December 19, 2018, 09:58:38 PM


Author Topic: UN rules Korea’s HIV, drug test for foreign teachers violated human rights  (Read 2318 times)

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1713
But the point's moot. It's still ethnic discrimination Mr. DeMartino.
The whole HIV test debacle was primarily aimed at the E-2 visa crowd  What's the percentage breakdown on F-visas (non-Kyopo) who are in teaching positions compared to those in non-teaching positions? Probably, very small.

I do remember that at one point there was a group called AFAIK or some such that was primarily centered around NETs who were here on F-visas, mostly spousal or other long-term residency visas, so there are a number of non-ethnically Koreans who are teaching on F-visas. They weren't affected either.

Again, it is discrimination based on residency and employment status, NOT ethnicity or race. Now if you want to argue things based on those terms, fine.

AFEK folks were very anti-E2. I remember the brutal debates on Dave's regarding the whole HIV test debate. They were very adamant that as "teachers" they don't need to be tested because of their protected F-visa status. They could never see it as discriminatory for E-2 visa holders (like myself at that time) and saw themselves as special.

I also remember your own viewpoint on Dave's regarding this issue and I see you are still as dismissive as ever.

Edit: Should be AFEK nor AFAIK. There was also ATEK which started off as an organization to give a public voice for E-2 holders but it was attacked relentlessly by antis but also had its own internal failings and it eventually floundered into the internet abyss.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 08:25:54 PM by Savant »

Online kyndo

  • Moderator LVL 1
  • The Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4685
But the point's moot. It's still ethnic discrimination Mr. DeMartino.

Every country in the world has different rules for those who were born to a parent of a citizen of that country vs. random temporary workers. By that logic, every nation is guilty.

And for a lot of gyopos either their family doesn't have the records or in some cases, their parents won't release them because they don't want their kids to go.
NOT THE POINT!
NOT THE POINT!
NOT THE POINT!
 We're discussing how the Korean government is applying rules to visiting non citizens differently depending on ethnicity. Who their parents are is in no way relevant.
The UN isn't accusing South Korea of racial discrimination for no reason at all, and it seems quite arrogant of you to try to deny what I'm sure has been a multitude of inquests have clearly shown to be true.
It's a clearly demonstrable point, and it amazes me that you're trying to deny it.

Quote
You're conflating systemic government sponsored discrimination with business discrimination. One is a human rights violation, the other is an economic decision which unfortunately happens to be racially discriminatory.
The key difference is that one involves government policies while the other does not. That's why the UN is involved.

But it's not discrimination based on ethnicity or race. It is based on residency status. A person of Caucasian descent on an F- spousal visa does NOT have to take the test. An ethnic Korean on an E-2 does. Therefore, IT IS NOT AND CANNOT be an ethnically or racially discriminatory practice.
Again, beside the point.
Gyopos immedietely, without having to jump through endless hoops, qualify for F visas while workers not of Korean ethnicity do not, ergo many individuals, because of their ethnicity, can forgo HIV testing. That's a huge perk based on nothing but their race.
 There are exceptions, as there are to everything, but they are not the norm.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5836
  • Gender: Male
We're discussing how the Korean government is applying rules to visiting non citizens differently depending on ethnicity. Who their parents are is in no way relevant.
But they're NOT applying rules differently based on ethnicity. They're applying them differently based on residency status and occupation.

Quote
The UN isn't accusing South Korea of racial discrimination for no reason at all
Of course not- The UN has its own agenda with HIV and anything that they think even smells like racism and their whole globalist schtick. Mainly its about their agenda of not "stigmatizing" people with HIV. Like, if we all stop stigmatizing HIV that will magically cure the disease. It's dumb leftist academic thinking.

Quote
It's a clearly demonstrable point, and it amazes me that you're trying to deny it.
Actually it's not. Ethnic Koreans on E-2 visas have to take the test. Non ethnic Koreans on F2/F3s do not. THEREFORE IT IS NOT ABOUT ETHNICITY.

Quote
Gyopos immedietely, without having to jump through endless hoops, qualify for F visas
Without having to jump through hoops? It's not that simple. I had to find and locate my family records, which for many can be quite difficult. Then you have to go through the same visa application process. I also had to renounce any claim to Korean citizenship. A lucky few might get drafted upon entering Korea.

And guess what? At the end of the day, I still took the same damn test as everyone. That's right, as an F-4 I took the HIV and drug test. IT IS NOT ABOUT ETHNICITY.

And again- All countries have visas for the children of citizens born overseas that allows them to gain general residency. Permanent Residents in most countries can change jobs and stuff without having their visa tied to their employer because they aren't temporary guest workers.

Do you think you should be granted F-4 status? Do you think such a visa shouldn't exist? Do you think E-2 visa holders should be subject to the same requirements and responsibilities as Korean teachers?

Quote
That's a huge perk based on nothing but their race.
A non-ethnic Korean, with Korean citizenship, who had children overseas and they were not Korean nationals, those children could apply for F-4s.

How's this fora  compromise solution: E-2 visa holders can contribute union dues to one of the Korean teachers unions and forego the drug and HIV tests. That's usually what, like $700-1000/yr.? Sounds better than the HIV test.

Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3598
  • Gender: Male


How's this fora  compromise solution: E-2 visa holders can contribute union dues to one of the Korean teachers unions and forego the drug and HIV tests. That's usually what, like $700-1000/yr.? Sounds better than the HIV test.


I think that union membership would give benefits other than a "by" on the tests. These would likely include salary increases which would offset the union dues.

As for the debate on it being an ethnic issue or not, a court has ruled on that. Your arguments are those presented by the losing side.

Online kyndo

  • Moderator LVL 1
  • The Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4685
These are all either irrelevancies, exceptions, or completely beside the point.

Yes, I agree that there are exceptions. Yes, I'm aware that even Gyopos have hoops to jump through, but not as many as the rest of us, which is why I used the ever so slightly hyperbolic adjective "endless".

I suppose we're gonna have to agree to disagree, but I do want to point out that the UN, with all of its committees, inquests, and studies agree with me, which means that I can smugly say "Nyah nyah, I'm right and you're wrong" as I bow out.  :laugh:  ...but in a way that doesn't make me sound childish, of course.

   Oh, and I think we'll all be happy to know that these HIV tests are soon to be phased out, which will hopefully put this whole argument into the past tense.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 10:20:46 AM by kyndo »

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5836
  • Gender: Male
As for the debate on it being an ethnic issue or not, a court has ruled on that. Your arguments are those presented by the losing side.
Courts get every decision right, I know.

I'm not quite sure, but at least a big chunk was related to anti-HIV discrimination rather than ethnic, though they did rule that ethnic discrimination was part of it.

Quote
Yes, I'm aware that even Gyopos have hoops to jump through, but not as many as the rest of us
If they come over on E-2s, they have to jump through the same hoops you do. If they come on F-4s, they have to jump through almost as many (It's still a trip to the consulate/embassy and filling out paperwork). Sorry, it isn't just "Hey, my name is Lee and I'm Korean" "OK. Welcome aboard!". I mean, let's not act like E-2s before the regulations were any major hurdles. I believe the popular expression was "A college degree and a pulse."

And many F4s STILL had to do the tests. I think you're being a bit dismissive.

Quote
Oh, and I think we'll all be happy to know that these HIV tests are soon to be phased out, which will hopefully put this whole argument into the past tense.

Screw that. Korea SHOULD have HIV tests to keep them out. And sure, test the Korean teachers as well.

Can we dispense with the myth that HIV infectees (outside of 3rd world areas where people are born with it and the .001% of people who were infected by health care negligence/accident) deserve carte blanche? Let's be real- if you end up with HIV it's because you exercised terrible judgment. Employers should be free to weed out such employees. That doesn't mean we shouldn't offer tremendous health care and services to people with HIV, but for goodness sakes, the naivety and reluctance to make tough choices here is why this disease hasn't been nipped in the bud.

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1713
As for the debate on it being an ethnic issue or not, a court has ruled on that. Your arguments are those presented by the losing side.
Can we dispense with the myth that HIV infectees (outside of 3rd world areas where people are born with it and the .001% of people who were infected by health care negligence/accident) deserve carte blanche? Let's be real- if you end up with HIV it's because you exercised terrible judgment. Employers should be free to weed out such employees. That doesn't mean we shouldn't offer tremendous health care and services to people with HIV, but for goodness sakes, the naivety and reluctance to make tough choices here is why this disease hasn't been nipped in the bud.

One of the most f***ed up things you've said.

Online kyndo

  • Moderator LVL 1
  • The Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4685
Quote
Oh, and I think we'll all be happy to know that these HIV tests are soon to be phased out, which will hopefully put this whole argument into the past tense.
Screw that. Korea SHOULD have HIV tests to keep them out. And sure, test the Korean teachers as well.
    Oh, I agree: everybody employed in fields involving vulnerable demographics (ie children, old folk, sick people) should have mandatory HIV/TB/Hep screening.
     Although I'm a bit less sure of the ethics surrounding the barring of people who test positive: what with advances in medicine, it's no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago.

Online oglop

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1668
  • Gender: Male

Screw that. Korea SHOULD have HIV tests to keep them out. And sure, test the Korean teachers as well.

hmm. it really depends if they have good aids or bad aids

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1713

Screw that. Korea SHOULD have HIV tests to keep them out. And sure, test the Korean teachers as well.

hmm. it really depends if they have good aids or bad aids

Korean aids is treatable with kimchi. If you use Chinese kimchi though, you still get aids but less of it.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5836
  • Gender: Male
As for the debate on it being an ethnic issue or not, a court has ruled on that. Your arguments are those presented by the losing side.
Can we dispense with the myth that HIV infectees (outside of 3rd world areas where people are born with it and the .001% of people who were infected by health care negligence/accident) deserve carte blanche? Let's be real- if you end up with HIV it's because you exercised terrible judgment. Employers should be free to weed out such employees. That doesn't mean we shouldn't offer tremendous health care and services to people with HIV, but for goodness sakes, the naivety and reluctance to make tough choices here is why this disease hasn't been nipped in the bud.

One of the most f***ed up things you've said.

Again, with the exception of children in 3rd world countries born with HIV, people who get it from a spouse who has become infected, and the .001% of people who got it through an accident at a hospital or some other situation in which they are totally innocent, the people who contract HIV do so through one of two ways- IV drug use and unsafe sex. That is the overwhelming majority of cases and that is a failure in judgment, plain and simple. And to me, that seems like perfect grounds to be deeply concerned regarding one's employment prospects.

By all means, do what we can for the people who are innocent victims of HIV. But please, can we stop coddling people? Can we at least reintroduce some element of responsibility? I still say they should get the best state-funded medical care possible, just as someone who ate one too many cheeseburgers deserves the same level of care.

And it's absolutely appalling that California is making it no longer a felony to knowingly infect people with HIV.

HIV has a stigma because it's contracted through behavior resulting from poor decision making and left untreated it WILL kill you. Otherwise, you will have to spend lots of money and time and be on medication for what could well be the rest of your life. Sorry, but people's rights to be protected trump their feelings of stigma.

Online kyndo

  • Moderator LVL 1
  • The Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4685
HIV has a stigma because it's contracted through behavior resulting from poor decision making and left untreated it WILL kill you.
      Interestingly enough, in recent years, individuals have been discovered who are HIV carriers: they harbor the virus without ever expressing symptoms of any kind. It's also been observed that treatment-free remission is now possible.
 
And yeah, folk who knowingly infect others with potentially fatal diseases should be convicted of man-slaughter at the very least.  >:(

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Gender: Male
As for the debate on it being an ethnic issue or not, a court has ruled on that. Your arguments are those presented by the losing side.
Can we dispense with the myth that HIV infectees (outside of 3rd world areas where people are born with it and the .001% of people who were infected by health care negligence/accident) deserve carte blanche? Let's be real- if you end up with HIV it's because you exercised terrible judgment. Employers should be free to weed out such employees. That doesn't mean we shouldn't offer tremendous health care and services to people with HIV, but for goodness sakes, the naivety and reluctance to make tough choices here is why this disease hasn't been nipped in the bud.

One of the most f***ed up things you've said.

Again, with the exception of children in 3rd world countries born with HIV, people who get it from a spouse who has become infected, and the .001% of people who got it through an accident at a hospital or some other situation in which they are totally innocent, the people who contract HIV do so through one of two ways- IV drug use and unsafe sex. That is the overwhelming majority of cases and that is a failure in judgment, plain and simple. And to me, that seems like perfect grounds to be deeply concerned regarding one's employment prospects.

By all means, do what we can for the people who are innocent victims of HIV. But please, can we stop coddling people? Can we at least reintroduce some element of responsibility? I still say they should get the best state-funded medical care possible, just as someone who ate one too many cheeseburgers deserves the same level of care.

And it's absolutely appalling that California is making it no longer a felony to knowingly infect people with HIV.

HIV has a stigma because it's contracted through behavior resulting from poor decision making and left untreated it WILL kill you. Otherwise, you will have to spend lots of money and time and be on medication for what could well be the rest of your life. Sorry, but people's rights to be protected trump their feelings of stigma.
The church lady strikes again.

BTW, isn't it the kind of poor decision making you refer to that cost your man trump a bundle at least twice?

You are some kind of hypocrite. Unless, that is, you consider driving and drinking good decision making.