Concerned about court's decision
Your editorial refers to the Court of Final Appeal's verdict that Hong Kong's marriage laws are unconstitutional, because they bar transsexuals from marrying. Before offending a majority or a minority, this legal decision offends human nature itself, a human nature shared by the majority and minorities.
I disagree with your editorial ("A step in the right direction", May 14).
It refers to the Court of Final Appeal's verdict that Hong Kong's marriage laws are unconstitutional, because they bar transsexuals from marrying.
Before offending a majority or a minority, this legal decision offends human nature itself, a human nature shared by the majority and minorities.
Reading your leader, I was reminded of Shimon Cowen's Politics and Universal Ethics that refers to a view of Murray Gleeson. For this former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, purported rights are anchored in values and a "right" is as good or as true as the value it represents.
You quote Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary as appealing to a "human right" ("Transsexual granted right to wed", May 14). He said, "What is involved is a constitutionally guaranteed human right. One of the functions - perhaps by far the most important one - of constitutionally guaranteed human rights is to protect minorities."
The question, however, is whether there is a right to marry where there is no capacity for procreation. To consider a transsexual's marriage a right implies "a radical change to the traditional concept of marriage", as dissenting judge Patrick Chan Siu-oi said.