Institutionalised racism and fussy landlords are not the same thing
COMMENT | I’m going to put it out there. I don’t find it a problem if a landlord specifies certain criteria when they advertise looking for tenants to either rent rooms or homes.
To me, it does not necessarily mean that they are racist or discriminatory, and it definitely does not mean that they cannot be supporting the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd).
For context, the Malaysian government last year decided not to ratify the United Nations’ Icerd convention which calls for equal rights for all, without regard to ethnicity, religion, et cetera. I am extremely upset that the government decided not to sign and be a part of the convention because I believe in human rights and equality for all.
If we look at the big discussion happening in the media right now, there is a significant movement calling for the banning of racial criteria when renting out property. According to the discussion also, I would be known as a hypocrite because, although I call for the ratification of Icerd, I still believe that specifying criteria for renters is okay...
COMMENT | I can understand if cultural differences influence some people's criteria for renters.
How is it that If I own the property it is my basic right to rent it or even sell it to whoever I LIKE. Isn't it my right as what belong to me is mine. If I give it away it is also my right to do so and now law can be use to make me do otherwise. If we live in the land of the jungle then this will be the law of the jungle.Next you will ask that we surrender the property. You do not want basic Human Rights now you are talking about violating it are you people stupid or I am still in the land of the jungle.
Sometimes it can be due to certain personal religious sensitivities. A Muslim landlord may not want to rent to a Chinese tenant for fear of contaminating the kitchen with non-halal cooking specifically pork. Likewise a Hindu landlord’s sensitivity towards beef. Or for that matter a person (regardless of race) who dislikes dogs and cats would not want to rent to anyone who rear such pets. All these have nothing to do with being racist.
In principle I agree with Wan Azlee. BUT if "I do understand the fact that many of the advertisements that state ‘No Africans’ and the like are actually racist in nature" is racist, what's the difference then for your example of Hindu-vegetarian or women landlord? Principle is the same but just the definition to suit you need? There're reasons why such a "racist" advertisement. Because majority of these 3rd world countries people will treat your property like "reban ayam" because they pay for it! Even hotels statistics will acknowledge what kind of treatment you'll get for your hotel rooms from which country and culture. Of course no hotels will proclaim it - it's "RACIST" and will be boycott! Not everything "RACIST" are not true! If it's true, why it should be racist? Same principle like whistleblowers vs OSA! Similarly if you rent your property to a company; any tom dick and harry will stay there and will treat it like a "hotel" - plus with uncivilised mentality "since I've paid for it - whack it!". We always argue that the law must not restrict the people BUT "HUMAN RIGHTS" in fact are restricting every human being - trying to impose their values over others.