Latest news with #BasicLaw
HKFP
2 days ago
- Politics
- HKFP
Same-sex partnership bill: Hong Kong's top court rulings have force of law – lawmakers should know better
At the heart of Hong Kong's success has been its reputation as a bastion of the rule of law in Asia. Yet Hong Kong's rule of law has been severely tested. In 2014-15, for 79 days, protesters occupied the city's Central district in defiance of the law, characterising their action as civil disobedience. A core characteristic of civil disobedience is breaking the law to protest a political or social cause and facing the consequences. Authorities arrested many of the protesters, especially their leaders, prosecuting and convicting them for public order offences. Officials reminded citizens of their duty to obey the law. In 2019, anti-government protesters repeatedly broke the law, breaking into and trashing the Legislative Council (LegCo) chamber, confronting and resisting police, violating public order laws, rioting, and other kinds of violence and vandalism. By 2021, authorities had arrested at least 10,000 and had charged at least 3,000 with various crimes ranging from riot to undermining national security. In its landmark policy statement made public on October 31, 2019, the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee reminded the people of Hong Kong of their duty to obey the law and urged authorities to strengthen education in the law. Their focus was on Hong Kong's foundational documents, the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Central and local authorities have repeatedly urged citizens to respect the law. It is the law, Chief Executive John Lee has said, and therefore must be obeyed. For example, in 2023, speaking about whether authorities would permit Tiananmen commemorations, the chief executive said: 'Everybody should act in accordance with the law and think of what they do, so as to be ready to face the consequences.' Speaking of national security, Secretary for Security Chris Tang and Secretary for Justice Paul Lam have repeatedly urged citizens to obey the law. As pointed out by Lam, Article 42 of the Basic Law reads: ''Hong Kong residents and other persons in Hong Kong shall have the obligation to abide by the laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. The rule of law can only exist and prevail in a society where people are willing to, and in fact, obey the law. It follows that people who breach the law should be brought to justice.' In our system, Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgments have the force of law. To disobey the law, as the secretary for justice has pointed out, is unacceptable. It follows that citizens may not cherry-pick the law, deciding on their own which legal obligations to follow and which to ignore. It comes as a disappointment that three lawyers, all LegCo members, appear to be advocating disregarding Hong Kong's legal obligations. At issue is the government's proposal to establish a same-sex partnership recognition scheme to fulfil a top court-imposed legal obligation. The three lawyers – Priscilla Leung, Holden Chow, and Junius Ho – have all denounced a government bill that would meet the court's requirements and are actively campaigning against it. They propose no alternative. Other lawmakers appear to have noticed the hypocrisy. For example, LegCo member Edmund Wong asked whether LegCo would be framed as 'not respecting the rule of law' if it rejected the bill. Simply put, yes. What message does this send? May citizens decide on their own which legal obligations to obey? How can it be right to obey legal obligations generally but to disobey others based on some personal considerations? What if each citizen followed this example? The consequences would be chaos. The Basic Law requires that LegCo consider the government's proposal, and so it should. But are they up to the job? Consider the comments of lawmaker Erik Yim, who declared that if the government's proposal became law, 'after completing registration, the same-sex couples might hold bouquets and even wear wedding gowns [at the registration office], taking pictures and sharing them on social media. This may give society a sense of de facto marriage.' Mr Yim should realise that we already celebrate overseas marriages in Hong Kong. I am attending a same-sex couple's wedding banquet in Hong Kong next month. We hold bouquets, we wear wedding attire, we take pictures and share them on social media. The sky has not fallen. Are all LegCo members well enough informed to pass judgement on this issue? I don't understand. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang has urged LegCo members to be 'rational, balanced and pragmatic.' Let's hope his advice prevails. We're supposed to have an executive-led system. Where is it? To the government's credit, authorities recognise that even if LegCo rejects the bill, the government will have an ongoing legal obligation to fulfil the CFA's ruling. And so it should.
HKFP
2 days ago
- Politics
- HKFP
Hong Kong public universities sign new accountability agreement requiring alignment with Xi's remarks
Eight public universities in Hong Kong have signed a new accountability agreement requiring them to follow the 'advice and guidance' of the central government and align with the remarks of Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The eight signatories are the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the City University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Baptist University, Lingnan University, and the Education University of Hong Kong. The publicly funded institutions signed the University Accountability Agreement with the University Grants Committee (UGC) for the 2025-28 period last month, setting out overall strategic directions, funding allocation principles, and performance indicators. The signed agreements, uploaded to the UGC website on June 30, called on universities to seize opportunities to contribute to Hong Kong's integration into the overall development of mainland China, with an emphasis on 'invigorating China through science and education.' The phrase was first used by President Xi at the opening session of China's 20th Party Congress on October 16, 2022. According to the new agreement, universities 'should also strive to follow the advice and guidance of the Central Government on the future of Hong Kong, particularly in light of the 'four musts' and 'four proposals,' and observe President Xi Jinping's remark on creating strong impetus for Hong Kong's growth and nurturing young talents for Hong Kong's stability and prosperity.' Xi mentioned the 'four musts' and 'four proposals' in his speech when he visited Hong Kong in July 2022 to mark the city's 25th Handover anniversary and to swear in the new chief executive, John Lee. Local media reported on Monday that this was the first time the UGC agreement had explicitly required local universities to follow the guidance of the central government since they began signing the three-year contracts in 2019. The new agreement instructed universities to strengthen education on China's Constitution, Hong Kong's Basic Law, and the national security law. This, the agreement said, would help nurture future leaders with 'a strong sense of integrity, law-abidingness, civic responsibility, work ethics, and mutual respect.' The UGC may adjust funding in cases of 'serious circumstances,' such as a 'major deficiency' in university governance or the management of public funds, a 'significant failure' to fulfil obligations stated in the agreement, or a 'serious contravention' of funding conditions. Funding may also be adjusted in response to unsatisfactory enrolment and admission outcomes or violations of Hong Kong laws. In April last year, Hong Kong ranked in the bottom 10 to 20 per cent among 179 countries and regions in the Academic Freedom Index 2024 compiled by researchers from the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, in Germany, and V-Dem in Gothenburg, Sweden. The index assessed the city's freedom to research and teach, academic exchange and dissemination, institutional autonomy, campus integrity, as well as academic and cultural expression.
HKFP
7 days ago
- Politics
- HKFP
Gov't mulls appealing against court ruling granting trans people access to toilets matching their gender identity
The Hong Kong government is considering appealing against a court ruling that granted transgender people access to public toilets in line with their affirmed genders. In a statement on Thursday, a day after the High Court ruled in favour of a trans man challenging the laws that ban people from entering public bathrooms designated for the opposite sex, the government said it was considering an appeal and that the laws were still in effect. The segregation of sex in public toilet use was 'widely accepted by society' and the provisions protected privacy and safety, the government said. 'The establishment of sex-segregated public toilets… aims to protect the privacy and safety of the public when using public toilets, and to reflect social norms and expectations,' the Environmental and Ecology Bureau (EEB) spokesperson said. The EEB oversees the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), which manages Hong Kong's public toilets and bathrooms. In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, High Court Judge Russell Coleman ordered the government to strike down two provisions in the city's Public Conveniences (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulation. Provisions 7 and 9 of the PCCBR state that no male person, other than a child under five who is accompanied by a female relative or nurse, can enter a public toilet allocated for women, and vice versa. Coleman said the laws 'create a disproportionate and unnecessary intrusion into the privacy and equality rights' and contravened Article 25 of the Basic Law, under which all Hong Kong residents are equal before the law. 'Many trans people choose not to use public conveniences at all, due to fear, the threat of harassment, and to avoid having their gender identity invalidated or undermined,' the judge wrote. But he suspended the order for one year to allow the government to 'consider and implement the appropriate way to resolve the contravention.' The PCCBR only applies to public toilets managed by the FEHD. The High Court judgment did not touch upon the regulations of privately managed toilets accessible to the general public. K, the trans man who filed the judicial review – a legal tool to challenge government policies – against the public toilet laws, called Wednesday's court ruling 'a progressive step towards a more gender-friendly environment in Hong Kong.' 'Today, my transgender friends who are still undergoing gender transitions and I can openly use public restrooms without fear of being denied,' he said in a Chinese-language statement released by his legal representatives after the verdict was released. Transgender concern group Quarks urged the government to 'immediately strike down' the provisions, as well as to comprehensively review gender-related laws and policies. The government said in the Thursday statement that gender-neutral toilets, including accessible toilets for the disabled and unisex toilets, were available 'near about half of all sex-segregated toilets.' Such facilities 'are available for use by all members of the public, including transgender individuals,' the government said.
HKFP
23-07-2025
- Politics
- HKFP
Transgender people have right to use public toilets in line with their affirmed genders, Hong Kong court rules
Transgender people are entitled to use public toilets according to their affirmed genders, a Hong Kong court has ruled in a landmark legal challenge filed by a trans man. High Court Judge Russell Coleman said in a judgment delivered on Wednesday that the Public Conveniences (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulation (PCCBR), which makes it illegal for transgender people to enter public toilets in line with their gender identity, is unconstitutional. Coleman ruled that two relevant provisions of the law should be struck down but suspended the judgment for one year to allow the government to 'consider and implement the appropriate way to resolve the contravention.' According to provisions 7 and 9 of the PCCBR, no male person, other than a child under five who is accompanied by a female relative or nurse, can enter a public toilet allocated for women, and vice versa. Under the current law, authorities have the power to order any person violating the law to leave public toilets. Those who violate the law may be committing a criminal offence and will be fined up to HK$2,000. Judge Coleman ruled that those provisions contradicted Article 25 of the Basic Law, which states that all Hong Kong residents are equal before the law. The PCCBR only applies to public toilets managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). The High Court judgment did not touch upon the regulations of privately managed toilets accessible to the general public. K, the applicant in the judicial review, said in a Chinese-language statement released by his legal representatives on Wednesday afternoon that he began preparing the legal challenge six years ago. 'Today, my transgender friends who are still undergoing gender transitions and I can openly use public restrooms without fear of being denied,' he said. 'This is a progressive step towards a more gender-friendly environment in Hong Kong, and we hope that the judicial system in Hong Kong will gradually become more inclusive in the future.' K, who was assigned female at birth, has been receiving medical treatment, including hormonal treatment, since he was 19. When he filed the judicial review, he was waitlisted for sex reassignment surgery and still identified as 'female' in his Hong Kong Identity Card, according to the judgment. Daly & Associates, K's solicitors, called the ruling a 'victory' and 'another step forward on the long road towards equality for the LGBTQ+ community in Hong Kong.' 'We welcome this judgment as a significant milestone in the advancement of transgender rights in Hong Kong,' the solicitors said. 'We urge the Government not to continue perpetuating these injustices, but to take timely, proactive actions to protect fundamental human rights, including the right to protection from discrimination on the grounds of gender identity.' Transgender concern group Quarks urged the government to 'immediately strike down' the provisions, as well as to push legislation of gender recognition and to comprehensively review gender-related laws and policies. Definition of male and female During the judicial review, K also asked the government to revise the definitions of 'male' and 'female' in the PCCBR to include transgender people like himself. According to Wednesday's judgement, Coleman said it should be the legislature, not the court, that gives the definition. The Court of Final Appeal ruled in February 2023 that it was unconstitutional for the government to require transgender people to complete full sex reassignment surgery (SRS) before they could change the gender marker on their identity cards. In 2021, the Equality Opportunities Commission (EOC), Hong Kong's equality watchdog, called for legislation to provide for protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. However, the government or the EOC has yet to introduce any proposals.
RTHK
23-07-2025
- Politics
- RTHK
High Court strikes down law on opposite-sex toilets
High Court strikes down law on opposite-sex toilets The High Court ruling allows the government time to come up with a way to respond to the decision. File photo: RTHK A High Court judge has ordered a law prohibiting people from using public toilets designated for the opposite sex to be struck down, ruling in favour of a transgender man who challenged the city's public convenience regulations. In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, judge Russell Coleman said "drawing the line" of a person's biological sex at birth creates a disproportionate and unnecessary intrusion into privacy and equality rights, and contravenes articles of the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights. However, Coleman suspended his order for a year to give the government time to come up with an approach, noting that officials might feel content to "let the criminal offence go". "I suppose the view could be taken that, as with other conveniences accessible by the public (but privately managed), there are other offences which can be used to deter and punish improper conduct," he wrote in a 51-page judgement. "This is a matter of the line-drawing, which seems to me to be a question for the government or legislature to address." Coleman also said it would not be appropriate for the courts to judge where to draw the line between a "female person" and a "male person", as it was a matter for legislation, "probably in the context of wider or inter-linked questions". The legal bid was filed by a transgender man identified only as "K", who sought to amend the wording of the Public Conveniences (Conduct and Behaviour) Regulation, which bans people aged five or above from facilities allocated to their opposite sex. At the time of bringing the application, K held a gender identity letter showing he was undergoing a period of "real-life experience", during which he sought to live consistently in his adopted gender. The court heard that the applicant pressed for changes to the regulation, to let transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria and having a medical need to undergo "real-life experience" access public toilets corresponding to their identified gender. The government had argued that public toilet access rules protect other users' rights, including privacy and security, as well as societal expectations.
