Blind Peruvian woman denied admission to Shizuoka fitness clubs

Friday 23rd May, 02:56 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 124 Total Comments Show All

Blue_Tiger at 12:20 PM JST - 26th May

Because, nigelboy, the family said that they'd be with her, and, as she is an adult, she probably knows it isn't a good idea to run wild in a health club in the first place. Obviously, the parents who let their children run wild in such a place have little to no concern about the welfare of their chuildren in the place or the other patrons.

So one little snippet from one article in a Japanese Newspaper is the end-all to the argument that the rule was in place? Further, how, again, does that define whom they say is severely visually impaired and who is not?
nigelboy at 12:30 PM JST - 26th May

Because, nigelboy, the family said that they'd be with her, and, as she is an adult, she probably knows it isn't a good idea to run wild in a health club in the first place. Obviously, the parents who let their children run wild in such a place have little to no concern about the welfare of their chuildren in the place or the other patrons.

Neither is having a blind person work out in a gym without professional supervision. Why do you think there are specific facilities for such disabled persons?

So one little snippet from one article in a Japanese Newspaper is the end-all to the argument that the rule was in place? Further, how, again, does that define whom they say is severely visually impaired and who is not?

http://www.salasports.co.jp/nakaiwata/sala_pics/rule.htm

Obviously, this person is severely visually impared. But as for the coke-bottled glasses type, I don't know.

The rules also state that intoxicated person cannot enter the gym. But hey, let's just go on and on about what is considered "intoxicated", shall we??

So one little snippet from one article in a Japanese Newspaper is the end-all to the argument that the rule was in place? Further, how, again, does that define whom they say is severely visually impaired and who is not?
Blue_Tiger at 12:37 PM JST - 26th May

Sop being unable to see (not by choice) and being intoxicated (definitely a choice) are the same thing? Interesting parallel.

Why is it so hard, then, if "professional assistance" is needed for this blind lady, for the staffs of these two gyms to actually get up from behind the counter, and spend an hour -- maybe two, at most -- top help her? Why is it so hard for people who make up the staffs of many companies to actually get off their lazy kiesters and do some WORK? Further, if these gymns aren't staffed by professionals, then they are already in liability, and a healthy, fully-functional person is better off not to join for fear of injury and negligence by the staff, let alone this blind lady.
ambrosia at 12:42 PM JST - 26th May

Why do you think there are specific facilities for such disabled persons?

One of the main reasons for those types of facilities is to teach disabled people to be indepedent and to function in a sighted world.
nigelboy at 12:51 PM JST - 26th May

Sop being unable to see (not by choice) and being intoxicated (definitely a choice) are the same thing? Interesting parallel

Nope. I was hoping that you fight for the rights of an alcoholic for alcoholism is a "disease".

Why is it so hard, then, if "professional assistance" is needed for this blind lady, for the staffs of these two gyms to actually get up from behind the counter, and spend an hour -- maybe two, at most -- top help her? Why is it so hard for people who make up the staffs of many companies to actually get off their lazy kiesters and do some WORK?

Like I said, short staffed? Not in their job descrption? Not a qualified physical instructor? But I would certainly be inconvenienced if a staff is dedicating an hour or two for this lady while I'm standing in the counter with nobody there where all I wanted was a towel.

Further, if these gymns aren't staffed by professionals, then they are already in liability, and a healthy, fully-functional person is better off not to join for fear of injury and negligence by the staff, let alone this blind lady.

Agree.

Now can we move on.
ambrosia at 01:02 PM JST - 26th May

Again! Why would she need constant supervision? She is blind, not paralyzed, not in a wheelchair, not mentally retarded and not a child. Help her get on the bike, treadmill, cross-country ski-machine, help her get off. How bloody hard is that? I can't understand where any of that would require a staff member to spend an hour with her nor why she would need anyone but a person with basic communication skills to help her with any of those tasks. In all likelihood she will memorize the lay-out quickly and will not even need that basic help. Where exactly is the issue?
Blue_Tiger at 03:32 PM JST - 26th May

Alcoholism is not a disease, but a choice; blindness isn't a choice. BIG difference.

What do you mean, "not in their job description"? Most health clubs and weioght rooms I've been a part of, the staff are supposed to be trained in order to be able to help the patrons who exercise therte. In the other two cases -- short-staffed and not a qualified instructor -- the exercise facility, again, is already liable, and anyone with half of an ounce of a brain wouldn't be a member there. Why would you be inconvenienced if a staff member is helping another? When did all of this become about you? If in such a case the facility is short-staffed, it is their fault. If they taught you in the beginning (as I was by the two gymns I am a part of) where the towels are, then it becomes your fault (so, in a way, I guess it is about you)...

Yet, you, Nigelboy, by saying that the staff workers shouldn't have to help out the blind lady (or anyone else, for that matter) because they aren't trained are making the case that NOBODY ought to be members of these facilities, where the blind lady tried to join. Now you agree that they are at fault if the staff isn't qualified nor trained? Hmmmm....
nigelboy at 03:56 PM JST - 26th May

BIG difference.

Sorry Blue Tiger. My point was to counter your "what is considered severely visually impaired" point by stating that "intoxicated" is another subjective decision but certainly a criteria that is needed in private establishments.

The membership criteria also indicates that people associated with gangs are not allowed to enter. That's another subjective criteria which is very hard to define but certainly needed in establishments such as this.

Also, no one under 16 can be a member in this gym.

Where is your outcry of discrimination on those criteria??

In fact, why don't you open a gym which uses the promotion of

"Drunks, Yakuza's, kids, deaf, and blind are welcomed!!" and see how long that establishment lasts??

My point is that private gyms have the right to limit the customer base.

It's cruel but so is business.
Nessie at 06:50 PM JST - 26th May

If the woman in question is mentally capable enough to have a press conference at city hall, wouldn't you also think that she is mentally competent enough to be taught where to walk and where not to; where the weights are located, and where they are not; where the weight lifters will be lifting, and where they will not; and where it is safe to walk, and where it isn't?

She mentally competent to be taught that, but she'd have to be taught it every day because the environment changes. People leave water bottles out, for example. And if there's a whiteboard waiting list to be signed for the machines, like in my gym, she would need additional help every time she went.
KaptainKichigai at 10:52 PM JST - 26th May

AAAAHHHH its a sports gym! not a firing range. She will be fine, for the love of God! I am tired of all the worry worry worry in this country. Too many old women. She just wants to work out. Big deal! She can take it nice and slow! Grow a pair Japan. Talk about vaginization.
Blue_Tiger at 05:07 AM JST - 27th May

Nigelboy - Why not just answer the question, instead of trying to be cute, and adding totally irrelevent situations which (you say) parallel this lady's blindness? How does this gymn define those who are too visually impaired to exercise there? Being in a gang, being under 16, and being intoxicated are totally different from this situation, of not being able to see, or not being able to see well, as the first two have to do with choice, the second maturity. As I mentioned, I have to wear contacts or glasses. That defines me as being visually impaired (my eye doctor says severely). Would that bar me from joining either of these two gyms? The reason I'm crying out against this woman's discrimination is because these two gyms are lily-livered and fearful, rather than just practicing good business; people in gangs, people who choose to get drunk, and people considered immature are totally different situations than this blind lady. Private companies do have the right to limit their customer base, but not at the expense of common sense nor common courtesy.

Nessie - People leave water bottles out every day? So the staff still cannot get off of their kiesters and do their job, cleaning up any water bottles being left out (amazing that at the gyms I go to, there usually are NO water bottles, and for the last three months, since joining, the environment has been totally static). And so what if she needs addidtional help with the whiteboard? Is it so hard for the staff members to do their jobs that they cannot assist people? Is that not part of the job description of the staff, to assist people who need it, visually impaired or visually perfect being pretty-much irrelevent?

KaptainKichigai - Well said!!!
PuffinMuffin at 10:16 AM JST - 27th May

wow the thread's still up and running. Sorry not to mention posters I've agreed with, but everyone seems to have pretty much written their opinions. I still believe blind/disabled people have every right to live as best/healthily as they can, even more so b/c they're impaired, they must be encouraged to develop abilities most of us don't have. Also blind people are more sensitive to their surroundings than most of us think. So as some said, what's all the fuss except the 'mendokusai' part that is largely promoted in this society of supposedly self-sufficient individuals?
Tatanka at 02:21 PM JST - 27th May

Clubs have the right to refuse anyone, period. Its their business, and investment and they have a right to do with it as they please. Rules make society function.

BTW, I doubt they have staff trained in working with visually impaired members. This past weekend when I was at my fitness club I did a little experiment. Try using free weights with your eyes closed...
Blue_Tiger at 08:05 PM JST - 27th May

Try using free weights with your eyes closed... --Tatanka

I have. Not too much different from eyes being opened. As far as businesses having the right to make rules for whatever, you're right....and I have the right, as well to express my dissatisfaction with such action taken, made either out of fear or laziness, against a person whose only detraction in life is that she cannot see. I also have the right to take my business elsewhere...
Soochi at 11:30 PM JST - 27th May

Health & Safety Regs would put the willies up most gyms the world over I would imagine so I don't think you can single out Japan on this one. Not sure what my own gym's policy is here in the UK but I am pretty certain they too would bottle it for fear of getting sued should any accident befall the blind customer, their helper or other members of the gym as a result of allowing her entry.

The likelihood that such an accident would occur, especially if she has a family member escorting her round the equipment is not really the issue - or at least it is not the issue for the gym's insurers.

Where the gyms are at fault in my view is that they did not attempt to find a solution or work around the problem in any way. Such as allowing for disabled access at scheduled times during the week so that members who rely on carers and helpers to accompany them during their workout can all sign a disclaimer beforehand. Not a very "inclusive" solution I know but it certainly beats the alternative. Plus it allows the members of staff to gain valuable experience in dealing with disabled members of the public.