According to a survey conducted by Embrain Trend Monitor on No Kids Zones, 6 out of 10 adults (60.9%) felt uncomfortable in public places due to noise problems or dangerous situations such as collisions with infants and children under the age of 13. While there is a consensus that some sanctions are needed in connection with the problems and risks caused by children in public, 66.1% of all respondents expressed their support for No Kids Zones. In particular, the younger generation (77.6 percent in their 20s, 67.6 percent in their 30s, 60.4 percent in their 40s) and those without children (77 percent unmarried, 74.1 percent married without children, and 54.8 percent married children) were more actively in favor of introducing a No Kids Zone.
  I agree that parents have the greatest responsibility and obligation to the child's safety and education. However, there is a saying that a whole village is needed to raise a child. City dwellers, who hardly know the faces of their next-door neighbors and their children, would probably disagree, but we must remember that these children will grow up and one day become prominent members of our society. I don’t know if you can recall any specific incident, but we have all caused someone damage or inconvenience while growing up. Those situations are all teachable moments, and therefore, we know what is wrong and what behavior should be avoided. However, where should these children now learn? No Kids Zones deprive children of the opportunity to acquire social skills. It is selfish to prioritize the right of adults but not even give children a chance. There is a limit to what can be learned at home and at school, and public places are where kids can apply the education they have learned at home and at school.
  Some people suggest creating more kid zones as a solution. The increase in child-tailored facilities is welcome, but it should be a matter of choice to go there. Increasing the space for children and restricting access to public places are completely different matters. Public places are literally public places, and it is unjustifiable to exclude certain groups. It is a matter of educational improvement, not a basis for rationalizing discrimination, even if children do harm to others without discernment.
  Can you say that children are really the only ones who do harm to others? In fact, if you look around, there are ‘obnoxious customers’ from various walks of life. However, there is no situation where they are not allowed to enter at all. No one should think flippantly about restricting the rights of others. It is the role and responsibility of society to allow children to follow rules or order if they make trouble.
  In modern society, the abhorrence of the weak is rationalized in the name of rationality. Kids have always been the same, but there were no ‘No Kids Zone’ in the past. And, unlike in the past, it is important to think about where the anger and discomfort that they have begin. The fact that Korean modern society is an infinite competitive society must have played a part. Furthermore, this is a sensitive generation that regards tests as fair because they have been educated to value them. However, sometimes they also call reverse discrimination the consideration given to the weak because they misinterpret the fairness. This is compounded by the fact that society has become isolated from each other after industrialization. Human beings have been mechanized, and the value of human beings themselves has diminished. As people became more isolated, communication was cut off and personal interests were given top priority. Although no one likes disadvantages, it is human nature to seek profits. These days, people who do not want to lose a bit are creating a social malady. Modern people have a dim sense of community, but ironically, the majority group has strong power, because we live in a democratic society run by the majority. Democracy is certainly the most secure system for individual freedom and happiness, but there is a risk of turning into totalitarianism. Those who think an unreasonable request for individual sacrifice as valid in order to guarantee the interests of the majority need a reflective attitude. If you put the group ahead of the individual, it would be an unfortunate group. Therefore, human beings who exist as individuals should be allowed to form community solidarity.
  Most recently, ‘No adolescent zone’ and ‘No silver zone’ have appeared. This refers to a space where teenagers and the elderly are prohibited from entering. There is something bitter in common with these zones. It is that the classes have little social voice. The idea of restricting the freedom of others is also seen as a harmful effect of capitalism. As such, the No OO zones don’t simply restrict access. It is a phenomenon in which the social strong oppress the weak and trample on their rights for their convenience. At a time when the scope is gradually expanding to young children, adolescents and the elderly, we too will not be able to avoid it. Inconvenient things, animals, children, old people. We can’t keep them locked up all the time. We won’t always be a strong person. We were all young children and we age as time goes by.
  I don’t press unconditional concessions and understanding. We must give what we have received again and think that it will come back to us someday. Imagine when we are old and weak and the generation who didn’t learn respect for the weak are all grown up. If we do, we might find a wiser answer.