Human rights ordinances and student human rights ordinances enacted throughout the country explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While these ordinances hold significance as the legal mechanisms most closely related to the lives of local residents, their effectiveness has often been criticized due to the lack of institutional mechanisms, personnel, and budget allocation to realize their value. Moreover, the inclusion of explicit references to sexual minorities has made these ordinances a target for hate groups, as seen in the case of the risk of abolishing human rights ordinances in Chungcheongnam-do and Seoul.
English Translation: Juyeon
Translation review: 지니, 피웊
Writer of the original text: Miguel
Review and amendments to the original text: 레이
What is needed to overcome the everyday hatred and discrimination faced by marginalized groups, including queer people? There are several methods, but the first thing that comes to mind is likely laws and institutions. Laws and institutions serve as mechanisms to secure rights that have not been guaranteed and protect individuals from discrimination and hatred.
Among many institutions, ordinances are closely intertwined with the lives of residents. In South Korean society, efforts have been made to establish ordinances at regional levels throughout the country to protect sexual minorities, as much as enacting national laws like anti-discrimination laws. Human rights ordinances and student human rights ordinances are examples of this. For instance, the student human rights ordinance, including the youth and student human rights movement in South Korea, was established in various regions, starting with Gyeonggi-do in 2010, to protect students from multiple forms of abuse, infringement on personal freedom, and discrimination. This ordinance particularly specifies “the right to not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” which holds great significance for queer students.
However, in recent times, many local governments have been under the threat of abolishing such human rights ordinances. Particularly, hate groups that have strongly opposed the inclusion of clauses related to “sexual orientation and gender identity” since the ordinances’ inception are now actively leading the charge for their repeal, taking advantage of conservative governments coming to power in many regions. We will examine the debate surrounding the abolition of these ordinances, with a focus on hate against sexual minorities.
Chungcheongnam-do
In Chungcheongnam-do, the Human Rights Ordinance was first established in 2012. This was not unrelated to the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) to all local governments in 2012 to establish their own human rights ordinances. The local human rights ordinance explicitly states that each local government has a duty to ensure the human rights of its residents, allowing local governments to promptly intervene in human rights issues arising in their regions and to perform administrative tasks based on human rights. Following this, in 2020, the Chungcheongnam-do Student Human Rights Ordinance was also established.
However, both ordinances are currently facing the risk of being abolished. Conservative groups, primarily led by Christian organizations, have argued that the human rights ordinances infringe upon the rights of the majority of the people and, in particular, that the Student Human Rights Ordinance enforces a “leftist concept of human rights,” which interferes with “proper student guidance.” In March of this year, they collected signatures from residents and demanded the abolition of the ordinances at the Provincial Council. The Provincial Council had planned to submit the ordinance’s abolition to the provisional session, judging that a sufficient number of valid signatures had been collected. However, civic groups like “Crisis Chungnam Joint Action” filed a lawsuit with the court to suspend the effect of the attempted ordinance's abolition. In September, the Daejeon District Court cited this and, as a result, the ordinances were not immediately abolished. However, despite the ongoing legal dispute between the opposing sides regarding the ordinance’s legitimacy, the Chungcheongnam-do Provincial Council is expected to hold a meeting in November and push forward with the abolition of the ordinance.
In fact, the Chungcheongnam-do Human Rights Ordinance had already been abolished once in 2018 and then reinstated. At that time, the Provincial Council abolished the ordinance due to its support for homosexuality and Islam, but it was reinstated after a change in the majority party in the Provincial Council in the same year. However, as mentioned in an article by Lee Jinsuk, the representative of the Chungcheongnam-do Human Rights Education Activists Group “Butteul,” the political authorities in Chungcheongnam-do at the time were only interested in “establishing” the ordinance, and they showed little interest in what the content of the ordinance should be or its effectiveness. While the ordinance established human rights organizations and ombudsmen within Chungcheongnam-do to investigate human rights violations and issue recommendations for corrective actions, it lacked sufficient effectiveness and enforcement power to effectively address real cases of human rights violations. To prevent the ordinance from being abolished again, mechanisms needed to be put in place to ensure its effectiveness, and the content of the ordinance needed to be deeply integrated into the lives of the local residents, with the values and principles of human rights permeating the administration and the community. Without such measures, the human rights ordinance would remain more of a declaration. Ultimately, the ordinance was reinstated, but it faced challenges as it lacked a dedicated department for human rights administration and failed to establish its effectiveness. Lee Jinsook pointed out that the Chungcheongnam-do Human Rights Center did not secure its independence, and civil servant human rights education had been limited to a mere formality, with the human rights basic plan remaining unrealized.
The Student Human Rights Ordinance in Chungcheongnam-do was established in 2020 through the collective efforts of organizations like the “Chungcheongnam-do Youth Human Rights Together.” However, it faced similar challenges. In private schools, the provisions of the student human rights ordinance were frequently ignored, and student human rights education was conducted without substance. Even the students themselves had limited awareness of the existence of such an ordinance. This situation is even more concerning, particularly when considering the incident this year where Chungcheongnam-do libraries disposed of children’s books on the subjects of sex education and gender equality due to hate complaints. According to reports by The Kyunghyang Shinmun, conservative-leaning parent groups have been filing complaints at public libraries in the Chungcheongnam-do area since May this year, continuously demanding the disposal of books discussing diversity, adult content, and sexual minorities. As a result, several libraries disposed of books or restricted access to certain publications, with some officials, including Governor Kim Taeheum, expressing support for these actions.
Amidst this, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights expressed concern in January about the movement to abolish student human rights ordinances in Seoul and Chungcheongnam-do, emphasizing that these ordinances serve as essential safeguards for students on the frontlines of everyday life. They pointed out that if the human rights basic ordinances were abolished, the Chungcheongnam-do Provincial Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Center, and human rights protection officials who investigate human rights violations would no longer have a legal basis to operate. Despite their limitations, these mechanisms were already functioning based on the ordinances, and the abolition of the ordinances would be a measure that fails to protect the local residents.
Ordinances are the starting point for the institutionalization of human rights
Seoul
Similar efforts to abolish ordinances have been observed in Seoul. In 2011, Seoul became the third region in the country to establish a student human rights ordinance, following Gyeonggi Province and Gwangju Metropolitan City. What’s particularly significant is that Seoul was the first to establish such an ordinance through a form of citizen initiative. According to a paper published by Kim Yeonju and Tari Youngjung Na in “Memory & Vision” in 2013, although Gyeonggi Province was the first to establish a student human rights ordinance, the participation of the students, who were the primary subjects of the ordinance, was not guaranteed. To overcome these limitations and enhance the effectiveness of the ordinance, residents in Seoul actively participated in the establishment of the ordinance. Notably, many organizations, including student human rights groups, as well as LGBTQ+ rights organizations such as “Chingusai” and the “Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea,” actively participated in the process to create provisions that could ensure the rights of LGBTQ+ students. Provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity faced continuous challenges, and there were opinions suggesting the exclusion of these provisions when passing the ordinance. However, the ordinance was successfully established, providing protection for students, preventing punishments, and ensuring rights related to attire, assemblies, and sexuality.
This human rights ordinance holds particular significance among various student human rights ordinances in the country for being the first to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. In addition, in 2017, provisions prohibiting hate speech were added, making it a target of constant attacks, particularly by Christian organizations. In February 2023, the Seoul City Council received residents’ demands for the abolition of the student human rights ordinance, signaling a move towards amending the ordinance. According to the proposed amendments by the Seoul City Council, the provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity would be removed from the non-discrimination clause, along with the complete removal of the clauses regarding “freedom of conscience and religion” and “privacy.” While the process temporarily stalled due to internal conflicts within the council, the risk of abolishing the ordinance is still ongoing.
The significance of ordinances
As pointed out by Lee Jinsook, human rights ordinances have often been limited to a mere formality in their implementation, resulting in the inadequate realization of the values of minority rights, including queer rights. According to the book Queer Apocalypse: The Politics of Love and Hate, as of March 2020, there were 124 cases nationwide where ordinances were established, amended, or abolished, demonstrating that ordinances have not taken root effectively and have often been subject to change. As emphasized in an article written by Gonghyun, an activist from the Youth Human Rights Jieum, “If the superintendent does not show commitment to enforcing the student human rights ordinance, the message sent to schools is that they can easily disregard it, potentially even reducing students’ human rights.” This is because student human rights ordinances have “very weak enforcement, and even if a school violates a student’s rights as clearly stated in the ordinance, there may be no immediate punishment or mandatory corrective action.”
Nonetheless, the significance of ordinances can still be emphasized. As mentioned earlier, ordinances have the characteristic of complementing higher-level laws, such as the constitution and legislation, and are designed to closely impact the lives of residents. Furthermore, as pointed out by Kim Ol Teun in a 2023 paper in the Women’s Studies Review, ordinances are the starting point for the institutionalization of human rights. Ordinances serve as a platform for discussing how laws and regulations can be concretely established and realized, making them a pivotal starting point in the process of institutionalizing human rights.
English Translation: Juyeon
Translation review: 지니, 피웊
Writer of the original text: Miguel
Review and amendments to the original text: 레이
References (available in Korean)
コメント