Sometimes Korea is a little strange.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted. I don’t have any excuse, except that not much has happened. Teaching is pretty much the same, the economy still sucks, life marches on.
Last week, however, the Korea Herald reported on two Constitutional Court cases that were too interesting to pass up. A little background might be helpful.
The Constitutional Court is a specialized court that deals primarily with constitutional review. It also handles impeachments, party dissolution and some other odds and ends. Like the US Supreme Court, its decisions cannot be appealed. Judges are appointed differently, however. Three are appointed directly by the President, three are selected from candidates that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nominates, and three are appointed by the National Assembly (the legislature). It’s an interesting system.
Case 1: A victory for blind masseurs!
In Korea, only the blind can become certified massage therapists. You read that correctly. An entire profession is reserved for the blind. This is Korean law.
This is a fairly contentious issue among the parties involved. In the past, this was a government directive, rather than a law. In 2003, the Constitutional Court upheld the restriction, but a 2006 court declared the directive discriminatory. This upset the blind massage therapists, who protested until the National Assembly passed a law restricting certification to the blind.
In September 2008, a group of sighted therapists appealed this law to the Constitutional Court. The Court upheld the law, and issued the following statement:
It is true that the corresponding clauses restrict the freedom of choosing a career for the non-blind. [...] This restriction, however, is an inevitable one, necessary to secure a minimum level of social support for the blind who have few other career options than massage therapist. It, therefore, does not violate the petitioners’ constitutional freedom on careers and equality.
An interesting footnote to this story is the method of protest that both sides have used. They gather on bridges, and threaten to jump off. Sadly, some of them have followed through. I don’t know why they jump off bridges. It seems like there would be a dozen other ways to protest, but bridge-jumping seems to be the chosen form of civil disobedience.
The New York Times published a good story on this back in September (here’s the link). I can’t link directly to the current Korea Herald story, because of their crummy web page.
I don’t even know what to say about this one. It just seems weird to me. The original policy goes back to the years of Japanese colonization, but I don’t know the reasoning behind it. If it’s a modesty thing, it seems archaic. As a social welfare system, it just seems odd. I guess it guarantees at least one career for the blind, but there there are hundreds of thousands of illegal sighted therapists because of it. I welcome your comments on this one.
Case 2: A setback for adulterers.
Adultery is a criminal offense in Korea, punishable by up to two years in prison. This actually isn’t that uncommon; adultery is still illegal in many US states. Hell, in Michigan, it could get you life in prison. I don’t think these laws generally get prosecuted, however. In Korea, they aren’t often prosecuted, but it still happens. The Korea Herald reported that 47 cases were prosecuted in 2007, down from 103 in 2005.
The Constitutional Court upheld this law, as it has done on three other occasions (1990, 1993, and 2001). Interestingly, 5 of the 9 judges ruled that it was unconstitutional, but it requires six votes to overturn a law.
In its ruling, the Court stated that “[t]he law is intended to safeguard marriage, which is the bedrock of family life. Adultery, thus, cannot be a purely ethical or moral issue which the law cannot meddle in.”
Socially, Korea is pretty conservative, so this isn’t really a surprise. In my opinion, no matter what the Court said, this is clearly an ethical/moral issue. Laws governing such things always disappoint me. I suppose my title is incorrect, as this really isn’t strange. Especially after three more US states passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriages. In Korea and the US, social conservatives continue to fight for a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.
A Victory for the Uighurs, and for US Policy
More than a year ago I wrote about a group of Uighurs (a Chinese ethinic group), that were being held at Guantanamo Bay. The US had released some of them, but they had no place to go. They would be persecuted in China, and few countries would grant them residency. The US sent 5 of them to Albania, but had been unable to find countries willing to accept the other 17.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported on a new ruling the the case. (Story here) Judge Ricardo M. Urbana annouced that the men would be released into the care of supporters living in the US. In my opinion, this is great news for people that have spent years in unjust captivity, and a serious blow to the misguided policies of the Bush administration.
One unresolved problem is that the Uighurs have no legal status in the US. Potentially, they could be picked up by US immigration. Judge Urbana said that no member of the US government should molest the freed men, but they have no real protection beyond the order of a federal district judge.
The White House Press Secretary stated that the administration “disagrees with” the decision, as it could be used as a precedent to free other detainees. We can only hope.
