Latest news with #BasicLaw
HKFP
14 hours ago
- 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
a day ago
- 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.
Japan Forward
a day ago
- Politics
- Japan Forward
The Foreign Talent Basic Law: Proposal from a Former Police Chief
このページを 日本語 で読む In 2018, the year I returned to Japan after a long assignment as a Moscow correspondent, what surprised me most was the noticeable increase in the number of foreigners. Statistical data confirms this trend. At the end of 2021, Japan had approximately 2.76 million foreign residents. That number has since grown by more than 300,000 per year, reaching around 3.77 million by the end of 2024. Foreigners now make up about 3% of the total population. In 2023, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research projected that foreigners will account for 10.8% of Japan's population by 2070. Given the recent pace of growth, some experts believe this figure could be reached even earlier. A foreign population above 10% would bring Japan in line with many Western countries. In response to this trend, the Outlook Foundation, chaired by former National Police Agency Commissioner General Takaji Kunimatsu, is advocating for the creation of a Basic Law to guide the acceptance of foreign talent. In June, Kunimatsu and other members held a press conference at the Japan National Press Club to outline their proposals. Tokyo Regional Immigration Services Bureau in Minato Ward, Tokyo. (©Kyodo) Their concern is clear: while the inflow of foreigners is increasingly seen as a solution to Japan's shrinking population and labor shortages, there are very few venues where the issue is discussed in an integrated, strategic way. Talks about population decline and regional revitalization often barely mention the role of foreign workers. Meanwhile, discussions about immigration tend to focus on social tensions or how foreigners are treated. Kunimatsu and his colleagues argue that these issues must be addressed more comprehensively. They believe Japan needs a Basic Law to manage foreign labor strategically and responsibly. Under their proposal, the Basic Law would define foreign talent as "individuals who will enrich local communities and Japan as a whole." Integration into Japan's economy, society, and culture would be a core principle. The proposed framework would work as follows: Local governments would develop plans outlining the desired skill levels, nationalities, length of stay, and number of foreign workers. The central government would then review and adjust these plans based on national security and economic considerations. Local governments would be responsible for supporting and managing the workers once they arrive. The proposal also calls for the Basic Law to emphasize the "security and safety of Japanese society." It suggests introducing a new residence status, tentatively named "Regional Revitalization." Naturally, the plan raises questions. Should Japan rely more on labor-saving technologies instead of foreign workers to address population and labor shortages? Do local governments have the capacity to manage such responsibilities? Should the police play a more active role in maintaining public safety? Despite these concerns, I believe the proposal is meaningful because it invites serious debate. What's essential is not whether to accept foreigners, but how to manage the process effectively. If large numbers of foreigners arrive suddenly, it could create friction with local communities and, over time, greatly alter Japan's national identity. The worst-case scenario is an uncontrolled, unplanned influx without strategy or guiding principles. We must avoid repeating the situation in places like Kawaguchi City in Saitama Prefecture, where tensions have flared between Kurdish immigrants and local residents. Nor should Japan follow the path of some Western countries that are seeing intense backlash against immigration. There is no time to lose. Japan must begin a serious, nationwide debate on immigration policy — before the situation outpaces its ability to manage it. Author: Ryosuke Endo , The Sankei Shimbun このページを 日本語 で読む
Local Germany
3 days ago
- Business
- Local Germany
Can you be sacked in Germany for a workplace romance?
The subject of relationships between colleagues is once again in the headlines after a married American startup CEO was caught on the 'kiss cam' at a Coldplay concert cuddling the company's head of HR. He has since resigned. All countries have different rules on this tricky issue, so could an inter office hook-up - even an adulterous one - get you fired in Germany? Companies in Germany tend to take a more relaxed view of personal relationships in the workplace, especially compared to places where office romances are frowned upon, such as at companies in the United States. This is due in no small part to German law, which puts heavy emphasis on preserving human dignity and peoples' privacy. For their part, most workers in Germany are not afraid of dating around the office. A 2012 survey found that more than half of German workers have had an office romance , and nine out of ten reportedly said they thought sleeping with colleagues was okay. However the majority of people surveyed thought kissing at work was completely unacceptable. There are other limits to what's accepted, and German companies can enforce certain rules around personal relationships at the workplace. READ ALSO: 'Liebeskummer' - How to talk about dating like a German Article 2.1 of Germany's Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ) protects every person's right to "the free development of his or her personality", and this broad protection also extends to the workplace. Generally speaking, German law therefore prevents employers from having a say over who you have a relationship with - so long as the nature of the relationship doesn't disrupt your work for the company. This was upheld in a 2005 ruling by the Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court against the American retail group Walmart. The company, which was operating in Germany at the time, had attempted to ban romantic relationships among its employees. According to media reports , workers had received a notice which said they were not to date or enter into romantic relationships, and additionally prohibited "lustful looks, ambiguous jokes and sexually interpretable communication of any kind". The Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court ultimately ruled that the blanket ban on romantic relationships between employees was a violation of human dignity, it added that the company must make efforts to protect workers from sexual harassment but that the limits for such provisions would need to be agreed with its works council. What are your rights around workplace relationships? In Germany, a person's right to a free choice of partners extends to the workplace, where workers cannot be prohibited from dating or falling in love, even with people they meet in a professional context. Advertisement Also, there is no obligation for employees to report their relationship to the boss or to a works council. Put simply, if your love life is not affecting your work, then it's no-one's business but yours. This is generally true even if the relationship is between an employee and their superior. However employers may transfer an employee or engage in restructuring to avoid conflicts of interest. How much can companies regulate romance? While companies cannot legally enforce a blanket ban on love, or inter office relations, they can take steps to ensure that their business is not negatively affected by personal relationships. This could include prohibiting intimate acts at the office or during working hours, or making sure that company property - including work phones or computers - are not used for personal chats. If you are in a senior position and engage in office romance, you should be conscious of the risk of favouritism and may be expected to take steps to avoid any potential conflict of interest. According to an article by Jura law firm, which focuses on employment law in North Rhine Westphalia, companies could therefore require employees to disclose relationships that cross certain levels of hierarchy. Advertisement At German media giant Axel Springer SE, for instance, executives are required to disclose relationships with their subordinates. This policy was introduced following a 2021 scandal in which the editor-in-chief of the Bild daily newspaper was dismissed after multiple allegations surfaced that he had affairs with, and exploited, young colleagues. READ ALSO: How to know if you're getting a good severance package in Germany Employees cannot be dismissed solely for having initiated a workplace relationship. But if a relationship, or its disclosure in the workplace, leads to disruptions then an employer can take certain sanctions such as giving warnings, or even dismissing workers in extreme cases. Dismissals are usually only justified when a worker has engaged in conduct that violates the terms of their employment contract, and usually requires a warning first.
DW
6 days ago
- Politics
- DW
How far-right social media impacted Germany's highest court – DW – 07/18/2025
Researchers say a far-right social media campaign — that painted a respected law professor as extremist — caused the suspension of the election of judges to Germany's highest court. Whenever there's talk of a crisis of democracy in Germany, leading politicians proudly point to the well-established independence of the "judges from Karlsruhe" — that is, the judges who sit on the Federal Constitutional Court, which is based in the southern German city. The Federal Constitutional Court is one of the highest courts in Germany and is also seen as the "fifth organ" of the country's political system, alongside the presidency, the parliament or Bundestag, the federal government and the Bundesrat, the federal council of German states. Unlike the Federal Criminal Court, which is the highest court for civil and criminal justice, the Federal Constitutional Court's job is to ensure that Germany's Basic Law — its constitution — is upheld. It is seen as the guardian of Germans' basic rights. The Federal Constitutional Court is also the only court that can decide about banning a political party. The court's decisions are widely recognized and often offer a course correction for ruling political parties. All of this is why last week's failure to elect three new judges to the Federal Constitutional Court has been so controversial. There are 16 judges on the bench, all of whom can serve 12 years. Half of them are chosen by the Bundesrat, the council of leaders of Germany's 16 states and the other half by parliament, the Bundestag. In both cases, there must be a two-thirds majority for a judge to be successfully elected. The procedure is always highly political because the court is seen as a pillar of German democracy, a symbol of the separation of powers in the German system and a defense against any politics that work against German citizens' basic rights. Although the process has never been as emotionally heated as the selection of judges for the US' Supreme Court, there have been occasional controversies around candidates. One such instance was the 2011 candidature of lawyer Peter Müller. Müller was also a politician and had only just resigned from his post as the state prime minister of Saarland. He is also a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, or CDU. Obviously he was not a neutral candidate for the court — he had openly been against the immigration policies of the then-left-leaning federal government — and his application was viewed with some skepticism. Despite this, the Bundesrat voted unanimously to appoint him to the Federal Constitutional Court. Those voting for him included state prime ministers who belonged to the then-ruling, left-wing parties like the Social Democrats and the Green party. Müller left the court in 2023. As the German media outlet, Legal Tribune Online, points out, the court's mixture of opinions is exactly why it is so respected. "The Karlsruhe court thrives on its pluralistic composition," the legal specialists wrote this week. "In their collective decision-making process, the 16 judges must argue and persuade … the court's working practices depend on this collaboration resulting in constitutionally sound decisions." The Federal Constitutional Court candidate at the center of the controversy, Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, is not a politician. She is a highly respected constitutional law professor at the University of Potsdam. Brosius-Gersdorf has repeatedly dealt with difficult areas of jurisprudence, including abortion and how the Basic Law's ideals about human dignity apply to both mother and unborn child. Basically, when it comes to these tricky questions, she is doing her job, just as she is supposed to. However last Friday, her candidature for the Federal Constitutional Court appeared to fail. Germany's governing coalition — with the conservative CDU in the majority and the left-leaning Social Democrats a minority partner — withdrew the election of judges from parliamentary agenda. It had become clear that the CDU and their junior partner, the Christian Social Union, or CSU, were way too resistant to Brosius-Gersdorf. That was despite the fact that the parliamentary committee selecting the three candidates had previously expressed broad, cross-party support for Brosius-Gersdorf. For Philipp Sälhoff, head of Berlin-based political consultancy Polisphere the answer is clear. "Yes, there was a campaign," he told DW. His consultancy examined 40,000 related posts on the platform X (formerly Twitter). According to Sälhoff, all the elements one might expect to see in a targeted campaign were there. "Online petitions, calls to action, formulas for [protest] letters you can send to your member of parliament, paid-for advertising and posts, or the networking of actors on social media with one clear goal: preventing the election of this candidate," he explained. Reports in traditional media are not part of this, Sälhoff explains: "A critical political report isn't part of such a campaign, rather they're legitimate and necessary when it comes to how members of parliament vote, including on Federal Constitutional Court judges." The problem is that the campaign on social media was manipulative and became increasingly problematic as disinformation and aggressive exaggeration won over the facts, he noted. According to Polisphere's research, the agitating done by right-wing organizations like Nius were particularly notable. This online platform, founded by German billionaire Frank Gotthardt who had the intention of making it into this country's version of Fox News, was shooting at Brosius-Gersdorf from all barrels, and mostly with defamatory and false information. The law professor was described as a "left-wing radical," an extremist who would have allowed babies aborted at nine months and who was against freedom of opinion. These sort of untruths were peddled to an audience of millions and other far-right media followed suit. When it was announced that the vote on the Federal Constitutional Court judges had been called off, Nius' editor-in-chief, Julian Reichelt, celebrated. "This is a good day for us," he said. "Nobody recognized that there are now new media who won't play along with the [mainstream] political-media complex." In other words, he saw the campaign against Brosius-Gersdorf as a victory over established German media. Polisphere's Sälhoff sees reasons for concern in Reichelt's proclamation of victory. "It's not about whether these kinds of media impact opinions in Germany — they've been doing that for a while already," he explained. "But to engineer a situation like this in Germany's parliament in such a short time, where it was exposed more or less out of nowhere, and right in front of the eyes of the German and the international public — that's certainly success for them," Sälhoff said. Of course, at the same time members of parliament make decisions of their own accord. Campaigns, no matter what flavor, are part of the political scenery and they regularly drum up support, regardless of one's political persuasion. This is why CDU member and former Federal Constitutional Court judge, Peter Müller, believes the fault lies with his own party's leadership. "This is a blatant failure of leadership by the CDU/CSU," he said in an interview with German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. "Something like this shouldn't happen." Apparently shortly before the scheduled election of the judges, CDU leader and current Chancellor Friedrich Merz and CDU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn had signaled they expected party members to support Brosius-Gersdorf's candidacy. But apparently they were not listened to. For the time being, the vote for new Federal Constitutional Court judges has been taken off the parliament's agenda. Following that, in a long television interview with one of Germany's best known talk show hosts, Brosius-Gersdorf took on a lot of the accusations that had been made against her, saying she was neither radical nor extremist. She also tried to explain her position on various issues from a legal point of view. When asked whether she would continue to seek a spot on the bench, the 54-year-old replied that if there was any danger posed by her candidacy to the court itself, she would withdraw her nomination.
