搜尋結果

障礙與法律系列講座 新書介紹：中國精神衛生法：法律與社會學分析 Mental Health Law in China: a Socio-legal Analysis (Routledge, May 2022) 2008年，中國簽署並認可了聯合國《殘疾人權利公約》。《公約》提出，身心障礙者應在生活各方面享有與常人平等的法律權利能力，可以在相應協助下自主地做出決策，包括醫療決策。 2013年，《精神衛生法》生效，該法所確立的住院醫療自願原則曾被認為是「被精神病」現象的終結者。時至今日，精神衛生領域的基層實踐與國際法的精神和本土的法律改革之間，似乎仍橫亙著一條鴻溝：精神障礙者被強制送醫、被拘禁在家、被污名、被歧視的遭遇，仍不罕見。 作者陳博博士介紹了他的新著，就身心障礙者的法律能力、非自願醫療等問題提供了聯合國《殘疾人權利公約》中的框架和指引。比較了《公約》和中國《精神衛生法》及其他政策措施中相關規定的差異，並從政治、文化和社會視角提出如此差異的深層原因，包括由於公共服務不足，供選擇的自願醫療極其有限，家庭成員不得不承擔巨大照護責任和確保安全的義務，而相應享有更大的決策權。 與談人姚灝博士是上海市精神科臨床醫生，提出了最新的文獻及臨床實踐中非自願醫療占住院患者中的比例，指出現實與公約倡議之間的差異，進而提出醫療機構面臨的困境，包括尚無客觀、明確的住院收治評估標準，送院和出院環節家屬意願的一致性，以及更深層的原因，即由於家屬「製造麻煩的能力」比服務使用者更大，醫療機構有抵禦風險的現實考量等。 問答環節中兩位講者與觀眾進行了充分等互動，討論問題包括住院評估標準應如何制定，以及現實中標準遭遇異化的可能性，國外住院醫療決策的評估機制，從性別視角如何看待強制住院治療問題等等。 作者： 陳博，法學博士，澳門科技大學法學院助理教授，愛爾蘭國立高威大學法學院及殘障法律與政策研究中心客座講師。研究領域主要為精神衛生法與聯合國《殘疾人權利公約》。 與談人： 姚灝，復旦大學醫學博士，哈佛大學公共衛生碩士，上海市精神衛生中心精神科住院醫師，心聲公益創始人。研究領域：社會精神病學、社區精神衛生。 日期：2022年8月27日 視頻回放 (YouTube) 書談：《中國精神衛生法：法社會學分析》（上） 0:00 理論背景：《殘疾人權利公約》與精神衛生法 18:26《精神衛生法》主要內容 26:16《精神衛生法》的本土實踐 視頻回放 (YouTube) 書談：《中國精神衛生法：法社會學分析》（下） 精神科醫生姚灝博士與談 0:00 《精神衛生法》中住院醫療標準的實施困境 11:24 「防禦性醫療」與醫療體系中普遍的替代決策 28:28 醫療機構如何避免非自願醫療 35:27 陳博博士回應：人權法學和精神醫學合作的空間 PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載： #殘障 #殘疾人權利公約 #精神衛生法

Five Key Takeaways of【Road to Same-Sex Marriage Equality in Japan: The Constitutional Controversy in the Sapporo, Osaka and Tokyo Cases】English version Click HERE 【日本同性婚姻平權之路: 札幌案、大阪案與東京案的憲法爭議】的重點撮要 近年，日本有數十位同性伴侶提起了挑戰禁止同性婚姻合憲性的策略性訴訟。香港大學法律學院平等權項目所舉辦的網絡研討會，邀請到了部分訴訟的代理律師加藤丈晴和寺原真希子。她們在研討會中剖析了札幌、大阪與東京地方裁判所分別於2021年3月、2022年6月和11月作出的三項判決；香港大學法律學院副教授Kelley Loper作為與談人，與兩位嘉賓進行交流。 裁判所在三案中需要考慮《日本國憲法》中的以下條款： · 第14（1）條：全體國民在法律面前一律平等。在政治、經濟以及社會的關係中，都不得以人種、信仰、性別、社會身份以及門第的不同而有所差別。 · 第24（1）條：婚姻僅以兩性的自願結合為基礎而成立，以夫婦平權為根本，必須在相互協力之下予以維持。 · 第24（2）條：關於選擇配偶、財產權、繼承、選擇居所、離婚以及婚姻和家族庭等其他有關事項的法律，必須以個人尊嚴與兩性平等為基礎制訂之。 簡而言之，三項裁決均認為，國會（日本的立法機構）不承認同性婚姻的做法並沒有違憲。然而，札幌裁判所認為，在法律上沒有賦予同性婚姻效力違反了《憲法》第14（1）條，但大阪在這一點則不同意。這兩個截然不同的裁決頒佈後，東京的裁決可以被視為札幌、大阪裁決的概括；而東京裁判所在判決書中亦有支持同性婚姻的數項重要聲明。 以下是本研討會的五項重點撮要： 一、各裁判所就婚姻制度之目的的認識存在分歧。 對札幌裁判所而言，無論兩人是否育有孩子，婚姻是一個「保護伴侶本身的共同生活」的制度；而大阪裁判所的觀點顯然較保守：婚姻制度是為一男一女共同生活並繁衍後代的關係提供法律保護。原告律師認為大阪的論點「荒謬」，因為有許多異性伴侶不能或選擇不生育。在這一點上，東京的判決更傾向於札幌的立場；它指出男人和女人生育和撫養孩子的事實，純粹是社會公認「婚姻是異性之間」的概念的一個背景，但它並不是婚姻制度直接和唯一的目的。 二、目前《憲法》的婚姻權只針對異性伴侶，但東京的裁決不排除在未來對「婚姻」有新的詮釋。 東京裁判所認為，《憲法》第24（1）條使用了「兩性」和「夫婦」的字眼，顯然只針對異性婚姻；這與札幌和大阪的裁決相似。然而，東京更進一步表示，圍繞婚姻和家庭的社會價值觀是「可變的」。雖然他們不能斷定目前在日本有承認同性婚姻的社會共識，但他們沒有排除未來有這種可能性。 三、「個人尊嚴」是東京裁判所的重點考量。 《憲法》第24（2）條明確提到了「個人尊嚴」。它不僅僅是一個抽象概念，而是在實踐中要遵循的價值觀；所以，在制定與婚姻和家庭有關的法律時，「個人尊嚴」實際限制了國會的自由裁量權。「尊嚴」是三份判決書中反覆出現的主題，但它在東京裁決中尤為重要：裁判所表示沒有承認同性婚姻的法律制度違反了《憲法》第24（2）條，因為由法律來正式承認同性伴侶為家庭成員是「重要的個人利益」。缺乏這種承認將會助長更多偏見和歧視，對同性伴侶的「個人生存」是「嚴重的威脅和障礙」。 寺原律師認為東京裁判所得出如此結論，可能是因為裁判所對原告們進行了訪談，以了解他們的情況。例如，裁判所訪問了育有孩子的女同性伴侶後，認為她們的家庭生活與異性伴侶沒有甚麽不同。有原告亦分享了他們在生活上所面對的不利條件和遭遇羞辱的經驗，例如，因為他們在法律上不是其伴侶的「家庭成員」，所以無法得知對方的醫療狀況。 四、 雖然法院沒有直接提出不承認同性婚姻應採取的補救措施，但這些判決在推動立法行動方面具有甚大影響力。 大阪裁判所明確表示同性婚姻的問題應該通過立法機構的民主程序來解決，但札幌裁判所意識到法院是少數群體的保護者，這令加藤律師倍受鼓舞。他認為札幌的裁決，加上媒體對本案的廣泛報道，對遊說國會成員有積極的效果。例如，案件促使了公明黨成立同性婚姻的工作小組；而札幌案後的民調顯示，同性婚姻得到更多的民眾支持；在60-69歲的族群中更是首次有過半數贊成同性婚姻，意味著社會轉變已經觸及老一代和保守政黨的支持者。 兩位律師代表的倡議團體「日本全民婚姻（Marriage for All Japan）」意識到法院和立法機構之間的相互作用，並據此制定了他們的倡導戰略。雖然法院沒有很多直接的補救措施，但這些判決在遊說工作當中是非常有力的工具。 五、原告不接受「隔離但平等」的替代方案。 日本有民事伴侶制度，但這種關係在法律和社會上的認可程度遠遠低於合法婚姻。大阪的判決表示，伴侶制度加上合同和遺囑足以消除或在很大程度上減輕同性伴侶在繼承和稅收等問題上的不利處境。札幌的立場則比較令人滿意：它承認「關係地位的建立和公證」是婚姻的本質，這種意義不能被合同或遺囑取代。 在這一點上，「日本全民婚姻」堅決反對以循序漸進的方式來實現婚姻平權。正如寺原律師指出，在個人尊嚴的基礎上，政府必須給予同性伴侶與異性伴侶相同的法律地位。建立一個「隔離但平等」的新制度只是另一種形式的歧視。 請點擊瞭解詳情觀看視頻回放及講者PowerPoint。 Five Key Takeaways of【Road to Same-Sex Marriage Equality in Japan: The Constitutional Controversy in the Sapporo, Osaka and Tokyo Cases】 Our speakers, Mr. Takeharu Kato and Ms. Makiko Terahara, are both attorneys-at-law behind a series of strategic lawsuits challenging the constitutionality for banning same-sex marriage in Japan. In this webinar, they dissected three of the judgments handed down by the Sapporo District Court in March 2021, Osaka District Court in June 2022 and Tokyo District Court in November 2022, with HKU Faculty of Law’s Associate Professor Kelley Loper commenting thereafter as a discussant. The Courts are asked to consider the following provisions in the Japanese Constitution: · Article 14(1): All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin. · Article 24(1): Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. · Article 24(2): With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes. In short, all three rulings found that the National Diet (Japan’s legislature) is not at fault for not recognising same-sex marriage. However, Sapporo ruled that the absence of a law that give effect to same-sex marriage violates Article 14(1) and is therefore unconstitutional, while Osaka disagreed on this point. Following these two conflicting decisions, the Tokyo ruling can be viewed as an encapsulation of both, with the Court making several crucial statements in favour of same-sex marriage. Here are five key takeaways from this webinar: 1. The Courts disagreed on the purpose of the institution of marriage. The Sapporo Court conceptualises marriage as an institution to “protect the joint life of the couple itself”, regardless of whether or not they have children; whereas Osaka took a much more traditionalist view – the institution of marriage provides legal protection for relationships where a man and a woman live together and produce offspring. Osaka’s contention is criticized by the plaintiffs’ attorneys as “absurd” since there are many heterosexual couples who cannot, or chose not to, have children. On this, Tokyo leaned more towards Sapporo’s stance, noting the fact that men and women have borne and raised children is merely a background to the socially accepted notion that marriage is between opposite sexes, but not directly and solely a purpose of marriage. 2. The constitutional right to marriage as it currently stands is intended for heterosexual couples only, but the Tokyo ruling is open to changes in the interpretation of “marriage” in the future. Similar to the Sapporo and Osaka rulings, the Tokyo District Court said that Article 24(1) is clearly intended for opposite sex marriages only, given the use of the words “both sexes” and “husband and wife”. However, Tokyo went one step further to denote that social values surrounding marriage and family are “subject to change”. Although they cannot conclude that there is currently a social consensus to recognise same-sex marriage in Japan, they did not preclude such possibility in the future. 3. “Individual dignity” played a huge role in Tokyo’s ruling. Article 24(2) makes an unequivocal reference to “individual dignity”. It is understood as not merely an abstract concept but a value to be followed in practice, thereby actually limiting the discretion of the Diet when it comes to enacting laws pertaining to marriage and the family. “Dignity” is a recurring theme in all three judgments, but it is of particular significance in Tokyo’s ruling: it reasoned that the absence of a legal system for same-sex marriages is in violation of Article 24(2), because same-sex couples being recognised formally by the law as family members is “an important personal interest”, and without such recognition, it would be a “serious threat and obstacle” to their “personal survival” as it contributes to more prejudices and discrimination. Ms. Terahara suggests that the Tokyo District Court’s conclusion may be attributable to the Court having interviewed the plaintiffs to better understand their situation. For example, the Court, having spoken to lesbian couples who are raising children of their own, saw that their familial life is no different from that of a heterosexual couple. Some also shared the disadvantages and humiliations they have faced, such as being denied knowledge of their same-sex partner’s medical condition because they are not technically a “family member”. 4. While courts does not have remedies to directly rectify the lack of recognition for same-sex marriage, these judgments have proved to be influential in pushing for legislative action. Where Osaka made clear that the issue of same-sex marriage ought to be resolved through a democratic process at the legislature, Mr. Kato was particularly encouraged by how the Sapporo Court is aware of itself as a protector of marginalised minority groups; and believed that their ruling, coupled with the extensive media coverage on this case, has had a positive effect on lobbying Diet members. For example, the Komeito Party had since started a working group on same-sex marriage, and survey results post-Sapporo showed that same-sex marriage has received more support most notably among people in their 60s, meaning that the societal shift reached even the older generation and supporters of conservative parties. The work of the advocacy group Ms. Terahara and Mr. Kato represents, Marriage for All Japan (MFAJ), recognises the interplay between courts and the legislature and shaped their strategies accordingly. Although Courts do not have many possible remedies at their disposal, these judgments are powerful tools for the MFAJ to utilise in their lobbying effort. 5. “Separate but equal” alternatives are unsatisfactory to the plaintiffs. Japan has a municipal partnership system, but the level of legal and social recognition of a civil partnership is well below that of a legal marriage. The Osaka judgment suggested that the partnership system, along with contracts and wills, are sufficient to eliminate or mitigate to a considerable extent the disadvantages experienced by these couples in issues such as inheritance and taxation. Sapporo’s stance is much more satisfactory: it acknowledges “the creation and notarisation of a relationship status” as the essence of marriage, and such significance cannot be replaced by contracts or wills. On this, MFAJ draws a hard line against a gradual, step-by-step approach to achieving marriage equality. As Ms. Terahara noted, on the basis of individual dignity, the government must accord the same legal status to same-sex couples to that of opposite-sex couples. Creating a new “separate but equal” system is merely another form of discrimination. For more information, please refer to the video recording: https://www.equalityrights.hku.hk/post/lecture-20221213

新書介紹：掙脫束縛的婚姻：當代中國的國家法、權力與不平等 Marriage Unbound: State Law, Power, and Inequality in Contemporary China (Stanford University Press, July 2022) 編者按 近年來，中國的離婚率持續攀升，城鄉人口流動加劇。與此同時，國家繼續推行自上而下的司法改革，強化法律在糾紛解決中所起的作用。在此背景下，越來越多的農村婦女試圖通過離婚訴訟實現她們作為妻子、母親、財產所有者的合法權益。 2022年11月3日，應香港大學法學院平權在線項目的邀請，紐約市立大學John Jay刑事司法學院的政治學助理教授李柯分享了她的新著《掙脫束縛的婚姻：當代中國的國家法、權力與不平等》 （Marriage Unbound：State Law，Power and Inequality in Contemporary China）。李柯教授的新書及其分享呈現了法律與政治、國家與文化、以及權力與性別不平等之間的複雜關係。共有392位觀眾聆聽了本場講座，李柯教授亦與在場聽眾進行了充分的交流。 平權在線將講座的影片及文字綜述奉上，以饗讀者。 視頻回放 (YouTube) : 在講座的第一部分，通過農村婦女李致勤進城務工的故事，李柯深入講述了大規模的勞動人口流動如何改變了婚姻家庭中的兩性關係。進城務工後，李致勤開始了一段婚外情並生下一名男孩，此後便通過離婚訴訟擺脫了其自認為失敗的第一段婚姻。而她選擇的第二任配偶是通過打工積累了物資財富、在城鎮中購買了商品房的「城市化進程中的勝出者」。在此後的田野調查中，李柯進行了80個深入訪談，發現了更多“李致勤”的存在，回應了有關人口流動、女性務工和婚姻變化的研究空白。 講座的第二部分則以家暴受害者韓冬琳的經歷為窗口，展現了威權政體在不同歷史時期的治理「工具袋」是如何對女性的私人生活進行干預的。值得注意的是，在這一部分中，李柯運用大量的檔案材料編織了兩個不同的歷史敘事：新中國建立後，國家如何以司法手段代替行政手段把控普通人的婚姻家庭糾紛；作為威權政體的當代中國如何通過調整對民間糾紛的干預以實現對社會的滲透、把控和改良。她試圖將國家鑲嵌到兩個歷史的敘事當中，以觀察公民與私人生活與國家的治理術之間的關係。 在講座的第三部分，通過白描藍瑜、吳曼麗、王貴平三位女性的離婚訴訟經歷以及上千小時的實地觀察、訪談和訴訟卷宗的文本分析，李柯重構了法律與社會研究中的一個重要概念：「dispute resolution」，並強調其實際上建立在三種不同類型的權力關係之上，即「formal decision-making power」「agenda-setting power」以及「consciousness-formation power」。這三種權力關係的實際運作為女性在離婚訴訟中的艱難處境提供了深入的注腳，並進一步解釋了與權力關係深切交織的糾紛解決機制如何強化了本就存在的性別不平等。 在講座的最後，李柯表示，其寫作本書的終極目標在於講述有煙火氣、有層次感、有穿透力的故事，以普通人的生活體驗為起點，並糅合多種研究方法和數據，將女性的微觀經歷昇華為可供研究的素材，並逐步擴展到對宏觀的社會歷史變遷的解讀。 隨後，在近一小時的問答環節中，李柯教授就法院對離婚案件中的家庭暴力的處理，進城務工婦女反家暴的意識以及農村女性的土地權利等話題，與聽眾進行了交流和討論。 PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載：

再進一哩路：《台灣跟蹤騷擾防制法》的立法與執行 One Mile Further: Legislating and Enforcing Taiwan’s Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act 2022) 繼日本、韓國後，台灣於2022年6月實施《跟蹤騷擾防制法》，規範八種騷擾樣態，如尾隨接近、歧視貶抑、通訊騷擾、不當追求等。如持續或反覆違反特定人意願作出以上行為，且與性或性別有關，則有可能受到刑責。《跟騷法》旨在填補現行保護婦女的法律漏洞，重點針對陌生人的騷擾行徑，以及新聞中常見的分手暴力、「恐怖情人」事件。本次講座有幸邀請到積極推動《跟騷法》的王珮玲教授，為我們梳理《跟騷法》的立法歷程及分析其執行情況。 背景：跟蹤騷擾的類型、發生率、對被害人的傷害、求助的障礙和困境、各國的法制 回應《跟騷法》立法倡議之路 《跟騷法》的內容：行為定義、八種型態、案件處理流程、救濟（書面告誡、保護令、刑責） 《跟騷法》實施現況、觀察和需要改善的地方 講者： 王珮玲 教授 國立暨南國際大學 社會政策與社會工作學系特聘教授 / 家庭暴力研究中心主任 日期：2022年11月10日 視頻回放 (YouTube) : PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載：

2015年開始，包括凍卵在內的單身女性、女同性戀生育相關的議題開始被社會公眾所看見和討論。 在我國，未婚女性生育面臨著繳納高額社會撫養費和上戶口的問題。 女同性戀群體因為不能被承認伴侶關係而無法使用國內的人工輔助生殖技術，而無論如何生育，回國之後上戶口也會面臨一定的歧視和限制。 2016年1月1日，二胎政策全面實施，這意味合法夫妻生育第二個孩子無需在繳納社會撫養費。 儘管生育政策有了改變，但單身女性和女同性戀群體的生育權仍舊受到遏制。 基於此背景，由性少數權利關注組織彩虹律師團和長期關注女性權利的宣導者於2016年8月共同發佈《公眾對單身女性生育的態度調查問卷》，展開了此項調查研究，試圖瞭解當下的社會公眾對當前中國社會對單身女性的生育權利和生育政策的看法，問卷的調查結果和相關數據有助於對於單身女性和性少數女性生育權的瞭解和持續。 單身女性生育權關注組 2017年6月 公眾對單身女性生育態度的調查報告 - 目錄 一、調研背景 二、調查人群的總體狀況 三、什麼是單身女性 四、對“單身”女性生育的態度 （一）單身女性可以生育嗎 1，總體情況 2，不同因素對單身女性生育態度的影響分析 （1）性別因素 （2）年齡因素 （3）性傾向因素 （4）職業因素 （5）受教育程度因素 （6）生活所在地綜合因素 （二）單身女性的生育條件及其影響 1，經濟條件 2，是否影響孩子性格 3，是否影響孩子的性傾向 4，是否對社會的家庭倫理道德產生不良影響 5，是否對單身女性自身產生不良影響 五，關於單身女性生育面對的國家政策現狀的態度 （一）總體情況分析 1，單身生育是否應該被徵收社會撫養費 2，吉林省允許單身女性生育條例的政策是否應該在全國推廣 3，政策允許單身女性生育是否應該對生育年齡提出要求 4，政策允許單身女性生育是否應該對女性的教育程度提出要求 5，政策允許單身女性生育是否應該對女性的經濟收入提出要求 6，政策是否應該開放人工輔助生殖技術給單身女性 7，單身女性生育是否應該享有生育保險 8，單身女性生育是否應該享有社會生育補貼 （二）不同因素對單身女性生育面對的國家政策現狀的態度的影響分析 1，性別因素 2，年齡因素 3，性傾向因素 4，職業因素 5，受教育程度因素 6，生活所在地因素 六，結論 （一）非婚女性是單身被公眾高度認可 （二）單身女性生育，公眾高度支援 （三）男性和異性戀對於單身女性生育支援比例最低 （四）單身媽媽的經濟因素被重點考量 （五）公眾支援政策解綁單身生育 七，政策建議 （一）構建多元家庭理念，提高對於單身媽媽/多元家庭的社會認可 （二）放開對單身女性/女同性戀伴侶實施人工生殖輔助技術的限制，確認單身女性申請精子庫精子的權利 （三）生育保險、生育補貼應覆蓋單身生育 （四）廢除社會撫養費 點擊下載報告 #生育權 #LGBT

[類別] 媒體評論 [作者] Cherry Ng (吳軒軒) [出處] Hong Kong Free Press, 25 September 2022 [摘要] "Outdated notions of the nature of sexual assault and deep-rooted prejudices against migrant domestic workers have no place in a court of justice.” writes Cherry Ng. But a recent high-profile rape case showed “our systems barely did anything to disprove them." Link: https://hongkongfp.com/2022/09/25/why-it-is-time-to-dispel-rape-myths-and-racism-from-criminal-trials-in-hong-kong/ 了解更多，請點擊文章連結: 連結 打破香港刑事法庭內的強姦迷思和種族歧視 本文為香港大學法律學院平等權項目團隊成員吳軒軒旁聽外傭性罪行案庭審所做的「法庭觀察」報告，其英文版已由《香港自由新聞（Hong Kong Free Press）》刊登發表。 (文章連結: 連結) 上月，高等法院審理一宗性罪行案件，由四名男性和三名女性組成的陪審團一致裁定兩名被告無罪。 第一被告陳暹德被控強姦和企圖強姦其家傭X，而第二被告黎芷珊（陳的前妻）則被控協助第一被告強姦X，並對其猥褻侵犯。 由於沒有「確鑿」證據，控方主要依靠事主X的供詞，因此本案的關鍵取決於事主X是否誠實可靠。考慮到香港律政司嚴謹的起訴標準，強姦案大多由陪審團處理，本案也是如此。我們來嘗試理清陪審團對本案所做出的裁定。 筆者觀察了辯方律師對事主X的盤問，總結其策略為下列三點：第一，攻擊事主X混淆事件順序；第二，以大量「你為什麽不......」式問題對受害者多番指責；第三，利用香港人對外傭的刻板形象進行抗辯。 學術界把這些策略稱之為「強姦迷思（rape myths）」。《歐洲社會心理學雜誌》所發表的研究將其定義為「有關強姦，且用於否定、淡化或合理化性暴力的慣性或描述性看法」。 正如Jennifer Temkin 和 Barbara Krahé在《Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap》一書中所指出的，審視強姦迷思如何影響法庭審訊尤其重要，因為比起其他罪行，性侵罪成與否，與廣泛社會態度及大眾對受害者行徑的評價更密切地相關。 在本案中，強姦迷思與X的外傭身份相互交織，她的種族、社會經濟地位和她與被告的僱傭關係，都在削弱她的「誠實可靠」。 在庭審中，辯方律師多次指出，X在控方主問時和辯方盤問時的供詞與警方所紀錄的供詞之間有所出入。這些不一致之處涉及當晚的細節和事件發生的順序，而事件發生距今已有四年之久。 事主X的母語為他加祿語，而庭審以粵語進行，再被翻譯為英語和他加祿語。如果X因為一時想不起某個細節，或者對經兩名傳譯員過濾後的問題有所混淆，就被判斷為不誠實，那證人到底要多「完美」才能被信任？儘管X的供詞有所缺陷，也是人之常情，而她亦已經提供了一個具有相當細節並可信的敘述。陪審團應該如何權衡？ 毫無意外地，辯方律師對X的盤問包含了大量「你為什麼不…」式的問題。 「你為什麽不逃跑？」事實上，X試圖逃走了兩次，但辯方卻質疑X為什麼沒有用盡全力逃走。 「你為什麽不反抗？」X表示她已經沒有力氣，當下只能哭泣。 「你為什麽不放聲大哭？」心理學研究指出，「戰鬥或逃跑反應（fight-or-flight response）」並不是受害者對性暴力的唯一反應，反而很多人會陷入驚恐狀態，無法彈動。 「你為什麽不在事後立即報警，而選擇先聯繫中介公司的職員？」X解釋說，中介曾指示她們，如果發生任何事情，應該先聯繫中介公司。她亦擔心被告能聽到她報警。 「你為什麽不在當晚逃走，而要等到第二天？」X再次解釋道，這是因為開門會驚動被告，並危害自己的人身安全，所以不願意冒這個險。 即使X省略了上述任何一項所謂的「正常」的行徑，也不代表她沒有受到性暴力對待。 辯方律師對「理性」的執著顯然漠視了事主X所受的創傷。常人，包括陪審員在內，或許總會覺得自己面對同一情況時，肯定會比受害者聰明和勇敢。如果事主不如自己想像般反應，就會斷定她們是在編造謊言。 但一個人在害怕的時候有「非理性」的行為，是否那麼難以令人相信？何況對於被要求絕對服從僱主的外傭來說，僱傭之間的權力和議價能力（bargaining power）的差異更是不容忽視。要知道她們指控施虐者的代價，是她們的生計、聲譽和人身安全，指控便意味著失去一切。 辯方展現的版本表示X和男被告的性行為是完全自願的，X亦得到了150港元的報酬；由於X和女被告關係不和，所以女被告的參與全是X捏造的。 這種論述正符合本地媒體對外傭無限放大的刻板形象：貪婪、詭詐、不聽話。我們無法確認這種偏見是否促成了陪審團的決定，但在證人席上多番被指控為騙子，無疑使X受到二次傷害。 刑事司法原則（例如較高的舉證標準）固然有其存在價值，但在確保被告能夠得到公平審訊的同時，受害者在法庭上是否也應該受到有尊嚴的對待？ 這宗案件的另外一個關注點是廣東話、英語和他加祿語之間的「三重傳譯」。如果接受辯方律師盤問對於當事人已經是痛苦的，那麼盤問過程因傳譯而以三倍延長，這對當事人的心理影響可想而知。 此外，盤問手法大多都是辯方提出一個表述，通常會用到複雜的句子結構和雙重否定句，然後詢問證人同意與否。本案中的事主X多番要求辯方律師和傳譯重複問題，然後才能簡單回答「同意」或「不同意」。 雖然筆者無法判斷這場審訊的傳譯是否令人滿意，但事主X在庭上提及，警方為她錄口供時已是凌晨時分，在場的傳譯員曾告訴她毋需太過詳盡，不然將「耗時太久」。 這顯然並非一名專業傳譯員應有的態度，而事主X在口供裡省略的內容其後亦被辯方律師質疑。如果錄取口供的過程太過冗長，警方有責任為需要傳譯服務的少數族裔作出適當安排，更加不能因而影響證供的質素。 關注婦女性暴力協會在2017年進行的一項研究發現香港少數族裔翻譯服務急需改革。有三成五受訪者表示，傳譯員在翻譯時會加入自己的意見，其中一人甚至指示服務使用者在法庭上的發言，亦曾有被告因錯誤翻譯而上訴得直。 近十年前已有專家批評法院招聘少數族裔語言傳譯員的流程，加上劣質的認證制度和低薪酬，導致這些傳譯員的質素參差。 2021年7月，申訴專員公佈了一份關於政府外聘傳譯服務安排的調查報告。政制及內地事務局後來回應，大致接納申訴專員的建議，但實際的改進還有待觀察。 本案完全展現了根深蒂固的文化和制度缺陷如何影響性暴力案件的審訊。然而，司法系統幾乎沒有做任何事情以確保過時的觀念和種族偏見不會影響判決，結果勇於捍衛自己尊嚴的當事人無法取得正義。 吳軒軒是英國杜倫大學的法律畢業生。目前，她是香港大學法律學院平等權項目團隊的成員之一，致力於提高人們對性別平等、LGBT+和身心障礙者權利的認識，並促進知識交流，對基於性別的暴力和刑事司法系統特別感興趣。

How Do Sexual Harassment Claims Fare in China’s Courts? (法院如何處理性騷擾訴訟) Since 2005, China has gradually improved the legal system for preventing sexual harassment. In 2019, the Supreme People's Court has listed "sexual harassment damage liability dispute" as a new civil cause of action. In 2021, the Civil Code has further defined sexual harassment and the scope of employers' liability. These are considered significant advances in preventing sexual harassment in China. When a case involving sexual harassment is brought to court, how does the court address evidential issues? How does such practice influence rights of sexual harassment survivors and the employer's obligation to stop sexual harassment? 自2005年以來，中國內地逐步完善着防治性騷擾的法律制度。 2019年，最高人民法院新增「性騷擾損害責任糾紛」為民事案由； 2021年，《民法典》進一步細化性騷擾定義和用人單位責任範圍； 這些都被視為司法和立法在性騷擾防治領域的明顯進步。 當涉及性騷擾的案件被起訴至法院時， 法庭如何實踐證據規則？ 而這會如何影響性騷擾倖存者的權利，又會如何影響用人單位的責任履行？ 講者基於2018-2020年涉及性騷擾訴求的裁判文書，並以性騷擾實施者提起的名譽權糾紛、性騷擾實施者訴用人單位的勞動糾紛為例，從舉證責任分配、民事訴訟的證明標準、法院採納的證據類型、證據的證明力等方面，分析了涉及性騷擾的司法裁判中可能出現的性別不公正及其原因。最後提出了他對立法、司法和實務領域防治性騷擾的建議，包括建議法律規定受害者可以向怠於履行防治職能的部門追責，進一步明確建立性騷擾防治系統的要求，呼籲涉性騷擾的民事訴訟回歸民事訴訟的證明標準-高度蓋然性原則，而非沿用現行的、類似刑事訴訟證據標準的更嚴苛標準-“毫不遲疑地確信”等等。在提問環節，講者和觀眾就民法典1010條的規定及其侷限、美國性騷擾案件的干預程序、影響性騷擾判決的社會文化因素、法律的實施效果等方面，進行了互動和討論。 Speaker: Darius Longarino , Research Scholar in Law, Senior Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School 講者：Darius Longarino (龍大瑞) ，耶魯大學法學院蔡中曾中國中心高級研究員 日期：2022年7月14日 視頻回放 (YouTube) PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載： #婦女 #性騷擾 #法院

Sexual Violence as Experienced by Foreign Domestic Workers in Hong Kong (反思香港外籍家庭傭工遭受的性暴力) An intersectional discussion on the hurdles faced by foreign domestic workers who are seeking redress against sexual violence in Hong Kong, in particular how race, employment status and socio-economic standing may prevent more from speaking out. Eni Lestari gave a comprehensive overview of the structural issues and social stigmas that underpins why sexual violence are so underreported within the Foreign Domestic Workers (FDW) community. 香港的外傭在尋求解決性暴力事件會面臨甚麼障礙？ 她們的種族、就業狀況和社會經濟地位又如何影響公義的彰顯？ Speakers: Eni Lestari, Chairperson, International Migrants Alliance [In Q&A Session] Evelyn Tsao, Partner, Patricia Ho & Associate 講者：Eni Lestari Andayani Adi, 國際移民聯盟主席, 具豐富國際及社區倡議經驗 [In Q&A Session]曹喬茵律師, Patricia Ho & Associates 合夥人, 公共利益律師 日期：2022年7月26日 視頻回放 (YouTube) https://youtu.be/0BBA1DBHcCA PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載： Webinar Reflection： Sexual Violence as Experienced by Foreign Domestic Workers in Hong Kong In April 2022, Hong Kong broadcaster TVB sparked outrage when they cast a local Chinese actress as a Filipina domestic worker in a TV series. A behind-the-scenes video featuring the actress saw her applying make-up to “tan” her complexion. Beyond the “brownface” controversy, the plot surrounding her character was also ladled with stereotypes that perpetuate biases towards the domestic worker community (award-winning Filipina actress Crisel Consunji turned down the role for this very reason). One wonders how much of local Hongkongers’ impression on domestic workers are inadvertently shaped by archaic media representation, and how many of those prejudices spilled over to a criminal justice context. As part of our Project’s “Access to Justice and Gender Equality Series”, we were recently treated to a tremendous intersectional discussion from Eni Lestari Andayani Adi and Evelyn Tsao, both prominent advocates for foreign domestic workers, on sexual violence experienced by this group. Legally mandated to stay under the same roof as their employers (the “live-in requirement”), they play an indispensable role in many Hong Kong households. However, it is also a community whose rights – and even something as basic as feelings – are often overlooked. It is impossible to approach this topic without delving into the systemic hindrances that made seeking help and justice against sexual abuse such a Sisyphean struggle for foreign domestic workers. Eni’s presentation highlighted several commonalities she observed from victim-survivors of sexual abuse in their community. Often newcomers to the city, their sole option is to turn to their agencies who are not only unlikely to act in their interests, but are actively exploiting them, too. It is commonplace for these agencies to charge them 6-months’ worth of salary as agency fee, and to confiscate important documents such as passports and marriage certificates until all agency fees were settled. Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, domestic workers are also repeatedly denied rest days or going out by their employers, effectively imprisoning them in their workplace. On top of all that, the 2-week immigration rule forces them to leave the city within 14 days upon termination of their employment contract. Their lack of agency and financial independence made them easy preys, and placed them in an unescapable situation. Filing a police report is not an easy choice either: most cases would not proceed to investigation and/or prosecution unless they can present hard evidence such as photographs or videos. For those who would like to sue for civil damages against sexual abuse, even though the standard of proof is lower (i.e. “on the balance of probabilities” as opposed to “beyond reasonable doubt”), certain sexual harassment behaviors are so pervasive that it is difficult to collect evidence for. Furthermore, to seek redress through the judicial system is to have their credibility vigorously questioned, their trauma relived, and to be at the mercy of a culture deeply mistrusting of the motives of a domestic helper brave enough to stand up for herself. The language barrier between the victim-survivor and the police and the court also renders the judicial process extremely tedious. Finally, when you only make HK$4,630 per month – the minimum allowable wage for foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong – how are you going to afford legal representation? While legal aid is available, they would also have to convince the Legal Aid Department that they have reasonable grounds to pursue the case. As Eni explained, when domestic workers weigh the loss of filing a case against the need to support their family, it seems biting their teeth and doing whatever it takes to survive in their abusive workplace can at least ensure their source of income. Both speakers were clear and specific with their recommendations for reform, such as abolishing the “live-in requirement”, allowing them to switch jobs freely, relaxing harsh immigration rules, blacklisting abusive employers and their family members and offering free mental health services; though it is difficult to imagine the current administration would prioritise any minority rights on their policy agenda. It is nevertheless encouraging to see that lawyers such as Evelyn who would take on these cases on a pro bono basis; and foreign domestic workers are seeking to empower themselves through community organising, as an admirable display of resilience and defiance. 反思香港外籍家庭傭工遭受的性暴力 數月前，香港電視廣播有限公司（TVB）的電視劇《金宵大廈2》內的菲籍家傭角色由本地華人演員黃婉華出演，引起選角爭議。事源同劇演員在社交媒體上載了一支幕後片段，可見黃婉華用化妝品「塗黑」膚色。除了「棕臉」爭議外，圍繞該家傭角色的情節也充滿了刻板印象，加重社會對家傭的成見（菲籍演員姬素·孔尚治亦因此拒絕出演）。究竟本地香港人對家傭的歧視，有多少是基於這些負面的媒體形象？又有多少偏見使得司法程序無法為她們彰顯公義？ 本次討論為平等權項目的「司法正義與性別平等」系列講座，有幸邀請到兩位具豐富倡議經驗的講者Eni Lestari Andayani Adi 和曹喬茵律師（Evelyn），深入探討香港家傭遭受性暴力的情況。香港法律規定家傭必須與僱主同住，因此她們在許多香港家庭中扮演著不可或缺的角色。然而，她們的權利甚或是基本情感，卻經常被忽視。 無庸置疑地，家傭性暴力問題的癥結絕對是制度性的。為何家傭尋求協助的時候舉步維艱？Eni就此提出了幾項重要的觀察：遭受性暴力的家傭通常都是初來乍到，缺乏朋友和社群的支援，所以有任何問題的時候也只能向中介公司求助，但中介絕少會以家傭利益為先。反之，他們也經常剝削家傭：中介公司習慣收取相當於六個月的工資作為佣金，更會沒收她們的護照和結婚證書等重要文件，直到付清債務為止。新冠肺炎肆虐期間，很多家傭亦表示僱主以防疫為由，不允許她們在休息日外出，與被囚禁在工作場所無異。希望離職的家傭也要反覆考量，因為入境處規定家傭在合約終止後十四天內必須離開香港。 欠缺自主和財務獨立使家傭成為施暴者的獵物，並置她們於無法逃離的處境。報警也並非容易的選擇：除非她們能夠提供確鑿證據（如照片或片段），大多數只依靠受害人證供的案件都不會受理，更遑論能夠進入司法程序。如果受害者循民事訴訟索取賠償，即使民事舉證標準較低（即「相對可能性的衡量」而不是「毫無合理疑點」），某些性騷擾的本質就是滲透在日常的行徑，以至於很難收集證據。此外，性暴力受害者在司法程序裡遭受「二次傷害」的情況屢見不鮮，而根深蒂固的歧視使得本地香港人對家傭尋求司法補救的動機深表懷疑。在法庭上，辯方就能夠利用這種被媒體大肆渲染的刻板印象多番質疑家傭的誠信。再者，報案人與警方和法庭之間的語言障礙使得每個司法程序都非常冗長。最後，香港家傭的每月最低工資為4,630 港元，她們又能如何負擔聘請律師的費用？雖然她們可以申請法律援助計劃，但法援署的審批仍然是基於申請人的申訴是否有依據。正如Eni所解釋，當她們權衡提起法律訴訟的損失與養家糊口的需要時，似乎吞聲忍氣、咬緊牙關、努力生存，至少可以確保有穩定的收入。 兩位講者就改革均提出了清晰而具體的建議，例如取消同住要求、允許家傭自由轉換工作、放寬嚴格的十四日離境要求、把虐待家傭的僱主及其家庭成員列入黑名單、提供免費心理健康服務等，但改善少數群體權利並非現屆政府的優先考慮。儘管如此，看到像Evelyn的公益律師不收分文地處理這類案件，還是令人鼓舞的。外傭群體透過社區組織提高維權意識，也是一種令人欽佩的抗爭方式。 #婦女 #外籍家庭傭工 #性暴力

Court Visit Report 18th May 2022 HKSAR v. MA WANG FAI VINCENT (馬宏輝) In HKSAR v. Ma Wang Fai Vincent (Case No.: DCCC 920/2021), the Defendant, a male staff at a childcare shelter, was charged with two counts of indecent assault. The victim, an Indian girl who was 9 years old at the time and identified anonymously as “X”, provided in her testimony that the Defendant had kissed her on the lips and touched her private parts, all without her consent. The Defendant denied the charges. In a rather dramatic turn of events, Lin J has advised the charges to be dropped on day 3 of the trial. Lin J reasoned as such: while X was able to provide a clear picture of what transpired during the examination-in-chief, she was extremely emotional during the cross-examination on day 2. Lin J believed that the defence counsel made the reasonable decision to end the questioning there; but without the opportunity for the defence to make their case, X’s testimony was insufficient to secure a conviction, considering that the standard of proof in criminal cases is one of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Lin J thus concluded that the sole option here is to drop the charges, though it was emphasized that this does not mean that X is untrustworthy or that the indecent assault did not happen. Lin J also made several comments to X throughout the trial commending her bravery. The Adversarial Nature of a Courtroom This case again highlights that courtrooms are very much not victim-friendly. The accusatorial nature of a cross-examination and the general aggressive mood of a courtroom forces victim-survivors to relive traumatic memories, and it is not so difficult to imagine why X in this case, now only still 12 years of age, became so distressed. Furthermore, if the victim-survivor giving evidence appears too calm, such demeanor might be challenged by the defence as too “rehearsed” or “fabricated”; if the victim appears too emotional, then the judge, such as the one in this case, actually finds it impossible to continue the court proceedings, resulting in a decision that allows the perpetrator to walk free. While the judge here has repeatedly assured X (and likely her father, too, when other journalists and members of the public were asked to leave the courtroom) that “she has been very brave”, it appears that there is a serious defect in the official avenue for justice that makes it almost impossible for sexual abuse victim-survivors to realistically partake in. The Defence’s Case During the trial, Lin J has repeatedly cut short the defence’s cross-examination of a representative from the childcare shelter, who served as the prosecution’s witness. However, the questioning nevertheless revealed that staff recorded instances of X and other girls at the shelter touching each other inappropriately, and would watch romance dramas on a laptop provided to her (though the witness does not believe these dramas contain any explicitly sexual content). The Defence also presented to X her own paintings with the words “I love Vincent uncle [the Defendant]” written on it, and accused her of having romantic feelings for the Defendant. This was especially concerning because one wonders how appropriate it is to paint a then 9-year-old child as a promiscuous figure, and whether it convincingly absolves the Defendant’s actions. It was also exactly this line of questioning, rife with gender-coded myths, that renders X so distressed to the point where it is no longer possible for her to continue. The Conundrum of Criminalizing of Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse is, by nature, often a private act and difficult to be corroborated by a third party, which makes it hard to reconcile with established rules in criminal law. In a case like this, when the price to pay in order to preserve a rigorous administration of justice is to let the perpetrator go free without any consequences whatsoever, advocates should ponder how the judicial system can make things easier for victim-survivors, but also look beyond to alternative avenues of justice. Further Reading: 1. “兒童暫托所職員否認非禮 9 歲印裔女童　女童稱事後覺得自己是「壞孩子」”, The Witness (16 May 2022) 2. “兒童暫托所職員涉非禮女童案　辯方稱女童曾畫畫示愛　女童哭泣指現已不喜歡”, The Witness (17 May 2022) 3. “涉非禮女童　兒童暫托所職員無罪釋放　官指事主作供激動　無法毫無疑點定罪”, The Witness (18 May 2022)

防治性騷擾的中國之路 (The Process of Preventing Sexual Harassment in China) 講座將討論1995年第四次婦女大會召開至今，中國內地防治性騷擾的學說發展、立法突破和司法推進。 中國社會科學院的法學教授薛寧蘭簡要介紹了中國內地學界、實務界針對性騷擾問題的幾項重要的調查研究，梳理了2005年至今，中國內地針對性騷擾防治的立法進展，通過相關判決書分析了近年來司法實踐的狀況。與在場觀眾就高校性騷擾防治機制、用人單位責任、相關法律普及等問題進行了問答和討論。 分享嘉賓：薛寧蘭 教授 中國社會科學院法學研究所性別與法律研究中心主任 中國法學會婚姻家庭法學研究會副會長 中國婦女研究會常務理事 日期：2022年6月16日 PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載： #性騷擾

Evidentialism and the Denial of Domestic Violence by Chinese Courts (證據主義與法院對家庭暴力的裁判) Abstract: How do courts dismiss domestic violence when the laws on the books have increasingly sided with women victims? How does judges’ adherence to a prohibitively high standard of proof present a challenge for abused women who seek help? Based on a close reading of over 400 judgments involving domestic violence claims, Professor Kwai Hang Ng will explain how a new juridical regime known as evidentialism has become the mechanism through which domestic violence is denied or trivialized in China today. Further, he will analyze what the turn to evidence means in the daily decision-making of the courts. (當法律對婦女權利的保護越來越完善時，法院如何處理與家庭暴力相關的訴求？ 法官對於證據標準的要求，會對尋求救濟的婦女帶來怎樣的影響？ 通過對400多份涉及家庭暴力司法判決的深入分析，吳貴亨教授將解釋「證據主義」如何成為中國法院處理涉及家庭暴力案件的機制，並在此基礎上討論「證據主義」對司法決策的影響。) Summary: The speaker is one of frontline scholars who study how Chinese courts’ decision-making, particularly how courts addressing cases involving domestic violence. He has discussed that courts adhere a high standard of evidential requirement that lead to the dismissal of most divorce cases involving domestic violence, due to judges’ consideration of “maintain family harmony and social stability”. He has also raised a question that legal advice is largely needed as it is difficult for plaintiff to present evidences. He has further responded to how courts issue protection order under Anti-Domestic Violence Law, and the reason why getting divorce in courtrooms is hard, and how training to judges can influence the courts’ decision of such cases. Speaker: Kwai Hang NG, Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego. His monograph Embedded Courts: Judicial Decision-Making in China (co-authored with HE Xin, published by Cambridge University Press in 2017) has received the 2018 Distinguished Book Award of Asian Law and Society Association. (講者：吳貴亨 ， 加州大學聖地牙哥分校社會學系教授， 與賀欣教授（香港大學法律學院）合著出版的 《嵌入式法院：司法決定在中國》 （Embedded Courts: Judicial Decision-Making in China） 曾榮獲“亞洲法律與社會協會最佳著作獎”) 日期：2022年6月10日 視頻回放 (YouTube) 00:27 Divorce in China 05:56 Domestic Violence 06:36 Does courts follow the law? 09:55 Studying Courts' Decisions 16:40 "Evidentialism" 17:58 Example 1 20:29 Example 2 22:43 Example 3 28:03 Evidential fact v. Constitutional fact 31:35 Standards v. Rules PowerPoint (簡報 / 幻燈片) 下載： Research Paper (研究論文) 下載： Ng, Hwai Hang, "Evidentialism and the Denial of Domestic Violence by Chinese Courts," The China Journal, Vol. 87. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4026715 #婦女 #反家暴 #法院 #證據主義

家庭暴力強制報告制度的司法實踐 The Judicial Practice of Domestic Violence Mandatory Reporting System 強制報告制度是《反家庭暴力法》中新增立的制止家暴主要措施之一，它規定了學校、醫療機構、居委會等相關單位及個人發現家暴有責任和義務向公安機關報案，重在保護無民事行為能力人和限制民事行為能力人。《反家庭暴力法》實施六年以來，強制報告制度的執行狀況如何？有哪些成功經驗？在實踐中落實的困難和挑戰為何？湖南省的反家暴工作湧現出很多領先的經驗和成功作法，本次講座將邀請湖南省家庭暴力危機干預中心特約維權律師萬薇分享她的經驗和觀察。 講座內容分為三個部分：反家暴法規定的相關預防和干預措施及其在實踐中的運用情況，包括人身安全保護令、告誡書、強制報告制度；兩個兒童受家暴案例的分析；負有反家暴職責的工作人員的意識問題。 講者：萬薇（湖南省律師協會婚姻家庭專業委員會主任、湖南省家庭暴力危機干預中心特約維權律師，自2015年成為婚姻家事律師以來，她介入了100多起家暴案件，為不少遭受家暴的婦女和兒童提供了法律幫助。） 日期：2022年5月27日 視頻回放 (YouTube) 00:46反家庭暴力法的相關制度 19:07 典型案例分析 1:22:48 反家暴工作人員的意識提升 #婦女 #反家暴 #司法實踐