Hong Kong activist in legal fight to allow women to wear shorts in prison
A Hong Kong government lawyer has urged a court to dismiss an activist's judicial challenge against a prison rule barring women inmates from wearing shorts in summer, saying individual preferences should not override the need to maintain a 'humane and decent' custodial environment.
Advertisement
The High Court on Monday heard oral arguments arising from Chow Hang-tung's application for a judicial review of the Correctional Services Department policy, which requires women inmates to wear trousers in the daytime all year round unless they have medical or religious reasons.
The 40-year-old barrister turned activist is on remand in the Tai Lam Centre for Women awaiting a national security trial over her role as a former vice-chairwoman of the now-dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the group that had organised the city's annual Tiananmen Square vigil.
The court heard women inmates had been required to wear dresses throughout the year until 2003, when they were allowed to put on trousers in winter.
Trousers became the standard garment in 2011. Women inmates can only wear shorts at night and during physical training sessions.
Advertisement
Chow's lawyers argued that the 'plainly arbitrary' rule amounted to sexual discrimination and violated the right to equality, as women prisoners were treated less favourably than their male counterparts who could wear shorts in summer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
a day ago
- HKFP
Same-sex couples should have ‘right to found family,' lawyer tells Hong Kong court in reciprocal IVF case
Same-sex couples should have 'the right to found a family,' a lawyer has told a Hong Kong court after lesbian parents who had a child via reciprocal in vitro fertilisation (RIVF) were barred from including both their names on their son's birth certificate. Hong Kong's High Court heard arguments in a judicial review related to the legal parental rights of same-sex couples with children born via RIVF on Wednesday and Thursday. The case relates to a lesbian couple, R and B, who underwent RIVF – a procedure allowing two women to take part in pregnancy – in South Africa in 2020. The egg was extracted from R, and B carried and gave birth to the baby, K, in Hong Kong in 2021. Hong Kong, which does not recognise same-sex marriage, views only a child's birth mother and her husband as legal parents. In R and B's case, only the birth mother, B, is the legal parent of their son. The couple went to court in 2023 to seek a declaration under the Parent and Child Ordinance that R is also a legal parent. The judge declined but, in her ruling, stated that R was a 'parent at common law' – a first in the common law world. Representing K, barrister Nigel Kat said on Wednesday that the 'parent at common law' status is not recognised in the Parent and Child Ordinance, and the child does not have a birth certificate showing that R is a legal parent. 'Therefore, R can walk around and tell everybody, 'I'm a parent,' [but] she can't prove it,' he said, adding that gay people 'are not excluded from the right to found a family.' Kat argued that the birth certificates of children born via RIVF should reflect both parents' names, and that references to parents in the Parent and Child Ordinance should be amended to include 'parents at common law' where their children were born via RIVF. 'Demeaning' discrimination During the hearing on Wednesday, barrister Isabel Tam – who is representing the birth mother, B, as an interested party in the case – said her client faced discrimination because of her sexual orientation. If B and R were a heterosexual couple who had undergone IVF, they would 'not be in this position,' Tam said. 'This has quite a disproportionate impact on the development of her family life as well as how she presents herself to the outside world.' The discrimination was 'particularly demeaning' because it was based on personal characteristics that could not be changed, the barrister said. 'B and R cannot change their… sexual orientation,' Tam said. 'K cannot change the manner of his birth.' Stewart Wong, representing the Department of Justice, said on Thursday that while he accepted that the easiest way to prove parental status was a birth certificate, the suggestion that K's family would encounter embarrassing situations was 'exaggerated.' One would not have to prove to the school that you are the parent every day, Wong said, adding that it would only need to be done when applying. For 'regular check-ups' at the hospital, the nurse would just require proof at registration, he said. It is 'not as if you need to prove or bring… [the child's] birth certificate every day of your life when the child is a minor,' Wong said. Guardianship order There is already an existing framework – a guardianship order from the court – if one is seeking parental rights and status, he said. 'The guardianship order offers clear and absolute proof on occasions that legal rights and obligations… [are] necessary,' Wong said. In response, Judge Russell Coleman said having to apply for a guardianship order may make the parents feel 'like less of a parent or a second-class parent.' Barrister Azan Marwah, representing K, raised other issues that may not be addressed by guardianship orders. In the event of a separation, B would not be able to demand maintenance payments from R, who can 'simply get away,' he said on Thursday. K would also have the 'lifelong disability' of not being able to inherit from R under the city's intestate ordinance, Marwah said, referring to the set of laws that regulate inheritance arrangements when one dies without a will. On Thursday, Coleman challenged Wong's view that those seeking parental rights could simply apply for a court guardianship order. The judge said 'what bristles with people' was the assumption that 'people like R and B… can't be perfectly good parents,' and questioned why a 'licence' was required. Wong said such same-sex relationships could be 'too variable' as the parties may not be stable. Coleman replied that the same could be said for heterosexual relationships. The judge said he would hand down a decision by August 22. The hearing comes ahead of the government's October deadline to provide a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, per a top court ruling in 2023. No public consultations, however, are known to have taken place yet.
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- South China Morning Post
How Hong Kong star Deanie Ip went from best actress to banned in mainland China
This is the 52nd instalment in a biweekly series profiling major Hong Kong pop culture figures of recent decades. For an acclaimed movie star whose accolades include best actress at the Venice Film Festival, Deanie Ip Tak-han has surprisingly little regard for fame and fortune. Known for standing up for her views even if it affects her career, the actress and singer is one of the most outspoken entertainers in Hong Kong. She spoke out against the June 4, 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square and joined protesters in Hong Kong in 2019 who opposed a law change to allow extraditions to mainland China. As a result, the 77-year-old's music has been banned on the mainland. Ann Hui, director of A Simple Life, poses with Deanie Ip as Ip holds the best actress trophy awarded for her role in the film at the 2011 Venice International Film Festival. Photo: AP This does not appear to have bothered Ip, who is never one for compromise – she does not accede to directors' wishes or chase after scripts, she has said. Born an illegitimate child in 1947, Ip had two mothers: one was her biological mother, a mistress, the other her father's infertile wife, who detested having to raise another woman's child.
HKFP
2 days ago
- HKFP
9 seek to overturn rioting convictions, sentences over 2019 storming of Hong Kong's legislature
Nine people who were jailed for storming Hong Kong's legislature during the city's pro-democracy protests in 2019 are seeking to overturn their convictions and sentences, according to court records. Among those seeking to appeal after being jailed on rioting charges last year are children's rights activist and former student leader Althea Suen and actor Gregory Wong, Judiciary records showed. A hearing to determine whether the nine will be allowed to take their challenge to the city's appeals court is scheduled for December 16. The hearing will last two days. The nine people are among 12 Hongkongers jailed up to 82 months in March last year over the storming of the Legislative Council on July 1, 2019, the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to Beijing's rule. That night, protesters occupied the government building, smashed windows, and spray-painted slogans on the walls, marking a major incident in the months-long protests and unrest. 'Symbolic' challenge Handing down the sentences last year, Deputy District Judge Li Chi-ho said the storming amounted to a symbolic challenge against the Hong Kong government. He said the protesters committed 'insulting and provocative' acts, such as tearing up copies of Hong Kong's constitution and displaying colonial-era flags. Wong, whom the court deemed had a low level of involvement in the storming but who pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to 74 months in prison. Suen was sentenced to 57 months after pleading guilty to the rioting charge. She delivered her mitigation statement in person last year, saying: 'In the eyes of the regime, the real crime is the pursuit of democracy, freedom, and human rights… I hope to regain my freedom soon and return to the people I love, and to continue living in truth, to lead an honest and righteous life.' Absent from the appeal list were activists Owen Chow and Ventus Lau, who were convicted and jailed over the LegCo storming. Chow received a jail sentence of 61 months and 15 days. Lau, who was the first to plead guilty among the defendants, was granted a full one-third discount and sentenced to 54 months and 20 days. Both Chow and Lau are among the 45 opposition figures convicted and jailed for subversion last year in the city's biggest national security trial after taking part in an unofficial primary election in July 2020. Lau was sentenced to four years and five months in November, while Owen was jailed for seven years and nine months.
