Letters | Call to overturn Hong Kong court ruling on gay rights is frivolous

Readers discuss a lawmaker’s disregard for the principle of judicial independence, humane treatment of monkeys in a local zoo, and Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter

Reading Time:3 minutes

The Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s top court ruled on November 26 to affirm housing and inheritance entitlements for same-sex couples, siding against the government in favour of LGBTQ rights protection. Photo: AFP

Published: 11:30am, 13 Dec 2024

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification

Though controversial, I welcome lawmaker Junius Ho’s recent comments calling for the government’s intervention to override the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal’s rulings on same-sex couples’ rights as a golden opportunity for Hongkongers to have an important discussion about the principles of judicial independence, the rule of law and the “one country, two systems” framework. While Ho is entitled to his opinion, I believe his stance runs counter to the principles enshrined in the Basic Law.

The Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong’s independent judicial system, as outlined in Articles 2, 19, and 85. These provisions emphasise the judiciary’s autonomy and its role as the final arbiter in legal matters within the city.

While Beijing’s interpretations of the Basic Law are constitutionally permitted, this power is rarely exercised and, in those instances where interpretations have been made, they concern cases deemed highly sensitive politically or likely to endanger national security. I’m no legal expert, but it is my view that gay rights do not fall under that category.

Encouraging the government to override the city’s judiciary contradicts the idea that courts should act as impartial arbiters of justice, free from external pressures. Such actions would not only violate the spirit of the Basic Law but also further weaken public confidence in the legal system. For many Hongkongers, faith in the promise of one country, two systems is already faltering, and calls for government intervention will only deepen scepticism over whether the principles of autonomy and judicial independence can still be upheld.

Courts are not political battlegrounds. Legislation, not judicial interference, is the appropriate avenue for addressing Ho’s concerns. Those who oppose same-sex couples’ rights should advocate their views through the legislative process, presenting arguments and proposals for public consideration. Similarly, supporters of LGBTQ rights must also engage in respectful dialogue, seeking consensus where possible. Both sides must recognise that the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter and is not a tool to be overridden when its rulings are inconvenient.