January 31st, 2012
Judicial review on IDAHO police ban – Chinese media coverage (30/1/2012)
The headline reads, “Tongzhi applies for judicial review; police suppress [freedom of] assembly”. The report quotes Legislator Ronny Tong saying that the police could have abused the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance.
同志申覆核警打壓集會 (Sing Tao Daily, 30/1/2012)
警方被指去年接二連三利用《公眾娛樂場所條例》「打壓」示威及集會，以舉辦團體未申請娛樂牌照為由，逼使活動「腰斬」，受影響團體包括去年五月在銅鑼灣行人專用區以跳舞表達反歧視信息的同志團體。有集會人士首次透過司法覆核挑戰警方執法方針，指集會期間加插舞蹈不算「公眾娛樂」。高等法院將於下月七日開庭審理是否受理其申請。
案件申請人為二十歲男同性戀者T先生，他獲法庭批准將身分保密。去年五月十五日，他參加同志組織主辦的「國際不再恐同日」，在搭建的舞台下欣賞台上示威者以不同形式表達反歧視同性戀者的信息，其中一節為原定二十分鐘的舞蹈，但舞蹈開始五至十分鐘後，警方突指主辦單位沒有申請娛樂牌照，要求立即終止舞蹈，負責人被逼照辦，現場噓聲四起，雖然餘下活動可以繼續，但現場氣氛變得了無生氣。
T的代表律師韋智達批評警方的行動濫權。T爭拗條例中的「娛樂」、「公眾娛樂」及「公眾娛樂場所」，認為應該給予狹義解釋，根據牛津字典，「entertain」意思是「to interest and amuse some body in order to please them」(令人引起興趣、歡樂及感到高興)，但當日跳舞之目的並非要令人感到歡樂。
指濫用公眾娛樂場所條例
此外，T指條例將「公眾娛樂」定義為「讓公眾入場的任何娛樂，而不論是否收取入場費」，銅鑼灣行人專用區是任何公眾人士皆可經過及停留的地方，毋須「入場」。T認為警方的行動不合法，違反《基本法》及《人權法》賦予香港巿民的言論及集會自由。
《公眾娛樂場所條例》於一九一九年制定，香港大學法律專業學系助理教授張達明表示，條例草擬時之目的，絕對不是用作針對遊行示威，法庭在詮釋條例時，應該尊重示威自由。資深大律師湯家驊亦指出，集會自由是《基本法》所保障的權利，《公眾娛樂場所條例》的立法原意是確保娛樂場所的走火通道及消防安全，若以此來限制公眾表達自由，在憲法上有值得爭拗之處。
另外，前年警方連同食環署以同樣「招數」，票控支聯會常委李耀基，在銅鑼灣時代廣場外擺放新民主女神像及六四浮雕，是無牌展覽，李於去年中被裁定罪成罰款二千元，他已提出上訴。記者彭嘉賢
Judicial review on IDAHO police ban – Chinese media coverage
Singtao Daily (30/1/2012)
Tongzhi applies for Judicial Review; Police suppresses [freedom of] Assembly
read more »
January 3rd, 2012
Police “Accomodate” Transgendered Officers, Apple Daily Reports (2012/01/03)
Apple Daily reported on Jan 3 in its front page story that the Police Force had made “accomodations” to at least one of the “5 to 6″ transgendered staff, such as creating a seperate changing room in the police station and assigning tasks that did not involve searching bodies, despite resentments among some of her colleagues. She is expected to continue her service in the police force after sex reassignment surgery. In 2006, a transsexual woman attempted suicide in a police station as a result of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, such as assigning her to a postion that barred her from meeting the public and prohibiting her from using the female toilet.
等待變性 雄警出更 短裙落更 (Apple Daily – front page story, 2012/01/03)
【本報訊】氣溫只有攝氏12度的早上，寒風凜凜，熱褲長靴、毛毛手袋、毛耳罩、長髮披肩的阿 (name suppressed)，一身打扮盡顯媚態；冒着寒風急急步入警署，換上警服、束起馬尾的「她」，舉手投足又展現出英姿颯颯的另一面。這名牛頭角分區警署的「大紅人」，變裝前後判若兩人，正排期進行變性手術的他卻未獲部份同僚體諒，反惹來爭議，直言對他無所適從，「男警不能當他是男，女警不能當他是女，大家也怕他」。記者: 黃學潤、馮樂琳
入職警隊近10年，男子漢阿 (name suppressed) 原名阿 (name suppressed) ，以女性打扮現身已多年，眉清目秀的他男生女相，作女性打扮時樣貌清秀，以男警現身時則相貌俊朗。
警署雜物房闢作更衣室
約四年前，阿(name suppressed) 調往牛頭角警署巡邏小隊，據悉他接受心理評估至今六年，但由於未進行變性手術，至今仍為男警。據知，該區高層得知阿 (name suppressed) 的「光臨」已預先在警署內改動更衣室，在男更衣室的樓層為他另闢雜物房作專用更衣室。上級又曾向警署職員作「心理輔導」，預告「特別人物」的出現，希望同僚不要投以奇異眼光。
不過，做法似乎未足以改變所有人的想法，有駐守牛頭角警署的警員向本報表示，部份同僚對阿 (name suppressed) 無所適從，對他產生恐懼，對於其外表儀容，有警員說不能接受，認為阿 (name suppressed) 化妝、穿制服外出工作「令人作嘔」，該警員說最不滿上級未有加以管制阿 (name suppressed) 儀容，形容為「警隊之恥」。
不過，有阿 (name suppressed) 的友人透露，警署內對阿 (name suppressed) 感不滿的人其實不多，反而不乏支持者，不論是男警或女警，大家不時有交談及外出玩樂。據了解，由於阿 (name suppressed) 在警隊屬特殊個案，警隊內部為免被指歧視，均未敢對阿 (name suppressed) 多加要求。
(This section is deleted due to paparazzi-style reporting.)
警方發言人表示，因涉及個人私穩，故未能回應個別警員的資料，而警員日常工作會因應警區的行動需要由上級作出安排，並只可以執行同性別的搜身工作。
歧視目光 全港有六名變性警員 (Apple Daily, 2012/01/03)
06年中，駐守新界北警區、化名Fion的「男變女」變性警員，先後向報章和平等機會委員會投訴，指變性手術後屢遭同僚歧視排擠，例如警告她不能入女廁，甚至被嘲諷「怪物」、「畸形人」等，她又投訴上司刻意安排她獨自工作，避免她與公眾或同僚接觸，她一度在警署內企圖自殺，遭同僚阻止。時任警務處長李明逵承認，警隊內有少數變性警員。據了解，警隊目前約有五至六名變性警員，其中一人在重案組工作。
一句「人妖」已成傷害
對於警隊內有變性警員，香港警務督察協會主席曾昭科說未有特別抗拒或歡迎，但他認為難免有同僚覺得尷尬或不自在，例如是更衣時候，故警署都安排專用更衣室供變性警用。他認為，現時警隊內的變性警員人數極少，可以「特事特辦」處理。
香港警察隊員佐級協會主席黃程認為，上級在工作安排上最重要是公平，亦應尊重個別警員的個人選擇，同僚亦應以平常心看待變性同僚。他又說，警員處於評估或變性過程中，不能以醫學或肉眼角度斷定其性別，故外表要求應可略為放寬，就算留長髮，只要不是太過份或影響他人，應可接受。
跨性別資源中心 (Transgender Resource Center) 主席Joanne說，跨性別人士變性前後常遭歧視，「人妖」、「扮女人」的言詞可能已造成傷害。她又說，有變性人見工過程順利，惟對方得知其原本為男性，即打退堂鼓，更有變性人幾乎被解僱，但她說同事間大多由最初不接受，慢慢改觀，持續冷嘲熱諷的情況少見。《蘋果》記者
December 21st, 2011
Police Face Challenge Over Rally Dance Halt (SCMP, 2011-12-17)
Police face challenge over rally dance halt (South China Morning Post, 2011-12-17)
Gay rights marcher says his and others’ human rights were breached when officers stopped protest performance at an anti-homophobia parade in May.
A 20-year-old man who took part in a gay rights march earlier this year has filed an application for a judicial review of police actions after he and others were stopped from dancing during the rally.
The rally was organised on Sunday, May 15, by Amnesty International and an alliance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups to mark International Day Against Homophobia on the following Tuesday.
The rally was held in a pedestrian area of Lockhart Road, Causeway Bay, and attended by Equal Opportunities Commission chairman Lam Woon-kwong, lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan and about 100 participants.
The plaintiff, identified only as T in court documents, has asked the High Court, through his solicitors, Vidler & Co, to rule that the police action was unlawful and a breach of his rights under the Basic Law. The Commissioner of Police has been named as the proposed respondent.
According to the documents, part of the rally involved dancing and artistic expression in which about 18 volunteers took part; they danced and chanted slogans to air their grievances. Police stopped the performance after five minutes because organisers had not obtained a licence under the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance.
T was told by a representative of one of the organisers that police had threatened to arrest them if the segment did not stop, the filing says.
T’s lawyer, Michael Vidler, said his client was launching the challenge to clarify the law regarding peaceful demonstration and to stop the police misusing obscure regulations to harass peaceful demonstrations.
“My client has launched this case to defend his rights, and those of all Hong Kong citizens, to freedom of expression and our right to peacefully demonstrate,” he said.
The event, he added, was a peaceful rally whose participants the police had tried to intimidate.
The filing also claims that, as a result of the police actions, the right of T and other participants to express their grievances about discrimination had been restricted.
T argues the segment in question was not entertainment, but an expression of the grievances suffered by members of the homosexual, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.
The performance was followed by a story-telling segment which police did not stop.
T said the rally’s location was not a place of public entertainment within the meaning of the ordinance.
Alternatively, he argues the ordinance breaches the right to freedom expression and freedom of assembly.
T is a volunteer at the Tongzhi Community Joint Meeting, one of the co-hosts of the rally, the court filing says. He became aware he was homosexual around 2003.
