非官方專題探討 Unofficial Release
Opinion on the Discrimination Law Review (DLR).
- ref:
/doc/art/12/Art20141031-umblg-dlr-sm -
Submitted by:
S. M. Wong,UM-Bloggers and all Undersigned Persons
<http://blog.um-gallery.net>
31/10/2014
|
I strongly object the opinions revealed in the captioned review for the following reasons:
- The principles as stated in the consultation paper is
misleading as equality and anti-discrimination are apparently
self-evident ethical principles which are hardly to be rebutted. but
the very nature of the review is to provide an unjust and inequitable
preferential benefits to the intended social groups which in the end
cause reversal discrimination to all ordinary people. It should be
noted that equality alone is not the same as equal opportunity as the
mission assigned to your commission; the pursuit of equality without
considering other factors may thus violate the principles of justice
and equitability. However, in the consultation paper, equality and
equitability are deliberately confused.
- The consultation paper claims that the captioned review is
intended to modernize the ordinance so as to cope with the social
development. Again, the social development mentioned in the document
probably referred to the law reform for the recognition of some
extraordinary behavioral pattern of some people in the western
societies, such as the special sex orientation and non-marital sexual
relations among two or more persons. However, the proposition totally
neglects the fact that the cited reform is even controversial in
western world as its ethical implication violates the main stream
religious thoughts prevailing in their societies. Back to our city, I
definitely believe that the proposed reform will violate the
traditional ethical value and all religious thought of Chinese society.
- I accept that we should offer adequate protection to people
who have a different living style or behavioral pattern for whatever
reason supposing that their behavior causes no harm to other people. It
is good enough to remove all criminal liabilities against their
harmless behavior but I deem that the proposed law reform will in the
contrary adversely harm and offend the majority in the society in the
light that it offers over-protection to the intended social groups and
seemingly promotes their living style and behavioral pattern.
- The prevailing law has already provided legal convenient
means for rectifying de facto marriage arising from justifiable reasons
including losing documents or likewise. It is not necessary to formally
rectify the sexual relationship in the legal framework in the current
context. The existence of non-marital sexual relationship in some
jurisdictions may be caused by a lot of reasons such as tax avoidance
or inheritance of property.
- The inclusion of sexual relationships other than the
conventional definition of monogamy into marriage is a breach of the
ethical value of the majority in our society. Such alteration also
fundamentally change the micro-structure of our society which will in
turn create a lot of nuisances to the social life of ordinary people
and cause many loop holes in our legal framework regarding social
welfare and housing policy. The proposed review confuses the concept of
adequate protection for minority with preferential benefits for
privileged groups at the sacrifice of the interest of majority and
actually violate the principle of proportionality.
In the last two decades, too many changes of old laws and making of new
laws have been initiated under the flag of modernization and universal
value which only reflect the value of western culture without any
concern about the local context. I appeal to your reputable commission
to suspend the said review until all people have discussed the issue
thoroughly and arrived at consensus or, at least, the consent of
majority.
|
