Press conference and panel discussion held on abolishing sexist, racist ordinances
By Park Ju-yeon
Published Dec. 18, 2023
Translated by Marilyn Hook
Around May 2021, the city of Mungyeong in North
Gyeongsang Province had plans to launch a program it called ‘Marry Off Rural
Bachelors to Increase the Population.’ The city sent a request for cooperation to
an administrative office registered with the Ministry of Justice to handle
immigration services that stated, “The flight of the younger generation and
women from rural areas is intensifying due to the continuous decline and aging
of the rural population. In order to increase the rural population and
revitalize it, we want to promote marriage for rural bachelors through natural
encounters between rural bachelors and international students from Vietnam.”
When this fact became public, there was resistance from various quarters,
including from Vietnamese international students, and Mungyeong called off the program.
However, this type of ‘marry off rural
bachelors’ project can still be found in other areas of the country. Local
governments have even created ordinances supporting international marriage—even
though such measures are sexist and racist in their reduction of immigrant
women to targets of marriage and tools for reproducing the population.
“Immigrant women do not belong to Korean husbands!”
A picket sign held by a participant in the press conference “Call for the
Abolition of International Marriage Support Ordinances, Which Spread Sexist and
Racist Views and Promotes Discriminatory Behavior” held on the 11th in front of
the main entrance to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. © Korea
Women Migrants Human Rights Center
The Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center has
formed the “Task Force for the Abolition of Sexist/Racist International
Marriage Ordinances” centered around migrant women’s groups, human rights
groups, and pro bono lawyers and is taking proactive action. One of the task
force’s activities was to hold the “Forum to Promote the Abolition of Sexist
and Racist Ordinances to Strengthen the Citizen Subjectivity of Immigrant
Women” on December 11th. The
event included criticism of the relevant ordinances still in effect in 25
locations around the country.
‘Marry off rural bachelors’ programs run by
local governments… still?
At the time of the 2021 Mungyeong incident, the
Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center, the female international students who
were designated ‘marriage targets’ for rural bachelors, immigrant women’s human
rights groups, and pro bono lawyers raised their voices in protest. Together, they also submitted a petition to
the National Human Rights Commission of Korea alleging discrimination. Activist
Nam Ji-eun of the Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center reiterated the
problematic points of Mungyeong City’s ‘Marry Off Rural Bachelors’ program.
“First, that it presented immigrant women
(Vietnamese exchange students) as potential spouses. A belief in the
superiority of one country, race, and gender is implicit in this program that offers
residency in Korea through marriage with a Korean man as a ‘favorable
opportunity.’
Second, that it used immigrant women as tools to
solve [the issues of] the decline and aging of rural populations and entrenched
gender roles within the family.
Third, that it increased prejudice against women
marriage migrants currently residing in Korea and their vulnerability to
gender-based violence. It took for granted that they are obligated to bear and
raise children and do housework and farmwork, and structuralized suspicion of
the sincerity of their marriage if they do not fulfill these assigned ‘obligations.’
Fourth, the issue of a local government actively
intervening in marriage brokering and that it violated its obligations as a
public institution to prohibit gender discrimination and [other forms of]
discrimination.”
Thanks to the resulting “criticism from civil
society” and “recommendations based on the gender impact assessment of the
Ministry of Gender Equality and Family,” Ms. Nam said, “some local governments
got rid of their ordinances and programs.” However, by conducting exhaustive
research using the Local Government Law Information System, the task force “determined
that 28 local governments still have international marriage support ordinances
and are operating matrimony-centric so-called ‘marry off rural bachelor
programs’” as of the first half of 2023.
International marriage support ordinances and
similar ordinances (such as those that don’t limit the marriage targets to
immigrant women) are “designed to actively respond to the low birthrate, aging
population, and crisis in rural areas by helping unmarried men working in
agriculture or fishing within the jurisdiction cover some of the expenses of
(international) marriage to help them ‘start a family.’” These ‘expenses of
(international) marriage’ “include airfare, board, and arranged marriage fees.”
The current state of international marriage support
ordinances, according to research conducted by the Task Force for the Abolition
of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances. From left to right, the
columns are titled “Number”, “Gender Specified”, “Broader Area” (like a province or metropolitan city), “Base”
(specific jurisdiction, like a small city or a district of a large city),
“Ordinance Name”, and “Reply Regarding Intention to Abolish/Revise.” © Ilda
It’s true that there have been some changes
recently. In the second half of this year, three of the 28 jurisdictions have
abolished their ordinances or announced plans to do so. However, Ms. Nam
pointed out that “although they stated that it was because they were aware of
the [ordinances’] violations of immigrant
women human rights, the ‘ineffectiveness of the program’ was also an important
reason,” adding, “It’s still disappointing that marriage immigrant women are
being cited as and assessed to be part of population increase measures.”
Immigrant women ask, “Who are these policies
for?”
Lee Seon-mi, an immigrant woman and member of
the task force, explained point by point why international marriage support
ordinances are discriminatory and how they affect immigrant women. First,
there’s the ordinances’ names. Ms. Lee pointed out that they have in common the
use of phrases like “rural bachelors, unmarried men residing in rural areas,
[and] bachelors in farming and fishing villages,” and said, “You can’t help but
ask, ‘Why is it men/bachelors?’” With these names, the ordinances “are premised
on marriage between a Korean man and a foreign woman. In other words, we can
see that foreign women are fixed in a passive position.” This is nothing other
than “gender discrimination.”
She also called attention to the ordinances’
“seeing women in international marriages with Korean men as people who have to
escape difficult financial situations in their mother countries,” which is
“class discrimination.” Ms. Lee criticized, “If you look at the contents and
stated purposes of international marriage support ordinances, you’ll see ‘to
instill the desire to farm and promote the vitality of society in farming and
fishing villages through the forming of happy families,’ but I don’t understand
why they’re instilling the desire to farm and promoting the vitality of society
through international marriage.” These kinds of stated purposes can only be
said to be “viewing migrant women as the subjects responsible for childbirth
and childcare, as well as a means to achieve the goal of population increase.”
Such discrimination not only “makes immigrant
women into merchandise and reinforces Korean men’s patriarchal marriage values”
but also leads to the women suffering “abuse, violence, and forced labor.” Ms.
Lee shared her experience working for a Multicultural Family Support Center: “I
met a lot of female marriage migrants, and a very sad part of the stories they
told me was that their husband, mother-in-law, or whoever often told them, ‘I
paid money for you. So if you want to leave this house, pay me back that money
first.’ Also, if the husband was the suspicious type, he would stop her from
getting [Korean] citizenship because he was afraid she would run away once she
had it.”
Another characteristic of international marriage
support ordinances is that ages [of the target men] are often specified.
‘Between the ages of 30 and 50,’ ‘over the age of 35’, or ‘over the age of
33’—no matter the exact numbers, Ms. Lee said she found the specificity
suspicious. It is even more so given that in the majority of international
marriages, there is an age gap between the spouses, and the husband is the
older party. Ms. Lee explained, “Some research has found that the reason Korean
men choose young spouses from ‘developing countries’ is because by putting
themselves in the superior age position in the spouse selection process, they
gain control over their spouses.”
Ms. Lee repeated her criticism that “you can’t
help but question who such an international marriage support ordinance is for.”
Discrimination and exclusion must not be
systematized
What are the real-life effects of these ordinances? Baek So-yoon, an attorney with GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation, explained, “Local laws function as more substantive norms than national laws in that they establish the rights, obligations and standards of behavior of the area’s residents and are directly related to the lives of community members.” She warned, “Sexist, racist legislation and public policies are problems in a systematic sense because they conflict with constitutional values or the value pursued by the higher law of ‘the obligation to implement gender equality,’ and they cause great harm to society in that they hinder the actual realization of those values and their establishment as social norms.”
Ms. Baek also emphasized that “discriminatory
legislation and public policies can be viewed as being constructed on the basis
of stereotypes about immigrants and women, and when functioning as a part of
the system, they in turn reinforce stereotypes about immigrants and women.” She
added, “The ‘benefits’ provided by international marriage support ordinances or
multicultural family support ordinances only address the life events of female
marriage immigrants who are fulfilling the gender roles of marriage,
childbirth, and childrearing, and they impose gender roles within the family on
women and limit the identities and roles of female marriage immigrants. In
these points, they are incompatible with the principle of gender equality.”
The “Forum to Promote the Abolition of Sexist and
Racist Ordinances to Strengthen the Citizen Subjectivity of Immigrant Women”
held on December 11th, 2023 at the National Human Rights Commission of Korea.
From left: Korea Women Migrants Human Rights Center director Heo-Oh Yeong-suk
and activist Nam Ji-eun; Lee Seon-mi of the Task Force for the Abolition of
Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances; attorney Baek So-yoon of
GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation; and Kim Na-hyeon of Link Migrant Interpretation
and Translation Center. © Ilda
On the flip side, there are also policies and
laws that exclude immigrants. For example, said Ms. Baek, “they don’t allow
pregnant immigrant women to get the expectant mother transportation subsidy
established by childbirth and childcare support ordinances, or they don’t make
immigrant children eligible for subsidies for daycare or preschool fees.” They
are telling immigrant women to get married but then marginalizing them when it
comes to giving birth and raising children.
Ms. Baek explained, “Exclusion of immigrants is
leading to a reality where female immigrants with diverse identities like
‘worker’ and ‘exchange student’ are unable to enjoy the rights befitting their
particular identities,” and, “We can expect double, even triple exclusion
arising from [the intersection of] the three positions—‘immigrant’, ‘woman’,
and ‘worker’.” She also emphasized that “not working for structural resolution
of continued discrimination is also a form of discrimination.”
What our society needs are not discriminatory,
exclusionary policies but ones that can protect the human rights of immigrant
women. Ms. Baek said, “That the absolute principles of ‘the prohibition of discrimination’
and ‘the guarantee of equal rights’ can be practically secured through
legislation and public policy must be reflected in our means and goals,” and,
“If there are attempts to justify hatred or discrimination in the name of human
rights, we must stop them by confirming through the blocking of discriminatory
legislation or abolishment of [discriminatory] laws that the basic principles
defended by the state are constitutional values.”
In addition, she suggested “legislation and
public policies being reviewed from a gender-sensitive perspective before they
are implemented” and “reflecting the diverse narratives and desires of
immigrant women as the subjects of rights who have diverse needs rather than
limited roles such as marriage partner, caregiver, and domestic worker.”
Power of participation and solidarity needed for
abolition of discriminatory ordinances
Regarding the question of how the discriminatory
ordinances that still remain can be gotten rid of, the panel’s opinion was that
solidarity is important. Woo Sam-yeol, head of the Asan Migrant Workers Center,
introduced the case of the “Asan City Resident Foreigner Support Ordinance”
enacted in the South Chungcheong Province city in 2008: “The contents of the
ordinance included one regulation that violated human rights. In the section describing who was eligible
for support, there was a proviso tacked on that read, ‘However, foreigners who
do not have a status that allows them to legally reside in the Republic of
Korea pursuant to the Immigration Control Act, etc. are excluded.’ This was
problematic because it meant that no support was provided to the unregistered—people
who’ve lost their residency status.”
In October of 2014, however, the South
Chungcheong Province Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated, and it
included a meaningful phrase: “residency status.” It “clearly stated that there
should not be discriminatory treatment of immigrants based on their residency
status.” Mr. Woo continued, “The Asan Migrant Workers Center emphasized to city
council members the [importance of] following the spirit of the provincial
declaration of human rights, and in October 2014, the proviso in the ordinance
in question was removed by order of the city council.” The creation of the
human rights declaration and the criticism of the problematic part of the
ordinance were both the result of long-term efforts by non-governmental
organizations to create an equal society.
As an immigrant herself, Kim Na-hyeon, an
activist with Link Migrant Interpretation and Translation Center, pointed out
“the importance of making a network among the people directly affected.” She
said, “When stories of the discrimination and injustice that immigrants experience
come to light, the actions of citizens’ groups are important, but now
immigrants are living in Korea for longer periods and their numbers are
growing. So there are more and more movements centered around them. It is
important for them to raise their own voices and make change, too.”
For this to happen, immigrant women must gain
experience in direct involvement in activism and exercising their right to make
decisions. Ms. Kim said that “immigrant women must participate directly in the
process by which policies or systems related to immigrants are created,” and
recommended that “those women [receive] education and training so that they can
properly convey the reality and problems faced by immigrant women, and not
speak merely about personal difficulties.”
Before the forum began, the Task Force for the
Abolition of Sexist/Racist International Marriage Ordinances submitted a
petition to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea that called on the
organization to recommend the abolishment of international marriage ordinances.
It read, in part, “An international marriage support ordinance is a system that
subsidizes the marriage brokering fees and other expenses of marriage for men
who have married immigrant women, based on the premise that, from a perspective
that places importance on the ‘normal family’ centered around a patriarch, immigrant
women may be used as methods to solve Korea’s social reproduction crisis. It is
a sexist system that reinforces stereotypes about the role of women in ‘normal
families’ subordinate to men, and, in its reinforcement of prejudices about
immigrant women in particular, it is a policy that leads to discrimination
based on race and country of origin.” The national government and local
authorities will have to take these words seriously.
*Original article: https://ildaro.com/9793
No comments:
Post a Comment