Rights as Usual

This post by Ayako Hatano is part of the Symposium: The Many Faces of Human Rights: Revisiting Imperialist Legacies? Ayako Hatano is a research fellow for the project Imperialism, Business & Human Rights, hosted at Tilburg University.

*********************************

While countries and communities in the region share certain socio-legal traditions and collective memories, the relationship between human rights and imperialism in East Asia remains historically complex and politically contested. It involves both the imperial imposition of human rights discourses and the use of human rights claims as tools of resistance against imperial domination.

This piece zooms in on one facet of that complexity—a localised expression of the universal norm of protection from racial discrimination, examined specifically through the lens of business and human rights. It explores how this norm is being adapted and operationalised through litigation, civil society advocacy, and administrative reform. The discussion highlights how corporate practices, legal accountability, and grassroots mobilisation intersect in confronting racial discrimination and hate speech—phenomena deeply shaped by the region’s enduring imperial legacies and contested histories of ethnic relations, particularly in relation to Zainichi Koreans: permanent ethnic Korean residents of Japan, primarily the descendants of Koreans who migrated to, or were forcibly brought to, Japan during its colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945).

Against this backdrop, this post explores the intersection of hate speech and business responsibility through a recent case in Japan, situating the discussion within broader regional dynamics and the international human rights framework. It also reflects on the challenges of vernacularising global human rights norms in local contexts marked by historical and structural discrimination.

Hate Speech as a Human Rights Violation: The Global Framework and Local Realities

The intersection of hate speech regulation and corporate responsibility presents one of the most complex challenges in contemporary human rights discourse. Amplified by digital platforms and unchecked by consistent regulation, hate speech targeting ethnic minorities, foreign residents, and migrants has surged in visibility and intensity. While states have a primary duty to protect against human rights abuses, the role of businesses has come under increasing scrutiny. Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies also bear the responsibility to respect human rights, including the right to non-discrimination and the protection from incitement to hatred.

Hate speech is not merely offensive language; it can constitute a serious human rights abuse when it incites discrimination, hostility, or violence against marginalised communities. International human rights law, most notably Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), obliges states to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination or violence. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) also obliges states to take firm action against racist propaganda and organisations.

Yet, the enforcement of these standards has varied across jurisdictions. Japan has faced criticism for lacking robust legal frameworks to combat hate speech. In Japan, the enactment of its first anti-hate speech law in 2016 (the Hate Speech Elimination Act) marked a symbolic step forward, but the Act lacked penal provisions and has had a limited deterrent effect.

Furthermore, the application of the international human rights standards in business contexts, particularly across different social and legal systems, remains fraught with complexity. The challenge lies not merely in identifying hate speech, but in understanding how it operates within specific social structures and power dynamics. In East Asia, where concepts of social harmony, collective identity, and hierarchical relationships often influence public discourse, the definitions of hate speech may require careful adaptation to capture the nuanced ways discrimination manifests in local contexts.

The Fuji Corp. Case: Corporate Complicity in Racialised Hate

One of the most significant cases illustrating corporate involvement in hate speech in Japan is the Fuji Corp. incident. In this case, the real estate company and its chairman disseminated hate-filled materials targeting individuals of Chinese, South Korean, and North Korean nationality, as well as Zainichi Koreans and other persons of Korean descent residing in Japan. These internal company documents used slurs and dehumanising language such as these individuals “should die,” are “liars,” and “wild animals,” echoing far-right rhetoric. A female Zainichi Korean employee, subjected to this environment for years, filed a lawsuit against the company and its chairman, alleging that the company severely attacked the dignity of people targeted.

In September 2022, the Supreme Court of Japan upheld a high court ruling ordering Fuji Corp. and its chairman to pay 1.32 million yen [approximately $9,200] in damages to the plaintiff. In light of Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution (equality under the law), and the spirit of the ICERD and the Hate Speech Elimination Act, the court held that the plaintiff, as an employee, possesses a “personal right” not to be discriminated against or insulted in the workplace on the basis of their ethnic origin. It also stated that the employer has a duty to make efforts to ensure a workplace environment where racially discriminatory ideas are neither fostered nor tolerated. The court also issued an injunction prohibiting further distribution of such materials.

This marked a watershed moment in Japanese jurisprudence, representing the first finalised ruling to explicitly recognise racialised hate speech and harassment in the workplace as unlawful. The court affirmed that even general racist remarks, when embedded within institutional workplace practices, can amount to a violation of individual rights. From the perspective of the internalisation of international human rights law, it is particularly significant that the court grounded its findings in interpretations of Japan’s obligations under the ICERD, in the absence of explicit domestic legislation directly prohibiting racial discrimination.

Shaping Policy through Civil Society Advocacy

The plaintiff, a part-time employee at Fuji Corp., endured years of abusive language from senior executives. Even after winning her case at the first instance, she continued to suffer daily verbal abuse and reputational harm in the workplace, alongside online hate speech from supporters of Fuji Corp. (The regulation of online hate speech and the role of social media companies merits further discussion). Her experience underscores the profound difficulty of speaking out, especially for individuals who, as racial minorities, already occupy marginalised positions in society and face heightened risks when challenging their employers.

Civil society support and advocacy played a critical role in this case. In June 2022, the plaintiff’s support group and a civic organisation promoting human rights education for a multiethnic and multicultural society in Japan submitted a petition to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The petition urged the ministry to instruct Prefectural Labour Bureaux to respond appropriately to racial harassment in the workplace and to ensure accessible outreach for workers of foreign origin. It also called for clarification that such harassment includes repeated hate speech conducted from a position of superiority, and for reaffirmation of employers’ duty to prevent such conduct and ensure remedies for affected individuals.

In response to this petition and the Supreme Court judgement in September 2022, the Ministry revised its national pamphlet on workplace harassment in November 2022, stating that verbal abuse based on a person’s foreign origin qualifies as psychological harassment. This official recognition by public authorities, prompted by a civil lawsuit, marked a crucial shift in the normative framework surrounding workplace hate discrimination in Japan.

Localising Global Norms: The Challenge of Vernacularisation

The UNGPs, unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, provide a global standard for preventing and addressing human rights abuses linked to business activity. In the context of hate speech, businesses must ensure that their operations do not contribute to the spread of hatred or discrimination. This includes adopting internal policies that prohibit hate speech, training employees, monitoring conduct, and responding swiftly and effectively to incidents.

However, one of the most significant challenges in addressing hate speech through the business and human rights framework lies in vernacularisation—the translation of global human rights norms into locally meaningful terms, which requires reframing them in ways that resonate with local values, narratives, and institutional structures.

While Japan adopted its National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP), the NAP is a non-binding instrument. It reflects Japan’s broader regulatory approach, which often relies on soft law tools such as guidelines and administrative guidance. The absence of binding enforcement mechanisms means that the NAP’s effectiveness depends heavily on the voluntary uptake by corporations and the strength of stakeholder pressure. This process is shaped by the social adaptation of human rights ideas, which are sometimes perceived as “foreign” and require contextual translation. As seen in the case of Fuji Corp., bridging this gap necessitates sustained advocacy, multi-stakeholder engagement, and the development of locally adapted guidance.

Hate speech cases by corporations must also be situated within a broader landscape of structural racial discrimination in Japan and East Asia. As emphasised in the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, it is imperative to consider the societal, historical contexts in identifying the harm of hate speech.  Contexts matter because hate speech is not merely a matter of individual prejudice—it is part of a systemic pattern of racialisation. Subject to longstanding social exclusion, legal invisibility, and cultural marginalisation in Japanese society, the status of Zainichi Koreans as a non-citizen minority across generations itself reflects the enduring complexities of the region’s imperial legacy.

When corporations like Fuji Corp. tolerate or downplay hate speech, they contribute to the normalisation of this discrimination. Symbolic gestures, such as apologies or disciplinary actions, are insufficient unless they are accompanied by structural changes. Companies must invest in anti-discrimination training, establish grievance mechanisms, and create inclusive corporate cultures that value diversity. Moreover, regulators and industry associations should play a role in setting standards and monitoring compliance.

Conclusion: Building Inclusive and Accountable Business Cultures

Business and human rights cases involving hate speech, such as the Fuji Corp. case, represent only the tip of the iceberg. From a vernacularisation perspective, even a single case offers critical insight into the localised dynamics of discrimination and should not be dismissed as isolated. Everyday human rights violations and hate speech must not be overlooked, as they can escalate into more severe and widespread abuses.

The hate speech cases in Japan offer both a warning and a call to action, highlighting the pressing need for businesses to recognise their responsibility in addressing hate speech and promoting inclusion. Under international human rights law and the UNGPs, companies cannot remain neutral or passive in the face of discrimination. In the absence of a regional human rights mechanism in East Asia and given that countries like Japan and China do not accept individual communications under core human rights treaties, soft law instruments such as the UNGPs play a pivotal role in the vernacularisation of human rights norms.

States must also strengthen the legal framework by enacting enforceable hate speech legislation and encouraging corporate compliance through public procurement policies, regulatory incentives, and mandatory human rights due diligence requirements.

However, ultimately, the fight against hate speech demands more than legal reform; it requires a transformation of societal norms and institutional practices. Businesses have a pivotal role to play in this transformation. The stakes are high—not only for the protection of vulnerable communities, but also for the legitimacy, resilience, and long-term sustainability of businesses operating in increasingly diverse and interconnected societies.

The experiences detailed in this article provide a vivid illustration of the East-Asian face of human rights, demonstrating how universal aspirations for justice and equality are actively being shaped, challenged, and advanced through specific local struggles. Human rights are neither purely imperial impositions nor purely emancipatory tools—they are contested terrains where local actors reinterpret and reappropriate rights language within historical contexts of empire, war, and postcolonial governance. Understanding this complex interplay is essential to avoid a simplistic universalism or cultural relativism and to ground human rights practice in historical accountability and local agency.

These lessons from East Asia will undoubtedly be a significant asset in promoting human rights across other parts of the world, fostering a deeper understanding of human rights as a truly universal yet locally nuanced concept that manifests in ‘many faces’.