Behold the no ‘whoever’ zones

Yang Sung-hee
The author is a columnist of the JoongAng Ilbo.

An online controversy flared recently after a notice stating “No Senior Zone” was posted on a café’s door. Next to the notice of “Restricted entry for the seniors over 60” is another notice “Guide dogs are welcome.”

A self-claimed regular of the café spoke on behalf of the female owner of the café to explain that it was an unavoidable choice because elderly customers had harassed the owner by calling her “madam,” no good nuanced word in Korea. I guess the decision seemed to reflect the seriousness of her situation but lack of manner is not just a problem of age. After “No Kids Zone,” we now have “No Senior Zone,” so what will be the next? There are already “No Middle School Student Zone” and “No Professor Zone.” Prior to these, a restaurant said it politely declined to accept any guests over the age of 49. A camping ground rejected campers who are over 40 years old.

As a person who will join the 60s club soon, I have been living a life fully aware of my age even without “No Senior Zone.” When I enter a café filled with youngsters, I feel intimidated although no one says anything to me. That is not all. More and more spaces such as unmanned shops and kiosk order systems are restricting access of senior citizens.

Recently, the Washington Post published an article featuring “No Kids Zone” places in Korea, which first appeared 10 years ago. The number has grown to over 500. In other countries, controversies often erupted over the issues of restricting children from using certain airplane seats or using the library, but in a country with an extremely low birthrate like Korea, no kids zones in ordinary places such as cafes and restaurants make it more difficult for people to have and raise children, the article pointed out.

The controversy surrounding no whoever zones involves the freedom of business or the matter of human rights and discrimination. According to a Gallup Korea poll in 2021, 71 percent of Koreans supported the operation of “No Kids Zone,” far higher than the 17 percent who opposed it.

Recently, the Jeju provincial council attempted to legislate a ban on no kids zone on the island, but postponed the decision. The council agreed that they need more social consensus to back the move. Jeju Island has the largest number of shops that are no kids’ zones since it is a popular tourist destination, and subsequently there are many customer complaints.

In fact, the real problem is not the children, but the parents who do not properly control or discipline their children. As business owners cannot stop the “young, ignorant” parents who post claims online whenever they have an issue, business owners decided to block children. Like the café that decided to reject senior customers, the owner decides to block all customers in a certain age group rather than stopping a specific, problematic customer.

The owners say they want to filter out bad customers, but it is always the socially weak — such as children and the elderly — who are excluded. It is a problem of too much generalization and age discrimination.

Many drunken people have created problems with their loud and rude behaviors, but we have never heard of “No Adult Zone” in pubs. The hardships of the self-employed are understandable, but this is why “No Kids Zone” is an issue of human rights and discrimination beyond the freedom of a business owner. In 2017, the National Human Rights Commission concluded that “No Kids Zone” is an act of discrimination.

David Coleman, an emeritus professor of demography at Oxford University who recently visited Korea, said that the problem of low birthrate can be solved only when “things unique to Korea” — such as marriage, excessive work and passion for education — change.

He stressed that economic support alone is not enough, but culture must change.