AIDS Rights in Taiwan!

Legal Human Rights
1

立法委員侯水盛等37人連署，於立法院本次會期提起「後天免疫缺乏症候群防治條例第六條之一及第十七條條文修正草案」，侯委員等37人建議刪除原條文第一項後段、第二項全文、以及第三項全文，亦即，原條文「感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重與保障，不得予以歧視，拒絕其就學、就醫、就業或與其他不公平之待遇。未經感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者同意，不得對其錄音、錄影或攝影。中央衛生主管機關對於感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者所從事之工作，為避免其傳染於人，得予必要之限制。」

對於侯水盛委員的提案，我們深感憤怒，發起連署與正式召開記者會之外，我們亦將前進立法院，向衛生環境與社會福利委員會各黨成員表達我們的訴求！

⊙時 間：2005年04月12日星期二 上午十時

⊙地 點：台北市城鄉會館（台北市西寧南路14 - 3號）

⊙主 持 人：愛滋感染者權益促進會 林宜慧

⊙出席貴賓：愛慈教育基金會執行長邱淑美、台灣愛之希望協會主任張瑞玲、台灣懷愛協會秘書李夢萍、台灣性別人權協會秘書長王蘋、同志諮詢熱線協會主任巫緒樑、婦女新知基金會教育推廣部主任林以加、日日春關懷互助協會鍾君竺、PDF南部發言人丁文、台灣人權促進會國際事務部主任莊紀婷、中華民國醫學生聯合會會長鍾孟軒、台灣性別平等教育協會秘書長賴友梅等

Hope you can join us!

2

There must be something wrong with my computer. There are strange symbols all over the screen.

3

I wish I translate it right. 36 DPP & TSU lawmakers(the leader of this proposal is a doctor, shamed) proposed to delete the laws which protect the privacy of HIV positive people.

The protest will be held in front of the legislature yuan, tomorrow 10 PM.
Even you couldn’t come, hope you could concern about this.

4

What a disgraceful proposal!

And this is the country that wants into the WHO? And tells us it’s a model of public health best practice.

How do they think this is going to promote testing and ‘health-seeking’ behaviour? Doesn’t anyone in Taiwan have a clue about public health practice, let alone human rights (Rhetorical question.)

:loco: :loco: :loco:

You can’t fight a virus with a big stick. If you could there might be some small utilitarian merit in this kind of thinking. But you can make things a lot worse by driving disease underground. On every count this is a bad and shameful proposal.

Does the mindless posturing of Taiwan politicians know no limit? (Another rhetorical one.) :s

And is this really how policy should be made? Is this the best Taiwan can do when it comes to making laws in difficult areas? (Rhetorical again.)

5

The above translation didn’t really capture a whole lot of the legislation and the proposed amendments. (Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer)

The section (s. 6(1)) that is being amended in Chinese:

感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重及保障，不得予以歧
視，拒絕其就學、就醫、就業或予其他不公平之待遇。
未經感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者同意，不得對其錄音、錄影或攝影。
中央衛生主管機關對感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者所從事之工作，為避免其傳
染於人，得予必要之限制。

Breaking it down. The amendment proposes striking out the latter section of the first part. So, 感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重及保障，不得予以歧視，拒絕其就學、就醫、就業或予其他不公平之待遇 becomes, as I understand it, 感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者之人格與合法權益應受尊重及保障.

The original first part of the sub-section in my rough estimation is:
The dignity and legal rights and benefits of people with AIDS are to be respected and protected, [they are] not to be discriminated against, refused schooling, medical services, employment or other unequal treatment.

The amendment would only read to the part about being protected and leave out the specific instances. The difference may or may not be important, depending on Taiwan’s judiciary is in interpreting what it looks to me as the declaratory aspect of the section. Without knowing more though, personally, I’m against this part of the amendment because while the declaratory aspect would appear to cover it, the specific instances of the discrimination make for easier identification.

未經感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者同意，不得對其錄音、錄影或攝影 is suppose to be removed entirely. The section on its own seems rather broad.

This part of the sub-section in English reads as: Cannot audio record, videotape or photograph (videotape and photograph may reverse positions in the Chinese!) people with AIDS without their consent. As it is, it seem rather broad as to who is covered by it and when is it applied? Can the media film a public protest from people with AIDS and they do not give the media their consent despite being in a public place? I can understand the reasoning in protecting privacy so that people with AIDS are not discriminated in the community if they are known, but the section as it is, is too broad and unclear.

If it is to be read with the main section where it deals with medical providers, where this sub-section applies to medical providers, who for whatever reason wish to engage in the above activities, then the amendment is a bad idea.

Finally,The last part of s.6(1) is also suppose to be removed entirely. This part of the translation I’m more unsure about as it seem to involve rather technical readings.

中央衛生主管機關對感染人類免疫缺乏病毒者所從事之工作，為避免其傳
染於人，得予必要之限制 appears to me as saying The Central Health Agency, regarding employment of people with AIDS, in order to prevent transmission to others, may of necessity impose restriction. This reads more like a government restriction that was imposed and being lifted with the amendment.

6

Let’s make it simpler. What’s their motivation to change the law?
Why do they want to take off the words “refused schooling, medical services, employment or other unequal treatment?”

If you notice, these lawmakers also have records to harm gay rights before. Why a coincidence?

We could just think, we’re not gay, we’re not hiv+, it has nothing to do with me! But what if you have hiv+ friends? I concern about the hiv+ society in Taiwan for a while. I know it happened a few times the schools “refusing” the students once they know they have hiv students.

Now, if we take off these words, the schools, the companies, and the government wouldn’t break any laws to fire the hiv+ students & employees!

I know hiv+ friends start to fear if they would lose what they have now. We’re not them, so we don’t care?

7

This is their proposal
lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lgmeetimage? … CAD2CDCBC8

Funny, look at the reasons why they want to change the law. For they want to protect the healthy ones.

8

There’s an article about this in the Taipei Times:

taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003250255

From the supposedly “liberal” DPP that advocated “human rights,” this is a disgrace. The only thing this will do is cause people to not go get tested for HIV out of fear of being ostracized, singled-out, outed, or whatever. As a result, the HIV/AIDS problem in Taiwan (which is already much larger than official figures show) will only continue to get worse … and very fast. The government’s handling of HIV/AIDS has been absolutely awful. Shame on the DPP!

9

[quote=“missingray”]This is their proposal
lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lgmeetimage? … CAD2CDCBC8

Funny, look at the reasons why they want to change the law. For they want to protect the healthy ones.[/quote]

Except your original reason for deriding the proposal was that they were doing away with the privacy of people with AIDS. That is a marked difference from the actual repugnant aspect of the amendment. If you actually read what I wrote, I noted that the first part of the amendment is in my opinion wrong. I’m merely pointing out your original burst of outrage ought to be redirected against the actual offensive part.

I do agree, however, with respect to the motivation, it is alarming and the legislators who sign on to this should be criticised for having such bigoted views.

[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]There’s an article about this in the Taipei Times:

taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003250255

From the supposedly “liberal” DPP that advocated “human rights,” this is a disgrace. The only thing this will do is cause people to not go get tested for HIV out of fear of being ostracized, singled-out, outed, or whatever. As a result, the HIV/AIDS problem in Taiwan (which is already much larger than official figures show) will only continue to get worse … and very fast. The government’s handling of HIV/AIDS has been absolutely awful. Shame on the DPP![/quote]

Liberalism means allowing difference of opinions, or, freedom generally. The word that you’re searching for is “progressive”. And here is where I launch my criticsim: Is there even a shred of evidence that suggest that DPP as a party support this? Has any of the brass come out and supported this; or is this merely a proposal that is going to be dead before it even sees the light of day on the legislature?

By your logic, the Liberal party of Canada is obviously “illiberal” even though it has recently try to pass the new legislation that allow people of the same sex to marry, but dozens of Liberal MPs actually voted for the opposition party’s proposal of keeping the “traditional” definition of marriage(themselve having defects as well). So which is it, is the Liberal party of Canada “illberal”, or, with the 4 Conservative MPs that voted with the Liberals on this issue, does that make the Conservative Party “liberal”?

Moreover, there is such a thing as division of powers. The legislators make the laws, they don

10

A letter from my friend who works at the AIDS Rights Organization:

愛滋感染者權益促進會 聲明
人權有保障 愛滋防治才能有效

11

But since they’re standing firm in staunch support of the nation’s vice president, they’ll probably be commended. What is it that she thinks again? AIDS is a punishment from god? And its brought to Taiwan by foreigners. Therefore foreigners are gods!

12

You forgot one, Sandman … she also thinks that people with HIV/AIDS should all be quarantined in an “AIDS village” or somesuch place … :unamused:

And she’s another supposed “progressive” (since we’re playing semantics games) politician who has fought all of her life for human rights causes.

13

Semantics is important because you were not using the right terminology. But none of you are addressing my point at all: what evidence do you have that the executive branch is supporting this amendment? The constant use of “DPP government” fails to distinguish the fact that these are legislators and not in any real position of power. I ask again, since many Liberal MPs supported the Conservative opposition’s “Traditional Marriage” counter proposal to the Liberal Party’s own Civil Marriage Act, does that some how make the entire Liberal Party; hell, does that make the entire Liberal Government of Canada (however corrupt it may be) “illiberal”? What about the Democrats in the U.S. who joined the Republicans in passing the new bankruptcy reform that favours the insurance companies, does that make the entire Democratic party “illberal”?

14

Okay! So far you’ve got a point.

But so has LittleBuddhaTW in pointing out that ‘Human Rights’ in Taiwan is often a matter of posturing rather than reality. The rights of unpopular minorities have not often been effectively improved under the DPP government.

The more general point is the amazing fact that a proposal such as this can garner any appreciable support from supposedly progressive legislators in a modern democracy. When this is the kind of idea that can be promoted by a significant number of the pan-Green camp, I scarcely begin to know where to begin any rational discussion.

The DPP is a full member of the Liberal International, along with, for example, the Liberal Democrats in the UK. But the quality of analysis, the commitment to principles and the manner of policy making of DPP legislators falls far short of what a modern democratic society should expect.

I expect little from the KMT. The founders of the DPP on the other hand, should have an awareness of what democracy, human rights and an open liberal society should look like… isn’t that what they fought for all those years? Or did they just want to be ‘king of the castle’?

You may think my expectations are too high. Maybe they are. Not everyone who suffers under an authoritarian regime turns out to be another Nelson Mandela.

15

[quote=“dreamer”]Okay! So far you’ve got a point.

But so has LittleBuddhaTW in pointing out that ‘Human Rights’ in Taiwan is often a matter of posturing rather than reality. The rights of unpopular minorities have not often been effectively improved under the DPP government.

The more general point is the amazing fact that a proposal such as this can garner any appreciable support from supposedly progressive legislators in a modern democracy. When this is the kind of idea that can be promoted by a significant number of the pan-Green camp, I scarcely begin to know where to begin any rational discussion.

The DPP is a full member of the Liberal International, along with, for example, the Liberal Democrats in the UK. But the quality of analysis, the commitment to principles and the manner of policy making of DPP legislators falls far short of what a modern democratic society should expect.

I expect little from the KMT. The founders of the DPP on the other hand, should have an awareness of what democracy, human rights and an open liberal society should look like… isn’t that what they fought for all those years? Or did they just want to be ‘king of the castle’?

You may think my expectations are too high. Maybe they are. Not everyone who suffers under an authoritarian regime turns out to be another Nelson Mandela.[/quote]

I agree that the quality of the legislators is a problem, but the very fact that they even have to conceal their idiotic comment behind lofty words or retract them when their intention are exposed shows that there is at least an awareness that is developing among the populace on these matters as to what is and what is not appropriate.

I do think, however, your expectations are too high in terms of expectating 200+ years of mode of legislative practice to emerge from barely 30 years of democratic experience. That is not to say that criticism(and there are many!) should be silenced. Rather, they should be addressed in a more substantive manner.

The main problem, and this goes to your analogy to Nelson Mandela. I don’t agree that South Africa is an useful example to how to shape and judge Taiwan’s politics. Mandela did not have to face a fractured society that is in the process of an identitiy formation(Apartheid have been discredited entirely and he has major backings from the rest of the world). His challenges were mainly economic. DPP’s challenge, however, is social and ideological. The conservative-progressive divide in most modern Western worlds are economic and social(which is the political cleavage that South Africa has), and on a rather shallow level at that. Taiwan, however, is fractured sociologically and ideologically as well in terms of identification. This makes political alignments along social and economic lines rather difficult because the ideological component is the main cleavage that drives the politics here. More importantly, it has to be because it concerns Taiwan’s survival as an independent state. Whatever concerns the political parties may have with respect to social or economic(I would argue that the only other real substantive divide is probably social in Taiwan as does not seem to be any socialist inclinations in the economic sphere, quite a strange thing really). Without the pan-blues, the pan-greens probably would fracture into different parties along the social and economic lines and that’s probably when you’ll see more along the lines of modern democratic politic.

16

[quote=“khlee”]
I agree that the quality of the legislators is a problem, but the very fact that they even have to conceal their idiotic comment behind lofty words or retract them when their intention are exposed shows that there is at least an awareness that is developing among the populace on these matters as to what is and what is not appropriate. [/quote]

That’s a good point. However, since the ostensible foundation of the DPPs mission is the democratisation of Taiwan society it is disappointing to see how little has actually changed in terms of the public discourse. This will ultimately damage both them and Taiwan will fail to achieve the social cohesion it needs to survive being swallowed up by China.

[quote=“khlee”]
The main problem, and this goes to your analogy to Nelson Mandela. I don’t agree that South Africa is an useful example to how to shape and judge Taiwan’s politics. Mandela did not have to face a fractured society that is in the process of an identitiy formation[/quote]

Of course all analogies are partial. But South Africa’s problems can scarcely have been less in terms of ethnic division than Taiwan’s. There are other societies which can perhaps be better compared with Taiwan in terms of (sub-)ethnic division: Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Cyprus, Belgium, Netherlands. Of those societies the ones which have developed a mechanism for protecting minorities as well as majorities and strong anti-discrimination and human rights protections even for unpopular minorities are the ones that have done best or which show hopes of doing best. Admittedly this all takes time. My criticism is that I see the DPP pandering to the basest instincts of their Green constituency rather than encouraging the best ones.

Absolutely, and that’s why - although I am sympathetic to the pan-Greens story - I am pan-Purple in my outlook myself. The economic and political elites of Taiwan - both Blue and Green - have abused this country shamefully, as far as I am concerned, and continue to do so. Yet the development of strong social cohesion based on human and social rights is the only thing that can make Taiwan undigestible to the Chinese monster.

It is obvious that a consensus on identity issues is not going to emerge for a few generations yet. So maybe it makes good political sense to try and build a social consensus around having a fair society for all that respects the rule of law and human rights in the broadest sense.

We have got off topic a bit, I think… my point is that many pan-Green politicians don’t seem to know how not to scapegoat the most vulnerable and voiceless members of this society for short-term populist advantage - wheter it is newly arrived brides, foreign labour or people with HIV. (Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour is not an isolated example. It is a consistent habit for the DPP and their allies.) We have a word for when those in stronger positions pick on people who are vulnerable and who can’t (for whatever reason) effectively fight back… that word is ‘bullying’. The kind of thing we have seen from some pan-Green politicians is worthy only of neo-fascists in motivation. If the DPP and TSU had any guts they would have those members out on their arses in a flash! But they won’t!

And don’t forget that under the DPP it still remains effectively impossible for any non-citizen to get HIV treatment here even if he or she catches the virus here. So far from it, they will be deported within days. Despite the laws saying that foreigners who get HIV here will be treated the same as Taiwanese, the standard of proof remains undefined and no one has ever avoided being deported. So the smug human rights posturing of the DPP does not impress me.

17

At least, Nelson Mandela is highly respected. His son Makgatho Mandela makes public the cause of his death and challenges the taboo surrounding HIV/Aids in Africa.

18

Political parties in Taiwan tend to keep a tighter rein on their members than do political parties in some Western countries. Hence, when you have such a large number of DPP legislators (was it 39, I think?), and based on the reports from the Chinese media re: Annette “Hunchback” Lu, I think it’s a safe bet to say that this has the “tacit approval” of the DPP … perhaps something to appease the more conservative “locals” who are not as “progressive” as the more educated leadership. With that said, Chen Shui-bian has voiced support for things such as gay marriage, but not long after it was mentioned as a part of his human rights platform, it quickly disappeared from the radar screen. Who knows?

19

As a matter of interest – and this is a genuine question – can anyone think of a significant improvement that the DPP have made to the human rights situation in this country since they got power, where:

[ul]They have implemented the policy instead of merely ‘flying a flag for it’ and
The policy wasn’t anything to do with the China/Taiwan issue and
The change primarily procected a potentially or actually unpopular minority and wasn’t just a matter of grandstanding?[/ul]

In short… have they ever stood up for something just because it was the right thing to do?

20

Do any political parties anywhere do anything because it’s “just the right thing to do?” I think there are very few examples of this …

The DPP has done a lot for the Hakka and Aborigine minority groups. Whether or not they did it to court votes is another matter. Unfortunately, Annette Lu’s call for the Aborigines to all move to Central America was not a very bright or “progressive” thing to say … but then again, she puts her foot in her mouth almost every other day.

If Chen Shui-bian had followed through with the gay marriage thing, that would have been a big improvement, and I think it would have been done just because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t think he would have gotten a whole lot of new votes for that one. But, alas, it’s totally disappeared from his plans for “human rights reform.” Ma Ying-jeou seems to be a supporter though, so maybe in another 3 years or so.