3.
Today Members have before them three Bills proposed by the Hon. Anna Wu that seek to eliminate discrimination on a wide range of grounds. The Hon. Member has shown tremendous dedication to the cause of promoting equal opportunities. However, it should not be forgotten that the Government has been pursuing the same task over a number of years. In 1991, we enacted the Bill of Rights Ordinance which prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The Bill of Rights Ordinance binds the Government and public authorities. Since the enactment of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, a great many laws have been amended to remedy discriminatory provisions and we have actively promoted the values of equal opportunities. The Government-sponsored Sex Discrimination Ordinance was passed by this Council last month, and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance was passed earlier on in this sitting.
Why then is the Government not able to support the Hon. Member's three Equal Opportunities Bills? The answer is simple. The Bills have been prepared without the benefit of extensive public debate and have not been fully adapted to Hong Kong's particular needs and circumstances.
Discrimination is an issue which is closely associated with peoples' personal beliefs and education. It is understandable, therefore, that the argument and discussion can at times become emotional. But a responsible Government demands a more detached and rational approach to addressing issues. Our position has been set out clearly and calmly on numerous occasions: anti-discrimination legislation is a new area of law in Hong Kong, the social, economic and legal effects of which are not yet fully appreciated by the community as a whole. It is necessary to proceed with a step- by-step approach. It would simply not be prudent of us to proceed helter skelter down the legislative route.
Anti-discrimination legislation by its nature restricts individual choice. At one extreme there are clear cases where no reasonable person would object to restriction of choice in the name of anti-discrimination. Who would doubt, for example, that one should not discriminate in the provision of emergency services? At the other extreme, there are personal choices to which it would be absurd to apply anti-discrimination measures. For example, no reasonable person would suggest an anti-discrimination law governing one's choice of partner.
Page 50Page 51
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.