Two discrimination rulings spotlight double standards
Last week saw two landmark rulings. The first is the much-reported and much-discussed High Court ruling on entitlements for a gay civil servant’s husband. Senior immigration officer Leung Chun-kwong — who married his partner Scott Adams (not the creator of Dilbert) in New Zealand in 2014 — launched the challenge in 2015 against the secretary for the civil service and the commissioner for inland revenue, which were reluctant to recognize their union. The court ruled that the civil servant’s husband should be entitled to the same civil service benefits as his heterosexual colleagues’ spouses. The judge found in the Inland Revenue Department’s favor, however.
The implications of this case will be huge, and have the potential to jump-start a major debate on the legality of same-sex marriage in the city. As much as I am supportive of LGBT rights, this judiciary-led crusade may not have come at the right moment. Same-sex marriage is a very sensitive issue, here in Hong Kong and around the world. More and more jurisdictions in the West have gradually come to recognize same-sex marriage but the political process took time — societal consensus building took time.
Wholesale globalization without due regard of local circumstances is never a good thing. Samesex marriage became legal only very recently even in New Zealand — on Aug 19, 2013. Leung and Adams were wedded there in 2014 and Leung launched the challenge in 2015. It would be unfortunate if our local debate has to be coerced by a “global harmonization” on same-sex marriage. This just does not seem democratic.
Another important ruling was less discussed among Hong Kong people. On May 3, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) ruled that Guangzhou football team Evergrande be fined and suspended after supporters unfurled a “British dogs” banner during a match in Hong Kong.
The banner, which read: “Annihilate British dogs, destroy HK independence poison” in Chinese characters, was held up during Evergrande’s 6-0 AFC Champions League win over Hong Kong’s Eastern on April 25.
The AFC ruled that “Guangzhou Evergrande were found to have violated Article 58 and Article 65 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code relating to the actions of away supporters at the match Eastern SC (HKG) vs Guangzhou Evergrande on April 25. Away supporters displayed a banner depicting a discriminatory message relating to national origin and political opinion.”
This raises an interesting and important question: Can disparaging messages and behavior between Chinese be considered “racial discrimination”? The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.
The Hong Kong government says no. “The (Hong Kong) government will not consider the status being an immigrant from mainland China as a ground of discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Bill on the basis that the new immigrants are of the same ethnic group as local Chinese. The government suggests in the bill that the discriminatory treatment experienced by new immigrants is based on social rather than racial grounds.” This is recorded in submissions made to the Legislative Council’s Bills Committee on the Race Discrimination Bill in February 2007 by organizations such as the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission and Society for Community Organization.
Jurisdictions outside of Hong Kong are going in the other direction. Dipping their toes into the topical and contentious debate as to what national identity means, the Scottish Court of Session in BBC v Souster concluded that the English do have separate “national origins” to the Scots. As a consequence, the Race Relations Act 1976 does apply to discrimination between the Scots and English.
Like it or not, the AFC is clearly endorsing this approach, and its recent ruling protects Hong Kong people from being “discriminated” by mainlanders on “racial grounds”.
The truth is, the Evergrande-Eastern match was played in a hostile atmosphere.
Fans from both sides hurled obscenities and gave each other the middle finger; one Eastern supporter displayed Hong Kong’s colonial-era flag, which features Britain’s Union Jack.
If AFC decides Hong Kong people do have a separate “racial identity” it should at least be consistent and also punish Eastern for the behavior of its fans. This is comparable to Japan’s Kawasaki Frontale fans who displayed a wartime flag at their meeting with South Korea’s Suwon Bluewings at the Suwon World Cup Stadium. Kawasaki Frontale were fined $15,000 and given a suspended one-match stadium ban.
We live in a world of double standards. The refusal to acknowledge that mainlanders can be discriminated against on “racial grounds” by some Hong Kong people is a pseudo-political correctness that does not help.