Dear Korean Journalists: You are Making Your Country Look Bad

I don't want to say anything about Yonhap News' latest piece of racist muckraking. But I have to.

However, it must be said that when racist garbage like Yonhap News' latest hit piece on English teachers comes out, people know. Koreans are not the only people who read Yonhap news, and even if most Koreans don't read what is written about Korea in English (why bother when I'm sure Naver has another essay up today about Korea's glorious four seasons), other people, in other countries want to learn about Korea, and when they find things like this: Yonhap: Unfit, Foulmouthed, Drunken English Teachers Running Rampant it doesn't matter how many Korean language articles there are to be found on Naver and Daum about the health benefits of Kimchi: English speakers still read mention of articles like this one, and frankly, here's the impression it gives:

Only a country full of racists would allow a media outlet to publish a piece as full of unchecked racism as this.

Now, this isn't necessarily true: we've all met a lot of Koreans who are super-cool, cosmopolitan, global-minded, who deplore such bald racism... but why aren't they storming down the doors of media outlets that publish this kind of yellow journalism, and demanding accountability... their silence reads as tacit approval, and Korea looks bad.

And Korea SHOULD look bad, until its media is roundly, and loudly criticized for playing on people's worst fears. Korea DESERVES to be embarrassed on the world stage, if it allows their media so much unchecked irresponsibilty. That's all.

Shame on you, Yonhap, and shame on every media outlet that publishes junk like this, and on every editor who approves it, and on every Korean who is silent while media outlets make their country look like some kind of racist backwater. Shame on all of you.

(Yeah. I'm mad. So?)

PS: let's not forget Korea's Foreign teachers are not the only ones who behave badly.
More here from Brian.
HT to Korea Beat.

Not Quite a Bliss-out, But Definitely a Glee-down

Art Brut: "Good Weekend" -- funny funny song. You can totally tell he's singing to sixteen-year-olds.

The chorus: "Got myself a brand new girlfriend" is adolescent glee, but the real clincher is the end of the bridge, with the triumphal cry, "I've seen her naked...TWICE!"

Can't embed it, but click the link and have a laugh.

Eaten by Zombies: 'Seyo's Guilty Pleasure Corner

I have a few guilty pleasures.

Soy Caramel Maquillados from Starbucks.
Lindt Dark Chocolate
Banana Chips
outrageous inappropriate shock humor
hitting the snooze button three or more times

and... four kinds of movie:
1. James Bond
2. Superhero/Comic Book Action
3. Hong Kong Kung-fu action - I'd even argue that this one isn't purely a guilty pleasure: see, it's amazing, what these dudes can do with their bodies: the athleticism and skill of choreographing and performing those things is a thing of wonder.
4. Zombie movies!!!!

Soundtrack: the Zombeatles: It's Been a Hard Day's Night Of The Living Dead. Hit play and read.

Yeah. I found this list of The best Zombie Movies ever made: a few lists. Askmen.com, some random guy, and so forth.

I downloaded a bunch, and I've been devouring them with glee: working on other stuff while doing this.

See, Zombie movies are awful. Dramatically, the premise of zombies is incredibly limited: they all follow the same line --

1. zombies break out,
2. spread inexorably, and then the last half of the movie always, ALWAYS ends with
3. humans hiding in various buildings with boarded up doors and windows, keeping zombies out, hoping zombies don't come in:
4. at best, the good guys escape from one shelter to another shelter...but wouldn't they just be followed there by zombies as well?
5. At worst, zombies breach the shelter and everybody, or almost everybody dies (though the sympathetic ones might yet make it to some other refuge...where they STILL have to just keep zombies out).

But within those awful constraints, there's so much fun to be had: the jump scenes when Zombies burst through doors or out of shadows, the "will they get in" suspense of that endless pounding on doors, the creativity of filmmakers trying to find new, even sillier ways to kill zombies, the go-to-town delightfulness of absolute mayhem in the costume and make-up department. The creepy deaky music... every zombie movie checks the same boxes, not unlike James Bond movies.

Meanwhile, many '80s Zombie movies (Return of the Living Dead Trilogy in particular) are just goofy.

So, here are the best/most enjoyable zombie movies I've seen so far.

Creepiest: Lucio Fulci's "Zombie 2/Zombi" (1979) - the zombies in this one were the creepiest, and the atmosphere was the most ominous - which is the best you can hope for in a good zombie movie. They were so slow, yet that made their catching the good guys seem even more inexorable. The last-stand in a makeshift hospital building was thrilling, the zombies had this cool way of taking a while to die and fall over, even after you shot them in the ahead, as if they were trying to decide whether to die or to just keep coming after you. There's even some alright dialogue and !gasp! character development... Plus, before they get to the really scary stuff, there's an AWESOME Zombie/Shark fight. The undead vs. nature's purest killer. Sweetness!

(Warning: zombie)

Yeh!

This video gives the soundtrack: one of the best creepy ones, and shows how scary a slow zombie can be. So deliberate: so inevitable! Warning; a lot of gross footage in this tribute.


Most unique/interesting:

Day of the Dead - George Romero made this one: after first popularizing the zombie genre with "Night of the Living Dead" (1968, one of the creepiest zombie movies so far), making "Dawn of the Dead" in 1978 (maybe the best classic zombie movie; remade louder and grosser and more cynical in 2004) this one was both best and worst of the zombie genre: the scientist experimenting on zombies was interesting, and a gross way of bringing in more variations on the zombie legend. The characters were either cool or really really awful: the soldiers were some of the worst ass-munching stereotypes out there, but some of the other characters were likeable. The right people got theirs at the end. Bub is the coolest zombie out there: he's actually domesticated by the end of the movie, and demonstrates something close to feeling. Interesting take on the genre: like no other zombie movie I've seen. In fact, the central dramatic point of the film is the conflict between the people trapped in the military compound, rather than just being "run away from zombies. hide. hiding place compromised. run to new hiding place. lose a few people. repeat" the way most zombie movies go. Just for that, it's worth seeing.



28 Days Later: a modern zombie film:


it seems modern audiences don't have the attention span to allow menace to develop: the slow pacing of a movie like the 1968 Night of the Living Dead allows a lot of anxiety to build up before the climactic scene, but I guess somebody decided that modern audiences want the release without the build-up, so they just jump straight into the fast-paced stuff...and then have trouble building up any sense of dread later. The zombies can run. Fast zombies are more immediately terrifying, and seriously, they ARE frightening: the scariest zombies I've seen, but they don't make an impact as lastingly creepy as Lucio Fulci's ghoulishly slow zombies (second scariest, stay with you longer). Sorry. The scary thing about zombies isn't that the first one you see might run you down and get you. It's that if you see one, there are probably more nearby, and more, and more, and yeah, you could avoid them, but they're persistent, patient, and they don't stop, and if one of them gets its hands on you, you're probably done, so you can't let your guard down for a minute, and you better be sure there aren't any waiting behind the door on your escape route, and next time you look out the boarded-up window, there will be more waiting outside than last time you looked. On the other hand, 28 Days Later does have legitimate thrills.

before I go on too long, here's a history of the zombie genre: I still have a lot to see, but I've had myself a good start. Cheesy, but fun as heck!

Zombies. Go see one yourself. I recommend Fulci, or the original Night of the Living Dead.

'cause if you're gonna watch a crappy movie, watch a crappy zombie movies: crappy action, suspense, comedy, and drama films are just abominable: no fun to be had whatsoever, but with a crappy horror or zombie movie, you at least get the fun of some shameless attempts to frighten you, some fun make-up, and the joy of mocking the filmmakers if they fail to actually frighten you...and the fun of a good scare if they DO!

Oh by the way, one last thing:

Don't you love it when, at the end of the credits of a movie titled something like "Rock Zombie Elvis Impersonating Detective Agency From the Fifth Dimension and Their Loyal Zombie Space-Dog Poofnark... The Musical!", there's a little disclaimer: "Any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental"

Shinhan Engineering & Construction and the Korean Supreme Court Damages its Own Reputation by Pissing on Choi Jin-Shil's Grave

image from all Kpop

For the crime of being beaten by her husband, Choi Jin-Shil was sued by Shinhan Engineering & Construction Co.: she was hired to promote their company, but by appearing in public with burises on her face, she damaged the image of the company she endorsed. The Korean Supreme Court upheld their suit.
(image from the story about the original filing of the suit, 5 years ago.)

That's right: Choi got sued for being a victim of domestic violence. And found responsible for damages to the company. And the supreme court upheld it. And Korea wonders why they are 68th in the world on the Gender Empowerment Measure, despite being 25th on the Human Development Index: a disparity of 43 places. This is an embarrassment Korea, and a despicable action by the company. Here's the company's page. I can't find their e-mail, so you'll have to phone them and tell them how you feel. They should have pressed charges against her husband for damaging their "property". Cripes.

James Turnbull has more about Korean women getting royally screwed, in reputation or financially, for things that weren't their fault. (Happened to IVY, too.)

Mike Hurt on Korea's GEM

On a more sarcastic note: comedy site Yangpa reports on Korea's "Let's Keep Domestic Violence Domestic" campaign: hit your wife at home, not in front of the KFC!

Bwahahaha! Wondergirls and the Korean boys in Blue

The wondergirls made it onto Collegehumor.com

Watch Dancing Korean Police Officer on CollegeHumor

You want Random? I'll give you Random

1. one of the coolest compliments I ever received:
"Rob is the thinnest person I've ever met who likes food as much as he does."

2. when a narcissist like myself googles his own name, he might discover...

I have a namesake: another Rob Ouwehand, who is a prog-metal guitarist in the Netherlands. Here's what he sounds like.

Here's what he looks like.

And here's a funny song about another person who likes to google himself. (warning: mature content)

F-Visas vs. E-Visas...This again? A Correction in the Korea Times.

OK.

So back in October of last year, a Korea Times writer named Kang Shin-who wrote an article about Visa status for foreigners in Korea.

Here's that article.

This was in October of 2008 -- long before the Wagner report was filed with the NHRCK. Among other things, he wrote:

South Korea’s visa policy has been accused of favoring ``gyopo’’ or ethnic Korean English teachers over other foreign nationals, with this favoritism creating loopholes in the system making it easier for those with criminal and drug records to go undetected. However, the government has indicated it has no immediate plan to change visa rules....

He said he has witnessed some English instructors who were once expelled from Korea return to the country with other visas such as an F-2 or F-4, taking advantage of this system.

Under the Korean visa rules, native English speakers seeking E-2 visa are obliged to submit police background checks. However, foreigners who are ethnic Koreans or married to Korean nationals are exempt from the requirements as they are eligible for F-4 and F-2 visas, respectively.

Most other foreign English teachers call it ``discriminative.’’

Where he went to find his "most other foreign English teachers" is never explained, but that was his idea, that was the main thesis of the article. You can read it. Let the record show: this was last October.

In February, when Ben Wagner filed his report, somebody in the Korea Times office probably shouted across the press room, "Hey! Anybody here care to write up this story about discrimination against E-2 visas?"

Whether Kang Shin-who thought, "Hey! I already wrote about that before; I'll totally do it again: it's like my strong point" and volunteered, or his editor thought, "Kang wrote about this before; I'll ask him to do it again," once again, Kang was the man covering the Wagner report.

He made a mistake. See, he had a deadline, so he took this idea from his article back in October, and used it again when he wrote up the Wagner report:

In response, many E-2 visa holders have complained that the government should apply the same visa screening rules to foreign English teachers holding other visas. They are urging the government to use the same restrictions on teachers holding E-1 (professorship), F-2 (spouse of a Korean) or F-4 (ethnic Korean) visas.

He even pulled a quote from Wagner out of its original context, and put it right after his own idea, to make it sound like Wagner supported his thesis.

``The visa rules for E-2 visa holders should be revised as they clearly discriminate on the basis of national origin,'' said Benjamin Wanger, a professor of Kyung Hee University. He filed the complaint with the human right agency.

ATEK made it clear that they don't oppose background checks per se.

Well, he's at it again. See, a group of Korean lawyers are filing a petition with the Constitutional Court protesting the discriminatory visa rules. (As for why they're discriminatory, go read up here.) Once again, Kang got tapped for the KT write-up, and once again, Kang has dropped his own total misunderstanding of the Wagner Report, based on a preconception of visa discrimination he'd formed the October before the Wagner Report was filed, into his write-up.

E-2 visa holders have contended that the government should apply the same visa screening rules to foreign English teachers holding other visas, urging the government to use the same restrictions on teachers holding E-1 (professorship), F-2 (spouse of a Korean) or F-4 (ethnic Korean) visas. They made it clear that they don't oppose background checks as a rule.

If you look at the texts side-by-side, I wouldn't be surprised if he simply cut-and-pasted his own article. They're almost word-for-word.

Now, everybody who has a lot invested in this: look at the three texts written by the same Korea Times writer. The guy got it wrong. Really wrong. His previous article contributed to a nasty, nasty rift in the expat community which has just finally started to be repaired on either side, and it would be a real shame if this guy's misunderstanding of Wagner's report caused a re-fracturing where we were so close to getting ourselves back on the same page (take Ben up on this offer, f-series friends! It'd be a really great gesture of solidarity in the face of what's threatening to pull us apart).

I just got off the phone with Ben, and Ben just got off the phone with Kang, and Kang finally gets it, that his sloppy journalism is causing huge misunderstandings and division in the expat community. Ben reports that Kang actually feels awful about it, and is in touch with his editor to get his flub corrected in the online edition. I'm going to write a letter to the editor asking for a retraction, even though I'd previously promised myself never to write to the Korea Times again, after that horrible, horrible two weeks of printing any old junk.

So hey everybody.
1. let's not crucify Kang: journalists writing under deadlines get sloppy, and he didn't realize the effect his carelessness was having on the community, and actually feels bad about it: Ben's been on the phone with him a few times tonight.

2. Let's not let this guy's gaffe screw up the positive movement toward a truce and a clearer understanding of each other that had been slowly coming around, thanks to gestures of openness and good faith on both sides.

On the bright side: Korean lawyers are coming to their own constitutional court, calling their own laws discriminatory, and calling out the use of prejudice in the process of lawmaking:

Chang Suh-yeon, an attorney with the Korean Public Interest Lawyers Group ``Gong-Gam,'' told The Korea Times Tuesday that her group will take the issue to the court this week or next.

``The visa law violated the Constitution that guarantees a basic right to freedom, equal treatment, the pursuit of happiness and the protection of privacy,'' Chang said.

``The visa law is based on vague prejudice and bias that foreign English teachers have disordered sex lives and use drugs,'' she added.

For anybody who's invested in living in Korea for a long time, and who has gotten tired of defending ourselves from unfounded, lazy stereotyping and scapegoating, an open public discussion about media scapegoating, led by Koreans talking to Koreans on our behalf, is about as good news as I can imagine.

I'm hitting publish now, and once I've written up the call for a formal retraction and sent it to The Korea Times, I'll publish it here, too. Screenshot of the offending article, with the paragraph under question highlighted (10:30pm).



(also covered at Brian in JND)

Update: Wow! That was a really fast correction. Here is a screenshot of the corrected article online (11:46pm), with a more accurate description of the nature of the complaint. The paragraph was removed, and the first sentence was also changed to more accurately reflect the content of Wagner's report, and the nature of the Korean lawyers' petition.

As the error has been corrected, a call for a retraction and a nasty letter to the editor is no longer necessary...so I won't write one. Thanks, Kang Shin-who, and The Korea Times editor, for doing what's necessary to get it right this time.

Once again, readers: let's make sure that if the expat community disagrees about stuff, it's only once we all have our facts straight.

Update: this article explains things the way I've heard Ben Wagner explain them.

Laughed from beginning to end.

Enter Kazoo Man - from Metallica's Enter Sandman.

Something Really Good Happened Today

While I'm not quite ready to go into the nitty-gritty on blogoseyo, you'll be happy to know that something really good happened in my personal life today. Really really good. So you can offer me congratulations if you like, and maybe later you can hear more details; if you know me personally, you can send me a message, but suffice it to say, I'm really, really happy.

Also: I took these pictures.

The Wagner Report.

Full Disclosure:
Benjamin Wagner read my summary of his report before I published it. There were a few points where I missed, or partially missed the point (as smart as I am, cough cough), and a few where he wanted me to be clear about the emphasis of the report.

Nhrck Report 2

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Uncategorizable-Unca Business-Branding

Cover page: This article is available for educational purposes: so people can see what's in it. If you haven't read it, but you're interested in what's contained here, I recommend you DO read it. I'll try to break down the contents here, but there's no substitute for reading it on your own. If you want to reproduce this article, post it on your own site, or whatever, contact Ben Wagner. He owns it.

Part 1:
Section A: Page 2: Introduction to New Visa Policy
Table containing statistics on the number of E-2 Visa holders living in Korea for the years 2005-2008, by nation: increased from 12439 in 2005 to 19375 in 2008.

Section B: Page 3-5: New E-2 Visa Was Meant to Calm a Xenophobic Public
Introduces a policy memo introduced by the Ministry of Justice in 2007, describing changes "New Changes on the E2 teaching Visa Holders in Korea". The reason it gives for the policy memo is a social outcry over unqualified E2 teaching visa holders. It also cites Christopher Paul Neil, the child sex offender, and mentions drug use and fraudulent diplomas. The memo requires blood tests in Korea, and will not accept medical tests from outside Korea.

The report asserts that "the E-2 policy was an extra-legal (outside of the due process of law) and discriminatory crackdown designed to calm a xenophobic public"

While the claimed aim of the policy was to protect children, which is a legitimate aim (remember that phrase: it's important), in fact it was mostly a symbolic gesture meant to calm a public worried about dangerous foreign teachers. The public was worried because of irresponsible media reports, and the Christopher Paul Neil arrest took that undercurrent of fear and whipped it into a public panic.

First, within a week, the National Assembly introduced a bill to check E-2 visa holders, but that bill failed because the National Assembly got distracted with the BBK scandal. That same bill has been re-introduced with a new number: 3356, which was also the number I had to punch in to access my voicemail during my last year of university.

However, at the bill's failure, the E-2 visa regulations skipped out on the process of law, by sending out a "policy memo" that didn't have to pass the rigors or scrutiny of lawmakers.

Three stages of the E-2 check process are troublesome for people living in Korea, because if we live in Korea, we are protected by the Korean constitution.

A. Rounding up suspects (by requiring us to go to hospitals in order to stay in the country)

This violates our right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and discriminates against us because of our citizenship and immigration status.


B. Body searches (submitting to medical checks)

This violates our right to be presumed innocent, discriminates against us because of citizenship and immigration status, and violates our right to privacy (more on that right to privacy later).

C. Deportation of undesirables

Deportation of HIV positive teachers discriminates based on medical history. Korea has signed onto a number of international agreements that protect people from discrimination by medical history.

And all these requirements were implemented without the due process that is required to implement a law. They will each be explained in more detail later.

[Roboseyo here: though it's not said directly, these tests would be a violation of any foreigner's rights, E, F, whatever series. Robo out.]

Pages 5-8

While the policy breaks the rule of law -- that laws should be passed only by following the due process of Korean law, it also violates a number of international treaties against discrimination which Korea has signed.

A pertinent section of the "International Convention on Civil and Political Rights" (ICCPR- remember that) which Korea has joined, explains that a national law must be passed in order to place a limit on people's human rights. Governments ARE within their rights restrict the rights and freedoms of people, if it passes a few tests. A government that is part of this convention can't just kind of make up some stuff that sounds good, and start limiting people's freedoms however.

First of all, there must be a legitimate public aim. Second, there must be a process that clearly leads to that legitimate aim. The E-2 checks fail that test, and are deeply flawed. (The report lists the flaws on page 7-8, but explains them in more detail later, so I'll save it for then).

It concludes saying that the E-2 visa was never meant to protect children, but it was a show to pacify a panicked public, while violating E-2 visa holders' human rights.

Section C: Pages 9-13: Xenophobic Origins of the policy

traces the development of the "problematic foreigner" archetype, and how that meme developed, spurred on by irresponsible media coverage and reckless comments by people in positions of authority, leading to the spread of three stereotypes about foreign English teachers:
1. We're likely to be sexual predators
2. We're likely to be drug users
3. We're likely to have aids, and because of our promiscuity and drug use, are a high risk to spread it.

Section D: Pages 14-15: Lack of Data
Though public officials and the media like saying "some" "many" and such, the policy memo itself cites media coverage and Christopher Paul Neill, not statistics. In fact, though he's one of the reasons the checks were implemented, CPN would have passed the new checks: he had a clean criminal record, an authentic university degree, and to our knowledge, had no history of drug use or HIV.

Also, the E-2 visa policy validates the stereotypes that we have been fighting, by putting the government's stamp of approval on it.

Section E: Pages 15-19: Drug Crimes
In justifying the E-2 checks, government officials said that the foreigner drug problem has been worsening for some time, however, statistics do not bear that out.

Page 16 features a chart of foreign teacher drug arrests that shows two things:
1. In the three years before the new E-2 visa checks, there were NO foreign English Teacher arrests for the hard drugs which are tested.
2. While there were some marijuana arrests, statistically, the arrests amount to a mere 0.14% of the total foreign teacher population. It seems like the foreign drug problem is mostly in media comments, not reality.
3. While the chart does not seem to differentiate between E-2 visas and other visas, the fact remains that the number is not statistically significant enough to justify invasive testing.

(page 17-18) In a report, Korea named human rights education for law enforcement and media representation of foreigners as two of the NHRCK's tasks toward creating a discrimination free environment for minorities.

Wagner calls out the NHRCK for neither providing preventative education to, nor calling out public officials, law enforcement officers, and the like, for making comments that profile English teachers, and put in jeopardy our right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty (as is stated in The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - "CERD" [remember that acronym], a treaty which Korea has signed without reservations): We have the right not to be portrayed as criminals.

Section F: Page 19-23: Sex Crimes
Often, sex and drug crimes are connected in the stereotype of the English teacher. Wagner provides a table (page 20) demonstrating that the rate of sex crimes for foreigners is much lower than that for Koreans: 25.6 arrests per 100 000 people for foreigners from English speaking countries (including all types of visas - not just English teachers, but excluding the military), compared with 108 arrests per 100 000 Koreans. As for crimes against children, the policy memo mentioned one foreign sex criminal who did not do his crimes in Korea, and no other cases; just this year, there have been several cases of different kinds of sexual abuse by Korean teachers in Korea; page 22 reports more incidences of Korean teachers behaving badly, and contrasts the speedy action by Korean lawmakers for a foreign child-sex criminal with the lack of legislative action to protect Korean students from Korean teachers, and demonstrates that if Korea were serious about their justification for the E-2 checks "to protect children," then they would be trying harder to protect children from Korean teachers as well.

Section G: Page 23-30: HIV/AIDS This section is long, but a few important points:

1. You can't transmit HIV by teaching.
2. HIV awareness in South Korea is really low: people lack basic information about HIV safety and transmission, and that lack of knowledge plays into the fear of the foreign teacher as AIDS carrier.
3. This is more dangerous again, because by testing English teachers, the government is perpetuating the myth that HIV is a foreigner's disease, and therefore Koreans don't have to worry about it...this false sense of security could cause Koreans to be careless, and put them at MORE risk, it could also lead to Koreans not feeling the need to get tested, which leads to more unreported cases: unreported cases, (people who don't know they're positive,) are the greatest risk for spreading HIV and AIDS.
4. The policy of deporting HIV positive people also increases the risk of spreading HIV, because it discourages people from getting voluntarily tested: people who don't know they are infected are the greatest threat to spread HIV and AIDS, so the deportation policy increases the possibility of unreported cases.

It should be noted that 13000 people, citizen or foriegn, are estimated to be living in Korea with HIV/AIDS, most of whom don't realize they're infected. The foreign AIDS scare is distracting attention from the help THEY need, and it is adding to the stigmatization of HIV/AIDS which prevents people from getting tested.

Korea has actually been directly questioned by the UK about its E-2 visa policies, during a UN Human Rights Council periodic review, yet the NHRCK has not commented yet on this policy.

Section H: Pages 30-36: This is undermining Korea's otherwise good Human Rights record
Korea enacted the Basic Act on the Treatment of Foreigners Residing in Korea, which is a great document. Korea has been flashing that document around on the international arena to impress people, and show off how non-discriminatory and open a society they are (30-31). However, most foreigners living in Korea weren't even aware of this Basic Act in 2007 and 2008, when Korea was trumpeting it internationally. We DID know that we were being subjected to health, HIV and drug tests, as well as criminal background checks.

Those background checks were implemented without being examined in light of the basic act meant to protect us. That basic act requires, among other things, that laws regarding foreigners must be examined to make sure they're consistent with the basic act and with international non-discrimination treaties Korea has signed. The basic act also calls for cooperation and dialog with foreign communities when laws are under review, but E-2 teachers were not consulted, or their objections were ignored, when the visa checks were being implemented.

The E-2 policy memo (which has now been enacted as a regulation) flies in the face of international treaties which Korea has signed and enacted. Language like "a good many [foreigners] have previous convictions for drug and sexual crimes or carry infectious diseases" (actual text of the regulation's justification) does exactly the opposite: rather than moving Korea closer to being an open, non-discriminatory society where everyone's rights are protected, it takes profiling and stereotyping of foreigners, and validates it with lawmakers' approval: it is in fact a step towards government sanctioned xenophobia, rather than an open society.

It is not too late for Korea to reverse this troubling xenophobic trend (page 35); if Korea is proactive right now (possibly prompted by the NHRCK), Korea could return to its place at the forefront of anti-discrimination.

Part 2: Here's where it gets legal
Section A: Pages 37-41
Now, the ministry of justice, after already implementing the checks, has tried to justify them by saying that a sovereign nation has the right to decide who enters their country.

That's true, but when the checks were passed, 17000 foreign teachers had already been admitted to Korea, and were required to take the test as well. International law does not permit a country to retroactively apply entry requirements to foreigners already living in a country. In fact (footnote p. 38), the ICCPR which Korea signed and enacted, DOES have rules against discriminating, even against non-citizens who have not yet been admitted to a country.

(p. 39-40) While the Ministry of Justice requirements are explained as intended to prevent the entry of people who are a danger to public health (HIV carriers or drug addicts, for example), the E-2 visa checks fail to achieve this, because you have to take the health check in-country, and those found undesirable are deported. True entry requirements would require people to pass the checks before entering Korea.

The so-called "entry requirements" are not prohibiting the entry of undesirables: the way they are carried out makes it clear that these checks are a justification to round up people living in country, and search them in a way that violates their privacy and their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and be deported if they do not pass muster.

[Benjamin notes that the point of this argument is NOT to create entry requirements, but to demonstrate that the Ministry of Justice's checks can't be justified as entry requirements, even by their own rules.]

Section B: Pages 41-44: Non-Citizens Have the Right to Equal Treatment
CERD, in its 2007 review, expressed concern about discrimination against foreigners in Korea. Korea has also identified discrimination against foreigners as a major concern. An anti-discrimination bill that would have provided more concrete means to limit discrimination in Korea failed to be enacted in December, 2007, but in its latest comments to the CERD, Korea has stated that anti-discrimination remains a priority, and Korea is working on introducing a new anti-discrimination bill that will do so. Until then, the Korean constitution has declared that non-citizens are entitled to the right of equality and non-discrimination.

Meanwhile, in the absence of a Korean anti-discrimination bill, some of the international agreements Korea has signed provide a framework to prevent discrimination. Korea signed the CERD without reservation -- that means that rather than just signing their name on it but adding a lot of "buts", they've signed it and said "We're applying this to the laws of our land" in such a way that the CERD CAN be used in court to challenge a discriminatory law, for example. This doesn't mean foreigners are necessarily entitled to EVERY right and privilege of Koreans: for example, being a non-citizen means I can't vote in Korean elections, or run for office, but other rights ARE protected by the CERD.

Section C: Pages 44-47: The E-2 Visa Violates Korean Labor Law
[Benjamin believes this is the strongest hard law argument in his report: there are precedents in Korean court that support this assertion, and precedents for labor law superseding immigration law, when it comes to workers' rights]

The labor standards act requires labor laws to treat foreign and citizen workers equally. However, given a foreigner applying for a teaching job, but who refuses the HIV test, and a Korean applying for a teaching job, who also refuses the HIV test, the E-2 checks would cause discrimination, because the Korean could still get the job, while the foreigner couldn't.

In terms of legal power, an act supersedes a policy memo, so the Labor Act has more authority than the E-2 checks memo, so the Labor act's rules against discrimination should cancel the discriminatory rules of a mere memo.

(p. 45-46)In fact, there is a precedent in Korean law that demonstrates that labor law enforces fair treatment for workers, and holds sway when an immigration law seems to contradict it: a Korean court ruled that an undocumented worker was still entitled to his retirement allowance (according to labor law) even though his immigration status violated immigration law. The labor act officially protects foreigners even from rules in the immigration act... how much more from a mere policy memo.

Section D: Pages 47-52: The International Agreements Are A Strong Enough Legal Basis to Prevent Discrimination in Korea
While Korea has the "National Human Rights Commission Act" and the "Basic Act on the Treatment of Foreigners Residing in Korea" in the books, these two acts have not been tested out in court thoroughly enough to provide a solid lawful framework to guarantee equality. However, they are certainly enough to demonstrate that non-discrimination is the law of the land in Korea, as per the international agreements Korea has joined. The CERD clearly states that acts on immigration control must not cancel rights guaranteed to foreigners by other acts.

Meanwhile, in international forums, Korea has been trumpeting these acts loudly...even inaccurately, saying that the NHRCK has the power to declare something a punishable crime, when it actually has no such power, but can only give non-binding recommendations.

(49-50) The way Korea has been advertising these acts makes them look good; there is the expectation, however, that in the international community, countries act in good faith, put their laws into practice consistently, and in ways that are consistent with the ways other countries enact similar laws.

Now this is important: Korea signed the CERD without reservation, and Korea chose to enact it in such a way that it IS Korean law. Korea chose to make the CERD domestic law when it signed onto it, and because of the way the international community expects its members to act consistently, and in good faith with the agreements, it is Korea's duty to examine national and local laws for consistency with the international agreements Korea has signed. The CERD should have the power to to rescind a descriminatory law, because the CERD IS the law of the land in Korea.

The second limitation on the NHRCK's power to speak out against discrimination is the vagueness of the language used to talk about discrimination: lawmakers have been frustrated with the term "unreasonable discrimination," asking for a clearer, more rigorous definition. The new definition they were given was "Discrimination without reasonable cause" which, frankly, is just as unclear. The NHRCK is currently working on creating a set of clearer standards for what discrimination, and reasonable cause actually is, specifically. Because of way countries attempt to apply the agreements they have signed in similar ways, it is reasonable for countries to take cues from the ways other countries have applied the same agreements.

In fact, Korea's "National Action Plan (NAP) for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" openly intends to take its cues from UN treaty monitoring bodies, and their recommendations, as it clarifies Korean human rights laws.

All this means...

Section E: Pages 52-58: The CERD Provides A Standard to Determine Discrimination
Basically, because Korea signed the CERD and enacted it, and fully applied it as national law. There are not too many countries in the world which have taken the CERD into domestic law as fully as Korea: the CERD is law in Korea. This means the CERD's statements about discrimination are applicable in Korean courts. It has been demonstrated that the E-2 policy was not meant to protect children, but to calm a panicked public (part 1 section B). By, to borrow a phrase, "Throwing E-2 Visa Holders under the bus" Korea meant to calm the public's fears -- using discrimination to calm xenophobic fears -- "blame the outsider" -- feels good, but it fails legally.

Despite a clearly discriminatory law like the E-2 visa checks, Korea has declared a desire to be an open, multicultural society but let's be clear about this:

The goal of this report is not just to take away protective measures, leaving children more vulnerable than ever before. Everyone living in this society, while it goes through the growing pains of becoming multicultural in practice, rather than just in rhetoric, wants children to be safe.

It has been said before, a legitimate aim can justify limiting people's human rights, and everyone on all sides would agree that protecting children is a legitimate aim. Special controls on teachers is a justified, because teachers have so much influence on kids. However, a LAW is required to impinge on teacher's rights (not just a policy memo that never passed the rigors of law). Also, that law would have to apply to ALL teachers who work with children to pass the anti-discrimination test, and if somebody feels discriminated against, the Ministry of Justice must provide a reasonable and objective cause for that discrimination. A reasonable and objective justification for the E-2 visa checks has not been provided by the Ministry of Justice.

[OK, F-series visa folks: hold onto your hats. Here it comes]
The first mention of F-series visa holders is here, on page 56, but it is in the same breath as Korean citizens, stating that E-2 checks discriminate between E-2 teachers and teachers of different immigration status and Korean citizens. It mentions that Korean public school teachers have to have criminal checks, but not Korean private academy teachers.

however, from the footnote: "This report does not advocate that HIV or drug tests should be required of any teachers. Teachers of children, however, should be required to submit criminal background checks of sufficient scrutiny and authenticity; and due diligence academic verification should be required of all teachers and professors."

Differentiated treatment must be justified reasonably and objectively, and the E-2 visa checks fail to provide a factual justification for the checks. It would require overwhelming statistical proof that E-2 teachers are a greater danger than F-series teachers or Korean teachers to justify different treatment for them, and that proof does not exist. Korean citizen teachers are no more or less a threat to children than E-2 visa holders. If the Korean government's aim with the E-2 visa checks was to "protect children," then it would follow that ALL those in close contact with children would need to be checked, Korean teachers and other visa holders as well as E-2 teachers.

[next F-visa mention: long footnote on page 58: while checking E-2 visas without checking F-visas IS discrimination according to visa status, it should be noted that F-visa holders DO have a reasonable and objectively justified right to their special visa status, and having their special visa status to help them stay close to their families or ethnic roots is a legitimate aim; however, when it comes to teaching kids, the case of David Nam, a Korean-American wanted for murder in America, is instructive: he was caught teaching English to kids in Korea. His case demonstrates that the E-2 visa check system fails to protect children. The argument made here defends the F-visa holder's right to live in Korea, regardless, but suggests that criminal checks could be justified for those wishing to teach children, but only if those same checks were ALSO applied to Korean citizens.]

Section F: Page 59-67: Establishing a Fair and Lawful System of Checks to Protect Children
As stated before, if rights are to be restricted, there must be 1. a legitimate aim, 2. a method that properly fits that aim, 3. how much the check restricts individual rights. Background checks and tests infringe on my right to privacy, and to be presumed innocent, but that must be measured against the legitimacy of the aim and the method used to achieve the government's aim of protecting children.

Academic and Criminal Checks:
Academic checks are not unduly burdensome on job applicants, and they are not a severe invasion of privacy, and they are applied to everyone applying for the same teaching jobs: they pass the balancing test.

Criminal checks, however, are deeply flawed: because Korean immigration often lacks the expertise to verify if the criminal check is valid, there are constant complaints of arbitrariness, ignorance, and unprofessionalism in the way Korean immigration has handled the checks. Different types of checks have different levels of diligence and scrutiny, but Korean immigration has made no distinction: everybody knows the system is full of loopholes, different countries are asked to submit checks of different levels of scrutiny, and there is no published list of which offenses will cause someone to fail the background test, which leaves it up to the judgement of the immigration official. Many immigration officials seem to lack the training and expertise to determine which offenses are and aren't enough to disqualify people.

Korea needs to be clear about the methods it will use to protect our confidential information, as well. Some countries are not comfortable sending background or health information to Korean immigration if Korean immigration has not clearly explained how it will protect that data. Korea also needs to find out how other countries want their citizens' data to be treated, and respect those expectations.

Drug Tests
In 1994, Japan tried to implement drug tests for foreigners, and those tests were ruled discriminatory. Then Japan tried to impose those same tests on ALL teachers, and they were ruled a violation of teachers' privacy.

The balance test fails for E-2 drug tests, because there have been drug arrests of Korean teachers as well as foreign teachers, so applying drug tests only to foreign teachers is clearly discriminatory.

Whether the government can impose drug testing on all teachers in Korea must be weighed by the balance test: is the violation of privacy justified by the aim and method of testing? Such decisions must be made through the due process of lawmaking, under the Korean constitution.

HIV Tests
The HIV test, whose only purpose is to find and deport HIV carriers, clearly fails because it discriminates by medical history. The only time a compulsory HIV test can pass the balance test is if the job I'm applying to presents a direct threat of infection, or if my condition makes me unable to do my job.

In 2003, a Hepatitis B test was proposed for government hiring practices. This test failed because it violated the rights of Hep-B carriers... but Korea's own disease monitoring body rates Hepatitis B as MORE contagious than HIV, so if the Hep-B test was unconstitutional, the HIV test is even MORE unconstitutional, insofar as HIV is LESS contagious than Hep-B.

Wagner recommends that the NHRCK release an official opinion that the HIV test is discrimination.

Part 3:
Conclusion and Recommendations
The NHRCK has the opportunity to change the discussion here from "Fear the Dangerous Foreign Teachers" to "How can we protect Korean children?" and should recommend a single, high standard of protection that applies to ALL teachers of children, no matter what immigration or citizenship they have.

To better protect children, NHRCK should also recommend that all teachers be given training and education on the human rights of children, in order to recognize and take steps to prevent child abuse. The NHRCK should also recommend that children be taught to recognize abuse, and know how to get help when they see or experience it. By insisting on a single, standard level of protection, Korea's children will be better protected than they are now by the arbitrary, discriminatory system currently in place.

Key Recommendations: (page 69)
NHRCK should...[Roboseyo's paraphrase:]
• Officially state that the E-2 visa policy and legislation is discrimination against non-citizens living in Korea.
• Recommend that the government apologize and open talks about how to make up for human rights violations that have already happened.
• Condemn the scapegoating, stereotyping and targeting of foreigners by politicians, officials, educators, the media, etc..
• Organize a conference on xenophobia and the rights of foreigners in Korea.
• Officially affirm foreign populations in Korea's right to form groups and associations aimed at protecting the human rights of their members.


To keep discussion about this in as few places as possible, please direct your comments and questiosn on this topic to page and comment board where it was first published, at popular gusts.

Blogging my Reading of Benjamin Wagner's February NHRCK Complaint: the screen shots [see correction]

[Please note the correction: these are screen shots of keyword scans from the first report Prof. Wagner submitted to the NHRCK back in 2008, not the February report that is the source of so much controversy. I only realized this after I put up this post, and have apologized to Prof. Wagner for jumping the gun: misinformation has been the bane of this report's progress so far, and I apologize for contributing to that, if only for a day before I posted the corretion.]

[While this is not the report that Wagner submitted in February 2009, the one ATEK backed, the subject of the controversy, the absence of mention of F-2 and F-series visas in the embryonic form of what BECAME that report is worth noting, however, when considering the context of whatever the February report contains. I am reading that report now, and am in communication with Prof. Wagner about it. I will report on it as soon as I can.]

[Unfortunately for all those waiting with bated breath, I also have a job and a personal life, you I respectfully ask for your patience as I put together this information and prepare to present it to you. I am committed to this process, and to acting in good faith toward everyone involved in the process, those I agree with AND disagree with. Thanks in advance for your patience.]

[Rob]
[Update/Correction over]

I have in my hand, and on my hard drive, Benjamin Wagner's February complaint to the NHRCK. Over the course of the night, I'm going to be writing a cliff's notes version of the full complaint posted at Popular Gusts, but for now, I'd like to start with these screen shots of the first page of the [correction: report that preceded the] complaint. Please pay special attention to the search keywords in the top right corner. Click on any of these pictures to enlarge them.

Screen shot/ search one: "f-4" - not found
screen shot 2: "f series" - I put it in quotations, or every letter "f" in the entire report would be highlighted. "not found"

screen shot three: search for "f-2" "not found"
screen shot four: "f 2" - without the dash, in case it was stated "f 2 visa" instead of "f-2 visa"
three hits: all three from phrases about dates. "summer of 2008" "December of 2007" and "May of 2007"

Screen shot five: "f-visa" not found.
Screen shot six: "f-series" in quotations. Not found.
Any other combinations you'd like me to try? Put them in the comments and I will.

Help an expat out

Got this on facebook, from Brian Deutsch's blog, and an ATEK press release.

There's a guy named Matt who needs a possibly life-saving surgery, and the hospital's threatening to turn him out if he can't scratch up the cash.

More at Brian in JND.

Funniest Quarantine Story So Far

Go read it.

Me, in The Korea Herald, on Swine Flu

Go read what I said about the swine flu in The Korea Herald.

Speaking of Swine Flu

this video is dumb. but I'm glad to know kimchi cures swine flu.


Science proves it!

Sometimes I wonder whether Korean scientists discovering that Kimchi helps your immune system is akin to Korean historians discovering that Dokdo belongs to Korea...but only on my cynical days.

Pile up the red stuff, folks! Time for a munch.

Care Package at the Quarantine

Ben Wagner and I went down to the quarantine in Seocho today to bring some diversions and necessities to the English teachers in Quarantine for H1N1 Flu. RateMyHagwon is planning daily pickups at 7:30pm, Exit 5, Nambu Bus Terminal. We also met Okibum, a friend of one of the quarantin-ees, too. You should go there and bring some stuff to help out a bunch of expats who can't get out. Seriously, you should. Wash your hands after, but go.

Benjamin Wagner, the lawyer who published the defense of E-2 English teacher's rights, was interested to hear the conditions of the quarantine, and also whether it seemed like foreigners were being singled out for quarantine. He asked some pointed questions, but it didn't seem to me that foreigners were being treated differently than the Koreans...and the teachers involved felt that they were fairly treated. Some of them have been moved to hospitals, a few have been allowed to go home, and one or two were even asked to do home quarantine, if I heard right.

Meanwhile, the quarantine situation got better every day: people figured out how to do it properly, and today all the teachers were in good spirits when they came down to the roof of the building to talk to us from a small distance. They seemed like nice folks, looking forward to getting on with their Korea experience.

But don't believe me: let them speak for themselves!


Once again, it's heartening to see the Expat community start to connect with each other, care about what's happening to each other, and look out for each other. I'm glad to see that coming from a lot of different directions.

And if that last post was too much of a downer for you...

Here's Choi Hong Man, beating up Jose Canseco.


Awful. Just awful.

Ex-Pres. Roh's Suicide: Wrong in So Many Ways

I'm still sad, bummed, disappointed, upset, angry, confused about this.

For the sake of Roh the man, I wanted to leave a few days to let this whole thing sink in, but dear readers, Roh Moo-hyun's suicide is bad for Korea in so, so, so many ways. It's not often you see a situation that just has no upside whatsoever, but this one really doesn't.

Here are all the ways Roh's suicide is bad, and for whom:

1. For Korea's political scene.

Korea's political scene has been plagued for SO long by a hyper-polarization of left and right. Various presidential candidates (including, I believe, Roh himself) got to the Blue House partly on merit of promising to end the regional antagonism, and the us-against-them bloodsport of partisanship in Korean politics.

The fact, at this point, that it appears (and reality matters very little to demagogues, as long as there is an appeareance) that Lee Myung-Bak's very zealous investigation into Roh's corruption pushed him to desperation will further deepen, and crystallize the polarization of Korea's political parties.

2. For Korea's image internationally.

Yeah. Ex-president committing suicide in the middle of a corruption investigation? Kind of the exact opposite of a PR coup.

3. For Korea's slow journey out of the old corrupt ways and toward transparency

See, it would have been embarrassing, yeah, for the man, and even for the country, if Roh Moo-hyun had spent some time in jail for corruption... then again, it would have sent a message to everyone in Korea, as Lee Geon-hee's resignation from the top spot in Samsung did in '08, that corruption is no longer acceptable in Korea, even from the rich and powerful. By calling off the investigation after Roh's suicide, he and his family get away with corruption. Sure, the investigators could hardly have done anything else, given the backlash they would have faced, but the fact is, Roh's suicide is a major setback for a country trying to climb the world transparency index.

4. For Korea's suicide epidemic

When Roh killed himself, he managed to buy his family the out they needed: the corruption investigation was called off. By calling off the investigation, the Korean government has validated suicide as a way to get yourself out of a jam.

(opinion article stating as much)

Repeat: Calling off the corruption investigation, though inevitable, has validated suicide as an effective option for getting yourself, or your family out of a jam.

And this is to say nothing of the way the high profile suicide trend continues, and, as newspapers print photos of suicide funerals where famous people cry and wear black, as newspapers publish photos of suicide sites, it makes suicide that much more prominent in the mind of a depressed kid, as an option for dealing with life's problems: "If Choi Jin-shil did it..."

5. For Korean prosecutors

It is a huge blow to the credibility of Korea prosecutors and justice department, that Roh's investigation both appeared to be politically motivated, and that it was called off upon his death. When it looks like they're serving as hand in glove for the ones in power, to crap on the ones not in power, rather than being focused on justice alone, and when public emotion rather than satisfaction of the law is the reason for calling off an investigation, the credibility of Korean law is damaged.

6. For President Lee Myung-bak

Yep. The death is going to be politicized by the president's opponents. Yep, just wait for the protests in the street to begin. Yep, they'll find other things to blame on him. It's gonna be a whole lot of ugly in downtown Seoul, again this summer. Just when you thought it was safe to have a Hi Seoul! Festival...

7. For the Roh family.

Of course. Let's not forget that a wife lost her husband, a son lost his father. While it's a shame that a man they're trying to grieve is going to be used as a symbol for so many other things in the coming months, in the end, after the politicians have squeezed every bit of leverage they can out of Roh the image, Roh the symbol, and Roh the martyr, a wife will still be mourning her husband, and a son will still be mourning his father.

8. For Roh's legacy.

I don't want to go too deeply into what his motivations might have been, but yeah, a suicide is a pretty explicit admission of guilt in the corruption case. Unfortunately, that case will now be the final word on the man's life, instead of possibly spending some time in jail, but then possibly doing some good work as a former head-of-state who'd been (hopefully) humbled, and a man who, at one time, stood for something a lot of Koreans, and particularly, a lot of young Koreans, believed in.

Ever wondered what it's like to be an American in quarantine for Swine Flu in Korea?

Well wonder no more: it's being blogged as we speak! Here's what it looks like.

Sweet! Here's another one. (Thanks, Okibum in the comments)

And another. Wow. Round up the bloggers. Or is it just that everyone really does have a blog now?

HT to Brian

Two nice things before the sad thing.

This guy made me smile on the subway. Note the footgear. (Look out, feetman seoul! I'm moving in on your turf!)
One nice thing about the older urban spaces in Seoul is the way every once in a while, roses start spilling all over everything.


And finally, something that you have to prepare for, and not be surprised at, if you come to Korea:

Yep. The cleaning lady in the men's room. Protocol is: let her do her job, and stand a little bit closer than usual.

Now the sad thing: R.I.P. Roh Moo-hyun. Suicide. This story is ghastly and horrible on so many levels. Heartbreaking, too.
And shame on people who are either using his death to say nasty things about him, or to gain political leverage. Shame.
I took some pictures and stuff of the vigil taking place by City Hall. Go look.