Search

Between 2007 and 2009, the Legislative Council in Hong Kong had passed a series of amendments in relation to law controlling domestic violence. The two most controversial provisions include (1) introduction of court mandated counseling; and (2) extension of protection to Tongzhi1 couples. In ‘Politicizing Han Chinese Masculinities: A Plea for Court Mandated Counseling for Wife Abusers in Hong Kong’,2 and ‘Contextualizing the Same-sex Erotic Relationship: Post-colonial Tongzhi and Transgender Political Discourse on Hong Kong and PRC Law of Marriage’,3 I had argued that both court mandated counseling and legal recognition of Tongzhi couples have no inherent conflict with Han Chinese traditional culture and thus can work effectively in Hong Kong, a predominately Han Chinese society. However, two questions remain unanswered: (1) Is Han Chinese traditional culture still influential and relevant in 21st century Hong Kong society? (2) Can the 2008 -2009 amendments produce justice? In this article, I adopt the Deleuzean perspective on time / history and Rawlsian theory of justice in responding to the questions. Also, I will refer to the theory of ‘transcultural simularity’ when examining how the foreign theories can engage smoothly with Hong Kong legal culture. I also hope the following discussion can shed light on the future development of legal device controlling domestic violence in Mainland China. Let us start with discussing the details of amendments.

In Hong Kong, even though the Bill of Rights Ordinance (the localized version of ICCPR), Sex Discrimination Ordinance and a series of legal reforms (such as the cancellation of marital exemption of rape and the recognition of sexual discrimination in criminal law) were enacted and introduced respectively since the 1990s, gender/sexual discrimination in the legal discourse still persists; for example: Chinese customary law which only recognizes the male’s right to build small houses in the New Territories remains an exception under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance; the government insists on not tabling an anti‐sexual‐orientation discrimination bill; the right to same sex marriage/partnership is still absent from any legal‐political agenda; and so on. Some politicians and academics argue that any attempt to transplant a Euro‐American individual‐centric perspective of gender/sexual equality/justice will violate the Han‐Chinese culture of harmony. In the paper, I will adopt a critical perspective in ...

This chapter creates a triangular interactive framework of justice, desire and identity based on the philosophical perspectives of Žižek and Mahayana Buddhism. The recognition of the transsexual's marital right is the starting point of the Žižekian act within the machine of Hong Kong marriage law and gender politics - the fight for the right to marry is automatically initiated by and started at the margin of heterosexist patriarchal fantasy. Žižekian philosophy constructs a very strong challenge against Rawlsian theory on one hand, while on the other, proposes a reflective and constitutive paradigm of justice. The chapter argues that Mahayana Buddhism can be the effective platform where transplantation can happen, since there are enough commonalties between Žižekian theory and Mahayana Buddhism for transcultural simularity to take place. According to Mahayana Buddhist tradition, law and regulation can assist in starting and fulfilling āśraya-paravṛtt . Keywords: āśraya-paravṛtt ; Žižekian philosophy; heterosexist patriarchal fantasy; Mahayana Buddhism; Rawlsian justice; transsexual marriage