Latest patch-up to anti-discrimination
laws is just the beginning of much-needed change
Amid
all the rumpus around the national security law in Hong Kong, a refreshing yet
little-known consensus emerged at the Legislative Council recently: on 11 June the
Discrimination Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 was passed with
a unanimous vote, followed by the Government’s gazettal of the Discrimination Legislation
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2020 on 19 June.
A
rare show of solidarity? Perhaps, and it’s a much-needed one: the passage of
the bill came four years after the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) made 73
recommendations in a 2016 report to the Government that sought to strengthen
and modernise the city’s anti-discrimination laws, namely the Sex
Discrimination Ordinance (SDO), Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO),
Family Status Discrimination Ordinance (FSDO) and Race Discrimination Ordinance
(RDO).
The
freshly gazetted ordinance took forward eight of the EOC’s recommendations – a
modest step and one that is in the right direction of patching up a legal
regime that has proven inadequate to address some of the latest trends of
discrimination and harassment.
For
one thing, the SDO has been amended to expressly prohibit discrimination against
breastfeeding women in key domains of public life, including employment,
education, provision of goods, services and facilities, and the exercise of
Government functions and powers, among others.
Such
discrimination can occur directly or indirectly. Imagine a woman returning to
work after taking maternity leave. She tells her supervisor that she will have
to spend an hour at the office every day expressing milk – which, under the
amended SDO, falls within the definition of breastfeeding – and promises to finish
her work before leaving the office.
She
delivers that promise, only to find out at the end of the year that all
employees have been awarded bonuses, except herself. The supervisor indicates that
the decision was due to the fact that she has been expressing milk at work. As
she has been treated less favourably on the ground of breastfeeding, this is
likely to amount to direct discrimination.
Indirect
discrimination, on the other hand, arises when a requirement or condition,
without any justifiable reason, is applied to everyone and, in practice, leads
to the detriment of breastfeeding women because they are less likely to be able
to comply than others.
An
example: a shopping centre keeps its babycare room locked, and requires anyone who
wants to use the facility to obtain the key from the management office, which
is a long distance away. Although the requirement applies to every visitor,
women who wish to breastfeed or express milk are more likely to use the room
than their non-breastfeeding counterparts. Therefore, it is likely to have a
disproportionate and detrimental effect on breastfeeding women and, in the
absence of a justifiable reason, may constitute unlawful indirect
discrimination.
Another
major legislative change involves amendments to the SDO, DDO and RDO to provide
for protection from sexual, racial and disability harassment in “common
workplaces”, even in cases where there is no employment or other similar work
relationship.
The
legalese can sound baffling, but the implications are significant and far-reaching.
From promoters at supermarkets to interns at MNCs to volunteers at an NGO’s
hotline centre, they will be able to lodge a complaint with the EOC or file a
civil lawsuit if they have been sexually harassed, or harassed on account of
their race or disability, by a fellow “workplace participant”, defined by the
law to include employers, employees, interns, volunteers, partners in a firm,
as well as contract workers, commission agents and their principals.
What
is more, according to the new provisions, persons who engaged interns or
volunteers will be held liable for any act of sexual, racial or disability
harassment committed by an intern or volunteer in the course of the relevant
internship or volunteer work, even when they had not been aware, or approved,
of it, unless they can prove that
they have taken “reasonably practicable steps” to prevent the transgression.
Preventive measures may include formulating a written anti-harassment policy
that includes a zero tolerance statement, communicating the policy to all
workplace participants, and providing training.
The
EOC will soon release a guidance note explaining the above and other
legislative amendments which include, among others, providing protection for
service providers from racial and disability harassment by customers, including
cases that take place overseas but on a Hong Kong-registered aircraft or ship; outlawing
racial discrimination and harassment “by imputation”, where a person is
believed or perceived to be of a particular race when they are not, in fact, of
that race; and providing protection for members and prospective members of clubs
from sexual and disability harassment by the management of the clubs.
Again,
I am heartened to see that despite all the cynicism and tribalism that seem to
have paralysed the city, lawmakers across the aisle have come together to stand
behind a genuinely good cause, offering stronger legal safeguards for the fundamental
rights of vulnerable communities and society at large.
But
this is only the beginning of much-needed change – the report
we submitted to the Government back in 2016 prioritised as many as 27 recommendations,
19 of which have yet to be adopted. While the EOC cannot make laws – we are not
a legislative body, after all – we will continue to lobby our stakeholders, work
closely with the legislature and the Government, and strive for progress that
defines what Hong Kong should be: diverse, inclusive, and free from injustices.
Ricky
CHU Man-kin
Chairperson,
Equal Opportunities Commission
(Note:
A version of this article was published by Hong
Kong Free Press on 17 July 2020.)