bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

The right to equal treatment and to live with dignity lie at the heart of any fair society. Those two principles were among the first featured in the groundbreaking Universal Declaration of Human Rights which marked its 75th anniversary last week.
Members of Hong Kong’s LGBTQ community, however, face a wide range of discriminatory policies.
Change is long overdue.
The courts have gradually removed one such practice after another in a series of landmark cases over the last 11 years.
In the latest, the Court of Final Appeal last month ruled in favour of equal access to public housing and inheritance rights for same-sex couples married overseas.
These cases followed a familiar pattern. The Housing Authority and the secretary for justice sought to uphold practices which discriminate. They were undeterred by defeats in lower courts.
The legal principles underpinning all these rulings over the years are clear. They are grounded in basic human decency and the general right to equality guaranteed by the Basic Law.
Rather than fight lengthy, costly and ultimately unsuccessful court battles, the government should be putting in place comprehensive legislation upholding the rights of the LGBTQ community.
The Housing Authority’s policies prevent same-sex couples from applying for public rental flats as members of “ordinary families”. They can only apply as individuals and, therefore, face a longer wait.
Similarly, same-sex couples cannot share subsidised Home Ownership Scheme flats or transfer the property to their spouse without paying a premium.
The Housing Authority tried to justify this unequal treatment with tired arguments of a kind rejected by courts in the past.
It argued there was a need to favour “traditional” couples of the opposite sex, to encourage them to marry and have children.
Not surprisingly, the court was unimpressed.
The judges said the authority had not produced a shred of evidence to support the claim that allowing same-sex married couples equal access to housing would have a negative impact on the birth rate.
The court was “left bereft of any reliable basis” on which to find that the discrimination was justified.
Ultimately, the court found, the policies wrongly deprived same-sex couples of the ability to share family life together under the same roof. That is the crux of the matter.
Similar considerations applied to the application of laws on inheritance, which also discriminate against same-sex couples.
In that case, the secretary for justice argued they needed to be treated differently to ensure that the definition of marriage and related terms under various Hong Kong laws was consistent and cohesive.
Again, the court disagreed. It said legal terms relating to marriage differ from one piece of legislation to another, depending on the purpose of each law. The claimed cohesion simply does not exist.
A watershed appeared to have been reached last year when the Court of Final Appeal required the government to develop a framework for recognising the “core rights” of same-sex couples within two years.
Work on this is under way. But details have still not been revealed. There will be a need for consultation and a legislative process. There should be no delay in publicising the government’s plan.
It should be comprehensive, clear and inclusive.
It is time to end the foot-dragging and minimal, seemingly begrudging, responses to progressive court judgments.


YouTuber rounded on the Hong Kong government, then apologised

End the foot-dragging when it comes to progressive judgments

Canada’s Beijing sanctions are not only useless but hypocritical

Extinction? Time has come to give our diminishing boars a break

My Take

Nick Infinger holds intersex-inclusive pride progress flag after Hong Kong’s top court rules in favour of equal housing and inheritance rights for same-sex couples. Photo: Reuters

 Hong Kong court upholds judgments on LGBTQ rights

Last tenants to leave ‘luxury’ Hong Kong public housing estate 6 years early

The 18-block Wah Fu Estate in Pok Fu Lam will be redeveloped. Photo: May Tse

The South Island line will be extended. Photo: Edmond So

Opinion

Rather than fighting court battles, the government should put in place comprehensive legislation upholding the LGBTQ community’s rights


Rather than fighting court battles, the government should put in place comprehensive legislation upholding the LGBTQ community’s rights.


LGBTQ

Hong Kong housing

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Column

My Take | End the foot-dragging when it comes to progressive judgments

Rather than fighting court battles, the government should put in place comprehensive legislation upholding the LGBTQ community’s rights