Koike urges Olympic golf venue to allow women members

Interesting, will see how the oyajis will fight this one with the usual excuse of it being a Japanese culture of gender inequality.

Tokyo Gov Yuriko Koike has asked the Kasumigaseki Country Club, venue of golf competition of the 2020 Olympic Games, to admit women as full members.

Appropriately named boys club.

Its amazing how backward Japan really is when you scratch the surface. An establishment barring entry to women on sundays, venues not allowing foreigners in.... can you try to imagine ANYONE pulling this crap in a western country? They would be sued front, sideways, and backwards. I'm sorry but this has NOTHING to do with culture and EVERTHING to do with discrimination. Japan in this regard is truly a backward nation that needs to get with the times, and good on Koike for casting the first stone. My hat off to her.

Great way to showcase to the world why Japan ranks 111th in international gender equality rankings

@Aly I can easily imagine western countries pulling this crap. About 12 or so private golf courses in the UK do not allow women. In the US there are at least that many male only clubs. Like Kasumigaseki these are private clubs. Actually Japan has fewer male only golf clubs than either the US or the UK. It is amazing how people jump all over Japan when they here these things. Koike will have to hope the members of these clubs vote to change their rules. Good luck with that.

It is amazing how people jump all over Japan when they here these things.

Right!

A list of the remaining all-male golf clubs

Black Sheep Golf Club-US-Chicago

Bob-O-Link Golf Club-US-Chicago

Butler National Golf Club-US-Chicago

Burning Tree Club-US-MD

Lochinvar Golf Club-US-TX

Muirfield

Old Elm Club-US-Chicago

Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews

Royal St. George's Golf Club

Royal Troon Golf Club

The National Golf Club of Canada

I hope this Lady makes PM one day.

Perso I have no issue with men-only (or women-only) golf clubs. Would just not choose such venue for an Olympics event though.

Welcome to Tokyo Olympics where everybody is welcome unless you don't fit a specific type of human.

Aly I can easily imagine western countries pulling this crap. About 12 or so private golf courses in the UK do not allow women. In the US there are at least that many male only clubs

can you provide me with a link to those golf courses please?

'Urging' is the wrong tack to take.

'Do you want the Olympics at your venue or not?' would probably work a lot better.

This is the only club in Japan suitable for hosting the event?

actually never mind. did my own research and found that indeed sexism tends to be associated with golf universally. I stand corrected.

Having said that my post above still remains relevant as western countries cannot ban entry into establishments based on race or nationality, which japan still does.

I would push for a complete world wide ban on golf. It is a waste of space and can hardly be considered a sport. Add to that its blatant sexism, it is time to resign golf to the list of archane sports, such as foxhunting and bullfighting.

Aly Rustom: "I'm sorry but this has NOTHING to do with culture and EVERTHING to do with discrimination."

Well, unless discrimination is part of the culture, that is.

In any case, there should be no place in this day and age for it -- here or anywhere. Don't ASK, Koike, demand. If they won't, take the 2020 venue away from them. Give it a smaller, lesser known but better rounded course.

Well, unless discrimination is part of the culture, that is.

true.

In any case, there should be no place in this day and age for it -- here or anywhere

agree 100%.

Don't ASK, Koike, demand. If they won't, take the 2020 venue away from them. Give it a smaller, lesser known but better rounded course.

hear hear

I hope this Lady makes PM one day.

It's fun now just to watch the Old Guard Politicians get their pantys in a bunch when she holds their feet to the fire. Would be great to see her running the show.

Obama is facing his own possible golf club ban, at what was going to be his preferred club during his retirement (say reports):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/13/not-welcome-members-at-dc-country-club-take-swing-at-obama-over-israel-stance.html

Thank you Governor Koike for your effort to break down male oriented barriers. Women, after all, gave birth to baby boys who later became men. Women should be treated to a much better station in Japan. I would certainly hope that my mother and sisters are treated on their merits and not based on their sex.

Having said that my post above still remains relevant as western countries cannot ban entry into establishments based on race or nationality, which japan still does.

It can if it's private or not.

It can if it's private or not.

No they can't. Full stop

No they can't. Full stop

OK, it depends on whether the establishment is completely a private establishment. Where are you getting your sources from? I'm curious.

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/private_discriminate_religious.htm

OK, it depends on whether the establishment is completely a private establishment. Where are you getting your sources from? I'm curious.

Personal experience. I have lived in the US, Canada, UK, and parts of Western Europe. I have NEVER seen a sign barring entry to someone based on race or nationality. I have seen plenty of these signs in Japan, and if you go onto debito.org and go to the rogues gallery you can see a whole collection of them complete with the city and prefecture. If you know of any estabishments in the west that do so, please let me know. We can both sue them together and get rich.

http://law.freeadvice.com/governmentlaw/civilrightslawada/privatediscriminatereligious.htm

Tried to get on the website. It says site not found. Please check the link. Thank you.

Some of these clubs have (or had) admission policies that include barring admission to a candidate if that candidate receives a single downvote from the admissions committee or the membership, IIRC.

Probably it has been a while since they had signs up. But a 'need not apply' policy doesn't really need signs visible, to be enforced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta_National_Golf_Club

... The golf club's exclusive membership policies have drawn criticism, particularly because there were no African-American members admitted until 1990, as well as a former policy requiring all caddies to be black, which was omitted from the club's bylaws in 1959. The club began granting membership to women in August 2012. Prior to the acceptance of female members, Augusta National defended its position by citing that in 2011, more than 15% of the non-tournament rounds were played by female players who were member guests or spouses of active members. ...

Sorry for the bad link. Hopefully, this time it worked. Anyways, I provided a link in regards to the federal statute. There is a debate regarding the free right to association against discriminatory exclusion but ultimately, when such establishment is completely private, the federal law against discrimination against race, religion, etc does not prevail. Thus, your personal experience means nothing when I provided you with the actual law. I can guarantee you that you won't go anywhere based on your argument but you can waste your money on court costs if you still want to proceed.

Can private clubs and religious organizations legally discriminate?

That depends. When dealing with private individuals, the Federal civil rights statutes only reach as far as public accommodations. Thus, while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital "partners".

Read more: http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/private_discriminate_religious.htm#ixzz4Vsl1ZJTA Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/civil_rights_law_ada/private_discriminate_religious.htm

There is a debate regarding the free right to association against discriminatory exclusion but ultimately, when such establishment is completely private, the federal law against discrimination against race, religion, etc does not prevail.

Not correct. If I have a completely private establishment and put up a sign saying no dogs or Japanese allowed, which western country would allow me to keep that sign up? tell me.

. Thus, your personal experience means nothing when I provided you with the actual law. I can guarantee you that you won't go anywhere based on your argument but you can waste your money on court costs if you still want to proceed.

Show me a sign in any western country that specifically bans people on the basis of race or nationality. Then we can start from there. Simple really. But don't sit there and tell me that personal experience doesn't matter. Of course it does.

That depends. When dealing with private individuals, the Federal civil rights statutes only reach as far as public accommodations. Thus, while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose. Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God. Some cities, including Chicago, New York and San Francisco, also have local Civil Rights Laws that are far broader than the Federal law. For example, New York City defines private clubs that derive certain levels of income from business as places of public accommodation for purposes of its Civil Rights Laws. San Francisco requires employers who do business with the city to offer their employees health insurance for non-marital "partners".

It seems like you are proving my argument. There are laws in the west banning discrimination whereas Japan has ZERO laws against discrimination. The lukewarm hate speech law was enacted only after international headlines focused on the right wing of this country terrorized a group of elementary school students. Are you aware that in order to qualify for human rights in Japan you have to be a citizen? What western country discriminates like that?

Not correct. If I have a completely private establishment and put up a sign saying no dogs or Japanese allowed, which western country would allow me to keep that sign up? tell me.

According to the law, if you do have a completely private establishment, it is not illegal per the statute. Public pressure on the other hand is a different story but that's not what you mentioned in your earlier post.

No they can't. Full stop

Here's a link to the actual federal statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

Here is a law review article regarding the legality of discrimination that the federal civil rights act tries to abolish but with the exemption of private establishments. Notice the discussion will be what constitutes a private establishment v. public establishment. If there was an outright BAN on all discriminatory practices, there is no need for such debate.

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1608&context=plr

It seems like you are proving my argument. There are laws in the west banning discrimination whereas Japan has ZERO laws against discrimination

I'm not proving your argument one bit since I only pointed out that discrimination based on religion, race, etc. may occur in the west (at least in the US) which you flatly denied.

Show me a sign in any western country that specifically bans people on the basis of race or nationality. Then we can start from there. Simple really. But don't sit there and tell me that personal experience doesn't matter. Of course it does.

I should have been more clear. Since you wrongly believed that no western nation can discriminate based on race, religion or what not, I provided that it is possible so long as such establishment runs strictly in a private manner. Thus, said establishment cannot be open to the public in regards to their services, cannot receive any benefits from the public government like tax breaks, etc. Debating whether such establishments should fall under private or public would be a matter of courts to decide. However, since it IS legal to discriminate, if you do bring it up to the court, it will determine the legality of the discrimination based on a strict scrutiny standard. Having said that, the fact that the court needs to determine the legality of such discrimination already implies that such discriminatiory practices are in fact legal so long as it follows the statute. Thus, in this sense, your personal experience does not mean anything when we're discussing what you originally posted above.

This is a red herring. Here.

d) Support by State action Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

Basically, this law means that in order for the discrimination to be considered legal, it has to be required by law. This part is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

This is a red herring and under court of law, if an establishment was to bring this statute to court they would have to prove that the state sanctioned it. Your argument does not stand. Nice try though.

Since you wrongly believed that no western nation can discriminate based on race, religion or what not,

first of all you misquoted me. here is my post again

I have NEVER seen a sign barring entry to someone based on race or nationality.

That is what we are talking about here. An IN YOUR FACE blatant display of discrimination. Again show me a sign in any western country that blatantly states certain ethnic groups or nationalities are barred from entry . Show me that. You say that it is legal to discriminate. The link you provided proves that it DOESNT, and neither does the evidence.

find me a link to an establishment barring people because of their ethinicity or their nationality. Until then, I stand by what I said.

This is a red herring and under court of law, if an establishment was to bring this statute to court they would have to prove that the state sanctioned it. Your argument does not stand. Nice try though.

Oh god, if that's how you interpret it, then by all means. Lets end this discussion right here. Whoever is reading this discussion can continue on whether and have them determine that you are correct.

first of all you misquoted me. here is my post again I have NEVER seen a sign barring entry to someone based on race or nationality. That is what we are talking about here. An IN YOUR FACE blatant display of discrimination

Hmmm, you never mentioned about a SIGN barring entry to someone based on race or nationality in your original quote. Reread your quotes (I put it below as well but you can go ahead and check it yourself). You've never mentioned anything about signs prior to our debate. You can't just switcharoo the issue after the fact.

Having said that my post above still remains relevant as western countries cannot ban entry into establishments based on race or nationality, which japan still does.

Of course, you believe the that the statute I provided is a red herring so you're going to believe that it is outright illegal in all shape and form for discrimination to persist based on race, religion, etc. So we can just agree to disagree.

if that's how you interpret it, then by all means. Lets end this discussion right here. Whoever is reading this discussion can continue on whether and have them determine that you are correct.

Fair enough.

Hmmm, you never mentioned about a SIGN barring entry to someone based on race or nationality in your original quote.

You're right. I forgot to include it in my original quote. That was my mistake. If that threw you off, its my bad. That's what I had in mind when I posted originally. My humble apologies.

you believe the that the statute I provided is a red herring so you're going to believe that it is outright illegal in all shape and form for discrimination to persist based on race, religion, etc.

How I understood the statute is that (I'M heavily paraphrasing here) discriminating against the entry of certain people is accepted if there is a reason requires it or if the state sanctions it. I did not feel the statute warranted open and blatant discrimination. At least, that's how I read it.

So we can just agree to disagree.

Ok. Lets do that. Thank you for the spirited argument and also for taking the time to provide links. We may disagree, but at least you took the time out to provide info. So thank you, and see you on another thread.

@Aly,

Yes, I had a great discussion with you as well! Also, no need to apologize regarding the sign. Lord knows how much I make a mistake, lol! Anyways, it was fun and see you on another thread.