- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,466
- 0
- 6
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance rejected a sex discrimination challenge to the prison dress code on Tuesday. Judge Russell Coleman held that male and female prisoners face incomparable circumstances that justify the difference in dress code.
In summer, the Hong Kong Prisoner Personal Provisions required male prisoners to wear shorts but forced female prisoners to wear long trousers. The judicial review challenged that this differential treatment is discriminatory under section 5 of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, and does not comply with the equality provisions under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Ruling against the challenge, Judge Coleman accepted that the differential treatment is a gender-specific approach adopted by the government to cater to women’s specific needs. The government provides expert evidence in suggesting that female prisoners have a larger expectation of privacy, are more self-aware of their own physical appearance, and are anxious about unwanted sexual attention. The government’s expert also testified that long trousers can resolve the issue of clothing-related self-esteem and better cater to the expressed preference for wearing trousers, as female prisoners tend to be more sensitive to cold temperatures.
As a result, Judge Coleman is not convinced that female prisoners face less favorable treatment under the dress code. For similar reasons, the court also rejected other grounds of appeal. The court opined that seeking authorization for special clothing is available if the clothing policies create warmth and health issues for individual prisoners.
The government welcomed the decision, stating that the ruling affirmed the government’s efforts in reviewing the clothing policies and remains committed to providing a secure and humane custodial environment. Nevertheless, Fernado Cheung, the spokesperson of Amnesty Hong Kong Overseas Section, said, “Denying female inmates the opportunity to wear shorts in extremely high temperatures during the summer is neither humane nor respectful of their inherent dignity.”
In 2020, the Court of Final Appeal held that requiring male prisoners to cut their hair short while allowing female prisoners to maintain long hair constituted sex discrimination against male prisoners. In response, however, the haircut requirement for male prisoners remains unchanged. To the contrary, the Correctional Services Department requires female prisoners to maintain their hair at armpit length.
Detained activist Chow Hang-tung challenged the clothing policy in September 2024. Previously in April 2025, Chow withdrew another judicial review against the department’s decision to withhold four books related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident. According to Chow, she withdrew the challenge because she considered the prospect slim after Chief Executive John Lee certified that the withholding is related to national security.
Chow has been detained since September 2021. Although the top court quashed her conviction for violating the national security data request in March 2025, she remains in detention pending trial on the charge of incitement to subvert state power under the 2020 National Security Law. The trial is set to begin on January 22, 2026.
The post Hong Kong court rejects sex discrimination claim against prison dress code appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
In summer, the Hong Kong Prisoner Personal Provisions required male prisoners to wear shorts but forced female prisoners to wear long trousers. The judicial review challenged that this differential treatment is discriminatory under section 5 of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, and does not comply with the equality provisions under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Ruling against the challenge, Judge Coleman accepted that the differential treatment is a gender-specific approach adopted by the government to cater to women’s specific needs. The government provides expert evidence in suggesting that female prisoners have a larger expectation of privacy, are more self-aware of their own physical appearance, and are anxious about unwanted sexual attention. The government’s expert also testified that long trousers can resolve the issue of clothing-related self-esteem and better cater to the expressed preference for wearing trousers, as female prisoners tend to be more sensitive to cold temperatures.
As a result, Judge Coleman is not convinced that female prisoners face less favorable treatment under the dress code. For similar reasons, the court also rejected other grounds of appeal. The court opined that seeking authorization for special clothing is available if the clothing policies create warmth and health issues for individual prisoners.
The government welcomed the decision, stating that the ruling affirmed the government’s efforts in reviewing the clothing policies and remains committed to providing a secure and humane custodial environment. Nevertheless, Fernado Cheung, the spokesperson of Amnesty Hong Kong Overseas Section, said, “Denying female inmates the opportunity to wear shorts in extremely high temperatures during the summer is neither humane nor respectful of their inherent dignity.”
In 2020, the Court of Final Appeal held that requiring male prisoners to cut their hair short while allowing female prisoners to maintain long hair constituted sex discrimination against male prisoners. In response, however, the haircut requirement for male prisoners remains unchanged. To the contrary, the Correctional Services Department requires female prisoners to maintain their hair at armpit length.
Detained activist Chow Hang-tung challenged the clothing policy in September 2024. Previously in April 2025, Chow withdrew another judicial review against the department’s decision to withhold four books related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident. According to Chow, she withdrew the challenge because she considered the prospect slim after Chief Executive John Lee certified that the withholding is related to national security.
Chow has been detained since September 2021. Although the top court quashed her conviction for violating the national security data request in March 2025, she remains in detention pending trial on the charge of incitement to subvert state power under the 2020 National Security Law. The trial is set to begin on January 22, 2026.
The post Hong Kong court rejects sex discrimination claim against prison dress code appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.