Whites being evicted from Vancouver Korean owned plaza

myata · October 17, 2006

Personally I agree that it wouldn't be easy (and may very well be counter-productive) to regulate "rights" issues in what's considered to be private domains, i.e.: individual life (can one discriminate inviting guests for a party?) , business practices, employment (by private business), etc. The few exceptions I can think of would be: 1) where practice instigates hate or violence (i.e. falls under hate laws); 2) where public is involved in any way (e.g. property / grants or sponsoring); 3) where essential service is denied by exercising the practice.

That being said, I recall there's been "pay equity" ruling against Bell, which is a private business. So, it looks like there's some kind of legislation that can enforce rights related policies even in private domains. It would be interesting to hear from someone knowledgeable about the scope of that legislation.

Hicksey · October 17, 2006

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

I agree whole-heartedly.

A racist is a racist is a racist. I, personally, would avoid the place and tell everyone I know about it so they could too. I would go as far as drive 5-10 miles out of my way to avoid the place.

I don't care who is the benefactor or the victim. A racist is not worthy of my business.

I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same?

M.Dancer · October 17, 2006

On the otherhand, if I was having a korean bbq, I know where I would go for all my korean needs......

theloniusfleabag · October 17, 2006

I suppose this is a rare instance where I can rightly quote this song, because it fits here and asks some questions. The Civil Rights 'Movement' spawned all sorts of lasting impressions, with songs such as 'We shall overcome', etc....but what of those opposed to integration? They had songs too... (to the best of my knowledge) the following is a bit from "No Niggers in our Schools", by Otis and the Three Bigots, circa 1960...

"No, we don't want niggers in our schools, We're not for integration
Keep those niggers in their place and we'll have a better nation.

We must prove to Martin Luther [King Jr.], we stand for what is right,

No court of Left-Wing Liberals can ever make him White.

Form a solid line of White men, conservatives we'll be,

They'll never ever overcome, our schools will still be free.

(as to the last line, I can only assume they mean 'nigger-free' :lol: )

So, should private schools, Safeway, taxi-cabs, etc.(any or all) be able to physically ban certain races, (or religions if it were evident) at their own will? (Keep in mind the implications of what might occur if 'Negroes' weren't allowed to buy groceries...)

Was the Civil Rights Movement wrong?

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same?

Absolutely legal.

Leafless · October 17, 2006

theloniusfleabag

The U.S. Southern Black situation concerning the Civil Rights Movement was in a totally different league than what your trying to make comparisons to.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

theloniusfleabag
The U.S. Southern Black situation concerning the Civil Rights Movement was in a totally different league than what your trying to make comparisons to.

Agreed. Government's shouldn't be able to discriminate against minorities, but it's essiential to our freedom that individuals can discrimate at will against anyone they wish to on any grounds. No one should ever be forced to give up their property to another person because of some discrimination policy. Private dealings of businesses are completely different then governments dealing with their citizens.

Also, last time I checked, corporations don't have races and since it's likely most of these shops are incorporated, they can't be discriminated against based on a non-existant race.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2006

Government's shouldn't be able to discriminate against minorities, but it's essiential to our freedom that individuals can discrimate at will against anyone they wish to on any grounds.

'scuse me if I don't rise in the defense of the freedom to be a bigot and a racist.

What you are asking for is the right to behave like scum.

"I won't rent to niggers"

"I don't hire sand fleas"

"No dogs or jews welcome"

.....no thanks.....I have no problem a spade a spade, and that sire is a shovel

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

I'll behave with my money and property as I want to...

Not only that, but in business to business transactions, I have every right to under Canadian law.

Who are you to tell someone what to do with their money and investments?

blueblood · October 17, 2006

What a double standard!!!! Koreans allowed to pull this off and if whites did we'd be in shit. Mind you that's what Canada has become, God forbid the Prime Minister say merry christmas or the holiday tree, come on. Those Koreans should be thanking their lucky stars that they're even allowed to immigrate to this country, cuz if it was some country boy running immigration, this country would be sealed up tighter than a bull's ass hole in fly season. I can picture it, "Hmm asians, too many gangs No Canada for the rest of you, Muslims straight from old country, I don't want suicide bombers in my country I'm done with middle eastern immigration DONE, too many immigrants plugging up social security immigration done DONE!!!" This of course is ridiculous but so is kicking people off a property cuz they're white. I would like to see Canada shut for a bit to straighten them out then they can take a libertarian approach and go somewheres else for the same reason as in BC, after all Canada belongs to the people of Canada and if we don't want them, they shouldn't be able to come in. Or else if we're continuing with the Korean logic here, the white land owners shouldn't be selling them land as their money wouldn't be good enough like the white tenants, they could then take a libertarian view and try and go somewhere else it'll be like Dixie all over again and the human rights crew would have a field day. Harper should rip apart those Koreans on national tv, to hell with being politically correct and being "prime ministerial", take care of your men and they'll take care of you. A few koreans not voting for Harper is a small price to pay to get the job done.

MightyAC · October 17, 2006

Mind you that's what Canada has become, God forbid the Prime Minister say merry christmas or the holiday tree, come on.

I'm sick of people making BS claims like these. The PM does say merry Christmas and he ends his speeches with "God bless Canada". Our anthem has the word God in it. I can't speak for all provinces but Ontario has a Catholic school board that receives public money to operate. Public money should not be spent on religion specific activities.

The rest of your post is too ridiculous to comment on.

As for the Korean plaza... Any former tenant can file a suit against the new landlord. If they can prove they were evicted simply because of their race then they may be entitled to some sort of compensation. This has nothing to do with the government. It is simply a matter for the courts decide.

scribblet · October 17, 2006

Because we have a history where people
Returning to this case, if a shopping mall wants to have certain tenants, why shouldn't they?

Because it is racist, that's why... if it where white people refusing Koreans, you'd hear about it, tootsweet (okay tout de suite.) guess what the Attorney General says it appears there may be a legitimate complaint, but nevertheless, he can't get involved. Whoa, would he say that if it were the other way around - don't think so.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

Because it is racist, that's why... if it where white people refusing Koreans, you'd hear about it, tootsweet (okay tout de suite.) guess what the Attorney General says it appears there may be a legitimate complaint, but nevertheless, he can't get involved. Whoa, would he say that if it were the other way around - don't think so.

I don't see the legitimate complaint.

Do you think the government has the right to tell you that you MUST do business with someone? I don't.

Freedom rests with having the choic who you do business with, not being forced into an agreement. In tenancy, it goes one step further. Your giving up your property to someone. I'll choose who I give my property to thank you very much.

scribblet · October 17, 2006

Because it is racist, that's why... if it where white people refusing Koreans, you'd hear about it, tootsweet (okay tout de suite.) guess what the Attorney General says it appears there may be a legitimate complaint, but nevertheless, he can't get involved. Whoa, would he say that if it were the other way around - don't think so.

I don't see the legitimate complaint.

Do you think the government has the right to tell you that you MUST do business with someone? I don't.

Freedom rests with having the choic who you do business with, not being forced into an agreement. In tenancy, it goes one step further. Your giving up your property to someone. I'll choose who I give my property to thank you very much.

I was under the impression that one cannot refuse to hire, hinder or whater. because of race, creed or colour, national origin, sex, etc. etc. think this one comes under race, creed and colour.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

I was under the impression that one cannot refuse to hire, hinder or whater. because of race, creed or colour, national origin, sex, etc. etc. think this one comes under race, creed and colour.

In hiring your right. In residential tenancies, your right. But in commercial tenancies, I know of no such regulation. Ask FTA or another one of the lawyers here. They're the experts.

I could care less if some Korean doesn't want white guys having a stall at his facility. I'd also quickly support a white guy that evicted Korean shop owners.

It's their personal (or the corporations) property that they are lending, they should have full control of their property and who uses it.

blueblood · October 17, 2006

Mind you that's what Canada has become, God forbid the Prime Minister say merry christmas or the holiday tree, come on.

I'm sick of people making BS claims like these. The PM does say merry Christmas and he ends his speeches with "God bless Canada". Our anthem has the word God in it. I can't speak for all provinces but Ontario has a Catholic school board that receives public money to operate. Public money should not be spent on religion specific activities.

The rest of your post is too ridiculous to comment on.

As for the Korean plaza... Any former tenant can file a suit against the new landlord. If they can prove they were evicted simply because of their race then they may be entitled to some sort of compensation. This has nothing to do with the government. It is simply a matter for the courts decide.

Of course the post was ridiculous, try reading between the lines, i was making parallels with the korean logic which is ridiculous and stating some examples of what can be done about it using the same logic, what's good for one is good for all. I can also bet you dollars to donuts that come christmas time there will be some piece on the news about people complaining about how they feel left out at christmas time, which i don't agree with (I don't complain about being left out of hannukah for example), i mean a large portion of the country celebrates christmas and we shouldn't be made to feel bad about celebrating it. I don't make people feel bad about celebrating their stuff. The post was a direct shot at groups who feel they have special priveliges because they are minorities which is what all this is about, that and property rights. I agree with the property rights and they should go BOTH ways in this matter, people can do whatever they want wth their property and at the same time should get full consequenses for their actions good or bad. I can also understand why property rights aren't enshrined in the constitution based solely on this scenario. Oh and the government has an obligation to stand up for its citizens, that is partly why they are elected. Maybe harper dressing down mr. landlord on tv might teach ALL those who pull a stunt like that a lesson. So maybe my original post wasn't that ridiculous.

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

That post made little sense.

The government doesn't need to stand up for anyone, do it yourself. No one was ever successful having the government do their work for them... well other than the sponsorship scandal people.

If someone kicked me out of my store, I'd just go elsewhere and ensure that he gained a reputation in the business community as an asshole. That's how problems need to be dealt with, not with a law that forces people to rent to those that they don't want to rent to.

blueblood · October 17, 2006

That post made little sense.
The government doesn't need to stand up for anyone, do it yourself. No one was ever successful having the government do their work for them... well other than the sponsorship scandal people.

If someone kicked me out of my store, I'd just go elsewhere and ensure that he gained a reputation in the business community as an asshole. That's how problems need to be dealt with, not with a law that forces people to rent to those that they don't want to rent to.

That works very well in a small town, in fact it works too well, if the business leader is an asshole he is done. I'm not saying pass a law, just do what he did to Paul Martin or the liberal leadership contenders. These guys are operating in a big city and i'm sure he's not gonna lose too much business if there are just a few guys and their friends pissed at him, but his face is gonna be red when an elected official of that much sway goes on tv and levels him a nice cheapshot, this guy could be white black yellow pink blue or orange. I mean if the government didn't stand up for anyone what would have happened in Dixie (southern states) during the whole civil rights era? Like I said take care of your men and they'll take care of you. But in any event all the negative publicity will have done something to the korean business owner.

Hicksey · October 17, 2006

I wonder how legal it would be to take out an ad in the local newspaper backed up with quotes urging others to do the same?

Absolutely legal.

I wonder who would be outraged by that?

geoffrey · October 17, 2006

I wonder who would be outraged by that?

Most white people in Vancouver, though that's unlikely a majority. And it's also unwarrented, like I said, let him choose whoever he wants to lend his property to.

Michael Hardner · October 17, 2006

What a double standard!!!! Koreans allowed to pull this off and if whites did we'd be in shit.

I don't think the landlord's action will stand if a complaint is filed. At that point, most of this thread will become moot.

watching&waiting · October 17, 2006

If the people being evicted can get it on tape that the landlord said the only reason he is doing this is because he wants only Korean clients, they can then sue him in civil court and this landlord would not be the property owner for very long. The civil suits and the settlements will probably cause him to have to sell the property to satisfy the judgements.

He is breaking the law and these people just have to let the law slowly grind him to a halt in what he is doing. It takes time but in the end the landlord will have to pay all costs involved. While yes this is a civil rights type thing It hardly belongs here in the threads, as it really is more of a local government issue

mikedavid00 · October 18, 2006

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

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?

Exactly.

Somone 'got it'.

But still, i'm waiting for a rationalization from the CBC great liberal thinkers? The superior intellectuals? The deep thinking eliteists?

Wilber · October 18, 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.

Apparently the insurance company is being replaced with another insurance company and the hair salon is being replaced by another hair salon. The question isn't whether a landlord can determine who uses his property or not but whether that determination can be made solely on a basis of race. This could be interesting.

gerryhatrick · October 18, 2006

What a double standard!!!! Koreans allowed to pull this off and if whites did we'd be in shit.

I don't think the landlord's action will stand if a complaint is filed. At that point, most of this thread will become moot.

Exactly. All of the shrill outrage about this being "allowed" is sort of silly.

And I'm not sure what the deal is with all the sarcastic references to "intellectuals". Who are these evil intellectuals that are supposedly running away from this issue?