LGBT rights in Hong Kong

A British woman (referred to as QT) sued the Immigration Department after it declined to recognise her UK civil partnership and refused to grant her a dependant visa. In February 2015, a judge agreed that the plaintiff had been discriminated against and moved the case forward to the Hong Kong High Court. The court heard the case on 14 May 2015.[18] After prolonged deliberation, it dismissed the case in March 2016. The woman appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed to hear the case on 15 and 16 June 2017. The appeal was led by prominent human rights barrister Dinah Rose QC.[19][20]

On 25 September 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's dismissal and ruled in favour of the woman, finding that her partner (who works in the city) should be granted a spousal visa. While the legal definition of marriage was not challenged in the appeal, chief judge Andrew Cheung wrote that "times have changed and an increasing number of people are no longer prepared to accept the status quo without critical thought". His Lordship added that the immigration department failed to justify the "indirect discrimination on account of sexual orientation that QT suffers" and that "excluding a foreign worker’s lawfully married (albeit same-sex) spouse or civil partner ... to join the worker is, quite obviously, counter-productive to attracting the worker to come to or remain in Hong Kong". The court ordered the woman and the Department of Immigration to work together on an agreement and submit it to the court within 28 days.[21][22]

The Immigration Department appealed the ruling to the Court of Final Appeal. The court handed down its ruling on 4 July 2018, finding in favour of the plaintiff and mandating immigration authorities to grant same-sex partners spousal visas that were previously only available only to heterosexual couples.[23] The panel of judges, led by Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, held that the "policy [of not granting a visa] is counterproductive and plainly not rationally connected to advancing [any] 'talent' aim" and rejected the immigration director's argument that civil union partnerships differed from marriage, saying it was based on a "shaky foundation [and]...hardly satisfactory".[23] The government stated it respected the court's ruling and would study it in detail.[23] The ruling became effective on 19 September 2018, when the Director of Immigration announced that it will favourably consider an application from a person who has entered into "a same-sex civil partnership, same-sex civil union, same-sex marriage, or opposite-sex civil partnership or opposite-sex civil union outside Hong Kong" for entry for residence as a dependant, if the person meets the normal immigration requirements.[24]

In 2014, Hong Kong immigration officer Angus Leung Chun-kwong married his same-sex partner, Scott Adams, in New Zealand. After the wedding, Leung attempted to update his marital status with the Civil Service Bureau, which states that officers' benefits can extend to their spouses. The Bureau, however, rejected Leung's attempts to extend these benefits to Adams, prompting a legal challenge. On 28 April 2017, the Hong Kong High Court ruled in Leung's favour. In his landmark ruling, Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming called the Bureau's policy "indirect discrimination" and rejected its claim that it had "to act in line with the prevailing marriage law of Hong Kong" and that extending benefits to Leung's spouse would "undermine the integrity of the institution of marriage". The ruling was supposed to take effect on 1 September 2017 and would have offered the same-sex partners of government employees who married overseas the same benefits as heterosexual couples.[25][26] In May, however, the Hong Kong Government appealed the ruling.[27] The Court of Appeal began examining the case in December 2017,[28] and ruled against the couple on 1 June 2018. The Court of Appeal ruled that there is "legitimate aim" to protect opposite-sex marriage, arguing that only straight couples should enjoy the "freedom of marriage" and that same-sex couples should have no marital rights whatsoever. The Court also stated that Leung and Adams could not pay taxes as a couple.[29] The couple appealed the decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The appeal was heard on 7 May 2019.[30] On 6 June 2019, the Court of Final Appeal reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeal, holding that both the Civil Service Bureau and the Inland Revenue Department had unlawfully discriminated against the couple.[31] The ruling became effective on 19 September 2018, when the Hong Kong government has amended its rule book to allow same-sex couples to file joint tax returns, a spokeswoman for the Inland Revenue Department confirmed the change, and said same-sex married couples could now submit joint tax assessment through the electronic filing system or in paper form. LGBT activists hailed the change for same-sex married couples but said it should also be extended to those in same-sex civil partnerships.[32][33]

In January 2019 the Hong Kong High Court agreed to hear two challenges to the city's refusal to recognise same-sex marriage. The two separate legal challenges were mounted by a 21-year-old University of Hong Kong student, known as TF, and a 31-year-old activist, known as STK, who argued that the inability of same-sex couples to get married violated their right to equality under the city's Bill of Rights and the Basic Law.[34] The judge in the case gave the applications license to be heard by the court, though suspended them to first hear another case involving a 29-year-old lesbian, who is seeking for a civil union partnership system to be implemented in Hong Kong.[34]

Neither same sex marriage nor civil partnerships registered inside or outside Hong Kong are recognised by the Law of Hong Kong. However, many Hong Kong residents are also a British National (Overseas). By virtue of the passage of Civil Partnership (Registration Abroad and Certificates) Order 2005 in the UK, all British nationals, including British Nationals (Overseas), are allowed to register civil partnerships with a limited number of British consulates or embassies abroad. Thus, LGBT Hong Kong couples, where one of the couple hold British national status, enjoy the right to register civil partnerships with British consulates in 22 countries.[35]

Arranging a civil partnership registration with a British consulate generally takes at least a month and must be done in person in the country where the consulate is located. Those whose British National (Overseas) passports have expired or who no longer hold a valid passport need to apply for a renewal before arranging a civil partnership registration with a British consulate.

The British Consulate-General in Hong Kong refrains from providing such a service to British nationals because UK law requires the Hong Kong government's objection to them to be respected.[36][37][38] Thus, British nationals are able to apply for a same-sex civil partnership ceremony with British consulates or embassies in the following 22 countries.[39]

In June 2018, arguing that her right to privacy and equality had been violated, amounting to a breach of the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, a Hong Kong lesbian woman known as "MK" sued the Hong Kong Government for denying her the right to enter into a civil partnership with her female partner. The High Court heard the case in a preliminary brief 30-minute chambers hearing in August 2018.[40][41][42] In April 2019, a judge rejected a bid by the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong and other conservative groups to join litigation and ruled that the court can not arbitrate on social or theological issues and works only on legal considerations, as the counsel for the Catholic Diocese claimed that the outcome of the court case could lead to 'reverse discrimination' and create a chilling effect on the church.

The case was heard on 28 and 29 May 2019.[43][44][45] During the hearings, Stewart Wong, a government lawyer, defended the existing law, saying: "Not all differences in treatment are unlawful. You are not supposed to treat unequal cases alike. To recognise an alternative form of same-sex relationships which we say is tantamount to [marriage] is to undermine the traditional institution of marriage and the family constituted by such a marriage". Arguing that civil union partnerships carry the same legal rights as a marriage, but generally do not include the ceremony and exchanges of wedding vows. That made marriage and civil unions effectively identical "in substance", the government lawyer said, explaining why the government had objected to both for same-sex couples.[46]

In October 2019, the Court of First Instance ruled against MK, upholding the existing marriage law and continuing to deny civil partnerships to same-sex couples.[47] Judge Anderson Chow wrote, "The evidence before the court is not, in my view, sufficiently strong or compelling to demonstrate that the changing or contemporary social needs and circumstances in Hong Kong are such as would require the word ‘marriage’ in Basic Law Article 37 to be read as including a marriage between two persons of the same sex,"[47] and that the government had no legal obligation to provide substitute arrangements to same-sex couples, such as civil unions or civil partnerships. He added that "Whether there should, or should not, be a legal framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships is quintessentially a matter for legislation,"[47] meaning that the issue was more suited for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong.

In November 2018, openly gay legislator Raymond Chan Chi-chuen proposed a motion to study civil unions for same-sex couples, but this was voted down by 27 to 24.[48]

On 4 March 2020, the Hong Kong government's policy of denying legally married same-sex couples the right to apply for public housing was declared unlawful and unconstitutional by the High Court.[49]

Since the 1990s, several Hong Kong films have had LGBT characters or themes in them. However, television programming has largely tended to avoid LGBT characters or themes, until recently.

In 2006, Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) broadcast a television film called Gay Lovers, which received criticism from social conservatives for "encouraging" people to become gay. In 2007, the Broadcasting Authority ruled that the RTHK-produced programme "Gay Lovers" was "unfair, partial and biased towards homosexuality, and having the effect of promoting the acceptance of homosexual marriage." On 5 May 2008 Justice Michael Hartmann overturned the ruling of the Broadcasting Authority that the programme's discussion on same sex marriage was deemed to have breached broadcasting guidelines for not including anti-gay views.[79]

As social attitudes have become more open and accepting in Hong Kong, more artists and prominent persons have become open about discussing their sexual orientation publicly.

Chet Lam (林一峰), a Hong Kong folk singer, came out to the public through an interview with The Advocate (UK).[80]

In April 2012, well known artist, Anthony Wong (黃耀明), came out as gay during one of his concert series, with fans giving him a very positive response.[81]

In September 2012, newly elected lawmaker Ray Chan Chi-chuen (陳志全), a former radio and TV host, revealed to Oriental Daily that he is gay, making him the first openly gay legislator in Greater China.[82] Local media coverage of his coming out as gay was largely positive.

On 10 Nov 2012, Denise Ho (何韻詩) announced her sexual orientation on stage at the "Dare to Love" event during the Hong Kong Pride Parade 2012. She called herself "tongzhi" (同志) a Chinese slang word for gay. She is the first mainstream female singer in Hong Kong to come out.[83]

Opinion polling shows a trend toward increasing public support of LGBT equality.

In a 2013 poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, 33.3% of respondents supported same-sex marriage for same-sex couples, with 43% being opposed.[84] Another poll conducted by the Liberal Party showed that 29% supported same-sex marriage while 59% were against it.[85]

A survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in 2014 showed that 27% supported same-sex marriage while 12% said that they somewhat agreed. At the same time, the same poll found out that 74% of the respondents agreed that same-sex couples should have the same or some rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.[86][87]

A 2017 University of Hong Kong poll found that 50.4% of respondents supported same-sex marriage.[88][89][90]

A 2019 CUHK survey found that 60% agreed and 12% disagreed that there should be increased anti-discrimination legal protections for people of different sexual orientations, an increase in support from 56% agree and 35% disagree in 2016. The survey found that 49% agreed and 23% disagreed that a homosexual should be able to marry their partner. However, when the question was framed in terms of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, 44% agreed and 27% disagreed. The survey also found that 54% would react negatively and 10% positively if a business openly opposes anti-discrimination laws.[91]

Following Taiwan's recognition of same-sex marriage, 49% viewed the development positively and 16% negatively.[91]

Younger people and non-religious people were more likely to support an anti-discrimination ordinance and same-sex marriage.[91]

A 2022 Public Opinion Research Institute poll commissioned by Pink Alliance found that among residents aged 18 to 40, 86% agreed that LGBTQ+ people should be treated fairly and should not be discriminated against, 75% supported same-sex marriage, and 63% supported anti-discrimination legislation.[92]

In May 2023, a survey showed that 60% of Hongkongers agreed with same-sex marriage.[93]

In a 2019 CUHK survey, 59% agreed and 9% disagreed that transgender people should be able to freely express their gender.[91]

On 15 November 2011, the Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists, as a licensing body of professional psychiatrists in Hong Kong, published an announcement stating that homosexuality is not an illness and there is no scientifically proven evidence to support the attempts to change one's sexual orientation.[94] Until February 2012, the announcement has not been uploaded onto the college's website or published in any professional journals; it is, however, available in electronic pdf format upon request. The Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists is the very first professional authority in Asia that explicitly and publicly opined their professional standing on issues regarding homosexuality and treatments altering one's sexual orientation.[95]

The Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists opines that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder...The Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists adheres firmly to the practice of scientifically proven and evidence-based treatment. Psychiatric treatments have to be provided according to well established principles and practice available at the time. There is, at present, no sound scientific and clinical evidence supporting the benefits of attempts to alter sexual orientation.

In light of the absence of practice guidelines for lesbians, gays, and bisexual individuals for psychologists in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Psychological Society, as both a learned society and a professional association, formed a work group in July 2011 to tackle the problem.[96] On 1 August 2012, the Society published a position paper titled, Position Paper for Psychologists Working with Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexual (LGB) Individuals. There are 11 major guidelines in this position paper:[97]

HKADCP's Code of Ethics ensures the HKADCP Registered Clinical Psychologists avoid discrimination in all forms and are sensitive to power differentials in dealing with current and former clients, employers, employees, and peers by striving to protect individuals who may be in a position of lower power. They are particularly sensitive to the needs of underprivileged and otherwise vulnerable individuals.

The Government, at all levels, is not allowed to have any unjustified differential treatments on ground of sexual orientation as a direct result of a series of high-profile court cases. Particularly, in Secretary for Justice v Yau Yuk Lung Zigo, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that one's sexual orientation is a protected status against discrimination under the provisions of Articles 25 and 39 of the Basic Law and Articles 1 and 22 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Because of this interpretation from the judiciary, the Government has the responsibility to actively ensure all its policies, decisions, and actions are free of sexual orientation discrimination. The Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance only bind the Government, its agencies, and its representatives, but not private companies. As such, the general notes section of civil service vacancies advertisements include the assertion: "As an Equal Opportunities Employer, the Government is committed to eliminating discrimination in employment. The vacancy advertised is open to all applicants meeting the basic entry requirement irrespective of their disability, sex, marital status, pregnancy, age, family status, sexual orientation and race." In addition, current government employees who feel discriminated against or suffer from unfair treatment because of their sexual orientation may seek legal advice and may file civil actions against the Government in court.

Since homosexuality is still a sensitive issue in Hong Kong, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the corporate sector is not unknown. LGBT employees are often victims of various levels of discrimination or harassment. Most companies do not include sexual orientation in their diversity and inclusion policies. And, with no legislation protecting LGBT employees, the situation remains unresolved. This is also true for multinational corporations. Although many US- or Europe-based companies in Hong Kong may have non-discrimination policies protecting their LGBT employees in their home countries, most do not adopt such practices in Hong Kong. Such a phenomenon makes many local employees and even expatriates vulnerable to discrimination.[98]

For many years, leading advocate groups such as Community Business, have worked to promote and advance the extension of non-discrimination policies in the corporate sector for LGBT minorities. Only a limited number of multinational companies have explicitly embraced such policies, namely Goldman Sachs and IBM.[99] Only a handful of local and China-based companies have extended non-discrimination protection to LGBT employees, including blue-chip stock companies.