WTF ? Racial discrimination of Dolce & Gabbana in Hong Kong

http://www.news.com.au/business/pro...n-on-photography/story-e6frfm1i-1226239375370

http://video.repubblica.it/mondo/ho...bana-per-il-divieto-di-fotografia/85234/83623

Please have a look on this news, it's so funny that D&G in Hong Kong does not allow Hong Kong people to take photos of its store, just spread this news out, let people know how shxt D&G is !

On 5 January 2012, Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily reported that Hong Kong citizens are banned from taking pictures of any Dolce & Gabbana window displays in both Central and Harbour City. In the case of Dolce & Gabbana at Harbour City, store staff and security personnel both indicated the public space on Canton Road as private property. All pedestrians that used the sidewalk were subjected to the photo 'ban' set forth by Dolce & Gabbana, with the exception of tourists from mainland China being specially exempt without justification.This double standard caused immediate outrage amongst local citizens, sparking protests with international news coverage on 8 Jan 2012.

Dolce & Gabbana HK representatives claim the ban was to protect their intellectual property rights and prevent plagiarism of their products.[18] Hong Kong lawyers state that Dolce & Gabbana's explanation does not have legal basis, and their privatization of public areas is infringement of public access. Current Chairman of the Hong Kong Tourism Board, Mr. James Tien, also openly criticized Dolce & Gabbana and encouraged those who have been racially discriminated to report to the authorities.[19] During the same time, Dolce & Gabbana was reported to have hired additional security personnel, one of whom was caught displaying physical aggression towards a reporter, "Don't be surprised, I will break this camera. [...] Don't take Photos, For the last time, I will break this camera" whilst covering the lens, sparking further controversy.

While Dolce & Gabbana continuously refused to comment and locked down store fronts, Harbour City and an outsourced security firm have both issued public apologies regarding the "reckless actions" of their employees. Currently, both statements indicate all assigned security personnel were following directions as requested by the Dolce & Gabbana store. Dolce & Gabbana released their first public statement late in the evening of 8 January 2012, insisting their intention was not to offend, and the controversies were not caused by Dolce & Gabbana employees.

The discriminatory action of Dolce & Gabbana towards Hong Kong locals would constitute infringement of Race Discrimination Ordinance (Chapter 602, Hong Kong Laws)

Why would anyone want to take pictures of garbage?



harvey_birdman said:

Why would anyone want to take pictures of garbage?

Click to expand...

We're not exacty talking rocket desjgn in that case....

Pictures of their products are everywhere , especially in clueless fashion articles.

maybe people just want to take photos randomly, but were stopped by D&G staff

a newspaper reporter was then also tried to take photo and was prevented by D&G staff saying that we had no right to take photos, which in fact is totally not true, in Hong Kong, we have right to take photos of anyone in public area.

you can watch the video record by the reporter

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/templ...p?iss_id=20120105&sec_id=4104&art_id=15954668

Racial discrimination? Eh?

"All pedestrians that used the sidewalk were subjected to the photo 'ban' set forth by Dolce & Gabbana, with the exception of tourists from mainland China being specially exempt without justification.This double standard caused immediate outrage amongst local citizens, sparking protests with international news coverage on 8 Jan 2012."

Are the tourists from mainland China racially different from the Hongkies? If not, how then is this racial dicrimination?

Anyway, if it's indeed public space, and photos in such space are permitted by the gov't, then D&G infringes the rights of... get ready for it... all.



jameschan said:

Please have a look on this news, it's so funny that D&G in Hong Kong does not allow Hong Kong people to take photos of its store, just spread this news out, let people know how shxt D&G is !

Click to expand...

Get a grip.

And/or call Oprah.



GoldenTribe said:

Get a grip.
And/or call Oprah.

Click to expand...

She is too mentally distraught after her fight with Hermes in Paris.

wow! racial discrimination in hong kong. who would've thought??!!!!

Looks like the OP joined this forum just to post this link - wondering why he would do that...

Did they yell at the customers and tell them "no browsing! you buy or get out?"

Did the photographer buy something and the receipt read "lady chinky eyes"?



Thank you, I'll be here all night.



lasbar said:

She is too mentally distraught after her fight with Hermes in Paris.

Click to expand...

Very well played!



deburn said:

Looks like the OP joined this forum just to post this link - wondering why he would do that...

Click to expand...

1. he works for apple daily and they need the traffic
2. he likes it, the d&g eurotrash look

curzon said:

Racial discrimination? Eh?
[...]
Are the tourists from mainland China racially different from the Hongkies? If not, how then is this racial dicrimination?

Click to expand...

Well actually, "racial discrimination" does not simply mean the discrimination of a "race" as you suggest.

In reality, the UN officially defines racial discrimination as any form of distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference that is based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Hong Kongers are usually related to as "Hong Kong Chinese", "Hong Kong British" etc as their nationality, not simply "Chinese". I understand it is an awkward situation, but considering the awkward circumstances that Hong Kong has (being a SAR in China), there's not much to say about it.

So, in other words, this Dolce & Gabbana case does in fact count as racial discrimination.

^ obvious sock puppets!

acidboy said:

^ obvious sock puppets!

Click to expand...

And what proof do you have to support your claim? If you are a hall monitor, shouldn't you have the ability to see my account is linked to a verified facebook account, seperate from the op?