No gaijin allowed.

[Ronin4hire]

Interesting article about gaijin being banned from certain cafes and coffee shops.

Thought I'd post this in relation to the sign thread.

FOREIGNERS will be banned from Holland's infamous cannabis-selling coffee shops under new anti-drug laws.

Under the new rules only Dutch residents will be allowed to enter the shops, which lawfully sell small amounts of cannabis to customers, the Daily Mail reported.

By the end of the year customers will have to sign up for a one-year membership, or "dope pass", to the shops.

The legislation, branded "tourism suicide", has been spearheaded by far-right politicians convinced that the move will discourage the "wrong" type of visitors.

"This law will put an end to the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drugs trafficking," a statement from the Dutch health and justice ministries said.

Tourists to be banned from Amsterdam cannabis cafes | News.com.au

[MMM]

Originally Posted by mycyberquest

Why not... what is wrong?

Did you read the article?

[JohnBraden]

I can see the government doesn't want to promote the drug tourism aspect of their country. But I wonder how much this will affect the overall economy. I have a feeling it won't affect it all that much. And perhaps crime and disorderly behavior may decrease a bit as well....

[tokusatsufan]

Oh well I'm not exactly itching to go to Amsterdam again! That's a relief! I was thinking it was Japan.

[Columbine]

Similarly:

Foreigners banned by British government from touring Big Ben: Only British citizens allowed on Big Ben tours amid security fears | Mail Online

and the government in Verbier, Switzerland has temporarily banned foreigners from buying houses at a ski resort: Foreigners temporarily banned from buying homes in Verbier - swissinfo

To me, I suppose the main differences between these and the Amsterdam case, and small restaurants and onsen in Japan banning foreigners, is that with these cases it's is often instigated at a government level with a clearer wider aim; reduce drug trafficking, terrorism fears, property monopolies.

Conversely in Japan, one shop might ban foreigners but the cafe next door welcome them, and the reasons for it are usually more personal and poorly explained, hence a bigger backlash. I must admit, I hadn't heard of either of these bans until I googled, but then I only know about the Japanese signs because of the internet too. I've never encountered anything to do with any of these in my day to day life.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by JohnBraden

I can see the government doesn't want to promote the drug tourism aspect of their country. But I wonder how much this will affect the overall economy. I have a feeling it won't affect it all that much. And perhaps crime and disorderly behavior may decrease a bit as well....

.

When the economy of your country comes to depend on revenue generated by drug "tourism", then your country has a problem.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Columbine

To me, I suppose the main differences between these and the Amsterdam case, and small restaurants and onsen in Japan banning foreigners, is that with these cases it's is often instigated at a government level with a clearer wider aim; reduce drug trafficking, terrorism fears, property monopolies.

To me there is no difference and in fact I see it as worse that such laws can be passed from the top. At least in Japan, the decisions to ban foreigners tend to largely be made by the private business owners. Which means I as a foreigner can simply go elsewhere for service. Considering 99% (just a guess) of businesses in Japan have no problem with serving foreigners. In the Netherelands, if I want to visit a particular type of cafe then I can't period.

Bottom line is that the rationale behind the decision to allow the banning of foreigners is the same. Lets paint all foreigners with the same brush mentality is not only irrational, but flies in the face of the truth in some instances.

For example, the idea that gaijin in Japan commit more crime than locals. Completely untrue if I remember correctly.

Also, the idea that British nationals are less likely to commit a terrorist act in Britain than gaijin. The truth is actually the other way around.

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

To me there is no difference and in fact I see it as worse that such laws can be passed from the top. At least in Japan, the decisions to ban foreigners tend to largely be made by the private business owners. Which means I as a foreigner can simply go elsewhere for service. Considering 99% (just a guess) of businesses in Japan have no problem with serving foreigners. In the Netherelands, if I want to visit a particular type of cafe then I can't period.

Bottom line is that the rationale behind the decision to allow the banning of foreigners is the same. Lets paint all foreigners with the same brush mentality is not only irrational, but flies in the face of the truth in some instances.

For example, the idea that gaijin in Japan commit more crime than locals. Completely untrue if I remember correctly.

Also, the idea that British nationals are less likely to commit a terrorist act in Britain than gaijin. The truth is actually the other way around.

I think the reasons given by Amsterdam aren't very good.
But stopping foreigners from benefiting from parts of a society is quite a common thing,
For example in Canada only citizens get free health care, or subsidized education.

I wonder how much of Amsterdams decision is based on political pressure from abroad while they give these other excuses publicly.
Better to be seen as unreasonable than soft.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by RealJames

For example in Canada only citizens get free health care, or subsidized education.

Even foreigners that pay taxes?

I find that a bit hard to believe.. and it's outrageous if it's true.

As far as I'm aware, in New Zealand, you get access to all public services if you pay taxes. Doesn't matter if you're a foreigner or not. And with regard to health.. even that doesn't matter.

The only services that you might not qualify for as a foreigner might be the unemployment benefit and other such benefits of that nature. But even then if you're a foreigner you can get it if you meet certain other requirements. (Like if you are a refugee or granted assylum)

[protheus]

Originally Posted by MMM

Did you read the article?

Look at the links in the signature, and look around for others with same sig in the last 2-3 days. You'll find about 5 or 6 (that's my count) with the same signature, with 1 to 5 random messages each. Initially it doesn't use a signature, but after some posts it gets it there. This is an advanced type of bot, pretty nice coding I must say.