|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| 'Rails: I think I, along with so many other posters here, am going to go with the UN's description of facts compared to what you post here. |
Is anything I have said factually untrue? I haven't said anything untrue. The "other side" has gotten facts wrong and has been over the top in some of the rhetoric. Now, if in light of all those facts you still choose to call it discriminatory, fine. However, the facts at least raise enough to call that claim somewhat into question. |
No, the facts don't call the UN decision into question at all, really.
From the link found here: http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=235843&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135
| Quote: |
The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that, as a result of her refusal to undergo the contested mandatory testing for a second time, she was denied the possibility to continue to work at the school, in violation of article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention. It observes that (1) foreign English teachers who are ethnically Koreans and Korean teachers are exempted of such testing and that the testing is therefore not decided on the basis of distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but of ethnic origin. The Committee also observes that
(2) mandatory HIV/AIDS testing for employment purpose, as well as for entry, stay and residence purposes, is considered to be in contradiction with international standards as such measures appear to be ineffective for public health purposes, discriminatory and harmful for the enjoyment of fundamental rights. The Committee further notes that (3) the State party did not provide any reasons to justify the mandatory testing policy. It also notes that (4) during the KCAB arbitration proceedings, some UMOE officials confirmed that HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs tests were viewed as a mean to check the values and morality of foreign English teachers. In this context, the Committee recalls its general recommendation XXX, in which it recommends that States parties take “resolute action to counter any tendency to target, stigmatize, stereotype or profile, on the basis of race, colour, descent, and nation or ethnic origin, members of “non-citizen” population groups, especially by politicians” . It is not contested by the State party that, in fine, the only reason why the petitioner did not have her working contract renewed was that she refused to undergo the re-testing for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs. The Committee considers that the mandatory testing policy limited to foreign English teachers who are not ethnically Koreans, does not appear to be justified on public health grounds or any other ground, and is a breach of the right to work without distinction as to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, in violation of the State party’s obligation to guarantee equality in respect of the right to work as enshrined in article 5, paragraph (e) (i) of the Convention. |
[emphasis and numerals added]
So,
(1) ethnic Koreans were exempt;
(2) HIV/AIDS testing was contrary (not neutral, not ineffective, but contrary) to international medical standards as public health policy;
(3) the RoK provided no reasons to justify the testing;
(4) the HIV and drug testing was being employed as a moral and values regulation (and as above, only against those who were not ethnic Koreans).
It was, as we say, not such a close case. |
But this was factually untrue. Foreign English teachers who were ethnic Koreans were not exempt. F-4s at public schools had to take the tests. All ethnic Koreans on E-2s had to take the tests. The UN report is based upon a factual error.
I am an ethnic Korean. I had to take the test. I am living proof that the UN got this wrong and so is every other Korean F-4 working for EPIK and every Korean on an E-2.
I AM THE ONE TELLING THE TRUTH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who's Your Daddy? wrote: |
| I think SR just likes to argue, and it doesn't matter the validity of anything. |
Argue, troll. Tomayto, Tomahto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wooden nickels wrote: |
A simple yes or no; are you fine with the HIV testing system as it is? |
No, I'm not. I'd like to see everyone tested. But I like this system more than no testing at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What's the educational value of HIV testing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tophatcat
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Location: under the hat
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| 'Rails: I think I, along with so many other posters here, am going to go with the UN's description of facts compared to what you post here. |
Is anything I have said factually untrue? I haven't said anything untrue. The "other side" has gotten facts wrong and has been over the top in some of the rhetoric. Now, if in light of all those facts you still choose to call it discriminatory, fine. However, the facts at least raise enough to call that claim somewhat into question. |
No, the facts don't call the UN decision into question at all, really.
From the link found here: http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=235843&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135
| Quote: |
The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that, as a result of her refusal to undergo the contested mandatory testing for a second time, she was denied the possibility to continue to work at the school, in violation of article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention. It observes that (1) foreign English teachers who are ethnically Koreans and Korean teachers are exempted of such testing and that the testing is therefore not decided on the basis of distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but of ethnic origin. The Committee also observes that
(2) mandatory HIV/AIDS testing for employment purpose, as well as for entry, stay and residence purposes, is considered to be in contradiction with international standards as such measures appear to be ineffective for public health purposes, discriminatory and harmful for the enjoyment of fundamental rights. The Committee further notes that (3) the State party did not provide any reasons to justify the mandatory testing policy. It also notes that (4) during the KCAB arbitration proceedings, some UMOE officials confirmed that HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs tests were viewed as a mean to check the values and morality of foreign English teachers. In this context, the Committee recalls its general recommendation XXX, in which it recommends that States parties take “resolute action to counter any tendency to target, stigmatize, stereotype or profile, on the basis of race, colour, descent, and nation or ethnic origin, members of “non-citizen” population groups, especially by politicians” . It is not contested by the State party that, in fine, the only reason why the petitioner did not have her working contract renewed was that she refused to undergo the re-testing for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs. The Committee considers that the mandatory testing policy limited to foreign English teachers who are not ethnically Koreans, does not appear to be justified on public health grounds or any other ground, and is a breach of the right to work without distinction as to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, in violation of the State party’s obligation to guarantee equality in respect of the right to work as enshrined in article 5, paragraph (e) (i) of the Convention. |
[emphasis and numerals added]
So,
(1) ethnic Koreans were exempt;
(2) HIV/AIDS testing was contrary (not neutral, not ineffective, but contrary) to international medical standards as public health policy;
(3) the RoK provided no reasons to justify the testing;
(4) the HIV and drug testing was being employed as a moral and values regulation (and as above, only against those who were not ethnic Koreans).
It was, as we say, not such a close case. |
Plain Meaning has this case nailed 100 percent. Good job Plain Meaning.
.
.
.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
From the link found here: http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=235843&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135
| Quote: |
The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that, as a result of her refusal to undergo the contested mandatory testing for a second time, she was denied the possibility to continue to work at the school, in violation of article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention. It observes that (1) foreign English teachers who are ethnically Koreans and Korean teachers are exempted of such testing and that the testing is therefore not decided on the basis of distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but of ethnic origin. The Committee also observes that
(2) mandatory HIV/AIDS testing for employment purpose, as well as for entry, stay and residence purposes, is considered to be in contradiction with international standards as such measures appear to be ineffective for public health purposes, discriminatory and harmful for the enjoyment of fundamental rights. The Committee further notes that (3) the State party did not provide any reasons to justify the mandatory testing policy. It also notes that (4) during the KCAB arbitration proceedings, some UMOE officials confirmed that HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs tests were viewed as a mean to check the values and morality of foreign English teachers. In this context, the Committee recalls its general recommendation XXX, in which it recommends that States parties take “resolute action to counter any tendency to target, stigmatize, stereotype or profile, on the basis of race, colour, descent, and nation or ethnic origin, members of “non-citizen” population groups, especially by politicians” . It is not contested by the State party that, in fine, the only reason why the petitioner did not have her working contract renewed was that she refused to undergo the re-testing for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs. The Committee considers that the mandatory testing policy limited to foreign English teachers who are not ethnically Koreans, does not appear to be justified on public health grounds or any other ground, and is a breach of the right to work without distinction as to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, in violation of the State party’s obligation to guarantee equality in respect of the right to work as enshrined in article 5, paragraph (e) (i) of the Convention. |
[emphasis and numerals added]
So,
(1) ethnic Koreans were exempt;
(2) HIV/AIDS testing was contrary (not neutral, not ineffective, but contrary) to international medical standards as public health policy;
(3) the RoK provided no reasons to justify the testing;
(4) the HIV and drug testing was being employed as a moral and values regulation (and as above, only against those who were not ethnic Koreans).
It was, as we say, not such a close case. |
But this was factually untrue. Foreign English teachers who were ethnic Koreans were not exempt. F-4s at public schools had to take the tests. All ethnic Koreans on E-2s had to take the tests. The UN report is based upon a factual error.
I am an ethnic Korean. I had to take the test. I am living proof that the UN got this wrong and so is every other Korean F-4 working for EPIK and every Korean on an E-2.
I AM THE ONE TELLING THE TRUTH. |
You challenge one of four grounds for the ruling, and then claim that "the UN got this wrong."
What about grounds numbered (2) and (4)?
Here are some selected highlights, with paragraphs numbered for reference.
| Quote: |
| 2.12 On 4 March 2010, 16 April 2010 and 24 June 2010, UMOE submitted defence briefs. Among other things, it explained that there is a social demand that foreign teachers be tested for drugs because some of them do not have adequate teaching capacity and are involved in illegal behaviours. It also stated that the cultural peculiarity of Korea demands that educators have the highest moral standards, while the use of drugs is very common in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., where the foreign English teachers are coming from. |
| Quote: |
2.14 On 30 June 2011, the [Korea Commercial Arbitration Board] arbitrator dismissed the petitioner’s case against UMOE as being “without merit”. The arbitrator’s decision held that the “petitioner’s insistence” to be treated in an identical manner as native Korean teachers was unjustifiable as these two categories of teachers do not have the same legal status and they can therefore be evaluated on the basis of different standards.
。。。 |
| Quote: |
| 2.15 The arbitrator 。。。further stated that anyway, there was no obligation to inform the petitioner about these tests, as under Korean law, only Korean nationals have a right to receive sufficient explanation and information from health and medical personnel regarding medical treatments, and to decide on this basis whether or not to agree with these treatments |
| Quote: |
| 3.3 The petitioner recalls that the number of drug users in Korea is estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 persons and that in 2007, it was officially reported that 10,649 persons were arrested in connection to the use of drugs, among which only 298 were foreigners and only 24 were foreign English teachers （ft 23 The petitioner quotes Data provided by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Narcotics Division dated 30 December 2008.) |
| Quote: |
| 3.4 ...The petitioner argues that UMOE had the opportunity to judge “her moral consciousness” through her teaching performance, which was positively evaluated by both the school management and UMOE representatives themselves. There was no reasonable or objective basis for suspecting that the applicant was physically or mentally incapacitated by drugs or disease. It was the foreigner status of the petitioner alone that made UMOE suspicious that she may have HIV/AIDS or use illegal drugs. While the aim of UMOE to employ only ethically and morally qualified teachers may be reasonable, the procedure adopted is not proportional to the aim pursued and less invasive ways to evaluate the petitioner’s “moral consciousness” could have been adopted. |
| Quote: |
| 5.3 The petitioner reiterates that if the discriminatory policy had not been implemented, she would have been employed for the 2009-2010 school year and that she was wrongfully deprived of her job and forced to leave Korea on 3 September 2009, being without a valid working visa. The petitioner recalls that such mandatory HIV/AIDS tests and their consequences on a potential employment do not comply with the relevant international standards. She stresses that the International Labour Organisation firmly rejects HIV screenings and clearly states that there is “no justification for asking job applicants or workers to disclose HIV-related personal information”(ft 34 ILO Code of Practice on HIV/AIDS and the world of work, 2001, articles 4.2 and 4.7.) and “that there should be no discrimination against or stigmatization of workers, in particular jobseekers and job applicants, on the grounds of real or perceived HIV status or the fact that they belong to regions of the world or segments of the population perceived to be at greater risk or more vulnerable to HIV infection”(ft 35 ILO, Recommendation 200 : Recommendation concerning HIV and AIDS and the world of work, 6 July 2010, section III(3) (c).) |
| Quote: |
| 5.4 . . . displaced moral basis for mandatory testing contributes to the strong stigma surrounding the disease and introduces the false impression that only non-Koreans are at risk. |
| Quote: |
| 5.5 The petitioner notes that the stigmatization of foreign English teachers as having HIV/AIDS was supported in the social media and by public officials before the introduction of the mandatory testing, based on the simple fact that a large number of them were undergoing HIV/AIDS tests on a voluntary basis. |
As I have been trying to tell you, it was not a close enough case for your anecdote to shake its foundation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
You challenge one of four grounds for the ruling, and then claim that "the UN got this wrong."
What about grounds numbered (2) and (4)?
|
Again, thanks for being reasonable in this debate.
As for #2, and to go along with CentralCali's question-
| CentralCali wrote: |
| What's the educational value of HIV testing? |
I would say that the educational system of Korea has a clear interest in not hiring individuals with serious health conditions that may significantly impact the time they are able to spend at work in the performance of their duties, as well as potentially placing significant health costs upon the public health system of Korea.
The government apparently bears 100% of the cost in treating HIV.
http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/country/documents/ce_KR_Narrative_Report%5B1%5D.pdf
Were foreigners to be exempt from HIV testing, they could theoretically migrate to Korea to receive government-paid HIV treatment, ostensibly using employment as the means to gain access. This is not an unforeseeable or unreasonable possibility as Korea is already a destination for medical tourism. In the absence of testing, foreign workers could emigrate to Korea under the pretext of seeking work in the field that they apply for, and then claim equal-access care to HIV treatment provided by the Korean government. This could certainly place an undue burden upon the Korean health system.
What is stated as " It was the foreigner status of the petitioner alone that made UMOE suspicious that she may have HIV/AIDS or use illegal drugs." in paragraph 3.4 is undercut by the Korean government having a clear interest in not absorbing excessive health care burdens by temporary immigrant laborers. Merely screening people for serious health care conditions or potential drug use does not mean that an entity is suspicious that someone is using drugs. A drug screening for truck drivers or a health screening for boxers does not mean that someone is suspicious of truck drivers or boxers. Rather, it merely seeks to establish safe conditions.
| Quote: |
| 4) the HIV and drug testing was being employed as a moral and values regulation (and as above, only against those who were not ethnic Koreans). |
Well, as has been demonstrated, this was not ONLY against those who were not ethnic Koreans. Ethnic Koreans on F-4s teaching in public schools and Ethnic Koreans on E-2s had to take those tests as well.
| Quote: |
| 3.3 The petitioner recalls that the number of drug users in Korea is estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 persons and that in 2007, it was officially reported that 10,649 persons were arrested in connection to the use of drugs, among which only 298 were foreigners and only 24 were foreign English teachers （ft 23 The petitioner quotes Data provided by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Narcotics Division dated 30 December 2008.) |
I would like to address this. The problem with this is that it incorrectly selects the wrong data set to use. The initial drug test is to determine whether or not drugs were used in the person's country of residence, prior to entry into Korea. Thus, the relevant data should be rates of drug use in one's home country. Korea's drug use indicates a .6% of the population usage rate. Contrast this with for example, the US drug use rate of 9.4%. Furthermore, with the drugs being tested for all being at the least strictly controlled, and often illegal, drug testing is also verification of past criminal behavior. Our own countries have established the legitimacy of drug testing. This also fails to take into account the (unknown) number of people who have lied on their application about past illicit drug use. Suffice to say, it is surely a large percentage of applicants. Practically speaking, this is found in us being surprised when we meet a Korean who has smoked pot vs. being surprised when someone from back home has never smoked pot.
| Quote: |
| and introduces the false impression that only non-Koreans are at risk. |
This is quite the claim. For this to be true, there should be some sort of relevant media that claims that ONLY non-Koreans are at risk.
| Quote: |
| 5.5 The petitioner notes that the stigmatization of foreign English teachers as having HIV/AIDS was supported in the social media and by public officials before the introduction of the mandatory testing, based on the simple fact that a large number of them were undergoing HIV/AIDS tests on a voluntary basis. |
Again, were they truly being stigmatized as having HIV, Korean parents would have yanked their kids out of hagwons and YBM would be bankrupt faster than you can say MERS. There is a difference between wanting screening measures and stigmatizing people as having HIV. Wanting pilots to take breathalyzers before flying planes does not stigmatize pilots as drunks.
Also, the use of social media and a few politicians as an example is suspect. Would one base claims of discrimination in US immigration policy based on Donald Trump and YouTube comments ?
| Quote: |
| As I have been trying to tell you, it was not a close enough case for your anecdote to shake its foundation. |
First, F-4s in public schools taking the tests and ethnic Koreans on E-2s taking the tests are not anecdotes, they are policy that affected hundreds, possibly thousands of ethnic Korean NETs.
Given that one pillar of the complaint (that ethnic Koreans were exempt) has been demonstrated as being untrue, and the issue of health care burdens in accepting HIV-positive immigrant laborers, and the disparity in drug use rates and drug use being tied to criminal activity, as well as the fact that testing for drugs does not inherently stigmatize someone, I think that it's clear that there are at least serious questions regarding the UN ruling. At the very least, the fact that central premise of ethnic Koreans being exempt has been disproven, it should be enough to form a reasonable basis for appeal and reconsideration. Is the case wholly without merit as was as the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board ruled? No. But there is enough here to raise doubts over the validity of the petitioner's claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Savant
Joined: 25 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, your claim that all ethnic Koreans working in Education are tested for HIV is based on the assumption that because you [as an ethnic Korean] were tested (can we really believe you at your word though) that all ethnic Koreans must have been tested too.
I'm sorry but YOU does not equal ALL Ethnic Koreans. Do the math! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slothrop
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
i predict in 5 years there will be a cure for aids and then the korean government will have to find another way to stigmatize foreign teachers. i also predict the aids test will be replaced by a psychiatric examination.
there will be an MBC special report about how many foreigners are mentally ill and how the children could become infected. the foreign community will be like... what's this ignorant racist bull shitzu? you don't even test airline pilots! and a mentally ill airline pilot is much more a danger to his passengers than a teacher is to their students. and their oficial response will be... but airline pilots are enclosed in the cockpit so their insanity canot leak out to the passengers, but foreigners who teach do not have a barrier so their insanity can be transmitted like a toxic airborn event. "must. protect. the children." say the zombie kangnam moms in unison. "must. protect. the children." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who's Your Daddy?
Joined: 30 May 2010
Location: Victoria, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a 911 Truther. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 4) the HIV and drug testing was being employed as a moral and values regulation (and as above, only against those who were not ethnic Koreans). |
Well, as has been demonstrated, this was not ONLY against those who were not ethnic Koreans. Ethnic Koreans on F-4s teaching in public schools and Ethnic Koreans on E-2s had to take those tests as well. |
This has not been demonstrated. We have your out-of-court, over-the-internet statement, versus the statements of parties before a tribunal under oath.
The education policies are implemented on a provincial level, and the opinion referenced how in 2009, 14 out of 15 provinces tested foreign native speakers. It could be that you were not in Ulsan province, and so policies were different. It could be that your school did things differently. But it likely does not impact the specific case the petitioner experienced.
Notably, the Korean State Party did not argue what you are advancing now. Instead, it argued that:
| Quote: |
| 4.2 The State party . . . stresses that the latest version of this manual published in 2010 does not specify that foreign teachers have to submit results of HIV/AIDS and drug tests undertaken in Korea in order to have their contracts renewed. The State party claims that since 2010, the annual medical testing, including for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs, is no longer required for foreign native speaker teachers to continue teaching and renew their contract with [Ulsan Ministry of Education]. The State party concludes that the Ministry of Education (hereinafter MOE) and UMOE policies referred to in the petitioner’s complaint are no longer in place and therefore, that the complaint is without merits. |
This falls short of your argument, because the Ulsan Ministry of Education made no statements about either of the following:
(1) Testing policies for foreign native speakers for their renewal of contracts for 2009;
or
(2) Entry testing policies for foreign native speakers from 2010 on.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 3.3 The petitioner recalls that the number of drug users in Korea is estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 persons and that in 2007, it was officially reported that 10,649 persons were arrested in connection to the use of drugs, among which only 298 were foreigners and only 24 were foreign English teachers （ft 23 The petitioner quotes Data provided by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Narcotics Division dated 30 December 2008.) |
I would like to address this. The problem with this is that it incorrectly selects the wrong data set to use. The initial drug test is to determine whether or not drugs were used in the person's country of residence, prior to entry into Korea. Thus, the relevant data should be rates of drug use in one's home country. Korea's drug use indicates a .6% of the population usage rate. Contrast this with for example, the US drug use rate of 9.4%. Furthermore, with the drugs being tested for all being at the least strictly controlled, and often illegal, drug testing is also verification of past criminal behavior. Our own countries have established the legitimacy of drug testing. This also fails to take into account the (unknown) number of people who have lied on their application about past illicit drug use. Suffice to say, it is surely a large percentage of applicants. Practically speaking, this is found in us being surprised when we meet a Korean who has smoked pot vs. being surprised when someone from back home has never smoked pot. |
This is precisely the correct data set to use. The petitioner was in Korea when she was required to be tested. She had taught the previous year in Korea, and had passed her initial drug and HIV test. And indeed, foreigners were regularly required to be tested to renew their contracts.
| Quote: |
2.1 In 2008-2009, the petitioner was employed as an English native speaker teacher by the Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter, UMOE) to work at the Yaksu Elementary School, Ulsan area, in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter Korea). She had a one year contract with UMOE starting on 1 September 2008 and finishing on 31 August 2009. She held an E-2 visa, which is the specific working visa for “native speaker conversation instructors”, namely foreigners who assist Korean teachers during their native language courses. (ft 2 The petitioner informs that there are some 22,000 E-2 visa holders in the Republic of Korea and that 95% of them are English native speakers teaching their maternal language. US and Canadian citizens account for 50% and 20 % of E-2 visa holders, respectively.)
2.2 The petitioner arrived in Korea on 27 August 2008. After signing her employment contract on 1 September 2008, she was informed by UMOE that as of 2007, E-2 visa holders are required to undertake HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs medical tests at one of the hospitals designated by the government before they can be registered as alien residents. This requirement does not apply to all foreigners coming to work in Korea, but only to foreigners who are granted E-2 visas, along with those with E-6 visas (arts and entertainment), E-9 visas (non-professional employment) and H-2 visas (working visit). The medical test was originally established by a policy memo as a one-time requirement for alien registration purpose and not as an entry requirement. However, most of the provincial and metropolitan offices of education throughout Korea have been requiring foreign native speaker teachers to repeat such medical tests every year in order to have their contracts renewed. No annual medical testing is required for Korean teachers, nor for foreign native speaking teachers who are ethnically Koreans (mainly from the US and Canada) and who are considered to be “overseas Koreans” and are granted F-4 visas. |
| Quote: |
2.5 On 2 September 2008, the petitioner underwent the mandatory medical testing for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs. On 4 September 2008, the tests results, which were negative, were handed by the staff of the hospital to the petitioner’s Korean colleague who was acting as interpreter and who informed her of the results. The petitioner knew that she had been tested for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs (amphetamine and opiate drug substance). However, in April 2010 during the arbitration procedure, she found out that she had also been tested without her consent and knowledge for cannabinoids and syphilis.
2.6 The school management expressed their satisfaction with the petitioner’s teaching performance. In April 2009, the petitioner was invited by UMOE to stay for another year. She was given a copy of the 2009-2010 contract terms of employment and she orally agreed to stay under the same contractual conditions. On 14 May 2009, the petitioner was informed by her Korean co-teacher that she would have to undergo a new testing for HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs if she wanted to renew her contract. The petitioner notes that the 2009-2010 employment contract she had been given and that she had reviewed did not mention anything about HIV/AIDS and drug testing as a condition of her employment. On 19 May 2009, UMOE conducted an evaluation and observation of the petitioner’s work in her class, and her performance was again deemed satisfactory. |
[emphasis added, some footnotes removed]
That is what happened here. The teacher was tested, her results were negative, and she was on her way to teaching English for a full year. She sought contract renewal and was told that she would have to be tested, even though there was no provision in her contract which required re-testing.
Note also that the petitioner did not know the full extent of the testing until she challenged the tests before an arbitration tribunal. This is important, because even if you believe the tests are valid and non-discriminatory, then presumably you may acknowledge that foreigners should have the right to refuse to take the tests and simply return home instead. The tests are invasive, were improperly administered, and may have violated her privacy rights.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 5.5 The petitioner notes that the stigmatization of foreign English teachers as having HIV/AIDS was supported in the social media and by public officials before the introduction of the mandatory testing, based on the simple fact that a large number of them were undergoing HIV/AIDS tests on a voluntary basis. |
Again, were they truly being stigmatized as having HIV, Korean parents would have yanked their kids out of hagwons and YBM would be bankrupt faster than you can say MERS. |
Paragraph 5.5 is damning. Foreigners were already regularly testing themselves for AIDS, and this very fact was used to demonize foreigners. Foreigners were doing what they were supposed to do!
As for your high standard of discrimination, this is not acknowledged as necessary anywhere; the fact that there may or may not be market pressure applied behind racial discrimination does not mean that those in North America, or wherever else, cannot make a claim for discrimination.
The point is that suspicion and stigma motivated the government policy, not that all Koreans hated foreigners to the point where they would not trust their children to their limited and circumscribed and closely regulated instruction.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Is the case wholly without merit as was as the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board ruled? No. But there is enough here to raise doubts over the validity of the petitioner's claim. |
I am glad we can agree on this point. It is not minor. Not only did the KCAB totally fail to provide any analysis of the petitioner's claim, but the National Human Rights Commission of Korea also refused her petition.
| Quote: |
| 7.3 The Committee notes that the petitioners had brought a prima facie case of racial discrimination to the attention of the State party competent authorities, claiming before the KCAB and NHRCK that the mandatory HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs testing policy was exclusively based on the negative stereotypes and stigmatisation of English native speaker teachers, which are themselves grounded on their ethnic origin. The Committee observes that the NHRCK declined to investigate the petitioner’s complaint and that no assessment of the compliance of the contested testing policy with the Convention was made by KCAB or any other State party authority. In the light of the State party’s failure to carry out an assessment in the petitioner’s case, in order to determine whether criteria involving racial discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, are at the origin of the HIV/AIDS and illegal drugs mandatory testing policy, the Committee concludes that the petitioner’s rights under articles 2, paragraph 1 (c) and (d), and 6 of the Convention have been violated. |
This is important, because there were two separate violations. CERD found the policy was discriminatory. But in the first instance, the KCAB and NHRCK failed to properly investigate or even carry out an assessment of the petitioner's case. This alone violated the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, as under articles 2, paragraph 1 (c) and (d), and 6, all state signatories are bound to implement their own policies in accordance with international standards. In this case, that included an examination of the petitioner's claim after she overcame the burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination.
So, it seems you do agree with at least one aspect of the finding against Korea, after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHGator428
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The hole keeps getting deeper.
One poster is providing factual evidence while the other keeps retorting with anecdotal heresay and hypotheticals.
As if it wasn't embarrassing enough already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Savant wrote: |
No, your claim that all ethnic Koreans working in Education are tested for HIV is based on the assumption that because you [as an ethnic Korean] were tested (can we really believe you at your word though) that all ethnic Koreans must have been tested too.
I'm sorry but YOU does not equal ALL Ethnic Koreans. Do the math! |
| Quote: |
The hole keeps getting deeper.
One poster is providing factual evidence while the other keeps retorting with anecdotal heresay. |
| Quote: |
This has not been demonstrated. We have your out-of-court, over-the-internet statement, versus the statements of parties before a tribunal under oath.
The education policies are implemented on a provincial level, and the opinion referenced how in 2009, 14 out of 15 provinces tested foreign native speakers. It could be that you were not in Ulsan province, and so policies were different. It could be that your school did things differently. But it likely does not impact the specific case the petitioner experienced. |
Look, what I'm bringing up here is not merely anecdotal or over-the-internet. There are LOTS of Korean-Americans here. We're an actual community. Just sitting around and stuff that comes up casually during conversation "I can't eat anything, I've got my test tomorrow", talking about finding work and asking if they're on an E-2 or F-4, people talking about wanting to smoke when they go back home but they can't because they have their health check right after they get back, etc. Whether its the teachers in my own county or ones I meet in my province or friends from back home who are teaching or people I meet at church or whatever, this affects everyone.
I've heard people tell me that I shouldn't comment on discrimination experienced by non-ethnic Korean foreigners because "I'm not one of them, so I don't know what I'm talking about". Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I know Korean-Americans in Korea. Those of us working for public schools through EPIK or TALK and those of us on E-2s have all taken the tests. I never claimed that ALL ethnic Koreans are tested. F-4s that work at hagwons might not have to take the test (though this may vary by hagwon), HOWEVER, non-Korean F-visas ALSO don't have to take the tests.
Lastly, Korean-Americans on E-2s taking the tests is not an "anecdote". There isn't some box on the E-2 visa where you can check yourself as Korean and the hospital doesn't administer the test.
| Quote: |
This falls short of your argument, because the Ulsan Ministry of Education made no statements about either of the following:
(1) Testing policies for foreign native speakers for their renewal of contracts for 2009;
or
(2) Entry testing policies for foreign native speakers from 2010 on.
|
| Quote: |
| It could be that you were not in Ulsan province, and so policies were different. It could be that your school did things differently. But it likely does not impact the specific case the petitioner experienced. |
First, since Ulsan MOE is the party cited, then the findings here might very well be limited in scope to Ulsan. I have not taught in Ulsan, so I have no idea. It might be that Ulsan specifically vs. other provinces did something differently.
As for why Korea used the defense it did, I have no idea.
| Quote: |
| This is precisely the correct data set to use. The petitioner was in Korea when she was required to be tested. She had taught the previous year in Korea, and had passed her initial drug and HIV test. And indeed, foreigners were regularly required to be tested to renew their contracts. |
Well, you have a point regarding the specific petitioner. However, the findings of the arbitrator have implications beyond her specific case. They apply not only to those operating on renewals, but those who are first-time entrants. If the UN limited its scope to those on renewals, they might have a valid case, especially if the person demonstrated that they had not left the country. However, but applying it to HIV and drug tests IN GENERAL, including those of first-time entrants, it should have considered more than just the statistics set involving people IN Korea.
| Quote: |
| However, most of the provincial and metropolitan offices of education throughout Korea have been requiring foreign native speaker teachers to repeat such medical tests every year in order to have their contracts renewed. No annual medical testing is required for Korean teachers, nor for foreign native speaking teachers who are ethnically Koreans (mainly from the US and Canada) and who are considered to be “overseas Koreans” and are granted F-4 visas. |
Again, the UN is operating on an inaccuracy here. I know I'm an internet voice in the wilderness, but F-4s at public schools really DO have to do the tests. I have no explanation as to why this point went unchallenged, but it should have.
| Quote: |
That is what happened here. The teacher was tested, her results were negative, and she was on her way to teaching English for a full year. She sought contract renewal and was told that she would have to be tested, even though there was no provision in her contract which required re-testing.
Note also that the petitioner did not know the full extent of the testing until she challenged the tests before an arbitration tribunal. This is important, because even if you believe the tests are valid and non-discriminatory, then presumably you may acknowledge that foreigners should have the right to refuse to take the tests and simply return home instead. The tests are invasive, were improperly administered, and may have violated her privacy rights. |
I'd agree that there here complaint brings up valid points regarding testing procedure and contract provisions. On those merits alone, her case is clear regarding improper procedure, right of refusal, failure to disclose information, and privacy.
| Quote: |
| Paragraph 5.5 is damning. Foreigners were already regularly testing themselves for AIDS, and this very fact was used to demonize foreigners. Foreigners were doing what they were supposed to do! |
Just to be clear, this refers to foreigners voluntarily testing themselves out of concern, not because of anything related to employment. However the fact that they were frequently getting tested is a potential (not definite) indicator of engaging in at-risk behavior.
| Quote: |
As for your high standard of discrimination, this is not acknowledged as necessary anywhere; the fact that there may or may not be market pressure applied behind racial discrimination does not mean that those in North America, or wherever else, cannot make a claim for discrimination.
The point is that suspicion and stigma motivated the government policy, not that all Koreans hated foreigners to the point where they would not trust their children to their limited and circumscribed and closely regulated instruction.
|
I wasn't referring to discrimination in that part, I was referring to stigmatization.
Also, suspicion and stigma were not the sole motivating factors. I would content that the primary motivating factor was the utter lack of any regulations prior. The implementation of tests and screening was an inevitability, given the utter lack of any prior regulations and the fact that people were working with children.
| Quote: |
| So, it seems you do agree with at least one aspect of the finding against Korea, after all. |
Thanks for carefully reading what I've said. As you can see, I'm not THAT far off from where most of you are. Just that I'm opposed to some of the more misinformed opinions out there- Notably that ethnic Koreans from back home were exempt and the severity of "stigmatization". Given that me and many of my friends have had to take the same tests, its pretty upsetting that posters on here claim that we were exempt and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we weren't exempt or dismiss it as some internet tale.
[quote= "Who's Your Daddy?"]This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a 911 Truther.[/quote]
First, if my position is a "truther" position, its that the Korean government LIHOPed it through general incompetency and arbitrariness, not as part of some evil plot. Second, there is one parallel between this and 9/11- The relative lack of screening and procedure prior to and subsequent tightening of restrictions after. Flying for a long time had almost no passenger screening prior to the hijack wave of the 60s-70s. After that airlines decided that "Hey, we may need to actually check people for guns". But still it was pretty much whatever goes goes. Then we realized that people could do things like make underwear bombs, smuggle explosive compounds in beverage bottles, and conceal knives and other weapons in past security. We realized that maybe we should start doing background checks on passengers. Of course some people called this invasive and/or discriminatory. While there may be elements of that, there remains the fact that security was so lax prior, that new procedures had to be made and increased scrutiny was necessary. Same with Korea. Remember, there was virtually now screening prior.
The fact that regulatory policies arose since non-existed previously, and following concerns of criminal behavior, to claim that such things arose solely out of discrimination and stigmatization is a stretch. A reasonable person with no discriminatory intent or no desire to stigmatize could still support such policies given the utter lack of regulation that existed prior.
| SHGator420 wrote: |
| One poster is providing factual evidence while the other keeps retorting with anecdotal heresay. |
Two people are providing factual evidence (see Sligo claiming that the F-4 visa was a teaching visa, the FACT that Korean-Americans are on E-2s and have to take the tests). I am also providing anecdote, yes.
However, virtually everyone else has provided ONLY anecdotes or personal attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Savant wrote: |
No, your claim that all ethnic Koreans working in Education are tested for HIV is based on the assumption that because you [as an ethnic Korean] were tested (can we really believe you at your word though) that all ethnic Koreans must have been tested too.
|
I want to address this again- You think I'm lying about me and the people I know getting a needle jammed in my arm and having to pee in a cup?
And I said some, not all. Read more carefully. Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that ethnic Koreans on E-2s and F-4s at public schools are tested as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHGator428
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Savant wrote: |
No, your claim that all ethnic Koreans working in Education are tested for HIV is based on the assumption that because you [as an ethnic Korean] were tested (can we really believe you at your word though) that all ethnic Koreans must have been tested too.
|
I want to address this again- You think I'm lying about me and the people I know getting a needle jammed in my arm and having to pee in a cup? Screw you dude.
And I said some, not all. Read more carefully. Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that ethnic Koreans on E-2s and F-4s at public schools are tested as well? |
You are likely lying about that (where is your proof of it?) It's just like you did when you said you never claimed to be on an E-2 visa. You did that years ago, yet claim now that you didn't. You are a fraud on this board; a guy that trolls just for the sake of argument.
You could easily disprove your taking HIV and drug tests by posting a pic to your health record with your name and # blacked out. Do that.
Last edited by SHGator428 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
