≡ Menu

Naturalized Korean files petition with human rights council after sauna denies her entry

Good luck to this woman, a naturalized Korean from Uzbekistan who is taking a Busan sauna to the National Human Rights Commission for denying her entry.

If it wasn’t offensive enough to be banned from the sauna, the reasons stated by the sauna are even more offensive:

Ku visited a sauna in Busan at around 3 p.m. on Sept. 25. But the employee denied her entry, saying foreigners are prohibited.

She reported this immediately to the police.

“The sauna worker told police that foreigners are not allowed there because they may make the water dirty. He also said Koreans customers don’t like using the facility with foreigners because in the town there are many foreign women working at bars and there were rumors that some have AIDS,” she said.

The police weren’t particularly helpful, either, although to be fair, as far as I know, what they say about there being no law against businesses engaging in discrimination based on race is true, and as a matter of principle, I’m not really sure I’d want one. Anyway:

Police officers said there is no law to regulate such racist discrimination, advising her to go to another sauna, she said.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Korea. Sparkling

  • R. Elgin

    This is a chance for the right thing to be done but . . . we shall see.

  • tatertot

    This happened to me at a sauna really close by Busan station. They said that foreigners weren’t allowed because they came drunk and got in fights. I wonder if it’s the same sauna.

  • Maekchu

    Hub of Racism, Nationalism & Ignorance.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Reminds me of the time, probably around the 50′s or 60′s (but could have been as late as the 80′s), when Mexicans were not permitted to use public swimming establishments in states such as Texas, Colorado and California.

    (link removed because it was a) too long and breaking template, and b) not working. Sorry. — Robert)

    Swimming pools that allowed Mexicans were called “bean dips.”

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bean%20dip&page=2

    Okay, you can all carry on now.

  • Bipolar Mindscrew

    Here’s an interesting sentence from the article: “Ku is legally a Korean as she obtained citizenship in 2009 after marrying a Korean man.”

    Sloppy journalism? Poor grammar? I thought you had to do a citizenship test to become a citizen…

    One of the comments is pretty funny: “what would happen if places in the US or other countries banned Koreans because they smell like kimchi and garlic?”

    I heard a story that a group of Koreans living in dorm at the University of Toronto, while cooking Dweunjung Jigae, were interrupted by fireman… Seems other students thought something was on fire. Despite warnings, the incident was repeated and they were told to pack up.

    It’s an unfortunate situation but business are allowed to choose their customers based on any policy they like. The YWCA only allows women. Bars discriminate based on appearance all the time.

    The answer is publicity and a boycott. All foreigners should now avoid this place.

  • Bangzi

    “All foreigners should now avoid this place”…and the owners will be as happy as Larry, it’s just what they want!

    Debito, a US born naturalized Japanese citizen has spent the last decade or so fighting this in Japan:
    http://www.debito.org/?page_id=4

    In Japan it started in Hokkaido (where Debito won his first case against a discriminatory bath house) and was blamed on the Russian sailors. Busan has plenty of Russians, so maybe there are direct parallels to be drawn here.

    Bars or clubs discriminating against people for not wearing the right foot wear is not the same as saying you can’t come in coz of your racial appearance. You can change your shoes but you can’t change your skin. I wonder how many Asian looking people, such as Japanese, they let in. I’m willing to bet quite a lot. Had this woman looked Asian that probably would have been fine. The owners should have said: “people who look different are not allowed there because they may make the water dirty.”

    Btw, thanks WangKon936 for the history of racism in the US. 1. If this is news to anyone then I pity them, the US is one of the most racist countries on the planet. 2. I hope you’re not suggesting that Koreans use the old ‘well, if they can do it so can we’ excuse – it’s pathetic.

  • Charles Tilly

    [W]hat they say about there being no law against businesses engaging in discrimination based on race is true, and as a matter of principle, I’m not really sure I’d want one.

    I’m sure there were a lot of things that folks like you “didn’t want” back in the day. But they happened. And frankly, we’re mostly better off because of it. But it’s still nice to have individuals like you around as a reminder that there’s still important work to be done.

  • bumfromkorea

    The answer is publicity and a boycott. All foreigners should now avoid this place.

    … How’s that going to help when the place doesn’t accept foreigners in the first place?

    This is just the beginning. As the non-Korean Korean citizen population increases, things like this are bound to come up. Hopefully the transition won’t be as painful as other historical examples. But good on her for pursuing the case. It’ll never get fixed until someone goes “That’s enough.”

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Hear, hear bfk!

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Police officers said there is no law to regulate such racist discrimination, advising her to go to another sauna, she said.

    A more accurate statement is that there is no criminal law to regulate such racist discrimination. There obviously is a law to regulate racist discrimination — by petitioning the NHRC, as this woman did.

  • iMe

    i’m with robert k on this. i sympathize with the lady’s outrage but there should be NO laws forcing private businesses to serve anyone they don’t want to serve. if you are denied service, you curse them out and take your money elsewhere.

  • Charles Tilly

    if you are denied service, you curse them out and take your money elsewhere.

    You heard it hear, fellas. iMe wants the Denny’s only for himself and his trailer trash friends.

    Tell me, iMe, what’s on the menu? What are the specials?

  • Charles Tilly

    Edit: You heard it here….

  • cm

    I look at this thing positively. It’s in the media and it’s getting the attention. The first thing to do to solve this problem, is to admit that there is a problem.
    The next logical step after this seems the law on racial discrimination will change.

  • http://ulsanonline.com martypants

    Rosa Parks refused to ride in the back of the bus in America. That’s what the woman should have done – march in and let the police carry her out. That would have caused a big enough ruckus. Sad little bigoted country that we live in.

  • cmm

    The answer is publicity and a boycott. All foreigners should now avoid this place.

    What bumfromkorea said @8 and more – if you publicity and a mass foreigner sit-in. Call it Occupy Racist Sauna or something. (Though, if it’s the same unwashed hippies occupying Wall Street who show up at the Sauna, it’ll do the same amount of no good as they will certainly do what the management is trying to prevent – the dirtying of the water.)

    Hell, I know a large bar in the middle of the 강남역 bar area that won’t let groups of foreigners enter.

  • Arghaeri

    Since she is a citizen then arguably Article 11 of the constitution suggest the law should be otherwise.

  • fanwarrior

    Here’s an interesting sentence from the article: “Ku is legally a Korean as she obtained citizenship in 2009 after marrying a Korean man.”

    Sloppy journalism? Poor grammar? I thought you had to do a citizenship test to become a citizen…

    Intentionally misunderstanding something? Looking for something that isn’t there? I thought you had to be *this tall* to ride the internet..

    She may very well have taken citizenship test after getting married, but they may not have felt the need to go into that kind of detail. Would you like to know what she had for breakfast 6 weeks ago on a Tuesday?

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    This happened to me at a sauna really close by Busan station. They said that foreigners weren’t allowed because they came drunk and got in fights. I wonder if it’s the same sauna.

    That’s funny, because I think I got told the same thing by what is probably the same sauna. I’d be curious if she going after the same one.

    I’m also curious if, like in Japan, this thing with the sauna in Busan has to do with the Russians.

    I’m sure there were a lot of things that folks like you “didn’t want” back in the day. But they happened.

    Lots of things “happened” back in the day, some better than others. At any rate, I don’t think rejecting customers due to race, gender, religion, etc. is a good thing, both for moral and business reasons. But there’s a lot of behavior I find objectionable that, at the same time, I wouldn’t want the state to ban through force of law.

  • Arghaeri

    Given Article 11 she may have a case in the constitutional court, and if successful the court would make an order for the legislature to introduce new laws.

  • Drifter

    because we all know AIDS is transmitted through water, that’s why I avoid all the 7 oceans, most of the seas and any water in general

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    ‘Sad little bigoted country that we live in.’ martypants

    and where are you from? i’ll bet if we took a look at your sad little country, we’d find even worse instances of racism. i’ll bet some of them are even deadly. sad little racist living in a country he said was sad and bigoted.

    .

  • cmm

    because we all know AIDS is transmitted through water

    only foreigner AIDS is

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    All of you want the ability to associate with people you choose.

    How many of you want the government to be able to tell you who you will associate with?

    How many of you want the government telling you what job you will do, where, when, and with whom? What if they tell you to “service” someone you (and your circle of friends) find offensive in appearance, odor, or behavior? Wouldn’t you want the ability to refuse?

    When someone chooses to limit their clientele based on outward physical characteristics, they are necessarily limiting their own income. It’s their business. They should have the same rights you want.

    Apparently, not all the jerks own saunas…

  • Yu Bum Suk

    I don’t like saunas or nightuhs enough to care that much, but I like the idea of a waeg leaving their money on the front counter, marching in, and waiting for the police to arrive. Just make sure to bring lots of witnesses.

    This sauna’s probably a pissant little joint with a few glorified bathtubs, but if it were a bigger outfit I’d love to see what would happen if a school staff showed up on their staff ‘workshop’ with their waeg teacher in tow. I can just see their perplexity as everyone finds out and then they can’t decide whether to be outraged or make up some BS story about why suddenly Jane-teachah and her coteacher should go off and do something else.

  • mazef

    Somewhat on a dangling thread but :
    It was mid-February, 1979, and my friend and I had spent most of the night on a cold, drafty train from Ch’onan to Mokp’o where, upon debarkation, we entered – cold, tired and starving – a steamy, hot and crowded, wonderfully meaty-fragrant 곰탕 restaurant – only to be told to leave, that we wouldn’t be served there. Dejected and at a complete loss for words, we turned toward the door and the obviously over-worked owner of the place dashed toward us saying ‘Go just around the corner to the _ _ pulgogge restaurant where my brother will be happy to serve you-’ . By the time we got there, the entry-way was being unshuttered and we were invited into the family-hot-floor room, told to sit and get warm while he brought us our food. Within 10 or so minutes, we were gorging ourselves
    on steaming-hot, full-flavored `komt’ang’ and listening to the explanation -”My sister could never serve such gentlemen as you in such a crummy restaurant full of all those fishermen and dock-workers – and she sends this food with her compliments!”

  • cm

    I got this from a Korean site, where the owner of the sauna posted up his/her side of the story.

    The owner of the sauna denies saying anything about AIDS.
    The owner also claims he/she did not say the water gets dirty.
    The owner complains that the many of the reported facts of the story which are hitting the newspapers are highly exaggerated.

    The owner says that the sauna is located in a foreigner heavy district where there are many Russians and Russian prostitutes who ply their business.

    The owner admits banning of foreigners, including even Whites, because other Korean customers don’t like it and he/she is just protecting the business, and is trying to make a decent living.

    The owner also complains about the intimidating calls from Human Rights groups and civic groups for migrant rights who keeps threatening him/her.

    The owner also asks, is it OK to have foreigners only establishments near his/her sauna that ban Koreans from entering, but it’s only racist if the establishments ban foreigners.

  • Yu Bum Suk

    I wonder what foreigner-only places he’s talking about?

    mafez, what a kool story.

  • cm

    #29 no ideal since I’ve not been in Busan in recent memory to know for sure. But that’s what the owner said, that there are foreigners only establishments around him/her place.

  • cm

    Anyone been to 상해거리,텍사스촌 lately? What is it really like there?

  • SomeguyinKorea

    #29,

    My guess: there is no such establishment. It’s a red herring and the owner can’t piece together a logical argument.

  • Granfalloon

    Well, I know the casinos in Busan ban Koreans. Hey, who runs those casinos?

  • cm

    #33 he says his street is full of Russian and South East Asian prostitutes. I just wonder what is true and what is being exaggerated, if any.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    If it’s the place across from Busan Station, yeah, it’s a neighborhood with a lot of Russians, although I won’t speculate as to their professions. It used to be a GI area, in which case there might very well have been 내국인 출입금지 places at one time. Who knows, maybe there still are…

  • Yu Bum Suk

    Isn’t that because it’s illegal for Koreans to gamble? I personally think that if it’s illegal for Koreans it should be illegal for anyone in Korea, but I suppose it’s too good a cash cow to give up. I can think of some ‘establishments’ that might not let in unescorted Korean women, but I’m sure unescorted Russian women would get the same treatment.

  • cm

    Never tried a no Koreans allowed club like this in Daegu, but it sounds fascinating. I wonder what the atmosphere is like.

    http://www.bar24.kr/recruit/RecruitView.asp?BACK_URL=index.asp&IDX=30431933

  • cm

    The Korea Times Korean language editorial has the story titled “Racism, how much longer can we ignore it”. It goes on to note the story about the 2007 Nigerian customer in Korean club being mistreated, the 2009 story about the Indian professor who was accosted in a bus, and now this. Each time, there were talks of passing the anti-Discrimination law but each time, died on the parliament floor. This paper blames some of the Christian Conservative party members for the bill not being passed, and urges the government to act on the new bill against discrimination.

    http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201110/h2011101402372521950.htm

  • Wedge

    Texas Street back in the day had plenty of “No Koreans Allowed” places, and probably still does. It was the same in Itaewon–a bunch of “no Korean” places and a bunch of “no foreigner” places. I once asked the proprietor of my favorite watering hole, a lady named K.C., about that, and she said that a couple of Korean men would come in, see Korean lasses having fun with the waygooks, and start trouble. Every. Single. Time. Hence the ban.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Damn, cm, I was going to blog that. I guess I still can.

  • hamel

    I cann’t say I am surprised about Robert’s angle – that he would rather not see anti-racial discrimination laws in Korea – but it doesn’t mean I am any less disappointed. I find myself actually in agreement with “Charles Tilly.” fancy that.

    I wonder what you think of America’s equal rights laws (not talking about the later move into affirm. action, but the laws that forbid discrimination). Would you rather not have them?

    The state is not some foreign creature imposing its will on you. It is society itself (that thing Margaret Thatcher didn’t believe in) setting its own values and norms. That’s a Very Different Thing.

  • http://dok.do/4lur41 Apodyopsis Gymnophoria

    A more accurate statement is that there is no criminal law to regulate such racist discrimination. There obviously is a law to regulate racist discrimination — by petitioning the NHRC, as this woman did.

    Not much use, the NHRC simply makes a recommendation which is ignored.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    I wonder what you think of America’s equal rights laws.

    Pretty much the same as stated above.

    Would you rather not have them?

    Nope, I wouldn’t.

    The state is not some foreign creature imposing its will on you.

    Oh, I think there are lots of religious, ethnic and sexual minorities around the world that would probably disagree. And at any rate, I never said I disagreed with society combating these issues, and according to comment #28, “society” seems to be enthusiastically expressing their disapproval of the owner’s behavior. If you find what the sauna owner is doing, there are plenty of ways to deal with it without resorting to force and violence.

  • paulhewson

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILOhY2it4M8

    There are too many minorities,
    At my water park.

    This was OUR land, OUR dream,
    And they’ve taken it all away.

    They just keep coming and coming,
    Minorities…..I try to tell the police.

    BUT EVEN THE AUTHORITIES
    ARE MINORITIES
    AT MY WATER PARK.

    MMMMMYYYYY WATER PARK!!!!!! NOT YOURS!!!!!!!!

    Not yours. You’re stinky! And not yours. I don’t like you. But I like YOU. You have nice boobies. You can cum in my water park anytime.

  • hamel

    Thanks, Robert. That’s a very clear answer. I wonder if black American libertarians have the same stance on those equal rights laws…

  • Bangzi

    @44 Hahahaha! Perfect quote, man! Head of nail and hammer making contact.

  • Mryouknowwho

    I was denied entry into a sauna across from Busan station once. I was told that the Korean customers don’t like foreigners to be there.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    That makes three people in this thread. Actually, I’m wondering if this incident may have been 계획적…

  • exit86

    I recommend that all individuals residing in South Korea who are not of Korean ancestry who wish to enter saunas obtain an official criminal background check from their country of origin/citizenship, along wth an AIDS test, and a drug-test. Wait . . . ummm, they already do that for a different group on non-Koreans.

    Hmmm. Maybe we could convince the US government to do such tests for individuals of Korean ancestry residing in the US wishing to visit US water parks.
    Oh wait a minute, in the 1800′s half of that country was pro-slavery, so its all okay how South Korea treats folks today.

    (Note: This whole “The US did it too, so its okay” line of b.s. excuse-making and K. nationist face-saving has f’ing gotta go. Really, the world does not revolve around the US. I really wish certain folks on this board would remember that. You guys are smarter than that! Apple –red/green/yellow, crunchy; Orange–orange, soft, juicy.)

  • exit86

    Edit:

    “of non-Koreans”

    “K. nationalist face-saving”

  • iMe

    Tilly,
    people come from all walks of life and no matter how abhorrent you may find some of them to be, they all have the right to make a living. And no matter how much you think we ought to, you can’t and shouldn’t force people to integrate by law. That’s inorganic and only leads to many social ills.

    This incident didn’t take place at the post office. It didn’t take place at the emergency room. So what is the big deal?

    If a business establishment doesn’t want your patronage, why would you want to find a way to get them to accept your hard-earned money anyway? That makes no sense. Stay away and encourage your friends to stay away but don’t get the bureaucrats involved. So what if he’s catering to bigots to make a living? That’s his right and that’s that. Ignore it. Move on. But don’t go crying to the government and take away everyone’s right just because your feelings are hurt.

  • PineForest

    Reason # 435 in a series why I don’t miss living in Sparkling Korea. Friggin’ racist cesspool.

  • PineForest

    iMe,

    Being subject to racism as business policy is worth bitching about in my book. There is a principle involved. For starters, the same foreigners he bans are the ones protecting his nasty, selfish ass from the Norks. Y’know, the foreigners my tax dollars pay for? :)

  • Jieun K

    don’t go crying to the government and take away everyone’s right

    I agree with you and also subscribe to libertarian principles and minimal government intervention.

    If a business establishment doesn’t want your patronage

    I guess it boils down to freedom of choice.

    We should all be able to exercise our right to choose freely, but what if your right denies me to the same right? What if such denial happens systematically and habitually so as to affect a meaningful number of population? If exercise of free choice by individuals creates unjust discrimination against other members of society, should or shouldn’t we keep such exercise in check?

    If a business establishment wants to deny service to a customer by exercising free choice, it should at least do it in a sense of fairness that is inherent to everyone and in a way that maintains social harmony.

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    We should all be able to exercise our right to choose freely, but what if your right denies me to the same right?

    Exactly.

    If you find what the sauna owner is doing, there are plenty of ways to deal with it without resorting to force and violence.

    Like what? Ask the nice racist sauna owner politely? What is she tells the Uzbek woman to go fuck herself? Think the locals are going to stop going to the sauna? In my opinion the state, by mandate of the majority of the voting public, has every right to enforce laws where they protect people’s rights to be treated with basic respect and dignity – and, crucially, where they protect other people’s freedoms.

    And therein lies the rub. In my opinion the biggest fail in libertarian ideology is the fact that the absence of law can actually constrain people’s freedoms. Current case is the Uzbek woman who isn’t allowed a swim like everyone else – slavery is the big historical one. Whose rights are the most important: the libertarian slave-owner (who just wants to be left alone by the big bad government) or the slave who wants to be free?

    Anyway, here’s the American libertarian position on the subject:

    Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade…

    But what about the right to be treated the same as everyone else? What about the right not to be abused, denied service, denied employment, denied basic rights – because you’re a brown guy or girl? In my opinion, protecting people’s freedom of choice sounds like an interesting concept – until you consider all the niggers and gooks who suddenly can’t rent an apartment, swim at the local pool, get a job, or buy a pie from the local racist bakery. Sure, society is going to correct some of these injustices on it’s own, but not all of them – and what are the cons of anti-discrimination laws again?

  • dww

    Well said Hoju. I’ve had many similar debates with a lot of my AynRandroid buddies.

  • slim

    In liberal societies, the negative PR effect would in time embarrass this sauna into changing policies. Not sure how this will play out in Korea. It could be that locals who prefer establishments unsullied by less pure races will flock to that sauna. And it could be that a sauna will spring up to cater to foreign demand.

    It would pay for all foreigners who do want to hit these baths make sure their bathing etiquette is above reproach and doesn’t raise eyebrows (however the drunken ajeossis behave) . I’ve seen a fair bit of gaijin hot spring fuckups in Japan over the years.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Not sure how this will play out in Korea. It could be that locals who prefer establishments unsullied by less pure races will flock to that sauna. And it could be that a sauna will spring up to cater to foreign demand.

    Although Korea may be racist, it is not race-driven. Whether or not a foreigner is around does not even factor into an ordinary Korean person’s decision-making about choosing which sauna to visit.

  • Jieun K

    In my opinion the biggest fail in libertarian ideology is the fact that the absence of law can actually constrain people’s freedoms.

    Lack of legislation certainly won’t help remedy situations that are currently prejudicial to certain people. What would be reasonable grounds for corrective enactment? Does a given condition go against fundamental ethical norms, i.e., is it injurious enough to the whole society as to call for intervention?

    The sauna incident can be one example of cases that deserves public attention and effort in order to reach a social consensus for rectification, legal or otherwise.

  • keith

    I think it’s ignorance that’s the problem. Korean is not a race. Anyone who thinks that Korean people are a unique race is an idiot. I had a smart Korean student of mine tell me that if my wife and I had a child it would be a ‘half blood’! I was a little taken aback. She said it like being mixed race is some kind of problem, the student is obviously learning some very strange things outside my classroom.

    One of my best friends here has a ‘half blood’ child. He’s a brilliant young boy with loads of talent. He is now (despite his primary education being in Canada) in the top 80% when it comes to grades in his classes. His first language is English and he’s still beating most Korean kids, and two years ago he was in the bottom 20% and could barely pass the tests in Korean. My friend’s son just goes to a regular Korean school, not international or private or anything like that. A brilliant young lad, who will go far.

    The brilliant young lad certainly won’t be working in a sauna or driving a taxi when he grows up.

    Racism is disgusting. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. There are only three types of people in the world. People who I want to be with and and enjoy my time with, people who I can tolerate or ignore, and people who I’d like to hit around the head with a shovel.

    From Pawi’s posts, I figure he’d be in the latter. He’s a lame ingrate, and doesn’t seem to have have even spent any time in Korea. Pathetic.

  • keith

    OK, I made a mistake there. H is in the top 20%, despite not being a studious type, and the little boy doesn’t even go to a Hagwon.

  • slim

    Advice on racial issues from pawi will lead us to the same place as advice on semantics and lexicon from 8675309 or political or intel analysis from Jashin Densetsu. Thanks but no thanks.

  • YangachiBastardo

    It could be that locals who prefer establishments unsullied by less pure races will flock to that sauna. And it could be that a sauna will spring up to cater to foreign demand

    It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me

  • YangachiBastardo

    What about the right not to be abused, denied service, denied employment, denied basic rights

    I think there’s a line, albeit fine, between been denied service and been denied basic rights otherwise we risk at least conceptually to reach ridiculous extremes where for instance men could sue a lesbian bar for being denied entry, any other place enforcing admission criteria, including any type of dress, could be equally sued.

    I have a question: how about some company looking for a salesforce for one of their foreign markets, let’s say some big economy in Asia. Let’s say this company would want to hire only males of the same ethnic background cos well their clientele prefer it that way.

    The company could be sincerely disgusted with such discrimination, but could also be faced with a business environment that force them to act like that. How you guys would judge their behaviour ?

    I heard of a similar case btw: one of my ex clients was this woman whose family owned this fertilizer spraying machine business. She was born into money but still she was a stellar sales person, well she had to give up dealing with the thriving Middle Eastern market cos well she’s a woman

  • YangachiBastardo

    Friggin’ racist cesspool.

    Man up…honestly i was treated like a piece of shit a lot in beautiful Chicago (people showing me in a snickering way how to operate an electric switch, asking me if we rode donkeys back in my country, one even asked me if i wasn’t ashamed we tortured and killed bulls for fun) and guess what ? Who cares, still moving there was the best thing that ever happened to me and literally saved my life…as much as petty discrimination can be irritating it isn’t really racism.

    Racism is not being denied access to a club or dumb hick comments, racism is what happens in the Moscow subway

  • YangachiBastardo

    I wonder if black American libertarians have the same stance on those equal rights laws…

    I find Mr. Cain an interesting fellow

  • PineForest

    Racism is what happened at the bathhouse, and no matter what brush you paint it with , it stinks like rotten meat. Perhaps I’m more bitter about it than others because I was raised in a multicultural environment where I didn’t put up with this shit. I’m in the rockies now and happy to be away from it, and no it isn’t because it’s all white here. Far from it. It’s America, and it’s better than Korea. Because most people have got the message that hate sucks.

  • iMe

    pine forest,
    so, you grew up in a multiculti environment so you didn’t have to put up with shit like this, eh? well, thank GOD korea is just backward enough to keep “progressive minded” people like you away. i’d hate for korea to become anything like colorado or america in general. now that would really ruin korea for THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of us who actually like it and appreciate it for what it is, not what we think it ought to be.

    jieun,
    how did the sauna owner’s refusal of service deny the uzbek chick’s rights? she has no right to enter a private property. she has no right to demand service that’s not being offered to her from a private business owner. in fact, she is the one trying to strip the owner’s right to refuse service to those he deems harmful to his business which i’m sure he and his family are, you know, depending on to survive. why should some disgruntled customer have the right to take that away from him? and why stop there? why doesn’t this uzbek chick demand entry to the male only side and cry institutional sexism when denied? after all, sexism is as bad as racism, no?

    the bottom line is, she wasn’t denied of anything that she as a tax-paying citizen is entitled to. she was turned away from an individual whose only interest is protecting his source of income. you can cuss his ass out all day long but you can’t make it illegal for him to make a living while not harming or swindling anyone. if you start bending that principle, you’ll soon be trampling everyone’s rights and pretty soon you’ll end up living in a crippled nanny state like the USA.

    let the market and people settle these matters. keep lawyers away as far as possible (no offense to dozens of lawyers who post here…actually, fuck all lawyers! i hope every one of you is offended).

  • iMe

    pine forest,
    my last comment sounds a lot more dickish than i intended. no offense. i just think you are very wrong on this.

  • YangachiBastardo

    It’s America, and it’s better than Korea Because most people have got the message that hate sucks

    MHMHMHMHM i guess Nation of Islam and AB fellas must be among the few who didn’t, SORRY but can anybody point out episodes of Korean racism comparable to the ultraviolence that routinely happens in the US of A and Western Europe (let alone Eastern)

  • iMe

    YB,
    the short answer is no. the long answer is nooooooooooooooooooo. but multicultural societies are great just because my hippy professors told me so! and i love living in our wonderfully diverse country eventhough you’ll never catch me driving anywhere near Watts or Inglewood alone at night or day.

  • Granfalloon

    I was wondering how long it would take before we got to the ol’ “this isn’t REAL racism” trope. For some, you’re not allowed to complain about racism unless you’ve been hospitalized by it.

    (btw, I know people in Korea who have been.)

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Like what? Ask the nice racist sauna owner politely? What is she tells the Uzbek woman to go fuck herself? Think the locals are going to stop going to the sauna? In my opinion the state, by mandate of the majority of the voting public, has every right to enforce laws where they protect people’s rights to be treated with basic respect and dignity – and, crucially, where they protect other people’s freedoms.
    [...]
    But what about the right to be treated the same as everyone else? What about the right not to be abused, denied service, denied employment, denied basic rights – because you’re a brown guy or girl?

    Alas, that’s the thing — you don’t have a right to be treated the same as everyone else. Not by individuals or private entities. And frankly, nobody treats everyone equally — I treat my wife much differently than I treat the person at the corner store, for instance. I’ll let friends into my home, but not people I meet on the street. People make discriminatory decisions every day based on all sorts of arbitrary factors — race, religion, height, weight, sexual preference, marital status, attractiveness, familiarity, political affiliation, union affiliation, etc. The freedom of association is based on the right of people to form groups based on common interests and values, and this involves discrimination.

    Now, obviously, not all forms of discrimination and association are equal. Some are downright morally repugnant. I think most of us would agree that turning away a naturalized Korean citizen from a bath house on the basis of her race (and vicious stereotypes about her race) is bad, and I hope the sauna owners pay for their behavior. If they have to put up with protesting phone calls, demonstrations in front of their business every day, falling business and bad press, hey, that’s the price of being a dick. What I’m not comfortable with is the state limiting freedom of association just because I find what the sauna did offensive, just as I’m not comfortable with the state limiting freedom of speech just because I find what some commie, pro-North Korean sympathizer or some rabidly nationalist racist said offensive.

  • Sonagi

    What I’m not comfortable with is the state limiting freedom of association just because I find what the sauna did offensive,

    So you’re not a fan of Title II of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964? I wonder if you might feel differently about such limits on freedom of association if you actually belonged to a group that is or was vulnerable to exclusion? Sure, Uzbeks could band together and open their own sauna, but how economically feasible is that, especially if Uzbeks are scattered around Busan and not concentrated in one neighborhood? Not sure how the law works in Korea, but in the US, business owners can form private clubs in order to exercise freedom of association and exclude anyone they wish for any reason.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    I wonder if you might feel differently about such limits on freedom of association if you actually belonged to a group that is or was vulnerable to exclusion?

    Not that I wish to compare my position with those of immigrant wives, but if what I suspect is true, I was refused entry into the very same sauna that refused Mrs. Ku.

  • Sonagi

    How were you refused? Did they simply hand back your money or did they offer some excuse?

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    I was told at the front desk they didn’t accept foreigners, and when I inquired why, I seem to recall the girl behind the desk telling me it was sauna policy or some such thing.

    Mind you, from what I’ve read about the place, they do accept Chinese and Japanese tourists, but don’t accept WHITE tourists, and this seems to be a function of its location, where there are a lot of Russians.

  • Arghaeri

    Alas, that’s the thing — you don’t have a right to be treated the same as everyone else.

    To the contrary, as I have already noted, such right is provided to all citizens, under the Korean Constitution.

    This seems to me to be discrimination in social and cultural life. This was not a private club, but an open business and the woman was denied from carrying on her social life in a manner which was not denied to the other patrons.

  • Arghaeri

    It was not based on a dress code, onbeing drunk or disorderly or any criteria other than her being from the wrong social class i.e an immigrant. If she were a foreigner she might not have such a right, but as a citizen of Korea she has the same rights as all other citizen not to be discriminated against.

  • Arghaeri

    The company could be sincerely disgusted with such discrimination, but could also be faced with a business environment that force them to act like that.

    I have personally seen this scenario.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    To the contrary, as I have already noted, such right is provided to all citizens, under the Korean Constitution.

    I’d be curious to see if the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 11 as you do. And I mean that seriously, not in my usual snarky sort of way.

  • Arghaeri

    I wonder if you might feel differently about such limits on freedom of association if you actually belonged to a group that is or was vulnerable to exclusion?

    Rather a curious comment for this blog, since a good proportion commenters here are foreigners, and of those I am sure Robert and I are not the only one to have been excluded because of our race in Korea.

  • Arghaeri

    I’d be curious to see if the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 11 as you do. And I mean that seriously,

    Me too, but I suspect it won’t be put to them, and even if it were and a favourable decision made, don’t hold your breath for speedy action by the legislature.

    Again seriously, if Article 11 is not to be interpreted the way i suggest then what purpose do the words “there shall be no discrimination in political, economic, social and cultural life” have. This is general statement of right to equality, and does not appear to be limited by words such as “by the state”.

    Be reminded that this is not the case of an individual barring entry to their personal home, nor of a private membership club, this is a case of a licensed business open to paying members of the public operating a color bar.

  • Granfalloon

    I think Korea has anti-discrimination laws in the same way they have laws against drinking in public and smoking inside buildings.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    It could mean that the state cannot discriminate in matters of politics, economics, society and culture. I.e., it cannot allow the formation of certain churches but not others. Or ban certain ethnic groups from opening businesses.

    The other things about Article 11 is that while it says discrimination based on 성별·종교 또는 사회적 신분 is out, no mention is made of ethnicity. Given the times when the document was written, this is not surprising. I suppose one COULD argue that race is included in 사회적 신분, but like I said earlier, I’d be keen to see a Constitutional Court ruling on this. The fact that lawmakers and civic groups feel compelled to push a separate law passed banning discrimination leads me to suspect that racial discrimination is NOT covered by the Constitution, although admittedly, there are other reasons for seeking a separate law, too.

  • Arghaeri

    Noted, but as commented this seems to me statement of rights which is not qualified by refetence to state, or authorites, whereas other Articles do refer to limits on authorities actions and rules.

    As far as race not being directly mentioned, I considered this hence my reference to jer social class being an immigrant. I believe race and religion are often elements in forming a social class.
    I also considered that this should be construed in light of Article 37, i.e even if race is not directly enumerated in the constitution the right to equality shall nonetheless not be nrglected.

  • Jieun K

    iMe, I appreciate your comment.

    how did the sauna owner’s refusal of service deny the uzbek chick’s rights? she has no right to enter a private property.

    That private property is being used as a place of business for the purpose of serving paying members of the general public. It’s common sense that she deserves the same service on the same condition applied to the rest of its clientele.

    The sauna owner denied her service on an arbitrary ground (unjustified association of prejudice). Such practice is potentially detrimental to the entire public because anyone, including the sauna owner, can be subject to whimsical, directionless business conduct, and if unrestrained, it may ultimately lead to market disorder/disintegration.

  • YangachiBastardo

    n the US, business owners can form private clubs in order to exercise freedom of association and exclude anyone they wish for any reason

    Would a private club who openly restrict admission to males of Caucasion descent be legal in America ?

    (in Europe it wouldn’t)

  • YangachiBastardo

    It’s common sense that she deserves the same service on the same condition applied to the rest of its clientele

    Reality is business practice discrimination all the time, sometimes in an extremely heavy-handed way.

    A super-model bar in Manhattan works almost on a Third Reich basis with their admission policy. Access to credit seems highly discriminatory too (and some people claim the subprime debacle was at least partially influenced by an attempt to operate the mortgage market in a PC way).

    Truth to be told i don’t have a well defined opinion about this but it seems to me the business world is rife with contradictions when it comes to discrimination policies

  • Jieun K

    YB, I see what you mean.

    Reality is business practice discrimination all the time, sometimes in an extremely heavy-handed way.

    Yep, they may, but they should, if at all, discriminate equally. If you want to limit your service to eligible individuals, fine. But make sure to apply the same conditions to all prospective customers.

    The principle of equality still prevails.

  • hamel

    I am amazed by how many libertarians and semi-libertarians this blog seems to attract. Is it Korea or the author, I wonder?

    Robert, I wonder if there are any black libertarians on this issue in America. I said before and I say it again because I am seriously curious (and curiously serious).

    And to those who say that the business owner has the right in his private business to choose his clientele, I raise this objection: that would be fine, if the business existed in a vacuum, or on an island by itself. Since it is situated in a community, however, it benefits from certain common wealth, such as the road network, electricity, running water (duh) and so on and so forth, so it cannot act in this way with impunity.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    I don’t know, Hamel. There’s a black libertarian who comments here, so you should ask him.

    It’s not very informative, but here’s the National Black Republican Association discussing Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

    http://www.nbra.info/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#Senator_Barry_Goldwater_Was_A_Libertarian__Not_A_Racist

  • SomeguyinKorea

    #78,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Korean Supreme Court has defined “citizen” as including residents in some cases.

  • YangachiBastardo

    And to those who say that the business owner has the right in his private business to choose his clientele, I raise this objection: that would be fine, if the business existed in a vacuum, or on an island by itself. Since it is situated in a community, however, it benefits from certain common wealth, such as the road network, electricity, running water (duh) and so on and so forth, so it cannot act in this way with impunity

    It pays taxes for that

  • YangachiBastardo

    My impression is that generally speaking the more frivolous the product, service, employment opportunity offered, the higher the level of more or less overt discrimination the business offering it can get away with, with the caveat of being not too blatant about the implications of such policies for racial/social minorities.

    So an exclusive club can sistematically deny access to the not-superskinny, the old, the blue collar etc. even if such specimens are by normal standards willing to pay, well behaved and presentable. A private school employing the same principles would be considered outrageous.

    One interesting exception is credit, which serves a vital and dangerous function in the economy: according to some research credit for minorities seems to be systematically scarcer and more expensive. This is the product of (maybe unconscious) racial discrimination ? It is a legitimate business practice as minorities tend to have lower economic stability and are thus higher risk clients ? A mix of the 2 ? Who knows…

    Going back to our case i do not think going to a sauna is a basic human right, she’s free to take her business somewhere else.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I am amazed by how many libertarians and semi-libertarians this blog seems to attract. Is it Korea or the author, I wonder?

    If you’re inclined to support a free-enterprise, low tax model for the economy, and at the same time you’re relatively conservative on social issues, Asian societies can appear fairly attractive. Something tells me the Swedish blogosphere attract quite a few libs (and probably angry pro-free market locals, i met quite a few actually)

  • Sonagi

    Yangachi #95 makes a valid point about how certain businesses such as exclusive nightclubs are allowed to discriminate on the basis of age and looks, but other businesses are not. Laws have the draw the line somewhere. Going to a sauna is not a basic human right. Neither is getting one’s hair colored in a salon, buying pet food, or obtaining so many other goods and services. The problem underlying your libertarian attitude towards discrimination against customers is that if practiced on a wide scale, certain groups may find themselves marginalized, which creates or exacerbates social and economic divisions. If there are more prejudiced people among the majority population than there are members of a minority, then it makes economic sense to refuse to do business with the minority group, but it does not make social sense. Nowhere is this idea illustrated more clearly than in the US, where Civil Rights demonstrators confronted police dogs and fire hoses to bring down Jim Crow. I live in a state where as recently as 40 years ago, black children attended separate and unequal schools. Some of my colleagues have shared with me their experiences of growing up in the Jim Crow South. Fast forward to 2011 and there is no apparent color divide in our local schools. Black and white children socialize freely with no tokenism whatsoever. Relations are “seamless” in the words of a local high school grad who went back to her alma mater to substitute teach.

    Suppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act had limited its scope to public tax-funded institutions and not regulated private businesses in any way. What would my city and others look like today? It’s not like everyone suddenly went color-blind when the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation. Across the South there was Massive Resistance. Public schools were closed, and those who could afford it sent their children to private schools, which refused to admit black children, of course.

    So you believe in freedom of association, full stop. I believe removing barriers to social integration is more important than freedom of association. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    This is another blast from the past. I remember the Great Debate of 1996 or 1997 when the Nashville Club in Itaewon had the “no Koreans” sign.

    So here’s my nightmare: I own a failing chicken shack in Ward 8 of southeast, Washington, D.C., I happen to be on the phone with Rev. Jesse Jackson when a customer in a KKK outfit enters the premises. She politely requests fried chicken set #3 and then offers to buy my takeout above the market price. Should I be required to start either transaction, would I be violating her rights in either case–and do I hang up on Jesse J because he would tell me “Don’t sell out da neighborhood, to the lady wearin’ a hood. Yes, civil rights ax of ‘sixty-fo, but to the klan, no mo, no mo.”

  • Arghaeri

    Going to a sauna is not a basic human right.

    Yangachi, you’re missing the point, no one is suggesting that going to the sauna is a basic human right, if there was no sauna in Busan there would be no issue with forcing the government to provide them. We are talking about the right not to be admttance to a public businees, whilst others of another race are freely admitted solely on the ground of being the wrong color.

  • Arghaeri

    “not to be denied admittance”

    i.e the right to be treated equally as provided in. the constitution.

  • Arghaeri

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Korean Supreme Court has defined “citizen” as including residents in some cases.

    I can’t correct you as I simply don’t know, but sounds a quite likely possibilty particularly for say permanent residents such as you and i.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Sonagi #97, the problem with the argument as you presented it is:
    a) government sics dogs and turns on fire hoses against civil rights advocates
    b) government schools mandate segregation
    therefore c) private businesses and private individuals acting on their own need to be controlled.

    The problem for blacks in the economy was not that they were an economic minority living within a racist population. The problem is that they were a political minority living within a racist population with various levels of government abusing their power against citizens to block people ready to engage in voluntary agreements (marriage, business, trade).

    At a Cato Institute event a few years ago, I addressed the question why Jim Crow survived so long. I argued that Jim Crow could not have survived in a system based on capitalism without the kind of government control you mentioned. Private companies fought Jim Crow when the laws were proposed, they fought the laws when they were in place, and they fought to get them taken off the books. Drivers on public transportation were arrested when they refused to force blacks to the back of the bus, companies were prosecuted and attacked by the government to keep Jim Crow in place, individuals were fined and arrested when they tried to evade laws blocking their voluntary exchanges and relationships.
    http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4495
    (my remarks start after 22 minutes, my comments about the point above start after 34 minutes)

    These occasional cases about someone getting denied admittance alarms fair-minded and caring people, but the real problem in America was with people using government power to dominate citizens.

  • Charles Tilly

    I argued that Jim Crow could not have survived in a system based on capitalism without the kind of government control you mentioned.

    Perfect example of the sort of pie-the-sky, utopian fantasies that is the barely concealed, dirty little secret of libertarian ideology.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Charles #103, thanks for that response, as brief and off-the-point it was. I like what Frederick Douglass, who I guess you may have considered to be a libertarian ideologist, said as early as 1849 in response to the question: “What shall we do with the Negro?” His answer? Leave blacks alone.
    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/douglas.htm

    * * *

    For example, laws against interracial marriage were passed and enforced by government (even after 1967 Loving, some governments kept those laws on the books). Even though there was a mostly racist population, those laws would not have been necessary if there had been no one white or black who wanted to get married. That’s not about libertarianism, that’s about government and office holders abusing their power.

    Similarly, it was government domination–especially racists using that power–blocking voluntary exchanges that was the big problem for blacks. For years, I hated Greyhound bus after I heard about them discriminating against blacks. Then I later read the rest of the story about Greyhound bus drivers getting arrested when they did not force blacks to the back of the bus and that Greyhound had fought Jim Crow laws. So who was the problem then, Greyhound for obeying the law or government for imposing the law? For me, the problem was the government, not Greyhound.

  • Charles Tilly

    …[T]hanks for that response, as brief and off-the-point it was.

    Your welcome, Casey. But it wasn’t. See John Holbo.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Charles #105, that writer you linked sets up his argument as a strawman with the added bonus of a “do you still beat your wife” tag question to finish with a flourish!

    By the way, last year I encountered a “No! foreigner, please!” sign at a pc room. I’m still confused by the grammar, if the cops had been called then I would have blamed them for not having a foreigner proof their sign. I snapped a photo of the sign and also mentioned my Nashville Club experience from many years ago.
    http://tinyurl.com/3szfqdg

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    About foreigners making the water dirty, it is incredible the kinds of stereotypes and jokes that people make about foreigners (sometimes projecting one case to an entire country). After the recent discussion about the empty seat on subways, I talked with some Koreans about it, a highly educated Korean woman who has traveled abroad immediately answered, “That’s because Koreans think foreigners smell bad.” She insisted that she wasn’t trying to insult anyone, that’s just the kind of thing Koreans will say to each other. Which foreigners smell bad, I wanted to know. Southeast Asians mainly, but that other foreigners also smell bad to Koreans.

    Americans routinely joke about Europeans smelling bad. I’m sure various Europeans have their own list of comments about Americans. Black people in America say that white people smell bad and white people apparently say the same about blacks. I remember hearing a story by a black person saying that after swimming pools were integrated in his town decades ago that he jumped in and all of the white people jumped out. Even American blacks and Africans make such comments about each other smelling bad. People talk about the smell of Korean food, Chinese people, Mexicans, etc., etc., etc.

    Of course, some people say, “some (or one or more) of those things are true!” And I guess sometimes they are. Coming back from Malaysia a few days ago, there was an African-looking gentleman on the shuttle train from the plane who smelled really bad. He was the only one who didn’t seem bothered–and his buddy with him also seemed fine with it or perhaps had gotten used to it.

  • hamel

    nayacasey #102 (after the incomprehensible #98):

    Thanks for your response. I actually found myself agreeing with Charles Tilly for the second time this week. I didn’t find his response off-the-point at all, but instead succinct and to-the-pont. I actually marvel at the divorce from reality that typefies much ideology (both libertarian and socialist, to be fair). As a dabbler in social sciences, I would love to see an island somewhere turned into a pure libertarian state, run according to Cato Institute Principles, populated by adult libertarians only, and just let it run its course. Truly, as an experiment, that would be fascinating. And just imagine all the gambling revenue to be raise “will the island be run into the ground within 5 years?” etc.

    These occasional cases about someone getting denied admittance alarms fair-minded and caring people, but the real problem in America was with people using government power to dominate citizens.

    This is another thing that amazes me about libertarians – the ease with which you divorce the state from the people it is set up to govern. I pointed this out before about Robert, and now you are doing it too. It is as if you see the state as existing in a vacuum, separate from the people, rather than made up of those very same people. Those Jim Crow laws did not exist in spite of free market capitalists who wanted the opposite, Casey, but because of enough of those free market capitalists wanting just such laws. How can you not see that?

  • hamel

    YangachiBastardo:

    And to those who say that the business owner has the right in his private business to choose his clientele, I raise this objection: that would be fine, if the business existed in a vacuum, or on an island by itself. Since it is situated in a community, however, it benefits from certain common wealth, such as the road network, electricity, running water (duh) and so on and so forth, so it cannot act in this way with impunity

    It pays taxes for that

    Thank you for making my point for me! Yes, a business pays taxes to the government for such services, so it is not unusual to expect it to have the same government restricting some of its freedoms in return for those services! :)

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    This is another thing that amazes me about libertarians – the ease with which you divorce the state from the people it is set up to govern. I pointed this out before about Robert, and now you are doing it too. It is as if you see the state as existing in a vacuum, separate from the people, rather than made up of those very same people. Those Jim Crow laws did not exist in spite of free market capitalists who wanted the opposite, Casey, but because of enough of those free market capitalists wanting just such laws. How can you not see that?

    Did Casey divorce the state from the people? In fact, it seems he argued quite the opposite.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Hamel #108, let me make #98 easier for you! What’s your argument for compelling me as a private business owner or citizen to associate or do business with a member of the KKK (or any other group or nationality) if I choose not to do so?

  • hamel

    NayaCasey #111: hi! let ME make it easier for YOU:

    I don’t really a problem, generally speaking, with a business refusing to serve a person for reasons that are within the control of that person.

    What I have a problem with is is a business that refuses service, or gives second-class service, to a person for a reason that is beyond the control of that person.

    Let me break it down for you a little further:
    KKK: a matter of choice
    Race: not a matter of choice.

    Can you see the diference?

    (When they find the gene that makes being a Klanist beyond the control of that fellow, I will revise me opinion.)

  • hamel

    Robert #110

    Did Casey divorce the state from the people?

    Yes, Sir, he did. And so did you above (and in your entire worldview).

    In fact, it seems he argued quite the opposite.

    No, Sir, he didn’t.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Let me break it down for you a little further:
    KKK: a matter of choice
    Race: not a matter of choice.

    Can you see the diference?

    So, I take it refusal of service based on religion, political party affiliation, etc. is OK then?

    PS: Please explain how we’re divorcing the state from society.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I don’t really a problem, generally speaking, with a business refusing to serve a person for reasons that are within the control of that person.

    What I have a problem with is is a business that refuses service, or gives second-class service, to a person for a reason that is beyond the control of that person

    Hamel in general i tend to agree with your distinction, there is nonetheless a grey area:

    How about refusing services to the overweight ? Sometimes it’s not really their fault (i.e. people with tyroid problems)

    How about some small business lending division of a credit institution refusing to extend credit (or charging punitive interest) to say a single mother, abandoned by the father of her child, cos she’s considered a high risk client.

    She may be some perfectly capable and ethical business woman but still she would be discriminated cos some statistical model lump her in an avoid at all cost group, to which she didn’t choose to belong.

  • wiessej

    Anyone who discriminates based on gender, race, citizenship is an IDIOT. Any society that tolerates it should not wonder why other countries in the WEST look down on them as still and probably always WILL be – developing. Welcome to the 21st century, Korea….are you ready to join it?

  • hamel

    Robert #114:

    So, I take it

    Yes, you take it.

    refusal of service based on religion, political party affiliation, etc. is OK then?

    In some senses, yes. Take the example of a private pool owner. The government tells him to close the pool on certain days to the general public at the request of the local Muslim community so that women can swim without men being present. I think that’s just wrong.

    PS: Please explain how we’re divorcing the state from society.

    What, again?

  • YangachiBastardo

    # @ 107

    Don’t we actually do smell if not bad at least funny to other groups, because of genetics and food habits ?

  • YangachiBastardo

    Hamel: how about a private pool owner refusing entry to muslims tout-court cos well he/she doesn’t like them ?

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    wiessej #116, I agree with the first statement, people who discriminate for such reasons are idiots. I don’t take it to the next step, however, (as so many people do!), to say that government should punish people for being idiots doing things we don’t like.

    Hamel #112 has a distinction about when it is okay to discriminate, but regardless of how good or bad his distinction is, that’s not good enough reason for the government to impose that view on me or others who disagree. If we engage in fraud, abuse or threaten the health or safety of others, sure, the government should be involved, but not because of distinctions we come up with to justify more government control over the nonviolent actions of citizens.

    Now, what would the people who disagree with me say should be the appropriate punishment for the sauna owner if he or she remains in the 20th century by continuing to discriminate?

  • hamel

    Yangachi: how does he know they are muslims? Is there a questionnaire upon entry?

  • hamel

    Casey:

    At a Cato Institute event a few years ago, I addressed the question why Jim Crow survived so long. I argued that Jim Crow could not have survived in a system based on capitalism without the kind of government control you mentioned. Private companies fought Jim Crow when the laws were proposed, they fought the laws when they were in place, and they fought to get them taken off the books.

    Those Jim Crow laws did not exist in spite of free market capitalists who wanted the opposite, Casey, but because enough of those free market capitalists wanted precisely those laws. Or do you disagree?

  • YangachiBastardo

    If there are more prejudiced people among the majority population than there are members of a minority, then it makes economic sense to refuse to do business with the minority group

    This goes straight to the point, i don’t know of many businesses nowadays who can afford to turn customers down

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    This is for hamel in particular, but the rest of y’all can listen up, too!

    One thing about libertarians, Libertarianism, libertarianism, many of you who paint them with such a broad brush may not be aware is that there is a civil war going on! There are practical libertarians, social libertarians, conservative libertarians, political libertarians, anarcho-libertarians, etc. I’ve been at libertarian gatherings where they attack each other more ferociously than you could imagine, make eloquent points in attacking each other because they know each other quite well, many of them refuse to speak to one another with some grudges going back decades among some of the leading libertarians. Truly amazing.

    The Cato Institute is considered to be a sellout by many libertarians for being too practical and not ideological enough. When I was there some of the angriest, longest and probing responses I got was from libertarians. Some libertarians want to create a Free State Project to take over a state, some think that is lunacy. So it is amusing to read the broad brush non-libertarians paint libertarians on the Internet and in discussions, as presented most recently by hamel.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    hamel #122, if there were “enough” of those alleged free market capitalists who wanted Jim Crow laws, could you help me out by naming some of them by name?

    Even if you don’t come up with names, thanks, you have inspired me for a future research project on this!

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Those Jim Crow laws did not exist in spite of free market capitalists who wanted the opposite, Casey, but because enough of those free market capitalists wanted precisely those laws.

    all the more reason to prevent govt from legislating and enforcing some majority/minority favored set of social mores

  • hamel

    Sperwer: good luck with preventing that, because that is what people do. And guess who makes governments and states?

  • hamel

    nayaCasey:

    One thing about libertarians, Libertarianism, libertarianism, many of you who paint them with such a broad brush may not be aware is that there is a civil war going on! [...] So it is amusing to read the broad brush non-libertarians paint libertarians on the Internet and in discussions, as presented most recently by hamel.

    I wonder if non-communists painting all communists with the same brush is equally amusing? If so, then I should be grateful for being able to make both extremes laugh! ;)

    (Seriously, I don’t consider the fact that there are divisions among libertarians and my broad-brush criticism of libertarians as if they were one group is necessarily mutually exlusive; it is merely a heuristic rule of thumb.)

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    And guess who makes governments and states?

    Sperwer—the correct answer to that question is “people.” I think Hamel is operating under the impression that libertarians are somehow unaware of that fact.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @127. Well, it seems to me it’s worth the effort – it’s fundamentally what the founders had in mind for the US. Certainly more realistic than the truly utopian notion that all we need to aim for is the enforcement of the “right” set of mores. Consider how well that has worked out in history, e. g ., 조선 시대

  • http://forum.koreansentry.com Koreansentry

    I was denied entry to Aussie bar in 2009 because bar was exclusively for rednecks. I didn’t filed petition with human rights council, I just never set my foot at their door. This will be waste of time for her and Koreans in Korea won’t be so generous to these foreigners anymore.

  • Sonagi

    Private companies fought Jim Crow when the laws were proposed, they fought the laws when they were in place, and they fought to get them taken off the books. Drivers on public transportation were arrested when they refused to force blacks to the back of the bus, companies were prosecuted and attacked by the government to keep Jim Crow in place, individuals were fined and arrested when they tried to evade laws blocking their voluntary exchanges and relationships.

    Do you have documentation of when and where these acts of resistance occurred? I would be very interested to learn details about how southern whites resisted Jim Crow.

  • Sonagi

    all the more reason to prevent govt from legislating and enforcing some majority/minority favored set of social mores

    It’s more than social mores. It’s a matter of public safety. For some strange reason, marginalized groups tend to harbor anger that sometimes erupts in public violence. Think Watts and Detroit.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    It’s more than social mores. It’s a matter of public safety. For some strange reason, marginalized groups tend to harbor anger that sometimes erupts in public violence.

    Yes, pandering to the mob has been a tried and true strategy of tyrants since, oh, the time of ancient Greece, at least.

  • hamel

    Do you have documentation of when and where these acts of resistance occurred? I would be very interested to learn details about how southern whites resisted Jim Crow.

    You and me both, Sonagi.

    I am intrigued by this notion of racial laws that were maintained by the State (boo! hiss!), all while the good citizens of the South were against them!

  • YangachiBastardo

    I think the Casey guy can defend himself easily but in all fairness he said it was the business community who didn’t want Jim Crow not the general populace.

    Businesses often take an ambigous stance toward discrimination: ideally they want to sell to anybody who would buy, at the same time they try not to piss off excessively the not-so-silent majority of their clientele, a typical exemple would be Saudi Arabia: i’m sure all the Western franchises who set up shop in the country would prefer from a mere business point of view a more relaxed attitude toward gender separation, still they have to adapt to the social reality of an important market.

  • Sonagi

    Yes, pandering to the mob has been a tried and true strategy of tyrants since, oh, the time of ancient Greece, at least.

    Addressing longstanding grievances is pandering. Well, okay then.

    Hamel,

    Our fourth grade Virginia Studies end-of-year simulation test includes an item with the ‘correct’ response “Some slaves supported the South because they thought they would be better off.” I wonder what historical documents support this statement deemed so significant it appears as a test item. A brand new VS textbook purchased by our district and many others had to be junked because of a few controversial statements presented as facts but lacking credible documentation. See more here if you’re interested.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    It depends on what “grievances”, specifically, are in issue. And reacting to civil disorder is not responding to grievances; it’s an exercise in closing the barn door after Elvis has left – ie an inherently flawed action in the wake of political failure.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    While we are playing pin the tail on the donkey, I’d like Hamel to point out that thing he keeps referring to as The People. For a Dutchman he seems to have a peculiar attachment to Rousseau.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Would it be “incorrect” for a korean textbook to contain a statement to the effect that significant numbers of koreans supported the japanese colonial regime.

  • hamel

    I can’t have an attachment to that which I neither know nor understand. My ideas are my own.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    I am intrigued by this notion of racial laws that were maintained by the State (boo! hiss!), all while the good citizens of the South were against them!

    As YB points out, that’s not what Casey was arguing. Not quite sure what Casey wrote that would make Hamel think he was.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Seems. You are right, though, your notion pales in comparison to R’s comprehensively, albeit wrongly, conceived ideas on the subject. ;)). You are still on the hook, though.

  • Charles Tilly

    I think the Casey guy can defend himself easily but in all fairness he said it was the business community who didn’t want Jim Crow not the general populace.

    Even if the entire business community of the South didn’t want state sanctioned Jim Crow, it still doesn’t show a freer, more unregulated capitalism and the attending unshackling of firms to run their affairs as they please would’ve brought an end to segregation.

    When you look at the social and political consequences that followed the 1964 Civil Rights act (massive resistance, white flight, the rise of the Republican party in the South), it’s pretty clear that Jim Crow as an institution was something that became entrenched and resilient outside and independent of some ukase handed down from Southern state capitals. In other words, this was an institution that was reconciled with, accepted, and endorsed by average citizens of the South, outside of what say the likes of Sam Walton would’ve have wanted. Jim Crow survived for as long as it did because of far more deeper and enduring habits and thoughts. This goes back to the importance of seeing Jim Crow as a legal and social institution as mentioned in the John Holbo link in comment #105.

  • hamel

    Not quite sure what Casey wrote that would make Hamel think he was.

    Crikey, Robert. Don’t be obtuse! If you think I misinterpreted the guy, either intentionally or not, then say so. Don’t be obtuse!

  • Arghaeri

    Didn’t he write that it couldn’t have happened in a capitalist society because business wouldn’t allow it, as if business would be the ones to vote on who formed government and would prevent such jim crow laws. Well a) in what capatlist society has the right to vote beenremoved ftom individuals and b) i think we can see the kind of utopia that businesses running everything would bring frim the recent banking crises. i.e. businesess get richer and everyone else ends up on minimum wage with no healthcare.

  • hamel

    Seems. You are right, though, your notion pales in comparison to R’s comprehensively, albeit wrongly, conceived ideas on the subject. ). You are still on the hook, though.

    [shrug] I neither know nor care what R wrote or conceived. And I am not on the hook for anything.

    What I said in comment #127 is not ideology. It is factual. I am saying this is simply what happens. People set up governments and governments interfere (rightly or wrongly) with our activities.

    Let’s say for argument’s sake that some form of Libertarianism is the best, fairest, most moral and ethical form of social organization that any man has ever conceived (you know that I don’t believe it is) – human behavior seems to suggest that this is not something that will actually come to pass. Except, I hope, on an island somewhere where it can be observed and studied, as mentioned in my sociological fantasy above.

    Anyway, all this is getting far from where we started. Here are the facts as I see them. A Korean woman of Uzbeki origin was denied access to a public bathhouse. She had no recourse to law because there is, as yet, no law against discrimination based on race. In the future, such a law will probably be passed in Korea. I am comfortable with that, at least in part because, as a citizen of Korea, she pays taxes, some of which is spent on infrastructure, SOC, etc, that said public bathhouse enjoys. I am not saying that all government interference in our activities is a good thing. What I am saying is that it is likely in this case, and I am okay with that.

    Furthermore, I am surprised at people who say that, looking at the American situation, a Civil Rights law such as the one passed in 1964 was the incorrect thing to do.

  • Sonagi

    It depends on what “grievances”, specifically, are in issue. And reacting to civil disorder is not responding to grievances; it’s an exercise in closing the barn door after Elvis has left – ie an inherently flawed action in the wake of political failure.

    I’d consider two centuries of slavery followed by a century of segregation and organized repression to constitute legitimate grievances, but not everyone may agree. Laws against discrimination like the 1964 Civil Rights Act seek to correct past political failures.

    Would it be “incorrect” for a korean textbook to contain a statement to the effect that significant numbers of koreans supported the japanese colonial regime.

    As someone who has studied, analyzed, and evaluated history extensively, I believe you understand that each statement stands on its own merits. The validity of statements about blacks in the South in VS textbooks has no bearing on the validity of statements about the Japanese colonial regime in a Korean textbook.

    Let’s go back and look at Casey’s original statement that is generating some discussion:

    “Private companies fought Jim Crow when the laws were proposed, they fought the laws when they were in place, and they fought to get them taken off the books. Drivers on public transportation were arrested when they refused to force blacks to the back of the bus, companies were prosecuted and attacked by the government to keep Jim Crow in place, individuals were fined and arrested when they tried to evade laws blocking their voluntary exchanges and relationships.”

    Nowhere does he specify the race and citizenship of these companies, drivers, and individuals although one would infer that the above examples ought to refer to white citizens since black resistance obviously wouldn’t disprove white business support for Jim Crow.

    And Casey, let me fix your summary of my arguments:

    Sonagi #97, the problem with the argument as you presented it is:
    a) government sics dogs and turns on fire hoses against civil rights advocates
    b) government schools mandate segregation
    AND c) private businesses and private individuals acting on their own to discriminate need to be controlled.

    Black Americans were discriminated in the North and the South against long before Jim Crow laws were passed as a response to the abolition of slavery.

  • Sonagi

    Even though there was a mostly racist population, those laws would not have been necessary if there had been no one white or black who wanted to get married.

    Casey is correct that when laws are passed to restrict behavior, we can infer that someone somewhere was or is engaging in that restricted behavior. What we cannot infer is numbers. Some laws are passed in response to an exaggerated fear of a situation that is small in scope and/or non-threatening. Laws specifically banning recognition of gay marriage are an example of this.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @148

    Just to be clear, to the extent that the 1964 Civil Rights Act implemented the earlier constitutional provisions regarding the Citizenship of all natural born Americans and their entitlement as citizens to equal political rights, I have no objection to it, including esp to the provisions of and court decisions regarding its proscriptions of the hijacking of the institutions and the coercive powers of the state by various groups, including Southern racists, to deprive other citizens of those rights.

    And my remark about korea was just meant to show up with another example the silliness of the presumption behind your contemptuous dismissal of the possibility of the truth of the statement concerning slave beliefs to which you objected. (Although an American republican, I’m the descendant of Tory loyalists who won their battle – Oriskaney – but lost the war and their freehold and ended up in Canada.)

  • Charles Tilly

    Here’s a very interesting and highly relevant paper by Gavin Wright, an economic historian out at Stanford University. The paper-Southern Business and Public Accommodations: An Economic-Historical Paradox (2008)-sheds some much needed light on the role of Southern business vis-a-vis the question of segregation. I apologize in advance for such lengthy quotes, but I think it’s best to let the paper speak for itself. Here goes:

    The starting point for understanding conflict over public accommodations is the proposition that racial segregation was fundamentally a calculated business policy by profit-seeking firms. Segregation in such facilities as lunch counters, restaurants, and hotels was rarely required by law, and when statutes or municipal ordinances did exist, enforcement was generally at the discretion of proprietors. Indeed, as of the 1960s many municipal segregation laws had been repealed, since by that time federal courts firmly supported the principle that state-enforced racial discrimination was unconstitutional. The strongest legal defense of segregation in the 1960s was the argument that private establishments had the right to determine their own clientele.

    Nor for the most part were segregated restaurants and hotels intimidated by threats of violence or retaliation if they were to serve black customers. To be sure, issues could become politicized as the sit-in movement persisted, and at that stage business efforts at compromise were sometimes stymied by politics. During the 1961-62 boycott of white stores in Albany, Georgia, for example, when several businessmen expressed a willingness to negotiate with the boycotters, their reward was to be censured by a majority of the city commission. But these were tactical moves during moments of political crisis. In most times and places during the five-year struggle, from the sit-in at Greensboro, North Carolina in February 1960 to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in July 1964, firms and business groups were free to make their own decisions on race. Overwhelmingly, they chose segregation. Where segregation was practiced, there seem to be virtually no examples of voluntary desegregation initiated by business in the absence of economic pressures such as sit-ins or boycotts.

    pp. 4-5

    And here’s Professor Wright on the role of federal action:

    Coordination Problems: From Quasi-Voluntary to Federal Legislation

    These apparent business success stories inspired an approach under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to avoid centralized federal intervention by promoting and mediating voluntary local settlements. Advisors such as Robert Rankin and Benjamin Muse of the Southern Regional Council maintained extensive business contacts in the South, and favored an appeal to enlightened self-interest. Their “running tallies of progress” bolstered the case against a comprehensive federal policy (Chappell, Inside Agitators, pp. 166, 197-200).

    As seen by business moderates, the resurgence of prosperity in cities that reached settlements on public accommodations served both as a model for emulation and as a form of business competition relative to cities in the deep South, while the 1963 breakdown of law and order in Birmingham vividly demonstrated the dangers of failure to compromise. But to suggest that from 1963 onward, the process of desegregation was driven by the enlightened self-interest of national chains and southern business elites, would be to drastically oversimplify the historical record. As the political leadership in Washington learned, voluntary desegregation agreements could only go so far, in the absence of mechanisms to enforce compliance, and in the presence (current or anticipated) of competition for white customers from still-segregated establishments.

    Although the administration heard repeatedly from southern businessmen that voluntary agreements were much preferred over coercive legal measures, by the summer of 1963 it had become evident that the voluntary approach was sputtering to a standstill, well short of full desegregation […] By November, Louis Oberdorfer’s memo to the Attorney General acknowledged: “Reports of progress in desegregation of privately owned public facilities show virtually no breakthroughs since the middle of October. We are receiving only occasional status reports from businessmen and our monthly reports from United States Attorneys show very little change is now taking place.”

    Worse yet, partial desegregation often seemed only to make things worse. A followup memo noted the “curious patchwork pattern” that had emerged from the voluntary process, in which most lunch counters were integrated, but most restaurants were not. In a number of towns, four-wall theaters were desegregated but drive-ins were not. The unevenness of the outcomes generated strong feelings of inequity on the part of businesses and threatened to unravel existing agreements. Numerous reports appeared in late 1963 and early 1964 of firms that had reinstituted segregation after initially signing to a quasi-voluntary agreement. Perhaps worst of all from the administration’s perspective, segregation holdouts perpetuated the sense of grievance on the part of blacks, and therefore failed to end demonstrations in southern cities. Awareness of the uneven and uncertain record of the voluntary approach helps to account for Awareness of the uneven and uncertain record of the voluntary approach helps to account for the rapid, late-breaking shift in Washington towards a more comprehensive public accommodations law. As late as 1963, the Kennedy administration favored a moderate, limited approach, applied only to interstate commerce in a strict sense. By the end of that year, however, Civil Rights Division head Burke Marshall had concluded that “[Southern] whites do not have the sense or courage to take sufficient steps to give the local negroes enough gains to enable them to oppose further demonstrations,” predicting: “The situation will get worse again” (quoted in Chappell, Inside Agitators, p. 204).

    pp. 12-14

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    What I said in comment #127 is not ideology. It is factual. I am saying this is simply what happens. People set up governments and governments interfere (rightly or wrongly) with our activities

    I thought it might have been just rather simple-minded, and was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I guess I was right in my original assumption.

    Granted that in the case at hand, the suggested remedy seems relatively innocuous, the problem is where do you draw the line beyond which the power of the govt may not be used to “protect” the interests of one person/group by curtailing the freedoms of another. Because of the unique power of the state, i favor limiting it’s power to interfere with the freedom of some individuals for the benefit of others to those situations involving the political rights of the latter and the transparency and integrity of the political process itself. Otherwise, the state is liable to become little more than the instrument thru which today’s majority or clever minority oppresses everone else in the name of the ideology of the moment.

  • Sonagi

    And my remark about korea was just meant to show up with another example the silliness of the presumption behind your contemptuous dismissal of the possibility of the truth of the statement concerning slave beliefs to which you objected.

    I contemptuously dismissed a dubious, revisionist claim with no apparent historical support.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    All history that is worthy of the name is revisionist.

  • Sonagi

    But not all revisionist ‘history’ is worthy of the name.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    well, i guess we have to wait on what lartigue has to say, because i at least am not conversant with the relevant sources.

  • Sonagi

    Similarly, it was government domination–especially racists using that power–blocking voluntary exchanges that was the big problem for blacks.

    Sharecropping was a voluntary exchange wasn’t it, so I guess this private capitalist arrangement wasn’t a problem for blacks.

  • Sonagi

    All online links relating to Casey’s claims lead to this Thomas Sowell piece challenging Rosa Parks’ legacy, which was circulated on conservative and libertarian forums like Free Republic . Apparently no one bothered to check out this ‘historical fact’ stated by Sowell,

    Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    which is easily proven false with a little searching. In Right to Ride: streetcar boycotts and African-American citizenship in the era of Plessy V. Ferguson, pages 52-3 describe how New Orleans streetcar companies first banned all African-American passengers, both slave and free, from riding at all, and then added segregated star cars in response to protests by blacks and how railroad charters segregated or excluded black passengers. This Railroad Museum of PA webpage details defacto segregation on various forms of transportation in the North and South.

    That some transportation companies voluntarily discriminated against black passengers does not mean that all did or wanted to although these examples do clarify the chicken-and-egg relationship between business practices and Jim Crow. I’m open to seeing documentation of (white?) business owners’ resistance to Jim Crow mentioned in way back in comment #102.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    A good place to start is with Jennifer Roback’s 1986 paper, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars.”

    Here is a excerpt.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html
    The Market Resists Discrimination

    The resistance of southern streetcar companies to ordinances requiring them to segregate black passengers vividly illustrates how the market motivates businesses to avoid unfair discrimination. Before the segregation laws were enacted, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not black people. Nonsmokers of either race were free to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the rear of the car or to the outside platform. The revenue gains from pleased nonsmokers apparently outweighed any losses from disgruntled smokers.

    Streetcar companies refused, however, to discriminate against black people because separate cars would have reduced their profits. They resisted even after the passage of turn-of-the-century laws requiring the segregation of black people. One railroad manager complained that racial discrimination increased costs because it required the company to “haul around a good deal of empty space that is assigned to the colored people and not available to both races.” Racial discrimination also upset some paying customers. Black customers boycotted the streetcar lines and formed competing hack (horsedrawn carriage) companies, and many white customers refused to move to the white section.

    In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies responded by refusing to enforce segregation laws for as long as fifteen years after their passage. The Memphis Street Railway “contested bitterly,” and the Houston Electric Railway petitioned the Houston City Council for repeal. A black attorney leading a court battle against the laws provided an ironic measure of the strength of the streetcar companies’ resistance by publicly denying that his group “was in cahoots with the railroad lines in Jacksonville.” As pressure from the government grew, however, the cost of defiance began to outweigh the market penalty on profits. One by one, the streetcar companies succumbed, and the United States stumbled further into the infamous morass of racial segregation.

    From Jennifer Roback, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars.” Journal of Economic History 56, no. 4 (December 1986): 893–917.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    In what key is Duelling Citations best played?

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Sperwer #160, e-yup! As I said before (citing Nathan Glazer), people looking back into history can find just about anything they want. In the end, on this issue like so many others, it depends on our vision of the role of government and who should decide (as Alan Dershowitz likes to say, “who decides who decides?”).

    By the way, here’s a reminder of the way government’s power was abused in the U.S. (by citizens, politicians, racists, the general populace, etc.) to oppress citizens who didn’t comply with the norms of the day.
    http://www.scbar.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Isf2AelGAhI%3D&tabid=857

  • iwshim

    I think it was a bad thing to do.

    And I find hamel’s argument

    “A Korean woman of Uzbeki origin was denied access to a public bathhouse. She had no recourse to law because there is, as yet, no law against discrimination based on race. In the future, such a law will probably be passed in Korea. I am comfortable with that, at least in part because, as a citizen of Korea, she pays taxes, some of which is spent on infrastructure, SOC, etc, that said public bathhouse enjoys.”

    most pursusive

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    iwshim #162, I guess that most of the people here would agree with you that it was a bad or even stupid thing to do.

    But, taking it to the next step:

    What should be done legally to the sauna owner for:

    1) rejecting the woman?
    2) continuing to reject the woman or others like her?

  • Arghaeri

    obligate them tk do so or lose their business license

  • iwshim

    obligate them tk do so or lose their business license

  • iMe

    wiessej October 16, 2011 at 6:35 pm
    “Anyone who discriminates based on gender, race, citizenship is an IDIOT. Any society that tolerates it should not wonder why other countries in the WEST look down on them as still and probably always WILL be – developing. Welcome to the 21st century, Korea….are you ready to join it?”

    Right. Because the Western model is SO superior and all Asian and non-Western societies alike should look the hell up to Europe and America! Even as Europe and America have bankrupted the world and suffer from all sorts of social ills. Come on, Korea. Join us! Imagine how wonderful Korea would be if Seoul was more like Cleveland! You’re missing out!

  • Sonagi

    people looking back into history can find just about anything they want.

    Longtime political columnist Thomas Sowell’s false statement is a good example of this.

    Thank you for the link with references to specific cities. In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, Jacksonville, and Memphis, private streetcar companies did indeed resist segregation for economic reasons while streetcar companies in New Orleans, Richmond, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, , and the Pullman Railroad operated profitably by choosing to segregate passengers. In NYC and San Francisco, horsecars were segregated until lawsuits by black passengers compelled a judge to deny these businesses the freedom of association and banned segregation. I don’t know how many city, state, and regional transportation systems Jennifer Roback surveyed – people looking back into history can find just about anything they want - to conclude that “most” streetcar companies did not segregate whites and blacks, but a comprehensive data collection would probably show a patchwork of company policies and actual practices, individual employee discrimination against passengers tolerated and not tolerated by companies, and social customs or unwritten rules.

  • cm

    A protest forming to petition and pressure the Korean government to pass the anti discrimination bill, which some say has a good chance of passing due to more politicians sympathizing.

    http://media.daum.net/society/nation/others/view.html?cateid=100011&newsid=20111018085055206&p=hani

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Arghaeri #164, it seems you’ve beaten out Hamel. Whereas he is “more persuasive” to iwshim, your words apparently are worth memorizing and repeating.^^

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    sonagi #167, I suppose we can agree then that…

    1) people cherry-pick through history to justify their beliefs, opinions, outlooks, opinions, etc.
    2) state-enforced Jim Crow (approximately from 1876 to 1965) is a mixed bag with heroes as well as opportunists in government and civil society (in this case, mainly the market).

    That’s pretty much the ground I covered in the first part of my Cato Institute talk and brings us to the 34 minute mark. The main point isn’t that people in the market were pure or that “most” of them fought for the rights of blacks.

    The main point is that in a free market a) blacks would have been better off being able to associate with those transportation companies that were willing to deal with them and connected to that b) would have been better off without government intervention into the market to block them from dealing with companies willing to deal with them. It doesn’t take “most” streetcar companies to have been willing to deal with blacks–the lack of government intervention in the market would have allowed blacks to flock to what could have been the only streetcar company in the city or area to allow blacks to ride as they wished and seats allowed. The segregationists and busybodies who want to control others need the uniformity that government can provide, freedom in a market is a threat to that.

  • Arghaeri

    I thought tjere was an echo in here :-)

  • Benjamin Wagner

    As for reaching back in history, don’t forget Yick Wo (1886). The Supreme Court found that racially discriminatory bans on Chinese laundries in San Francisco violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause (EPC) some 78 years before the “meddling” Civil Rights Act arrived on the scene. And the petitioner wasn’t even a U.S. citizen. (gasp).

    Arghaeri’s interesting point (@ 18, 78, 83) that an anti-discrimination law may not required is relevant (esp. as the woman is a citizen). Though I’d imagine some kind of state action would have to be found to invoke the constitution’s art. 11, as there was in Yick Wo to invoke the EPC.

    @ Robert, you mentioned you’d be interested in seeing how the Con Crt would work with Art. 11. There’s a good example in the Overseas Korean case (99Hun-Ma494) where the court used it to strike down a discriminatory law (F-4 visa) applied against, incidentally, a “foreigner,” albeit a Korean-blooded variety:

    “[T]he statutory provisions in the instant case [against] ethnic Koreans . . . are against the principle of equality stated by Article 11 of the Constitution.”

    “The right to equality is also a human right, and a foreigner’s right to equality can only be limited subject to the nature of the right concerned, such as the right to political participation, or the principle of reciprocity.”

    “The principle of equality prescribed by Article 11(1) is the supreme principle in the field of protection of basic rights. It provides a standard which the state must abide by in interpreting or executing laws, and it is a mandate by the State not to discriminate without a reasonable basis. Everyone is entitled to the right to claim equal treatment, and the right to equality is the most basic of all basic rights.”

    http://www.ccourt.go.kr/home/english/decisions/mgr_decision_view.jsp?seq=284&code=5&pg=5&sch_code=&sch_sel=&sch_txt=&nScale=15

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Benjamin Wagner #172, good one! Arghaeri #164 and iwshim’s echo #165 suggest that the Korean sauna owner should lose his license as punishment for discrimination. Based on what I read years ago when this topic interested me, licensing laws have been a great tactic to punish bad-doers and have been targeted at various unpopular groups and individuals. My friends at the Institute for Justice (libertarian lawyers) currently take on pro-bono cases fighting against licensing laws and for economic freedom.
    http://www.ij.org

    To relate it to the conversation above: As bad as private discrimination may be, it pales in comparison to government-enforced or -backed discrimination against individuals. Those Chinese laundry owners might not have been able to attract white customers due to social bias, but government officials blocking their licenses probably eliminated one of their few options at that time.

    By the way, I’ve always liked Frederick Douglass’s defense of Chinese immigrants.
    http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1869-frederick-douglass-describes-composite-nation

  • Sonagi

    RE: #171:

    Convincing people that some? a lot of? discrimination and segregation by private companies is less harmful than blanket segregation imposed by the government is an easy sell. Fast forward to 2011. Convince us that we’re better off with a government that has no power to regulate private companies and banks discriminating against job applicants, customers, and borrowers as forbidden by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Government can impose discrimination and segregation. It can also give people legal tools to fight discrimination and segregation.

  • Charles Tilly

    The main point is that in a free market a) blacks would have been better off being able to associate with those transportation companies that were willing to deal with them and connected to that b) would have been better off without government intervention into the market to block them from dealing with companies willing to deal with them.

    But what makes you think it was just government intervention into the market that caused all this? Were there no other powerful socio-cultural independent of state action pushing businesses toward segregation? Frankly, this explanation is too pat and simplistic (as outlined in the Gavin Wright paper in comment #151) in explaining the rise and duration of something as complicated as the institution of Jim Crow.

    The segregationists and busybodies who want to control others need the uniformity that government can provide, freedom in a market is a threat to that.

    Want to know what else is a “threat to freedom in a market”? When the government fails to provide “uniformity” (i.e. rules, regulations…)

    Government can impose discrimination and segregation. It can also give people legal tools to fight discrimination and segregation.

    Exactly. I find that people who fail to comprehend this tend to be the ones who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Sonagi #174, yeah, sure, you off-handedly say it is an easy sell now, but where were you in 1881 when black people could have used you to make that argument? Every generation has people who come with arguments about why the government should intervene in the market. People fighting for voluntary freedom of exchange can always count on the know-it-allism of people who want the government to block voluntary exchanges (or non-exchanges).

    Thanks for the offer to try to convince you to a position you’re not going to accept. But we both know it is more likely that I’d convince the people on Stormfront before I convinced you–plus, the Stormfront folks don’t humor me with the pretense of being so open-minded!

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    In Race and liberty in America: the essential reader, Jonathan J. Bean (pages 113-117) publishes for us a courteous 1898 letter from the Police Commissioner of the Village of Summerville to the Augusta Railway company reminding its leadership of a law mandating that it provide separate transportation for blacks and whites.

    According to Bean, the president of Augusta Railway first delayed, then later replied, “I know of no such law.” Ha-ha! Ignorance of the law is no excuse for going against the will of the people and government. The cops then forced the company to post the following sign:

    “Notice to Conductors and Motormen: All conductors, or other employees in charge of cars, are hereby required to assign all passengers on the cars under their charge so as to separate the white and colored races as much as practicable. This is in accordance with the law of the state; and the same law empowers you with police authority to carry out the above provision. You are therefore hereby directed to observe the above instructions so far as it is possible under all the circumstances to do so.”

    Two years later, the company still had not enforced the law, and didn’t do so until a black man was lynched for allegedly murdering a white man on a streetcar. Even then, the streetcar company continued evading, with a letter from Augusta Railway lawyer Boykin Wright to the village police commissioner about the hardships being imposed on the company and its customers.

    Note:
    1) That was yet another example of government forcing the will of racists and political opportunists to block voluntary exchanges between companies and individuals willing to deal with blacks.
    2) I oppose both mandatory segregation and mandatory association.
    3) Based on the first half of post #174, even Sonagi agrees with me that discrimination by private companies is less harmful than when government does it–I’m suppose that black at the turn of the 19th century within the reach of the Police Commissioner of the Village of Summerville would have preferred a free market rather than government control. I wonder if those Chinese people in Cali 1886 also would have preferred that.
    4) Jim Crow: Government in action. Whatever may have been done socially, it still took government power to enforce Jim Crow to block voluntary exchanges.
    5) For many moons I thought it was dubious when Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson and other black leaders declared that black people could not be racist. I still have my doubts, but my point inspired by them is that a racist with government power is more of a threat to me than a racist with a business who doesn’t want to deal with me.

    * * *

    As an aside, Bean notes that the pages of the Augusta Chronicle were also filled with complaints about “commingling” of lower classes with “proper ladies” forced to sit in areas confined for whites.
    http://tinyurl.com/426ccoj

  • hamel

    nayaCasey#176

    Thanks for the offer to try to convince you to a position you’re not going to accept. But we both know it is more likely that I’d convince the people on Stormfront before I convinced you–plus, the Stormfront folks don’t humor me with the pretense of being so open-minded!

    Well, that sure seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle…never mind.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Hamel #178, try again, son!

    People rarely change their minds in discussions about their core beliefs, chances are even less likely when people have strongly stated their views as those of on this board routinely do.

    I don’t pretend to be open-minded when it comes to arguments blocking my right to engage in voluntary exchanges. There was a time I was open-minded, but not anymore, so your point is out of order!

  • Charles Tilly

    Jim Crow: Government in action. Whatever may have been done socially, it still took government power to enforce Jim Crow to block voluntary exchanges.

    No. “Enforce” is entirely wrong. Ratify is much better with respect to the rise of Jim Crow and de jure segregation. State sanctioned Jim Crow (i.e. “blocking of voluntary exchanges”) was merely the state giving formal sanction to habits and practices that had been in development for a considerable amount of time (John W. Cell, Howard N. Rabinowitz, Joel Williamson).

  • hamel

    How is my point out of order, Casey? You never stated quite so clearly as you have now, that “There was a time I was open-minded, but not anymore.” I think you were being disingenuous in this and other discussions on the blog.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Hamel #181, I could explain why I post and write but I’d never hear the end of it from you and others so I don’t bother–or feel the need–to explain. Anyway, this is becoming another pointless tit-for-tat with you, and I’m sure we both have better things to do or write about!

  • hamel

    nayaCasey, well I can at least agree with you about this:

    People rarely change their minds in discussions about their core beliefs, chances are even less likely when people have strongly stated their views as those of on this board routinely do.

    I often say something similar. And this:

    1) people cherry-pick through history to justify their beliefs, opinions, outlooks, opinions, etc.

    Presumably you would agree that these are both knives that cut both ways, right? That being said, Casey, why do you bother to exchange views at all? I am not suggesting that you should stop, but I wonder if you are asking us to do something you yourself won’t do?

  • Sonagi

    Thanks for the offer to try to convince you to a position you’re not going to accept. But we both know it is more likely that I’d convince the people on Stormfront before I convinced you–plus, the Stormfront folks don’t humor me with the pretense of being so open-minded!

    Actually, the people on Stormfront would LOVE your views on freedom of association and the right of individuals and private businesses to discriminate.

    I asked you twice to support your claims and acknowledged the factual accuracy of specific examples in which private streetcar companies fought back against segregation laws because they were bad for business. You were happy to play along and continue the debate as long as you could post what you perceived as logical, accurate, relevant counterpoints. The problem now is that you can’t “prove” less government means less discrimination. You can’t prove it because it’s an unproven and unprovable statement. It’s a judgment. Different people with different experiences and differently wired brains (think Myers-Briggs) will look at the same information – dejure and defacto discrimination during different periods of US history – and come to different conclusions. You can explain your thinking. Some will agree strongly, others partly, while others will disagree. That’s because the role of government is not a matter of absolute right or wrong but a complex judgment, and that is why intelligent, open-minded people can hear you out and still disagree.

    A sincere thanks for taking the time to respond on this thread. If you think the conversation has stalled and won’t develop any further, then let it rest with a simple comment that acknowledges disagreement, rather than dismissing people who continue to debate you as closed-minded.

  • hamel

    Sonagi: hear hear!

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Government can impose discrimination and segregation. It can also give people legal tools to fight discrimination and segregation.

    Exactly. I find that people who fail to comprehend this tend to be the ones who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    And people who fail to appreciate how over the sweep of history the former has been far more destructive of individual liberty and prosperity tend to be the ones who end up drowning the baby with the bath water.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Hamel #183, I never pretended otherwise.

    Sonagi #184, you have caught on much faster than others who disagree with me about this topic, but it does help that I spelled it out by saying: “I don’t pretend to be open-minded when it comes to arguments blocking my right to engage in voluntary exchanges.” You will need to make an absolutely fantastic argument to change my mind about that.

    About Stormfront, my guess based on previous experience (going back at least 10 years) with them is that their first choice is to regain their control over government so they can impose their agenda on the rest of us, their second choice is to adapt to circumstances and discriminate anyway. I’m opposed to both mandatory segregation and mandatory association so that’s fine with me, I’d prefer to keep power out of their hands as well as those of the “humanitarians with the guillotine.” Like so many people, the yahoos at Stormfront don’t mind having government control, they just disagree with you about which direction the guns should be turned and on whom. To get the issue off race for a moment to make the point, the Ku Klux and other white supremacist groups sponsored legislation in 1922 mandating compulsory attendance at public schools in Oregon. They sought to impose their agenda on the general population. Now, that they have lost control, Klan members routinely denounce what it going on in the schools. But their first choice then, and now, is to regain control so they can mandate their agenda. So it isn’t freedom of choice they want, it is control.

    “The problem now is that you can’t “prove” less government means less discrimination.” That’s your issue, not mine! My point about this topic was and remains that a) blacks would have been better off in a free market so they could have associated with those transportation companies that were willing to deal with them and connected to that b) would have been better off without government intervention into the market to block them from dealing with companies willing to deal with them. You agreed that convincing people that discrimination and segregation by private companies is less harmful than blanket segregation imposed by the government is an easy sell. That’s good enough for me, thanks!

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Prof. Wagner — Thanks for sending that, sir. I’m not sure if it answers my question though. The case appears to be dealing with a discriminatory government act. I think everyone would agree that Article 11 forbids discriminatory acts of state. I’m wondering if the court would interpret that article as applying to individuals and private businesses. Obviously, you have a much better understanding of this than I do, so I wonder how you think the court would see it.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    A bit of “Eastern Wisdom” on the issue at hand:

    The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become.
    The sharper men’s weapons, the more trouble in the land.
    The more ingenious and clever men are, the more strange things happen.
    The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers.

    –Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57

  • Arghaeri

    Sperwer, kind of a given that last one, ifcthere is no rule you can’t very well break it. :-)

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Ah, but you are prosaic. ;))

  • Arghaeri

    Kind of curious to know if Naya has actually experienced being barred from an establishment purely because of his race. I would have been more inclined to unfettered free association before having experienced it, and thats where it is occasional, rather than routine as it would have been in the south.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    @188

    My pleasure. As I mentioned in my comment — “I’d imagine some kind of state action would have to be found to invoke the constitution’s art. 11″ — so I think we’re in agreement on that. Nevertheless, there are sometimes creative ways to find state action.

    I thought the above case was worth quoting since it shows how really well developed the principle of equality is at Korean law. It’s right in line with international law’s understanding of equality, which is quite nuanced and more restrictive than many imagine.

    Human Rights Committee:

    [I]t is [our] constant jurisprudence that not all distinctions made by a State party’s law are inconsistent with [the non-discrimination] provision, if they are justified on reasonable and objective grounds.

    Council of Europe:

    Equality does not necessarily mean identical treatment in every instance. A differentiation does not constitute discrimination if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate and if the criteria used are reasonable and objective . . . Only differentiation which is not factually justified is discriminatory.

    Korean Constitutional Court:

    Everyone is entitled to the right to claim equal treatment, and the right to equality is the most basic of all basic rights. The constitutional principle of equality, however, does not require absolute equality negating any form of differential treatment whatsoever. Rather, it means relative equality forbidding discrimination in legislating and executing laws without reasonable basis. Therefore, differentiation or inequality with reasonable basis is not against the principle of equality.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    “I don’t pretend to be open-minded when it comes to arguments blocking my right to engage in voluntary exchanges.”

    What about “bribery”?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @ 193 :

    Plessy vs. Ferguson lives!

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Benjamin Wagner #194, by its definition, bribery usually would mean that someone in a position of authority has sworn to act in good faith in protecting the public and has probably promised to uphold a law or regulation. Right? Of course, there is the occasional hard case, but that would be an accurate description in probably 99 percent of cases involving bribery, right?

    So I’m not really sure how that is relevant to me being able to buy a chair from a Mexican who is willing to sell it to me. But anyone wants to make an argument helping me engage in bribery without getting into trouble, then my mind is WIDE-OPEN.

    By the way, I don’t think it should be illegal for me to offer a bribe to a policeman or a politician, they are the ones who took an oath, I’m just a citizen trying to keep my head above water, making a wave anyway that I can…

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Arghaeri #192, thanks for your concern about me getting discriminated against. I previously wrote about losing out on jobs in Korea because of my race. I also couldn’t get into some Korean bars back during the 1990s because it was for Koreans only (I did get into some places, turned out to be nothing special, or they stopped the real fun when they realized I was there). I recently posted about a funny experience with a “No! foreigners, please” sign at a PC bang–admittedly, they were about to let me in, despite the sign, but I chose to go elsewhere.

    I can’t think of a situation where a private home or business owner didn’t want me in their home or on their property that I would 911, 119, the Human Rights Commission or the NAACP.
    http://tinyurl.com/3szfqdg (No! foreigners, please)
    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2011/08/30/black-guy-on-bus-explains-what-set-him-off/ (getting discriminated against in Korea)

  • Benjamin Wagner

    @ 195

    lol, well you’d have to come up with a reasonable, objective and factually basis for the differentiation. I don’t see one in the Plessy case.

    But the point is taken, Plessy did “live” all the way through my legal education as “reasonable” way to stop gang violence by racial segregating prisoners in “separate but equal” jail cells. Someone may know the case but I think SCOTUS put a stop to this practice not so long ago.

    @196

    Sure, thus the quotes around “bribery”. Obviously if an official takes a “bribe” she’s done more than show bad faith, she’s committed a crime. In that conceptual framework we’re stuck. But should it have been considered a “bribe” in the first place. Why not a voluntary exchange? A little wheel grease for a little motion. Isn’t the government getting in the way by telling people how to do business? To free things up conceptually, take the extraterritorial application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as an example.

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Benjamin Wagner #198, okay, sure, if we want to just shoot the bull, temporarily suspend the common definition of “bribe,” and not consider the official’s oath, then I’m open to hearing your argument in favor of legalizing or allowing bribery (and blackmail, that’s another one I get from time to time).

  • Benjamin Wagner

    Well, it’s less abstract than you imply. Again, take the FCPA, American corporations are getting doubly hammered with criminal penalties and lost business opportunities by being hamstrung with that “common definition,” which isn’t so common outside of the states, and which their competitors may not be bound by.
    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1977526-1,00.html

    Should the Fed be able to take what in one country amounts to a free and socially acceptable exchange that’s gets business done and make it a “bribe”? And if not why should they be able to do it in the U.S.?

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Benjamin Wagner #200, okay….so you would like bribery legalized or allowed?

  • Benjamin Wagner

    I was interested in your position as related to the idea of the gov “blocking [one's] right to engage in voluntary exchanges.” And as it relates to the FPCA it wouldn’t be a matter of “legalizing bribery” but questioning the criminalization (and thereby the blocking) of a voluntary exchange by labeling it as a “bribe.” It wasn’t a “bribe” before the FPCA, it was business — and it’s still just business for the non-American party if she’s not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    FPCA >> FCPA

  • http://www.caseyradio.org nayaCasey

    Benjamin Wagner #202, okay, I see. Please forgive my lack of enthusiasm for the topic you are presenting me. Because I have some extreme views that fall out of mainstream opinion, people constantly try to engage me in topics that don’t interest me—abortion, religion, foreign policy, medicine. If the topic interests you, then please, post away, and if you say something that gets me going, then you can be sure you’ll hear from me…

    #203, believe me, I would have never noticed that typo…

  • Benjamin Wagner

    @204

    No worries. I was just thinking back to your “nightmare” scenario at the chicken shack, laws imposing on your ability to engage free exchanges and the moral questions raised.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Re Plessy etc.

    It’s been awhile, so I’m not sure what Scotus decision you mean; but i doubt they justified differential treatment of convicts on separate but equal grounds and, in any event it would not only be stupid but wrong to do so: criminals’ civil rights justifiably are subject to restriction in many ways and can be persuasively rationalized on other grounds.

  • http://www.bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    Otherwise, the state is liable to become little more than the instrument thru which today’s majority or clever minority oppresses everyone else in the name of the ideology of the moment.

    Low-flow toilets.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    No foie gras in Calitopia.

  • http://www.bcarr.com Brendon Carr

    No fries in the Happy Meal! Just those apple slices. And they took away the caramel dip, too. Bastards.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    @206
    A quick search shows the case I had in mind is Johnson v. California (9th Cir. & SCOTUS, 2004). Not too familiar with the case, but turned up this article which seems to find some relevance with a Plessy comparison: “Foreword: ‘separate but equal’ in prison: Johnson v. California and common sense racism.”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_3_96/ai_n29283173/

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Oh, I don’t doubt that there are folks out there who will try to view such a case through a Plessy kaleidescope; but imo it’s a patently inappropriate and confusion-making “analogy”, i.e., not a legitimate analogy at all.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    I disagree and, after reviewing the case, it seems SCOTUS did as well.

    The CDC [California Department of Corrections] claims that its policy should be exempt from our categorical [strict scrutiny] rule [under the 14th amendment] because it is “neutral”–that is, it “neither benefits nor burdens one group or individual more than any other group or individual.” Brief for Respondents 16. In other words, strict scrutiny should not apply because all prisoners are “equally” segregated. The CDC’s argument ignores our repeated command that “racial classifications receive close scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally.” Shaw, supra, at 651. Indeed, we rejected the notion that separate can ever be equal–or “neutral”–50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and we refuse to resurrect it today.

    Johnson v. California
    http://www.wneclaw.com/conlaw/johnsonvcalifornia.pdf

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Well, then, I (respectfully) think that the case is wrongly decided, and that it could have been resolved in favor of the CDC without having recourse to a “separate but equal” argument. In fact, without having read the opinion, I suspect that the Court has mis-analogized the CDC’s argument into a “separate but equal” proposition that it is not. I guess I have some homework to do.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    Well, reasonable minds can differ, as they say. It’s certainly a super complex issue.

  • Arghaeri

    Arghaeri #192, thanks for your concern about me getting discriminated against

    Thanks for the thanks, but i don’t recall expressing any such concern. Read my comment again.

  • Arghaeri

    Please forgive my lack of enthusiasm for the topic you are presenting me

    Rather strange responsewhen the topic he is presenting is the same one that you have. Clearly your reluctance to engage is that is demostrates your inconsistent application of your insistance that right of free association in business should not be interfered with by legislation.

  • Arghaeri

    Benjamin, I know you pushed the bribery anology to make a point, but in respect of the FCPA and its extraterritorialty this should be revoked for the reasons you mention. It extends way beyond bribery of officials into the realms of customary building of relation in nations where it has no business in dictating american morals. Further, it does not justvapply extraterritorially to americans but anyone dealing with them.

  • Pingback: SeoulPodcast #121: Live from Gangnam | SeoulPodcast