Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbine
To me, I suppose the main differences between these and the Amsterdam case, and small restaurants and onsen in Japan banning foreigners, is that with these cases it's is often instigated at a government level with a clearer wider aim; reduce drug trafficking, terrorism fears, property monopolies.
|
To me there is no difference and in fact I see it as worse that such laws can be passed from the top. At least in Japan, the decisions to ban foreigners tend to largely be made by the private business owners. Which means I as a foreigner can simply go elsewhere for service. Considering 99% (just a guess) of businesses in Japan have no problem with serving foreigners. In the Netherelands, if I want to visit a particular type of cafe then I can't period.
Bottom line is that the rationale behind the decision to allow the banning of foreigners is the same. Lets paint all foreigners with the same brush mentality is not only irrational, but flies in the face of the truth in some instances.
For example, the idea that gaijin in Japan commit more crime than locals. Completely untrue if I remember correctly.
Also, the idea that British nationals are less likely to commit a terrorist act in Britain than gaijin. The truth is actually the other way around.