Whites being evicted from Vancouver Korean owned plaza

mikedavid00 · October 17, 2006

Hey intellectuals and great think liberal minds,

Did anyone here about the strip mall in Vancouver that got purchased by a Korean business man and all the 'white' people, or Canadians are basically being kicked out and being replaced with pretty much the same stores but Korean owned. They are admitting that it is because these people are not Korean.

This of course is blatant racism and discrimination in the first degree. I'm sure is a violation of our charter of rights and freedoms. Naturally, the gov't is doing nothing about this of course becuae the Liberals in BC cannot threaten their precious immigrant vote.

I have to say, no matter what side of the fense your on, this sort of thing is wrong and shoulnd't be happening in any country in this day and age. Of course, does this make our country a racist country? You know this sort of thing is like .. hmmm.. i can't break my own rules in my own sig so I'll end this paragraph.

See intellectual, liberal great thinkers, ponder this - Some of us don't recognize different skin colors, races, ethnicities, or foreign languages because we're not racist and don't beleive in discrimination.

Riverwind · October 17, 2006

Did anyone here about the strip mall in Vancouver that got purchased by a Korean business man and all the 'white' people, or Canadians are basically being kicked out and being replaced with pretty much the same stores but Korean owned. They are admitting that it is because these people are not Korean.

First off, I do not automatically assume that there is substance to every cry of racism (a criteria I apply when non-whites are making claims as well). So far we have only heard one side of the the story and there could be more facts than the ones that the complainants have made public.

mikedavid00 · October 17, 2006

Did anyone here about the strip mall in Vancouver that got purchased by a Korean business man and all the 'white' people, or Canadians are basically being kicked out and being replaced with pretty much the same stores but Korean owned. They are admitting that it is because these people are not Korean.
First off, I do not automatically assume that there is substance to every cry of racism (a criteria I apply when non-whites are making claims as well). So far we have only heard one side of the the story and there could be more facts than the ones that the complainants have made public.

Lol... liked the way you backed out of that one.

The strip mall owner admitted he did this because the owners were not Korkean and the goal was to turn this strip mall into a Korean mall for Korean customers.

Supose this is the case, do you support this?

Or are we going to have to bring up the "H' word and hitorical facts about Germany to see how backwards this sort of thing is.

(PS - as I said in a post a while back, it begins with this, and 20 years ahead it ends with cities being sold off to other countries. ie: Brampton Ontario becoming a territory or India for instance).

Riverwind · October 17, 2006

The strip mall owner admitted he did this because the owners were not Korkean and the goal was to turn this strip mall into a Korean mall for Korean customers.

If that is the case then I most definitely oppose it. It is no different than a white mall owner denying a lease to someone from a minority group. I made my initial comment because I really do treat every claim of racism in the media with scepticism because there is frequently more to the story than gets reported by the accuser.

August1991 · October 17, 2006

This of course is blatant racism and discrimination in the first degree. I'm sure is a violation of our charter of rights and freedoms. Naturally, the gov't is doing nothing about this of course becuae the Liberals in BC cannot threaten their precious immigrant vote.

It is not a violation of the Charter of Rights. It might be a violation of provincial human rights legislation and I believe the BC minister has suggested that people who feel discriminated against should take their case to BC's human rights panel.

BC's Attorney General says it appears there may be a legitimate complaint, but nevertheless, he can't get involved in accusations of racism against a Surrey mall owner over non-Asian tenants not having their leases renewed in favour of Asian tenants.

Link

MikeDave, you seem to be a right wing kinda guy, so you should understand that the best protection against discrimination is the freedom to choose. If you don't like an all-Korean mall, don't go there.

It has never been clear to me why a buyer is free to discriminate in the choice of seller but a seller for some reason doesn't have the same freedom.

Riverwind · October 17, 2006

It has never been clear to me why a buyer is free to discriminate in the choice of seller but a seller for some reason doesn't have the same freedom.

Because we have a history where people could not access basic services because the 'sellers' refused to serve them and the free market did not provide equivalent alternatives.

August1991 · October 17, 2006

Because we have a history where people could not access basic services because the 'sellers' refused to serve them and the free market did not provide equivalent alternatives.

Let's not get sidetracked into a debate about theory so can you be specific? Segregation in the US south was enforced by government law, not by the market place.

I can understand why we need a charter of rights to force a monopoly such as the State to provide equal treatment but where market relations provide choice, then legislation will likely cause more harm than good. We recently saw in the meltdown at rabble.ca how important an alternative website can be when people feel mistreated.

Returning to this case, if a shopping mall wants to have certain tenants, why shouldn't they? If you invite people to a wedding, should you be forced to follow quotas? Should a cinema be forced to include subtitles?

This line of social policy is peculiarly American and it leads to positive discrimination and eventually numerous contradictions.

The Libertarian in me says that freedom to choose is the best policy.

Riverwind · October 17, 2006

in the US south was enforced by government law, not by the market place.

Many businesses in the excluded groups other than blacks like Jews. That had nothing to do with gov't regulation.

At one level, I agree that we need to leave people to make their choices, however, the gov't does have a role play when it comes to dealing with the blatant forms of racism. You can correctly argue that laws are not going to change anyone's mind but they at least establish a principal that society should strive to meet.

Borg · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.

Bottom line - it appears there may only be racism if it is erpetrated by the occidentals. Otherwise it is simply an acceptable method of removing the unwanted.

I would be curious to see the results of a human rights inquiry. I wonder if what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Borg

gc1765 · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.
Bottom line - it appears there may only be racism if it is erpetrated by the occidentals. Otherwise it is simply an acceptable method of removing the unwanted.

I would be curious to see the results of a human rights inquiry. I wonder if what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Borg

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination

Borg · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.

Bottom line - it appears there may only be racism if it is erpetrated by the occidentals. Otherwise it is simply an acceptable method of removing the unwanted.

I would be curious to see the results of a human rights inquiry. I wonder if what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Borg

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination

What one hopes and what really happens are often at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Time will tell.

Borg

gc1765 · October 17, 2006

True. I was just adding my two cents.

Riverwind · October 17, 2006

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination

Not if it is called "employment equity"....

gc1765 · October 17, 2006

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination
Not if it is called "employment equity"....

I should have added "in my opinion" to the end of my post. Employment should be given to the person best qualified for the job, regardless of race...in my opinion.

Argus · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.

Without question. I think that August is right in that the marketplace works fine. But the left ignores the marketplace in such things - except where it involves Whites or Chiristians.

If a White or Christian owner was evicting everyone else because he wanted only white-owned/Christian owned shops and only wanted White/Christian customers it would be a national news event with thundering denunciations from the usual suspects from coast to coast. Layton would be in there shaking his fist and all the Liberal candidates would be braying like the asses they are.

But really, if some guy wants to limit his customer base - so what? I have no problem with it, so long as this is universally accepted.

Generally speaking, of course.

Do we really want bars and stores posting lists of who they don't want to see in their stores? No Blacks allowed? No Irish allowed? No Chinese allowed? Would they have to list these in the yellow pages so you know which stores you're allowed to visit and which you aren't? Would groups have to get together and figure out which bars/clubs they can all get into that night based on the current ethnic makeup (not that club going groups tend to be very ethnically diverse of course)?

theloniusfleabag · October 17, 2006

Dear Argus,

But really, if some guy wants to limit his customer base - so what? I have no problem with it, so long as this is universally accepted.

I feel the same way about the signage laws. However, there are cases where the law is likely to get involved. While August1991 opines...

The Libertarian in me says that freedom to choose is the best policy.

how does one enforce a 'discriminating policy' without the law? Could it be possible to call the police and say: "Ofiicer, I'd like to report a couple of (insert race or even some derogatory ethnic slur here) in my store!"

Charles Anthony · October 17, 2006

how does one enforce a 'discriminating policy' without the law? Could it be possible to call the police and say: "Ofiicer, I'd like to report a couple of (insert race or even some derogatory ethnic slur here) in my store!"

No. You would not have to mention race even if it is your motive to racially discriminate.

The solution is that you would ask them to leave. Period. You should not be required to justify your demand.

If they do not leave, you need to treat them as tresspassers. Period. At that point, statists would call the police and say: "Ofiicer, I would like to report a couple of tresspassers on my property!" and everybody else would call a security guard.

kimmy · October 17, 2006

A couple of media links...

Vancouver Province

Surrey Leader

Surrey has its own newspaper? Wow! Who would have suspected that so many Surreyites could read?

-k

{shattering stereotypes on MLW since 2004}

Leafless · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.

Bottom line - it appears there may only be racism if it is erpetrated by the occidentals. Otherwise it is simply an acceptable method of removing the unwanted.

I would be curious to see the results of a human rights inquiry. I wonder if what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Borg

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination

What one hopes and what really happens are often at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Time will tell.

Borg

Whites can definitely do something about this situation.

Only deal with businesses that are at least known to be White owned.

Demand a White doctor in the event of being hospitalized even if you are confronted with a serious illness.

The same thing pertains to language. Shop only where you are assured the store deals only in English and does not hire ethnic minorties.

Don't be an ass, stand up for your rights and don't let minorities push you around.

The government simply lacks conviction to intervene in a situation like this and simply allow the masses to fight it out.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

If the guy owns the building, personally I think when it comes to commercial tenancy I think he should be free to choose whoever is in it.

Is his decision wrong? Yup, it's rather silly. But it's his decision to make with his personal property. I don't think we should be forced to lend out our land/property to anyone unless we want to. If he only wants to lend his property to Koreans, so be it.

Residential buildings, a little different as I see the danger of minorities being out on the street pretty quick. But business is different, it's a matter of the market, if the white guy paid more, maybe he'd kick out the Korean. Or he'll go broke if the Koreans don't pay as much as the whites (and if they do pay as much, or more, then it's a wise business choice).

It's sad that someone would do that, but I think it should be well within his rights to do so. I don't believe there is a law in Canada preventing him from doing so with commerical property.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2006

See intellectual, liberal great thinkers, ponder this - Some of us don't recognize different skin colors, races, ethnicities, or foreign languages because we're not racist and don't beleive in discrimination.

What a bigoted and ignorant post....

M.Dancer · October 17, 2006

If the reverse were true, no Koreans allowed the media would be howling.
Bottom line - it appears there may only be racism if it is erpetrated by the occidentals. Otherwise it is simply an acceptable method of removing the unwanted.

I would be curious to see the results of a human rights inquiry. I wonder if what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Borg

The media is already in an uproar, your point is invalid

A British Columbia human-rights tribunal may ultimately have to decide whether commercial landlords have the right to choose tenants based on race if they feel it is in the best interests of their business

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...5/templates/hub

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TPStory/Comment

Wilber · October 17, 2006

Residential buildings, a little different as I see the danger of minorities being out on the street pretty quick. But business is different, it's a matter of the market, if the white guy paid more, maybe he'd kick out the Korean. Or he'll go broke if the Koreans don't pay as much as the whites (and if they do pay as much, or more, then it's a wise business choice).

According to the people involved they were never given the option of paying more.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2006

Residential buildings, a little different as I see the danger of minorities being out on the street pretty quick. But business is different, it's a matter of the market, if the white guy paid more, maybe he'd kick out the Korean. Or he'll go broke if the Koreans don't pay as much as the whites (and if they do pay as much, or more, then it's a wise business choice).

According to the people involved they were never given the option of paying more.

I had a friend who got evicted becasue the landlord wanted a different feel to his building and a hair salon wasn't what he was going for.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

That's all fine, it's the landowners right to choose who's on it.

Discrimination is a ridiculous concept when dealing with private affairs. Let businesses do their own thing, don't like it, find someone else to do business with.

Any attempt at getting businesses to be non-discriminatory must be coercive, because it forces the business to deal with folks that they don't want to. Specific performance of a contract is frowned upon as a remedy of a breech because it resembles slavery at it's finest. So does any attempt at creating a system where one must deal with others, regardless of their business decisions.

What I do with my property is my business, not anyone elses, and if I don't like a minority (or majority in this case), I shouldn't have to deal with them. Bottom line.