No-Kids Zones: Consideration or Discrimination?

The discussion about “No-Kids Zones (also known as child-free zones)” has been going on for a long time. Recently, in addition to No-Kids Zones, various other types of places that restrict access to certain users have emerged, such as “No-Senior Zones (also known as senior-free zones)" that restrict access to the elderly, and “No-Study Zones" that restrict access to people studying for long periods of time. The rise of these restricted-access venues is controversial as it involves various interests and can deepen the issues of integration and discrimination in our society. By closely examining the origins of  “No-Kids Zones”, we can understand the nature of the problem and explore alternatives. Let's take a deeper dive into the issue by looking at both sides of No-Kids Zones, as well as the alternatives that are currently being implemented.

A “No-Kids Zone” refers to a business that restricts entry to infants, children, and their accompanying guardians. The age limit varies from place to place, but children under the age of 8 are commonly restricted. In 2011, a 10-year-old child was burned at a restaurant in Busan when he collided with a server carrying hot water while running around, and the Busan District Court ordered the restaurant owner and server to pay the child 41 million won. This incident inspired many businesses in Korea to adopt No-Kids Zones. According to a report released by the Jeju Institute last year, “The Current Status and Issues of No-Kids Zones in Korea,” there are 542 No-Kids Zones in the country. 

What is the perspective of those who support "No-Kids Zones"? The proponents of No-Kids Zones emphasize the autonomy of business owners. They contend that a business owner has the right to create a certain environment and atmosphere in a private place of business for personal profit. They argue that unlike public spaces, the right to prevent physical damage in privately owned spaces should also be respected. In fact, in a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court held that “a person who operates a business is, in principle, free to choose his or her customers.” Of course, this freedom is not unlimited and a reasonable justification is required, but proponents argue that there is a reasonable justification for No-Kids -Zones: to protect the business environment.

Preventing disturbance to other customers and business owners is also a major argument in favor of No-Kids Zones. The nature of children is such that they can be loud, run around, and cause inconvenience to other customers. Proponents argue that through No-Kids Zones, the rights of other customers to enjoy the space and time without interruption are protected. In addition, the risk of accidents increases in restaurants that serve hot food, and the legal liability of such accidents can be a significant burden on business owners. Under the Korean legal system, business owners often face strict liability for accidents that occur on their premises, even if they are not at fault, such as the incident mentioned above that started the proliferation of No-Kids Zones. The argument is that by implementing No-Kids Zones, it can cut back these risks and prevent accidents like the one described above.

The final argument is based on market diversity and consumer choice. There are many different consumers. Therefore, it is argued that places that restrict customers with children, such as No-Kids Zones, should remain as an option for diversity. In other words, having both child-friendly and child-free locations expands consumer choice.

On the other hand, what about the opponents of No-Kids Zones? They strongly criticize them as age discrimination. They argue that children are individuals, and restricting access based solely on age can be seen as a violation of their basic human rights and freedoms. In 2017, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea determined that No-Kids Zones discriminated against children based solely on their age without a reasonable justification and recommended that the cafes take corrective measures. If children are excluded from social activities due to No-Kids Zones, this raises concerns that it could spark social conflicts and extend discrimination against other marginalized groups.

Opponents go further and say No-Kids Zones hinder social inclusion. They argue that children are part of society and must be able to come and go as they want without being excluded from certain places. They emphasize the importance of social integration, saying that in a world where people of all ages live together, we should look for ways to coexist rather than restrict certain groups.

Furthermore, they argue that rather than simply restricting children's entry based on age, alternative solutions to address the underlying issues are necessary. For example, educational efforts in schools and at home could encourage children to be more cautious and considerate in public. Additionally, it is suggested that various measures should be considered, such as creating facilities where children can play safely in designated areas. 

In the course of this debate, several local governments and organizations have proposed and implemented various alternatives to solve the problems associated with No-Kids Zones. Seoul, in particular, has prepared various No-Kids Zones alternatives. Seongdong-gu, Seoul, is implementing the “Kichelin: Top-rated restaurant with love for kids”. “Kichelin” is a combination of “kids” and “Michelin”, the world's leading restaurant brand. It is a policy that provides discounts to families with children under the age of 6 living in Seongdong-gu. This district promotes restaurants designated as Kichelin restaurants through various social media platforms such as Instagram and KakaoTalk. It also provides an “integrated reservation management system” that combines reservation systems such as KakaoTalk and Naver into one, enabling these restaurants to operate more efficiently. In 2021, more than 100 restaurants participated in the program, and in December 2021, it was selected as an excellent practice by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. In addition, the number of families with children has increased, and actual users have commented that it is easy to find a place where they can eat with their children. This demonstrates that the alternative measures have had a positive impact on both business owners and users.

“Seoul Kids-okay Zone” is one of the alternatives. Launched in September 2022 as part of Seoul's “Happy Mom & Dad Project”, a comprehensive plan to ease the burden of childcare for caregivers and create a social atmosphere where raising children is respected, the policy is designed to help families visiting with children feel comfortable. The program is designed to make it easier for families with children to eat by offering kid-friendly menus and providing child-sized chairs, spoons, and forks. Participating businesses receive a certification sticker and a subsidy of 300,000 won to purchase child-friendly amenities. As a result, 349 businesses participated in the program within a month of its implementation, and the number of stores exceeded 500 within nine months, demonstrating the positive response. The city also recently introduced a new insurance policy to expand the “Seoul Kids-okay Zone.” The “Welcome kids safe insurance” covers legal liability and medical expenses in case of safety accidents at restaurants and cafes. It was introduced to reduce the financial burden on participating businesses and create a more child-friendly environment. Available for an affordable annual premium of 20,000 won per year, and it can cover up to 20 million won in the event of an accident, demonstrating the city’s commitment to alleviate the burden on business owners. Seoul is implementing a number of these alternatives. Other local governments should also try to offer various alternatives so that our society can move forward on the path to unity. 

The No-Kids Zones debate goes beyond simple access restrictions and raises important questions about integration, discrimination, and exclusion in our society. The proponents prioritize the rights of business owners and consideration for other customers, while the opponents are concerned about discrimination and exclusion. This discussion is directly related to various social issues such as intergenerational conflict, social cohesion, and the declining birthrate, and requires a mediated approach to build a social consensus.

In the future, we should continue to have active discussions about No-Kids Zones and explore various alternatives, such as the ones mentioned above, to find a balance between consideration and discrimination. This will help us find a path to an inclusive society where everyone is respected and can coexist harmoniously.

Above all, what matters most is the parental attention towards their kids and the responsibility. Parents have the responsibility to pay attention to their children and teach them the rules to be followed in public places. They must help their children develop the qualities necessary to coexist with others. Additionally, we should have a heart that understands and embraces the nature of children.