人でも外国人でも、「取引実績が30以上ある方のみ」などの、平等主義にそった記述に是正していただけませんか。それでおっしゃるようなトラブルは回避できるでしょうし、差別主義者であるというレッテル、また、、差別主義に起因する裁判沙汰なども予防できるのではないでしょうか？ いくつかのブログでとりあげられていたので、心配になり投稿させていただきました。
ヤフオク八井田氏からの返答
変更がないので、また、書いたら、出品者からブラックリスト化されて質問できないようなってしまった。それに対するヤフオク高石氏からの対応。
要するに、出品者が勝手にブラックリストにいれているので、ヤフオクのしったことじゃない、と。
で、この前後にも数通やりとりがあるのだが、要するに、ガイドラインに照合してチェックするが、しかし、その基準、その他、詳細、結果は一切教えられない、というのである。
最後のメール
2012.02.25.12.22)
尾造さま
ご回答いただけなくて残念です。
埒があきませんので、昨日法務局人権相談所 http://www.moj.go.jp/JINKEN/jinken21.html
に相談したところ、
当該文章は、人種差別的ではあり、yahoo auction の対応も、具体的な回答がなく、当該差別的文章の変更がなければ、Aucton 側の容認と推認されるであろう、、とのことでした。
人種差別的文章を摘発する側がブラックリスト化され、人種差別表現・取引を擁護するヤフオクの異様なシステムについても不満を述べておきました。
上記 外国人のための人権相談所にてご確認ください。
昨日の段階では、文章に変更はなかったのですが、今日確認しましたら、例えば、
また、トラ ブル続出のため、外国人の方とのお取引は「良い」以上の評価が20以上あり、なおかつ「悪い」という評価が全体の5％以下の方のみとさせてい ただきます。
上記に当て はまらないかたが落札した場合、オークション終了後に落札者都合で削除いたします。
、
http://page10.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/m93459160#desc
と変更されておりました。
しかし、本質的に差別的文章であることはかわりはありません。
１）外国人を部落民・朝鮮人、、などに置き換えたり、あるいは、海外で、「日本人とはトラブルが続出なので・・・」などの文章があったことを想像 すると、その不当な差別性は明らかである。
２）外国人であっても、善良で、日本語堪能の方も多くおられる以上、十把一絡げにした表現・取引は不合理であり、なおかつ、外国人を憤慨させるも のでもあり、憲法１４条その他各種法律の反差別条項・判例の趣旨に反する
３）平等主義にそって、日本人と条件を同じにし、例えば、日本人でも外国人でも、
「良い」以上の評価が20以上あり、なおかつ「悪い」という評価が全体の5％以下
とする、あるいは、日本人でも外国人でも
取引は日本語のみで、日本語で意思疎通できない場合には取引不可
など出品者のトラブル回避の方策はいくらでもある。
にもかかわらず、出品者が、この表現・取引を続け、外国人一般を不当差別し、Yahoo Auction がそれを容認・擁護しているとすれば、出品者および、Yahoo Auction は人種差別主義者である、と結論せざるえない、と思います。
このような事態が持続していることについて、日本人として失望し、また、恥ずかしい、と感じました。
「ガイドラインに違反すると思われるオークション報告フォーム
http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp/html/check.html」
についてですが、メールのやり取りでも次の日には返答をいただいておりますし、後日やりとりが記録に残りますのでメールはそれなりの価値がありま す。こちらでのやりとりもお許しください。
ヤフーオークションにおかれましては、なにとぞ善処していただくようにお願いいたします。
また、人種差別についてあいまいな態度をとったり、あるいは、かえって、擁護するのではなく、秘密主義を廃し、ガイドライン、その他、この手のや りとりでも、人種差別的表現・取引は断じて許容しない旨、明言して人種差別のない日本社会になるための貢献をしていただきたい、と 思います。
なお、海外のカスタマーサービスの事例、応答、本件類似の人種差別的事例・事件判例なども研究されるのも大切だと思います。
今後も日本人・外国人の友人、上記法務省相談所と協力し、また、その他の協力者も増やし、本件に関して注目していきたい、と思っています。
（2012.02.25.12.58)
追伸
念のため、
◇ガイドラインに違反すると思われるオークション報告フォーム
http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp/html/check.html
にも報告させていただきました。
なお、ガイドラインに。、http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp/html/guidelines.html
「当 社の削除権
当社は、オークションへの出品の拒絶、編集、移動、削除を独自に判断する権利を保有します。また、 当社は、Yahoo!オークションガイドラインを含む利用規約に定める事項または利用規約の趣旨に違反する行為が行われたと判断した場合、あ るいは他の利用者など第三者の権利を侵害したもしくは侵害するおそれがあると判断した場合には、お客様に通知することなく、直ちに該当する オークションを削除する権利を保有するものとします。」
とあることに気づきました。、貴社には、オークションの編集権もある、とあります。
とすれば、人種差別を非難する声が出品者からブラックリスト化され、ヤフーオークションへの抗議後、一週間も当該記述が放置されたままである とすると、一般人は、ヤフーオークションが人種差別を容認・擁護するのだ、と考えるであろう、こともお伝えしておきます。
早急な善処と具体的な回答をして、疑念を払拭していただけることを希望します。
つまり、
１）ヤフオクのシステムでは、不当な人種・国籍差別的な取引・表現について本人に苦情がいえない。
（対抗言論ができない→人種差別的表現の温床になりうる。）
２）ヤフオクは編集権・削除権があるにもかかわらず当該、差別的取引・表現を編集・削除していない。
ということを問題にした。
回答は、
例のごとくであるが、
３月１日現在でも、
という記述が残ったままである。
したがって、
３）ヤフオクは不当な人種・国籍差別的な取引・表現を擁護している
と結論せざるえない。
被害にあった外国人が司法の場にうってでる、というのも考えられるが、しかし、その前にもできることはある。
不満に思ったなら、より多くの人がヤフオクに苦情のメールを出せばいいのである。
どうか、こうした事態に不満をもったなら、日本人でも外国人でもぜひとも苦情のメールを出してほしい。
ガイドラインに違反すると思われるオークション報告フォーム
http://auctions.yahoo.co.jp/html/check.html
ご意見・ご要望
http://form.ms.yahoo.co.jp/bin/auction_info/feedback
カスタマーサービス
auction-help
@
mail.yahoo.co.jp
ヤフオクからの反応があったら教えてほしい。
なお、有道ブログでは相変わらず日本人特殊論、日本・日本人の他者視が盛んである。よほど、自国に関して無知なのだろう。 自国・自文化を理想化し、他国・他文化を悪魔視する、というのも一種の人種差別であろう。
参考のため、
Forums » Netherlands » Legal Problems in the Netherlands
Back To Topics
subtle discrimination?
May 9, 2011 11:10:20 PM CEST
Good evening,
May 9, 2011 11:10:20 PM CEST
Good evening,
My name is Safia Hamidat and I am 27 years old. I am a British citizen of mixed parentage and I have been living in the Netherlands for 11 years. I speak Dutch fluently. I studied at an international school as well as European Studies at HBO level.
I have been looking for a place to rent in Amsterdam (with a Dutch friend) for months. It was suggested that I look into anti-kraak housing. My friend and I both registered on the site two days ago where we had to fill out a form - personal details, a photo, whether we were students or working, smoker or not. I also stated that I was looking for a house with a friend and that we both work fulltime.
My friend was called this afternoon and I wasn't. I thought it was strange so I decided to call the company. I asked if they had received my application. The young man I spoke to asked for my name and when I gave it he said 'oh we don't get those kind of names here'.....I ignored it. I then started some chitchat about how difficult it was to find housing in Amsterdam for young professionals and starters which is why I wanted to go down this route.
He told me that he understood but that there was no housing at all available at the moment (my friend had just been called because they had found a house for her). I went on to ask if there was a waiting list policy and then he said no, there wasn't and that people were chosen from the database according to 'representiviteit' and whether they thought that the candidate would be a good 'bewoner' for one of their houses.
At that point I told him that I knew he had contacted my friend and he was startled. He said yes, I just had her on the phone...'tjah..ze heeft geluk gehad' (yes..she was lucky).
I ended the conversation politely and felt very strange! I felt as if I had been discriminated against. So I called back, but he was busy so I left my number. He called once (one ring and before I could even pick up he had hung up) and then 5 minutes later again. I confronted him in a professional manner.
I told him that he had been discriminative because 1) his comment about my name 2) and that according to him he picked people based on representiviteit (appearance) and if they were suitable or not. All this based on a simple internet form with a photograph. Furthermore he had told me that there were no houses available.
We had a discussion (which I wrote down) and he said he felt insulted. He made points such as it’s mostly Dutch names like kees and jan who register and that my name was not common and that they look at age as well…he also retracted and said I had just told my colleague that you were a friend of the girl I was interviewing tomorrow and how he thought I was very suitable i.e. hardly any Dutch spelling mistakes, no piercing or tattoos etc. He was trying to justify his behaviour. I told him that it’s wrong to select people based on a name and photo and that he should be accurate when giving information – so instead of saying that there are no houses available and making it seem impossible, he should have said that he had a house but that it was being offered to someone else. Furthermore his comment about my name was uncalled for.
In my view this is an example of subtle discrimination and I really feel the need to take it further. How do I go about this? Ombudsman? Discrimination bureau? Political party?
May 9, 2011 11:46:22 PM CEST
thanks avocado...i have already made a complaint to the commissie gelijke behandeling....next up is meldpunt. I asked my friend (who is in her final year of law school)for advice and she said that it is discrimination but that its hard to get anything out of it as discrimination is difficult....and the decisions are not usually binding..as she put it..
魚拓
March 18, 2008
Chicago Lawyers’ Committee v Craigslist: Yet Another Reason Newspapers are Dying
Friday’s decision in the Craigslist case in the Seventh Circuit offers yet another reason why newspapers are losing ground—and quickly—to their online competitors: newspapers face tougher laws than the online firms. As (our) Judge Easterbrook’s opinion makes clear, publish a “No Minorities Welcome” ad in the Chicago Tribune and the Trib violates the Fair Housing Act. But put the same ad on Craigslist and, after Friday at least in the Seventh Circuit, Craigslist faces no liability under the FHA given the protection given to it under the Communications Decency Act of 1996
Craigslist sued over discriminatory ads
Fair housing case could revive question of who's liable for online postings
updated 2/9/2006 9:55:25 PM ET
CHICAGO — A federal lawsuit accuses the online site Craigslist of violating fair housing laws by publishing discriminatory classified ads, reviving the question of what legal boundaries, if any, should exist for postings on the Internet.
But legal experts say the lawsuit against Craigslist, a fast-growing online network of classified ads and forums, faces an uphill battle because of laws in place to protect online service providers.
The lawsuit, filed by a Chicago fair housing group in U.S. District Court last Friday, contends that Craigslist's Chicago site distributed more than 100 ads that violated the federal Fair Housing Act by excluding prospective buyers or tenants on the basis of race, gender or religion.
Among the housing ads cited as objectionable by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc. were ones that read "NO MINORITIES," "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male," and "Only Muslims apply."
While it remained unclear Thursday if the suit is the first of its kind, it signifies a burgeoning effort by housing watchdog groups to extend to the Internet the same legal restrictions facing those that publish print classifieds.
"Our goal is to have the Internet places like Craigslist treated no differently than newspapers and other media who have traditionally been posting real estate advertisements," said Stephen Libowsky, a counsel for the housing group. "All of the gains are going to get lost if the same rules don't apply."
The nonprofit group is an affiliate of the National Fair Housing Alliance. Its Louisiana affiliate, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, recently filed a similar complaint against the hurricane relief Web site Katrinahousing.org, alleging it found 68 discriminatory housing ads.
Advertise | AdChoices
San Francisco-based Craigslist, founded in 1995 as a roundup of local events, now has listings in more than 20 countries and 150 cities and runs 8 million new classified ads a month. Its huge scope means the Chicago case will likely be watched closely by other online sites. EBay Inc. owns 25 percent of Craigslist.
A ruling against it "would have a chilling effect on the Internet and what it was intended to provide, and that is an open forum and free expression," said Melissa Klipp, a Florham Park, N.J.-based attorney who practices Internet law.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to require Craigslist to report to the government any individual seeking to post a discriminatory ad and to develop screening software to preclude discriminatory ads from being published on its Web site.
Craigslist, which has 19 employees, maintains that screening its almost-nonstop classified listings would be impossible. Jim Buckmaster, its chief executive officer, said Thursday that the system is automated and that users can flag postings. If enough do, it comes off automatically. The "NO MINORITIES" ad was removed within two hours, he said.
"We admit that one or two postings per 100,000 are discriminatory," Buckmaster said. "But we feel we're in the forefront of promoting fair housing for everyone."
The site last month added a yellow link on each housing ad warning that "Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal." When clicked, users get information about the Fair Housing Act and guidance on how to write ads that comply.
Several Internet law experts said the suit seems likely to fail, citing a 1996 federal law that says an online service provider isn't considered a publisher or a speaker when it merely passes along information provided by someone else.
Jennifer Rothman, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, called it "a complete nonstarter" despite legitimate concerns about discrimination.
"Congress decided it was more important not to chill speech on the Internet and not to shut down these Internet providers," she said. "If you start holding them responsible, essentially you shut down the business."
"From a moral standpoint, of course, people will expect that if you're going to run a site like that you ought to police it," said Houston-based attorney Jeff Diamant. "But all Craigslist is doing is running a forum for people to communicate."
Landlords face no punishment for discrimination in online ads
Sarah Boesveld Oct 6, 2011 – 6:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 5, 2011 7:03 PM ET
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/Files
Ontario’s human rights code says everyone has a right to seek housing without discrimination.
Comments Email Twitter
inShare
13
There’s a two bedroom basement apartment for rent in Toronto’s northwest end —one bathroom, newly painted and renovated with a side entrance. The ad, posted on popular classified site Kijiji.ca, comes with the typical caveats —no pets allowed, no smokers. And then, a less common request: Only Muslims need apply.
It’s the exact kind of specifications the Ontario Human Rights Commission recently warned landlords against putting in their online classified ads —any denial of a prospective tenant due to race, ethnic origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age and disability, among other things, is grounds for discrimination according to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s housing policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
But for all its condemnation of the practice, the commission this week said they can’t police these online ads, that it’s out of their hands.
Instead, a person would have to call up the prospective landlord and file a complaint if it is clear they were not considered for the apartment because they weren’t Muslim, for example, or Chinese, Korean or Japanese as one other Craigslist Vancouver ad said it would prefer the successful tenants to be.
“If you say ‘Muslim only,’ in the law, you’d be discriminating against Buddhists, against Christians. That could be grounds for an application of the human rights code,” said Geordie Dent, executive director of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations. Complaints about landlord discrimination regularly trickle into his office and other legal clinics in Toronto, but few are pursued because of the momentous financial and time commitment costs that come with hiring a lawyer and seeing a lengthy tribunal case.
Many such ads appear on sites specifically geared toward one community. But a search Wednesday brought up 32 results for “Muslim only” requests under the real estate category on Kijiji.ca. When contacted by the National Post, one landlord looking to rent a one bedroom apartment in Brampton, Ont., said he “does not want to give the apartment to any other people,” besides Indians or Muslims, as his ad requires. He did not have a specific reason for only wanting to rent to Indians or Muslims, nor did he deny knowing about the Ontario Human Rights Code implications. Another landlord who said in his ad for a two bedroom basement apartment in Mississauga that he would welcome Muslim families said he would also accept other tenants who were not of that faith, so long as they did not drink. The ad says nothing about prohibiting alcohol. Yet another, on Torontomuslims.com, advertises a spacious 1 bedroom apartment for a Muslim bachelor.
Despite the provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code that say every person has a right to seek housing without discrimination and that no one should announce intention to discriminate against people, ethnicity-specific ads are indeed common enough that the Commission issued guidelines this June about how to write a fair housing ad, said Rosemary Bennett, a spokesperson for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The move came after the commission yielded numerous complaints, which would not apply to ads for shared accommodations (in those, one can discriminate so to get the kind of roommate they want), but for separate-entrance apartments.
“We haven’t investigated any of these housing things because it’s kind of hard to do,” Ms. Bennett said. “We’re such a small organization with such a large number of possibilities for contravening the code.”
The commission’s mandate changed in 2008 to no longer investigate individual complaints — those would go to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The fact that the ads are online also pushes it out of Ontario’s jurisdiction and into federal territory, she said, even if the rental address is in the province.
For its part, the commission says it sees fewer cases of favouring a certain race or ethnicity and excluding others than it does those who actively exclude, Ms. Bennett said.
“We tend to usually see the reverse of that, such as ‘no blacks need apply, no people who are LGBT can live here, nobody who’s Chinese,’ so I think that tends to be the larger issue,” she said.
A spokesman for the right tribunal said it doesn’t investigate complaints, but will hear evidence compiled by complainants and their lawyers.
There is such a thing as “positive discrimination” in the Ontario Human Rights Code —renting only to people 65 and older if you’re running a retirement residence, said Vince Brescia, president and CEO of the Federation of Rental-Housing Providers of Ontario. And while people have a “natural inclination” to seek a certain type of tenant, the law doesn’t give them much control over that, he said.
“If you have bigoted beliefs I think that might be your lost opportunity,” he said. “The law says you can’t do it, but on top of that, you’re turning away prospective customers and that just doesn’t seem like a great business decision.”
Messages to the Toronto landlord went unanswered Tuesday
魚拓
、
