Jeju Island wants to ban ‘child-free’ businesses. South Koreans have mixed feelings

South Korea’s Jeju Island is pushing to enact an ordinance banning owners of establishments – mainly restaurants or cafes – from designating their businesses as child-free zones.

The resort island will become the first jurisdiction in the country to have such an ordinance, if a bill to enact it is passed at the plenary session of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Council scheduled for May 19.

The ordinance, if passed, would be applied on the island only. But the move is grabbing the country’s attention, as there have been strong arguments for and against the need for businesses to designate child-free zones in recent years, with noisy, disruptive children becoming the bane of many restaurants and cafes.

Supporters for such zones place importance on the rights of people to not be disturbed, while objectors claim the zones infringe on the human rights of children.

Song Chang-kwon, a provincial council member from the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea who submitted the bill, sided with the objectors, saying the zones discriminate against children.

“Jeju Island has many tourist spots visited by families, but also has many child-free zones compared to other cities or provinces across the country,” Song said. “It is not right to block access of children at a time when we need to create a child-friendly island to attract more family tourists.”

The bill defines child-free zones as businesses that restrict access for children or parents with children, without reasonable justification.

It stipulates that the governor of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province should prevent discrimination and human rights violations, and make attempts to create a healthy social environment for children to grow up in.

To that end, according to the bill, the governor should advise owners of establishments not to designate their businesses as no-kids zones and work to adjust their perceptions of children.

The governor should also offer institutional support to deal with any problems caused by children at such establishments and carry out relevant education for parents about the use of public places with children.

The provincial council is planning to review the legal aspects of the bill at a committee on health, welfare and safety on Thursday. If the bill passes this stage, it will be brought to the plenary session on May 19.

Jeju is ‘overwhelmed’ and wants a tourist tax. But will South Korea agree?

According to the Jeju Social Welfare Research Center, Jeju Island has a high proportion of child-free zones as many tourist sites have small restaurants and cafes with a cosy atmosphere.

The centre said the island has 78 child-free zones, accounting for 14.4 per cent nationwide.

Because of this, there have been frequent complaints raised by parents who have travelled to the island with their children and were refused entry to restaurants or cafes.

The growing number of no-kids zones has sparked controversy in online communities as well.

“I think child-free zones are necessary when I see parents who do not properly discipline their children even though they are disturbing others in public,” a commentator wrote in a related news article posted on Naver.

On the other hand, another commentator wrote: “The zones only cause societal aversion toward children.”

South Korea asks China’s help finding suspects who gave kids drug-laced drinks

According to the survey conducted by Hankook Research in November 2021, 71.1 per cent of the 1,000 respondents said the designation of no-kids zones was a due right of establishment owners out of consideration for their customers.

But 11 per cent of respondents said they had been refused entry to such restaurants or cafes only after they had arrived there. Because of this, 84 per cent raised the need for the owners to tell people of the existence of the zones when offering information about their establishments online.

For its part, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea stressed in 2017 that children’s rights should be respected and take priority over the freedom of owners to operate their businesses.

This article was first published on .