Bare chests safe after court rejects harass suit
A woman campaigning against men who flaunt their bare chests in public fought back tears yesterday after failing in a landmark court action to enforce a cover-up.
Cheng Yin-fong claimed topless men commit sexual harassment by shedding their shirts either while working at market stalls or playing sport.
But her court action was thrown out by the High Court Registrar, Judge Carlye Chu Fun-ling, yesterday after a 45-minute hearing behind closed doors.
Ms Cheng said she was angry that her legal challenge had been ruled groundless.
'My goal was to establish a legal precedent,' she said.
Her action targeted two workers at a newspaper stall and one at a food stall in On Ting Street, Tuen Mun. She alleged they sexually harassed her by going topless.
She also accused a property management office in the same area of allowing men to go bare-chested in the Siu Hon Court playground which it oversees.
Ms Cheng said yesterday that since she launched the action, semi-naked men had disappeared from her neighbourhood.
'The problem on my own estate seems to have been eradicated. But I am still angry because there is still a problem on other estates,' she said.
Ms Cheng said that during her car journey to the court yesterday she had seen two topless men in the street.
'This problem is still very, very serious in Hong Kong. I do not know when it will be totally eradicated,' she said.
Ms Cheng said she would lodge an appeal only if she were ordered to pay court costs. She was not aware of the registrar making any order.
If those targeted in her action had to contribute towards the costs, she would feel they had - in some way - been punished.
Ms Cheng said she had incurred considerable expense while preparing the case.
In her writ, Ms Cheng argued: 'Men sexually harass women by being half-naked. These situations are harmful to women. They degrade women.
'It will affect fair play between the two sexes and damage the two sexes' harmonious situation.' She was seeking $330,000 from the three defendants on the grounds that, by their actions, they had 'sexual designs on women'.
