Yes, as I said, it’s quite normal that a country only allows citizens to vote. I was asking what other rights Japan denies to foreigners.
If there is a human right against racial discrimination (for example in rental housing or using resorts) then that is denied. Others may be to or the court would not have explicitly said that some (undefined) human rights may be denied to foreigners.
I wonder if we are being confused by “Human” rights as opposed to “citizen” rights?
For example, here in the UK we have the Human Rights Act, but that does not stop discrimination against foreigners getting jobs - you have to prove you have the legal right to work here or our putative employer can be fined. On the other hand, I doubt very much that a restaurant could put up a “NO FOREIGNERS” sign.
Citizens all around the world, even in the most enlightened countries have more “rights” in their own countries than foreigners do. I can’t think of any country that allows unlimited immigration for example.
So the HRA may say that " you have the right to work" but that only applies to citizens. That said, even non-citizens may well have the right to plead their case in court and even have their costs paid by the host country.
It;s not only UK citizens who have the right to work in the UK. Irish citizens, for example, have the right to work in the UK, as do citizens of various other countries who satisfy various conditions laid down by law. Conversely there are UK citizens who don’t have the right to work because it is prevented, e.g. by child labour laws. Citizenship and the right to work may be linked, but they don’t map onto one another one-to-one.
The impact of non-discrimination laws is usually along the lines of: if you are legally permitted to work, then an employer or prospective employer cannot treat you less favourably on the grounds of your nationality. There is definitely such a law in the UK; it may be the case that there is no such law in Japan.