RIGHTS AND FEMINIST AND
QUEER CULTURE IN CHINA
中國女權及酷兒文化
LGBT Legal Dispute
LGBT法律案件
When an individual’s legal activity or personal freedom is restricted, it is often referred to as a right (quanyi) violation, such as when LGBT people are forced to undergo correctional treatment or when the filmmaker Fan Popo’s documentary about LGBT individuals and their parents is removed from the major video-hosting websites in China. The response can be taking legal actions to protect one’s rights. In the case of Fan, he successfully brought a lawsuit against the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT), exemplifying how he has “taken up legal weapons to protect one’s rights”. Some feminist and LGBT organizations are also concerned with the issue of defending one’s rights (weiquan), such as the China Women’s Film Festival, which focuses on the realities of defending the rights of women both inside and outside China, and the Queer Ties for Love, which is dedicated to advocating for the rights of sexual minorities and disadvantaged groups. LGBT individuals and groups also use legal means to defend their rights. Several representative cases are listed below.
當個人的合法行為或人身自由受到限制時，通常這便會構成「權益」 受到侵犯。例如，LGBT群體被迫接受矯正治療，或電影導演范坡坡拍攝關於LGBT子女及其父母的紀錄片被中國各大視頻網站下架刪除，應對的措施可以是採取法律行動來維護個人權益。范坡坡成功起訴了國家新聞出版廣電總局。他成了「拿起法律武器維護自己的權益」的例子。一些女權組織與LGBT組織也對「維權」問題有所關注，例如中國女性影展關注國內外女性所面對的現實維權問題。其中，奇緣一生LGBT工作室致力於為性少數人群和弱勢群體維權。LGBT團體和個人也會通過法律手段來維護權益。以下是幾個有代表性的案例。
The Case Against SAPPRFT
立案告廣電總局
Yanzi’s “First Homosexual Correction Case” in China
燕子的中國
「同性戀矯正第一案」
In 2017, the China Netcasting Services Association, a non-state institution overseen by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT), issued a new set of regulations, with which all major broadcasting and online media platforms in China were supposed to comply. One type of content that the rules deemed necessary to censor is homosexuality, which was listed as “abnormal sexual relationships and acts.” These new censorship measures prompted activists of the non-governmental LGBT Rights Advocacy China to mobilize people and take actions against the new rules. The activists cited the Regulation on the Disclosure of Government Information and demanded that SAPPRFT disclose the procedures for the development of the new regulations and the legal basis for including homosexuality in “abnormal sexual relationships”.[1] After an unsuccessful appeal for the decision, four people decided to sue SAPPRFT. One of the plaintiffs is Xiaowu (pseudonym). He remarked that the final ruling of the lawsuit was less important than raising awareness about this issue among people who are not gays or lesbians. He also wanted to encourage other gays and lesbians to fight for their rights (quanli).[2]
[1] Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information (promulgated by the State Council, Apr. 5, 2007, effective May 1, 2008) 2007 Order of the State Council No. 492 (revised 2019), translated in LawInfoChina (P.R.C.), last accessed May 28, 2019; and Lutian Liu, “A Lawsuit Not Expected to Be Won, and a Few Homosexuals Who Refuse to Be Stigmatized,” Haoqixin Ribao, January 9, 2018, http://www.ifuun.com/a201801108817084/.
[2] Liu, “A Lawsuit Not Expected to Be Won.”
在2017年，國家新聞出版廣電總局（SAPPRFT）監管的非國家結構「中國網絡空間安全協會」發佈新規定，將同性戀歸為「非正常的性關係、性行為」，並要求對其內容進行審查。中國各大廣播和網絡媒體平台都需要遵守。這些新的審查措施促使非政府同性戀權利組織的成員們鼓勵人們採取活動進行反對。行動者們採用《中華人民共和國政府信息公開條例》，要求廣電總局公開新規定的制定程序以及內容裏將同性戀列為「非正常的性關係、性行為」的法律依據。[3]在上訴無果之後，四位行動者決定起訴廣電總局。原告之一小吳（化名）稱，比起訴訟的最終裁決結果，更重要的是提高非同性戀者對這個問題的認識。他希望能夠鼓勵其他同性戀者為自己的權利而鬥爭。[4]
[3] 《中華人民共和國政府信息公開條例（2019年修訂版）》，2007年4月5日國務院令492號公佈，2008年5月1日生效，2019年4月3日國務院令711號修訂，「中華人民共和國中央人民政府」，http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2019-04/15/content_5382991.htm，瀏覽時間：2019年5月28日；
劉璐天，「一場沒打贏的官司，和幾個不想被污名化的同性戀者」，好奇心日報，2018年1月9日，http://www.ifuun.com/a201801108817084/.
[4] 劉璐天，「一場沒打贏的官司。」
In 2014, Yanzi (pseudonym) visited a counseling center in the city of Chongqing for a therapy aimed at changing his sexual orientation. After the conversion therapy, he found out that the license of the counseling center was fake. After complaining but to no avail, Yanzi decided to sue the counseling center he went to and the search engine giant Baidu for allowing advertisements of conversion therapies to appear on its website.[5] The Beijing court ruled in favor of Yanzi and stated that homosexuality is not a mental illness. For activists like Yanzi, litigation is an important means for them to claim their “lawful rights” (hefa quanyi).[6]
[5] Dan Levin, “Chinese Court Sides with Gay Man in ‘Conversion’ Suit,” New York Times, December 19, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/world/asia/chinese-court-sides-with-gay-man-against-clinic-that-tried-to-convert-him.html.
[6] Wei Ji, “Beijing Court Hears the First Case of a Homosexual Suing a Conversion Therapy Provider,” BBC News Chinese, July 31, 2014, https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/china/2014/07/140731_china_gay_therapy.
在2014年，燕子（化名）在重慶市一家心理咨詢中心接受了旨在改變性取向的治療，卻在扭轉治療後發現該咨詢中心的執照是偽造的。在投訴無果後，燕子決定起訴這家咨詢中心和搜索引擎百度(因為百度允許轉化療法的廣告出現在其網頁上)。[7]北京法院判決燕子勝訴，並聲明同性戀並不是精神疾病。對於像燕子這樣的維權人士而言，訴訟是他們爭取「合法權利」的重要手段。[8]
[7] Dan Levin, “Chinese Court Sides with Gay Man in ‘Conversion’ Suit,” New York Times, December 19, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/world/asia/chinese-court-sides-with-gay-man-against-clinic-that-tried-to-convert-him.html.
[8] 嵇偉，「北京法院審理首例同性戀狀告矯正治療案」 ，BBC News中文，2014年7月31日，https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/china/2014/07/140731_china_gay_therapy.
The case of Qiubai suing the Ministry of Education
秋白訴教育部案
In March 2015, a dozen university students in Guangzhou filed complaints to the government about textbooks published by Guangdong Higher Education Press that described homosexuality as a “mental disorder”. After the complaint was unsuccessful, Qiubai filed a lawsuit against the publisher, but the courts in the city of Guangzhou refused to hear the case.[9] In May 2015, Qiubai made a request to the Ministry of Education and SAPPRFT to disclose how they screened and approved textbooks used at universities. Since the Ministry of Education failed to respond to Qiubai within the time limit specified in the Regulations on Open Government Information, Qiubai sued the Ministry. This case caught the attention of both the domestic and international media. At a hearing in an intermediate people’s court in Beijing, Qiubai accepted the recommendation to withdraw the complaint and followed the instructions to pursue the complaint. In 2016, she sued the Ministry again for failing to address her complaints, and eventually she lost the case. Qiubai noted that the textbooks infringed gays’ and lesbians’ “right to reputation” (mingyu quan) and “right to receive an education” (shou jiaoyu quan), by which she meant the right to receive accurate knowledge. She also maintained that “the right to action/ litigate (susong quan) is a right (quanli) enjoyed by every citizen. It can create an equal opportunity for both parties to have a dialogue.” [10]
[9] Qiubai, “Qiubai Goes to Court: It Is the ‘Closet’ That Is Wrong, Not Me,” Initium Media, March 15, 2017, https://theinitium.com/article/20170315-mainland-qiubai/.
[10] Qiubai, “Qiubai Goes to Court.”
在2015年3月，廣州十幾名大學生向政府投訴廣東高等教育出版社，因其下出版的教科書將同性戀描述為「精神障礙」。投訴無果之後，秋白對出版社提出控告，但廣州市法院拒絕審理此案。[11]到了2015年5月，秋白向教育部和國家新聞出版廣電總局（SAPPRFT）要求披露篩選和批准大學使用教科書的過程。在未於限期內收到答覆後，秋白將教育部告上法庭，引起了國內外媒體的關注。在北京市中級人民法院的庭審中，秋白接受建議撤訴並按照指示進行申訴。秋白於2016年再次起訴教育部未受理投訴，最終敗訴。秋白認為，有關的教科書侵犯了同性戀者的名譽權和接受準確知識的受教育權，而「行動權/訴訟權是每個公民享有的權利，它可以為雙方創造一個平等對話的機會。」[12]
[11] 秋白，「秋白打官司：有問題的是「櫃子」，不是我」 端傳媒，2017年3月15日，https://theinitium.com/article/20170315-mainland-qiubai/.
[12] 秋白，「秋白打官司」 。