Ha ha. It’d be just like an occa to gauge his social compass according to what sensationalist “news” programs report.

I doubt TT or ACA would want to report on a story about white businesses discriminating against Asians, as it would give white Australians a negative image which they could not justifiably support.

you can differentiate between the two types of discrimination you gave in theory but not in practice in all situations. Just as a person can choose to go to a what they consider a better hairdresser (for example) based on what you seem to consider valid grounds, so a business owner like the one in this article is discriminating on what he considers valid grounds. whicj leads us to the question of what constitutes valid grounds for discrimination. this is a very slippery topic, and the motive for the discrimination is really only known by the person discriminating, which is why i believe that discrimination can’t and shouldn’t be controlled.

“There will always be discrimination or peoples freedoms will be infringed upon, even in this situation. its just a matter of who you think should be discriminated against. in this situation the chinese customers are free to discriminate by not going to any particular shop, or no shop at all if they desire, with no repercussions. “

It seems you are using the word “discrimination” to describe making a choice among several alternatives. We do “discriminate” every day when we consume goods and services. We “discriminate” when we hire the most qualified person for the job. We “discriminate” when we accept some students and refuse admission to others.

When people talk about “discrimination,” they generally mean giving favorable or unfavorable treatment to a particular person or group based on that person or group’s race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. Consumers can practice this sort of discrimination by patronizing businesses owned by persons of the same XYZ or by avoiding businesses owned by people who are XYZ. This is morally objectionable to many people but not illegal because it is virtually impossible to prove.

i would describe myself as a liberal (in the original sense, not the american sense) and view it more as an issue of freedom rather than discrimination. and by freedom i mean negative freedom as i don’t (with a few exceptions) support the concept of positive freedom.

There will always be discrimination or peoples freedoms will be infringed upon, even in this situation. its just a matter of who you think should be discriminated against. in this situation the chinese customers are free to discriminate by not going to any particular shop, or no shop at all if they desire, with no repercussions.

and babotaengi before you go around referring to people as occas, its probably best to consider which side today tonight or ACA would be on as this is probably a good indicator of who the occa is. (no need to say more)

I’m not real comfortable with your assumption that that is a commonly held Australian belief just because a couple occas think so. I’m Australian and regard it a ridiculous definition of freedom, and can assure you that a sign reading, “No [Any Nationality] Allowed” would incur the wrath of our anti-discrimination laws.

I guess it’s just a different definition of freedom. My problem with the second way of thinking is that the minority race will never succeed in a business venture run that way, where the majority can get by with denying all minorities access.

Freedom, to me, means freedom from discrimination, and having the freedom “of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

If you define freedom in the Australian sense that I have the freedom to discriminate against you, that isn’t really freedom IMO, b/c that expression impinges upon the freedom of others.

When you talk about the “minority races”, I wonder who you are talking about. Recognizing that 54 percent of the world is Asian, did you mean whites or blacks? Perhaps you meant ‘minority groups’.

We are both American, and Civil Rights history lessons, like the Greensboro lunch counter sit-in, impressed upon us that it is wrong to deny service to people based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or skin color.

Right. And of course, those events were the catalysts and precursors to the creation and passage of the “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964″, which of course is the landmark legislation that guarantees freedom from discrimmination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, etc., in employment, education, public accomodations, houseing, etc.

IIRC, Korea has an obscure antidiscrimination statute of sorts, but with virtually no enforcement whatsoever, it’s just one of those many absurd paper laws that Korea has on the books, passed with little or no afterthought, namely for the purpose of attracting more FDI. (Such putative laws were designed to give foreigners the false impression that Korea is a modern, well-regulated and law-abiding society.)

For example, I would look at this as:
“One doesn’t not have the right to take rights away from others/You do not have the freedom to take away the freedom of others.”

Where as my Australian friend would look at it and say:
“The Korean businessman is free to turn away Chinese customers, and said angry Chinese customers are free to start their own business and turn away Koreans.”

I guess it’s just a different definition of freedom. My problem with the second way of thinking is that the minority race will never succeed in a business venture run that way, where the majority can get by with denying all minorities access.

But the question is, which way does the legal system work in S. Korea… Does anyone know if it is illegal to do this in S. Korea? Have any cases been brought to court in the past?

i would disagree. you can’t give one group freedom of business without taking it from other, and i think that a business should have the right to choose who to or not to do business with. while i doubt if it is always the best idea to do this, it should be their choice it is their capital and work that has gone into the business. it’s the owner’s business and he should be able to make what he believes are the best choices for the business.