Apparently, the restaurants owners in the Gwanghwamun area of central Seoul will file a lawsuit against the organizers of anti-American beef rallies and seek compensation for damage to their business.
Here’s wishing them all the luck in the world.
Nothing Say’s ‘I Love You’ More Than a Lawsuit
Previous post: Putting Your Mouth Where Your Policy Is
Next post: Koreanvasion at the LPGA Tour
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I can’t believe it, as if the Korean legal system weren’t already ridiculous, we really need to litigate against protesters for doing sit-ins and blocking off streets?
I wonder how that would have gone over with Dr. King’s march on Washington… all the people who wanted to sight-see the Mall of America could sue them for ruining DC for them.
I think the ex-pat community on this blog has gotten way way way too knee-jerk and vindictive against the protestors. Just because you hate them/have no respect for them doesn’t mean that everything bad that happens to them is a good thing.
Residents of the area who were egregiously inconvenienced by being unable to get closer than a forty minute walk from their houses, and then having to go another forty minutes out of their way to find a street into their neighbourhood that wasn’t sealed off by buses and riot police ought to join the pile-on, now that the backlash seems to be getting started.
Wonder how many of these establishments placed “No Americans!” signs on their doors in 2002.
I called for this a long time ago. Good luck to them. Pie in the eye of the lawyer whose comments precipitated the law suit. I am not sure how his comments were defamitory though.
#3,
Well, the comment could be interpreted as putting their honesty into question…that’s a big one for a business person.
It doesn’t seem like a 10% drop in business is appreciable enough to attribute to the protests. It could be argued that it’s just an anomaly or the heat, or whatever. Moreover, we could argue that throngs of crowds outside your store would be more likely to increase business.
My biggest conclusion through all of this is not to believe anything I hear, half of what I see, and absolutely none of what I read in the Korean news.
“My biggest conclusion through all of this is not to believe anything I hear,half of what I see, and absolutely none of what I read in the Korean news.”
You’ve only realized now that the Korean media is very much biased and presents a very claustrophobic view of the world? Watching Korean news sure ain’t the same experience you’d get from watching CBC Newsworld or BBC News, that’s for sure.
hey andrew. welcome to the internet.
Unlike other protests (the audicity of comparing these protests to MLK Jr!) these protests were supposed to be disruptive. That was their ONLY purpose. They weren’t one-shot deals nor did they have a single goal (at first it seemed they did but obviously that was false).
I say, flay the organizers and then give them cold US beef to soothe their wounds.
@7
Yeah, CBC and BBC are much more sophisticated in their lying and manipulations…
@rob: ummm, thanks… been here for a while, but it’s only now it really begins to feel like home…. i guess….
@bipolar mindscrew: fair jab, my point in drawing a comparison wasn’t to suggest that the protests shared concrete characteristics, but when we talk about legal precedent, a decision to punish the protestors for the indirect effects of the exercise of their legal right (however annoying it may be) can further be applied to _very_ different situatuons of “justified” protest.
If you want to sue someone for a real crime, that’s fine. I would totally support suing the cow-dung flinging guys in Lotte Mart from months ago. I just don’t see this as a justified case.
and… non-violent “disruption” is pretty much the modus operandi of mass protests, isn’t it? It’s a way to bring attention to an issue (or many, as the case may be). The way you say disruptive you make it sound like the LA race riots or the Seattle WTO protests, which it certainly is not. I suppose they could all gather off on some field in Kyeongki-do, but I don’t think that would be very effective at all.
The contributing blogger who posted this is Korean-American although expat commenters have been generally critical as have many ethnic Korean commenters.
The Mall of America, the largest indoor shopping complex in the US, is located in Minnesota and did not exist when Dr. King held his march on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
haha right you are
For a decade or more, I have been a proponent of allowing the people who live or work in a neighborhood sign off on any protest that is passing through or to be held in their area. It would be an agreement between the demonstrators and the local residents/business that no violence or disruption would occur in the area. If the protest turned violent, the demonstrators would be held pecuniarily liable.
It has only been since the Daechuri protests that the government went after the protest organizers’ pocketbooks — but that was in the countryside. In the city, the businesses take a beating with demonstrations.
This idea evolved in my head two decades ago while shopping in Namdaemun and noticed that students were gathering in one of the corners. I knew there was going to be trouble. Sure enough, a short time later the smell of tear gas hit the area followed by the same students running through the alleys and stalls. It was the merchants screams at the students, yelling profanities about why they were doing this to them as they were just trying to make a living. The tear gas smells chased everyone out of Namdaemun.
Right now only the police and local government sign off on demonstrations. I wonder how many demonstrations would be “legal” if they asked the businesses and people who live in the area if they were ok?
But I’m only a miguk saram…PTUI…(saliva runs down wall)
andrew,
I haven’t really pulled my punches regarding the beef mess because I’m an economist at heart and it makes me mad as hell that many Koreans would go to such lengths to protest something so illogical and irrational.
I believe legal action is being called for against the organizers of the protests, not the protestors themselves.
If the organizers choose to (attempt to) advance their interests/opinions/politics through organizing public protest, they are responsible/culpible for doing so lawfully at the very least. Also, in my opinion they should not be allowed to do so to the detriment of the public or some portion of the public.
People need the chance of reasonable avoidance.
I like #15 Kalani’s suggestion of the signing off, although I can see that there might be pressure for businesses to sign off against their will, least they invite the wrath of the protestors. Such a process would have to be annonomous, and the organizers would simply be told by the police where they could or could not hold the protests.
Arm the riot police with video cameras, make wearing masks and disguises illegal, and video tape as much of the protest as is possable to ensure the safety of the protestors, the police, busnesses and the general public.
Be diligent and prosecute/fine every offender that can be caught.
The people who come to protest peacefully and lawfully can exercise their democratic freedom, being assured
1)they are not unduely, adversely affecting the lives of their fellow countrymen,
2) they will not be villified by the bad behavior of those hoodlums just looking for a chance to be hoodlums.
3) they will be taken more seriously and gain more political power by behaving responsably.
4) they will gain respect, even from those who might not agree with their cause, and perhaps find that even those others might disgree with them, they still defend their right to protest.
“Yeah, CBC and BBC are much more sophisticated in their lying and manipulations…”
Pshaw…
What do you watch? Fox News?
You must log in to post a comment.