To:
(1) Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs
12/F, East Wing, Central Government
Offices,
2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar,Hong Kong
(Attention: Team 5)
(2) Council Business Division 2
Legislative Council Secretariat
Panel on Constitutional Affairs
Legislative Council
7 May, 2018
PFA’s Submission
to the Authority and Legco concerning Report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the United
Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review (title amended)
Dear Sir/Madam,
1. This
is Parents for The Family Association’s (PFA) supplementary submission
regarding the captioned subject to the HKSAR Authority and the Legco panel
further to our earlier submission on 12th January 2018. I refer to
your paper LC Paper No. LC Paper No. CB(2)1265/17-18(01) for discussion on 30
April 2018 which concerns “List of outstanding items for discussion”. Among
which, the paragraph with the heading “Submission
of reports by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to the
United Nations under international human rights treaties” attracts our
attention. After some web search effort and noting from your relevant
documents, we come across the mechanism of Universal Periodic Review under the
ambit of which Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs is
coordinating the current consultation and the drafting of the concerned review
report.
2. Having
downloaded the background UN Human Rights Council (HRC) document[1] RES
5/1, we note from it the following paragraph as follows:
3.
The universal periodic review (UPR) should:
(a) Promote the universality, interdependence,
indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights;
(b) Be a cooperative
mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive
dialogue;
(c) Ensure universal coverage and equal
treatment of all States;
……….
(g) Be conducted in an objective, transparent,
non-selective, constructive, non‑confrontational and non‑politicized manner;
3. Let me
first state here that PFA’s slogan is “Love your family and contribute to your
society”. Regarding the UN HRC document (RES 5/1), we have the following
comments:
a.
While 3(a) of RES 5/1 claims that they would promote
the indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human
rights, there are situations where different kinds of rights do conflict with
one another. For instance, the recent development of transgender rights does
clash with that of the gender rights of women in UK[2].
Other examples include reverse discrimination cases concerning the restriction
of religious freedom and free expressions against same-sex marriages, sexual
orientation and transgenderism[3].
b.
3(b) of RES 5/1 asserts a cooperative mechanism based
on objective and reliable information for the UPR. However, we note in HK that the surveys and forums
organized or run by the pro-LGBT organizations (e.g. the Equal Opportunities
Commission (EOC)) have a marked tendency towards biasedness as well as unsound
information or data. I would like the HKSAR government to take note of it and
help advance our question of how the UN Human Rights Commission can maintain a
valid cooperative mechanism giving the aforesaid shortfall and partiality to
the concerned agencies.
c.
It is admirable to note in 3 (c) of RES 5/1 that
the UPR will ensure universal coverage and equal treatment of all
States. Nevertheless, we
doubt very much such a claim. The reason is quite straightforward as the UN is
well known for its internal competition and conflicts among the participating
nations, especially the leading powers in manipulating UN deliberation and
decisions. For instance, the US was free from UN’s sanction with its
unsanctioned Operation Desert Storm (17
January 1991 – 28 February 1991) against Iraq in response to
Iraq's invasion
and annexation of Kuwait. One should note that Iraq had been openly condemned
by the UN of its invasion while the US simply ran free. This is not only
unfortunate but unjust and unfair.
d.
We agree that any valid and well-intended
action should be conducted in
an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non‑confrontational and
non‑politicized manner as per 3 (g) of RES 5/1. Unfortunately, the state of matters surrounding the UPR and its agenda
is often filled with internal and external disputes, confrontations and
politicized advocacy. With HK as an example, the LGBT camp has been seen
very active in bringing about judicial reviews and legal appeals of such cases
conducive to major social controversies and disharmony. For instances, we have
seen in January 2018 that 3 so-called transgender complainants, who have
undergone only partial sex reassignment surgery, made claims by filing judicial
reviews in the high court against the rejection to recognize them as
trans-males by HK’s authority (Q v. Commissioner of Registration – HCAL 229/2015, R v. Commissioner of
Registration – HCAL 154/2017, TSE, Henry Edward v Commissioner of Registration
– HCAL 189/2017). Should their cases be allowed, the existing gender
definition and order would be overturned without consulting and negotiating
with the general public in HK. Their acts are considered radical and extreme
which might trigger legislating from the bench should the judgments were dealt
with in a surprising and pro-LGBT manner! Indeed, HK is not alone in terms of
such activism aiming at overturning the conventional order and traditions of a
region or country. Some examples will be cited in the following paragraphs.
e.
PFA
would like to comment that ideologies or legislations with an equality label do
not always produce true, constructive and non-confrontational equality. It is
more often than not, when such equality concerns sexual orientation, gay
marriage and transgender rights, that reverse discriminations and inequality
would be generated as a result.
4.
The examples
pertaining to PFA’s comment in the previous paragraph (3.d.) are many. We would
only cite a few in order to illustrate our worry and point. They are:
a) W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, PA, USA
to Close after Deadly Threats: https://radio.foxnews.com/2018/03/30/bridal-shop-to-close-after-deadly-threats/)
b)
UK “Vue”
Cinema bans ex-gay film: http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/vue-cinema-bans-ex-gay-film-response)
c) Teacher accused of 'misgendering' child was
told by police that she committed a hate crime: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/23/teacher-accused-misgendering-child-told-police-committed-hate/)
d) AFL clears transgender footballer Hannah
Mouncey to play in state women's leagues: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-13/afl-transgender-player-hannah-mouncey-to-play-vflw-football/9443590)
e) Controversy over Transgender women are
welcome in the Ladies’ Pond: http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/transgender-women-are-welcome-in-the-ladies-pond-say-hampstead-heath-swimmers-1-5339359)
f)
The Ashers
Baking Company's case (religious freedom vs inequality accusation): https://www.christian.org.uk/case/ashers-baking-company/
It is sad and unfortunate
to say that we can easily add similar cases to our list. For instances, there
are many other relevant cases as registered at https://blog.scs.org.hk/category/逆向歧視/ To sum up, we
do think that we have illustrated our worry and point with the above citations.
We would summarized our observation by pointing out that the UN HRC’s UPR
principles are far from what they claim to be fair, constructive and
non-confrontational. Indeed, they are unrealistic and often biased towards the
LGBT agendas.
5. We
wish to reiterate our former opinion of 12 Jan 2018 as per para. 3.d. in our previous
submission, namely, Hong Kong is mainly a Chinese society and has returned to
China since 1997. We are now under the One Country Two Systems constitutional
setup. It is something unprecedented and unique in the world. The existing UN
system with its instruments are mainly designed for independent countries
having an undeniable presence and influence from the major western countries
and principalities ever since its establishment[4] on
24 Oct. 1945. Such a background has
complex implications for UN’s neutrality and unbiasedness. As a result,
many of its proclamations and instruments were not and have not been fully
recognized or enacted by any particular country in the world. Accordingly,
there is NO reason why HK should follow a strict and verbal adherence to the UN
instruments or charters even though HK was signed into a number of its
conventions by our former sovereign state (i.e. UK).
6. As a
matter of fact, UN is subjected to a number of controversies and criticisms
ever since its establishment in 1945. It is stipulated in Article 2 of the UN
Charter that:
1. All the
member states are equal.
2. The member
states shall fulfill their obligations to the UN honestly.
………., and
7. No member state shall interfere in the internal
affairs of any other state.
The reality is UN lacks
adequate funds to meet all its objectives. The 5 permanent members of the UN Security
Council have disproportional influences over UN decisions. Some critics have
attributed the UN deficiency to its cumbersome and excessive bureaucracy.
Probably the most controversial issue with the United Nations is the
Oil-for-Food scandal[5].
It is sufficient to state here that UN’s
performance and credibility are at risk while UN does has an aspiration and
profound goal for maintaining world peace and safe-guarding humanity with a set
of common principles. As a contrast, we find the former Chinese premier Chou
En-lai’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence[6]
much more agreeable, realistic and helpful in solving international disputes.
One can also refer to the Guardian’s report[7] entitled “70 years and half a trillion dollars later:
what has the UN achieved?” for a more in-depth look at the UN problem.
7. The government’s
“Third Report of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in the light of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (The 3rd
Report) (http://www.cmab.gov.hk/doc/en/documents/policy_responsibilities/the_rights_of_the_individuals/ICCPR_3rd_report_en.pdf)
Pertaining to which, we have a special opinion
on Article 26: Right to equal
protection before the law. We agree to the government’s stance as prescribed in
para. 26.10, namely, “at this stage, self-regulation and education, rather than
legislation, are the most appropriate means of addressing discrimination in
this area. We will continue to address discriminatory attitudes and promote
equal opportunities on ground of sexual orientation through public education
and administrative means, with a view to 120 fostering in the community a
culture of mutual understanding, tolerance and mutual respect.”
8. PFA wishes
to express our deep concern and objection
again to the ideas of enacting legislation that specifically
prohibits discrimination on ground of sexual orientation and gender identity.
We are equally opposed to the legalizing of same sex marriages. The main
reasons are as per items (a)-(f) of para. 3 of our earlier submission of 12
Jan. 2018. We would like to emphasize again that marriage between one man and
one woman is of paramount importance as it, as an institution, is the
foundation of families. In turn, families are the foundation of our society as
spelled out in Article 23 of INTERNATIONAL COVENANTON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS (ICCPR). Any imprudent and rush effort to interfere or upset the
aforesaid marriage institution would result in grave consequences to our
society at least in the medium to long term (if not immediate)!
9. We agree
with Legislator Dr. Priscilla Leung’s comment[8]
that it is unsuitable to push forward for the so-called anti-discrimination
laws on either sexual orientation or other gender equality grounds including
transgenderism. Reverse discrimination is certainly one of the drawbacks of
such legislation. However, it is even more detrimental to our education system
and its autonomy will be at stake. PFA has to point out also that the extended
consequences of such anti-discrimination legislation are much more than the
average citizen can foresee. With solid and relevant examples from the western
world where such legislations are in place, we are worried and agitated to say
that the LGBT(+) agendas are catalysts toxic to the natural marriage of one man
and one woman. It would overturn the sexual order and deprive parents of our
conventional and appropriate rights (right to choose the type of schools for
our children, right to know about our children’s privacy for purposes of protection,
etc.). For both the religious institutions and the average citizen, the
concerned legislation would confine and limit our freedom in terms of speech,
conscience and religion. Things as put forward in para. 4 of this submission
are typical examples of the various infringing consequences.
10. We also note that Legislator Mr. Raymond CHAN
Chi-chuen urged the government to produce a timetable on enacting the
anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation and related LGBT agendas (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJ9yzLvwNM). We strongly
oppose to such a request with the various reasons put forward in this
submission, especially those highlighted in the previous paragraph.
11. PFA would reiterate again that the
government should conduct an independent review and scrutiny by relevant
independent experts on the legitimacy of the content of so-called
discrimination law review (DLR) and consultations done by the Equal
Opportunities Commission (EOC) to see if the EOC has any ultra vires motions or
unjustifiable actions in producing the relevant DLR reports. We would urge the
government to take a proactive stance to bring about well-intended peer review
to scrutinize the operation and mandate of EOC. For instance, Dr. Alfred Chan,
the chairman of EOC, has been criticized and involved in a number of
allegations. The following links are brief reports for reference:
It is worth noting that Dr. Alfred Chan was of the
opinion that he and the general public of HK has yet to decide on whether it
was right to accept self-declaration as a means of gender identity in a media
interview on 23 Dec. 2017. It is just about 10 days away on 2 January 2018 that
EOC announced that it supported self-declaration as a means of gender identity[9].
We reason that either Dr. Alfred Chan has changed his mind rapidly or the EOC
management was out of his control so that his view is no longer representative.
As such, the government has a due responsibility to find out the actual reason
behind this weird event. Perhaps, the
EOC really needs a timely overhaul.
12. PFA wish to bring up the importance of Article
27 of the Basic Law guaranteeing HK
residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication;
freedom of association, etc. Article 141 of the Basic Law stating that community organizations and individuals may, in accordance
with law, run educational undertakings of various kinds in the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region is also relevant. Furthermore, Article 5 states clearly that the
previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years
in Hong Kong. This promise should include the one man and one woman marriage
institution as marriage is the foundation of the natural family which in turn
is the foundation of the society. Indeed, both the government and HK
citizens should endear and honour the Basic Law as our mini-constitution.
13. As HK is still subject to the British Common Law
practices, we wish to cite Lord Penzance’s classic judicial definition of a
“Christian Marriage” in Hyde v Hyde[10]
(1866), namely,
- “Marriage is an institution. It confers a status on the parties to it, and upon the children that issue from it. Though entered into by the individuals, it has a public character. It is the basis upon which the framework of the civilized society is built;”
Lord Penzance rightly and sharply pointed out the importance of marriage
as a foundation of the society. Besides, it is through marriage that our
children are to be born and bred legally. Thus, the family arising from such
natural marriages would be the core and facility for reproduction, education
and upbringing of our children who would become the successors of the human
society at large.
14. In terms of
child protection, we would opine that the best way to do so is through a positive
interaction and promotion in the community level. Thus, the general
citizens should have easy access to facilities or organizations designed with a
view to promote family values and assist needy families. The average citizen
coming of age for marriage should be encouraged to receive marriage counselling
and sound family value courses. Such counselling and family value elements
could be taught through the education system of HK. As HK is a rather busy and
stressful society, post-marriage and family support services should be made
available to the needy ones. Hopefully, the society and the average citizen
would then be well aware of the importance and contributions of marriage and
family to the wellbeing of our society which in turn would increase the sense
of belonging of Hong Kong residents. Legal or government control should be seen
as the background support and the last resort to uphold child protection
otherwise HK will become a very legalistic society where coherence and harmony
would likely be superficial and costly. We
therefore agree with the authority that there is no need for establishing another human rights institution
to duplicate the functions of or supersede the existing human right mechanism
in HK (see para. 2.3 of The 3rd Report).
15.
Last but not
least, the government should be held accountable for any misleading and false
claims or information as submitted by organizations such as the EOC or any
person with a personal interest should such claims or information be accepted
without vetting or factual verification. In
terms of changes especially those radical changes such as gender
recognition and the so-called comprehensive sex education as pushed forward by
liberal activists from either the UN or the western world, we would humbly request the government to conduct comprehensive
scientific and fact finding studies before any official endorsements are
granted.
Submitted by
Mr. Howard Lai,
President, PFA
Email:
parents4family@gamil.com
