Hong Kong criticised for rejecting bill giving ‘bare minimum’ rights to same-sex couples | Hong Kong
Human Rights groups accused the Hong Kong government of not being able to provide “naked minimum” rights to couples of the same sex after rejecting a bill introduced to obey the upper court of the city.
The city’s Unicameral Legislative Council (Legco) rejected the bill with 71-14 votes after the second reading, and after the discussions between the defenders who said that the rivals said that they threatened family values in the city and that the government opposed most of the residents supporting homosexual relations.
The Draft Law, which will give limited rights to couples registered abroad, responded to the decision of the Final Court of Appeal. The turning point of the activist Jimmy Sham, the city’s laws defined the marriage of the city among a man and a woman, but the government had to create a “alternative framework ıyla that recognizes the“ fundamental rights of couples of the same gender.
The resulting proposal was criticized by the defenders who said that it was a “painful initiative” while giving as little bids as possible. On Wednesday, they criticized Legco’s rejection.
The advocacy group Hong Kong said that the equality of marriage, Veto, “sending a disturbing signal to both local and international communities – court decisions can be ignored and individuals’ dignity could be ignored, he said.
“We praise the government for taking the first steps to fulfill its constitutional obligation to implement the decision of the Final Court of Appeal to form a legal framework for the recognition of relations from the same gender.
“At the same time, we express our deep regret that deputies choose to ignore the open evidence and the sense of public opinion.”
International Amnesty International Nadia Rahman showed that the bill was “flawed ve and that it would provide“ naked minimum protection için for couples who have only recorded their relationships abroad, but refusing to reject a “worrying disdain for LGBTI rights”.
“This is a setback that shows how far Hong Kong should go before Hong Kong should go before you enjoy the equal rights in the city, Rah Rahman said.
“The entire community feels very disappointed, but I still want everyone to be hopeful because this is not the game,” Sham said after the vote.
Wednesday’s vote has been rejected by the Chinese government for the first time by Legco since the election revision, and it was designed to ensure that only the pro -Beijing “Patriots ın to manage Hong Kong and eliminate its opposition effectively.
Some legislators said that they voted against the bill because they would affect the foundations of uniform and heterosexual marriage in Hong Kong.
Holden Chow, a deputy of the city’s largest pro -party party, said that the passage of the bill will mean “a Pandora’s Box” and to destroy Hong Kong’s marriage system between a man and a woman ”.
Junius Ho, a lawyer who is known for his provocative views on the LGBTQ+ community, suggested that the government should never propose the bill and that the same sex couples would cause confusion on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day.
“Why are we still worried about imaginary troubles and do all these unusual things? To dive a whole society into turmoil for a small minority?”
Among the 14 people who voted in favor of the bill, Deputy Regina IP compared it to the necessity of “minimum expenditure”, given that the rights presented are limited.
Constitutional and Motherland Affairs Secretary Erick Tsang said that the government respected the decisions that the legislators have vetoed the bill, but that the local residents and their decisions were given on behalf of the mainstream view.
Meanwhile, Beijing officials said the decision proved that the decision was not Legco’s “tire stamp” parliament, and that critics have called since the election revision.
The questionnaire showed that the majority of people in Hong Kong supports relations from the same gender, and that the extensive lobbying of LGBTQ+ groups, and a number of harsh court cases, including some part -part rights, including those related to public housing, inheritance law and co -visas.
Nick Infinger, who had previously been successful in a LGBTQ+ Rights Legal Offer, said that he had several other places for the community to return.
“The judicial review would be the only way to fight for our rights… A little scolding”.
The final appeal court gave the government a two -year deadline that ended this month. In a statement, the government would not apply for an extension, but he would “discuss and examine the issue more with the Ministry of Justice,” he said.
Jason Tzu Kuan Lu’s additional research
