Pub bans Lebanese and Islanders unknown to security staff - should this be allowed?

Bad Player

Deity
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
3,534
Location
(Bris)Vegas!
SECURITY staff at one of Sydney's most popular pubs were ordered to refuse entry to patrons of particular ethnic backgrounds in a racist exclusion policy designed to cut crime.
The owner of Scruffy Murphy's Irish pub in the city admitted he had implemented a policy in 2005 denying entry to patrons of Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander origin.

Malcolm McGuinness told the NSW Equal Opportunity Tribunal yesterday the exclusion edict was introduced after police threatened to impose sanctions on his hotel after a series of incidents.

The publican and T&B Security Services director Tibi Brandusoiu are being sued by two would-be patrons of Pacific Islander origin for damages for racial discrimination.

Mr McGuinness said the exclusion policy introduced in November 2005 and scrapped early last year was designed to prevent problems "related to gangs" and in "my viewpoint it was not discriminating".

"Once we implemented this policy, assaults were reduced," he said.

Samoan Benji Tupou, 31, of Maroubra, told the tribunal he was twice refused entry to Scruffy Murphy's in 2005 because of his ethnic background.

Mr Tupou alleged that on the first occasion, he was pulled out of a queue by a Polynesian security guard who told him: "Yep, no Islanders."

Five months later he tried again. This time he was approached by a member of the security staff who asked: "What nationality are you?"

When Mr Tupou replied: "I'm Samoan or Niuean", the bouncer replied: "Seriously boys, I don't know how to say this, but you guys can't come in to the hotel."

Asked why, the doorman exclaimed: "No Islanders or Lebanese."

Mr Tupou said he had been humiliated by the refusal. "It was belittling to be treated in this way. I was angry about how I was treated," he said.

Also giving evidence yesterday was Marcellus Cook, a New Zealand Maori, who claimed he was refused entry.

Lawyer David Hillard, representing both men, told the tribunal the hotel had made an "uncontested concession" that it breached the Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing entry to Mr Cook at a time when the exclusion policy was in place.

Bryce Cross, counsel for Scruffy Murphy's, told the tribunal that, in Mr Cook's case only, the hotel conceded breaching the Act.

"We have been consistent in the concession that persons not known to staff of Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander appearance were not allowed in to the hotel," he said.

The hearing continues.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21664253-953,00.html

I used to live in Sydney and have visited Scruffy Murphy's a couple of times. There are black (African black) and Asian people in there as White people. Having said that there is a big problem with Lebanese gangs in Sydney as evidenced by the reactionary response in the form of the Cronulla riots in Sydney 2005.

I'd tend to say that the pub was not being racist because they don't actually discriminate against all Lebanese and Islanders - just the ones they don't know (and the bouncer in the article is an Islander). Also there are people of different ethnicities there anyway. I think it was a last resort idea.

What do you think?
 
Whilst I think the Hotel should allow people to enter, unless they already know the person is a trouble maker, I also think that a Hotel should be allowed to decide who it does and doesn't want to enter on any grounds it sees fit.

I can stop anyone I want from entering my house, with some exceptions, why shouldn't the same be true of a private place of business?
 
Wow. That would be a major no-no in the US.

But then you guys don't have the Interstate Commerce clause. ;)
 
To quote Roberto Begnini "As long as he let's Wisigoths and Spiders gets in, I am OK".
That is plain racism indeed, that is the very definition of racism: using race as a "method" to judge people.
 
"We reserve the right to refuse business to any one"


Was a time you could post that sign in America and enforce it.


"Once we implemented this policy, assaults were reduced,"
It may be racist but the results show there was a problem and this helped fix it. Maybe the real problem isn't racist policies but members of the targeted races. There is something to be said about a business owner and his obligations to keep his patrons safe.
 
It's a good idea. Safety of patrons and reducing crime comes first.

So discrimnating against a white woman like you because of the wrong doing of other white people is also a good idea if I follow your racist logic?
 
It's their business.
 
So discrimnating against a white woman like you because of the wrong doing of other white people is also a good idea if I follow your racist logic?

If unknown white women are assaulting people but known ones aren't and the white woman who's a bouncer says assaults buy white women is reduced then its ok by me. Are all white woman being denied? If so thats not whats happening here.
 
If unknown white women are assaulting people but known ones aren't and the white woman who's a bouncer says assaults buy white women is reduced then its ok by me. Are all white woman being denied? If so thats not whats happening here.

How is it OK to let in ALL White folks (know and unknow) and only the Lebanese and Islander they know? In this case they are basically holding ALL Lebanese and Islander they don't know responsible for the wrong doing of other Lebanese and Islander, and if we follow their logic than it would be OK for me to hold you and Bast responsible for the wrong doing of Mc Veigh !!!

Would you be OK if the same policy is to be implemented at the entry of every US University against Korean because of the last Virgin Tech massacre?
 
HB I think the article said that Lebanese and Pacific Islanders that were known by staff were allowed - just not random ones.

I know that, they let ALL white folks in but only the lebanese and Islander they know, that is racism: a randon white guy is OK a priori, a randon non white is suspicious.
 
I know that, they let ALL white folks in but only the lebanese and Islander they know, that is racism: a randon white guy is OK a priori, a randon non white is suspicious.

I tried to correct that in my OP - they do let in 'non-Whites' in except for those 2 ethnicities.
 
How is it OK to let in ALL White folks (know and unknow) and only the Lebanese and Islander they know? In this case they are basically holding ALL Lebanese and Islander they don't know responsible for the wrong doing of other Lebanese and Islander, and if we follow their logic than it would be OK for me to hold you and Bast responsible for the wrong doing of Mc Veigh !!!

Would you be OK if the same policy is to be implemented at the entry of every US University against Korean because of the last Virgin Tech massacre?

How is it right to let in trouble makers that are hurting your customers and affecting your business?


Maybe if the lebanese and islanders could behave them selves this wouldn't be needed. Its easy to blame and demonize the person that has to held responcable for the safety of his patrons isn't it. Maybe your misplaced anger would be better spent on the trouble makers. You know the cause of all this. But since they ain't white you can't do that.
 
Do they have some sort of DNA testing equipment set up by the entrance? How do they determine ethnicity, I doubt Lebanese people walk in with t-shirts that say 'Kiss me Im Lebanese!'
 
This sort of thing happens all the time anyway.

Any major town near an army base won't allow Squaddies in. I've been to Blackpool and turned away from some clubs for being from "out of town". People should have the right to protect thier property by any means they see fit, not matter how misconcieved those plans may be.
 
Back
Top Bottom