[Statement] We criticize the South Korean Ministry of Justice, which has lost its
                  ability to make reasonable judgment!
                  The Ministry must legislate a proper Anti-Discrimination Act instead of
                  a Pro-Discrimination Act!

November 23, 2007

The South Korean Ministry of Justice has provided the following as the reasons for its deletion of seven protected categories from the Anti-Discrimination Bill. First, the controversy surrounding the category 'sexual orientation' has led to the deletion. Second, the twenty original protected categories have been judged to be too numerous and therefore have been reduced to stipulate representative grounds of discrimination. Third, these representative grounds of discrimination have been determined based on international human rights conventions, examples of similar legislation abroad, and discrimination-related South Korean laws.

However, such answers from the Ministry clearly reveal not only the serious lack of reasonableness from the act of deletion but also the practice of discrimination against specific categories or grounds. We ask once more. Why has the Ministry deleted the seven categories? Why would it have deleted these categories if not to accommodate and to collude with the views of groups that advocate de facto discrimination based on categories including sexual orientation and educational background? We do not wish to hear that the seven deleted categories including sexual orientation may be covered by the 'and other reasons [for discrimination]' clause. What we wish to know is why categories included in the original draft, whose legislation was officially announced on October 2, have been deleted in only a month!

First, the Ministry has changed the Anti-Discrimination Bill according to the wish of groups that hate and denigrate sexual minorities!

The Ministry's explanation that its last-minute revision of the Anti-Discrimination Bill stems from controversy surrounding the originally included protected category of 'sexual orientation' is a clear admission of its intention to tolerate or to approve discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although investigation conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) demonstrates that discrimination based on educational background, national origin, and sexual orientation is the most serious form of discrimination in South Korean society today, the Ministry has deleted precisely these categories from the bill. We can never consent to the revision of the Anti-Discrimination Bill, which promotes discrimination, and cannot but doubt the raison d'etre of the Ministry, which allegedly lies in the 'vindication of human rights'.

Second, the Ministry has even deleted definition clauses so as to make possible the actual deletion of the seven categories!

The question of whether there are too many or too few clauses in a law neither can be judged in terms of numbers nor constitutes a reasonable ground for revising the law concerned. It is a shameful decision indeed for a government organ responsible for the legal administration of an entire nation to revise a bill whose legislation has already been officially announced purely based on the subjective and arbitrary judgment that there are 'too numerous' clauses. The Ministry claims that it has deleted the seven categories from the Anti-Discrimination Bill because the twenty categories in the original draft were 'too numerous' and therefore needed to be simplified to eliminate overlapping ones. If so, it will be possible to quell the controversy surrounding the clause 'and other reasons' and to clarify the meaning of this clause only after the Ministry has specifically defined the thirteen remaining categories including 'gender', 'ethnic origin', 'marital status', and 'social status'. Moreover, the Ministry has even deleted clauses defining whether 'gender' covers not only male/female distinction but also discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; whether 'ethnic origin' covers discrimination based on national origin and language as well; whether 'marital status' covers discrimination based on family type and status as well; and whether 'social status' covers discrimination based on criminal and detention record, medical record, and educational background. It is shameless indeed of the Ministry to claim that the 'and other reasons' clause includes all of the seven deleted categories without even defining the remaining thirteen categories and their extent.

Third, what we demand from the Ministry is reasonable judgment!

Furthermore, the Ministry's argument that it has chosen to retain in the current, drastically reduced Anti-Discrimination Bill protected categories that are already stipulated in two or more existing domestic laws directly violates the original purpose of drafting and legislating the Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is--or was--to prohibit discrimination more inclusively than have existing laws done. In other words, although it is more important for the impending Anti-Discrimination Act to include protected categories that are not stipulated in other, existing laws, the Ministry has contrarily deleted categories not stipulated in current laws, thus reducing and distorting the significance of the Act itself. Moreover, considering that numerous international laws already include sexual orientation and other categories as personal attributes to be protected from discrimination and that foreign laws differ in the scope of protection from discrimination depending on their respective national and social circumstances, we cannot but doubt whether the Ministry has reviewed international laws comprehensively and made reasonable and rational judgment instead of comparing diverse foreign laws superficially and literally.

We therefore make the following arguments.

First, we criticize the process of legislating the Anti-Discrimination Act for its lack of procedural legitimacy!

The revision of the original draft of the Anti-Discrimination Bill has resulted in not only outward changes but also actual and practical changes. Due to the Ministry's gross reduction and distortion, the seven deleted categories have lost their qualification or status as clearly stipulated and protected clauses, thus leaving them entirely dependent on the legal interpretations made by individual judges. In addition, abuse, mistreatment, and bullying based on an individual's 'national origin' and 'sexual orientation', for example, have lost the legal grounds for protection and prosecution, and the Ministry has revised the definition clause for each protected category, thus even changing the objects to be protected from discrimination. Despite such clear and significant changes, the Ministry arbitrarily continues to claim that such revision is only minor, even bypassing the legally required step of re-announcing the impending legislation of the now changed Anti-Discrimination Bill.

Second, we criticize the Ministry and the Participatory Government for their perpetration of discrimination!

Although it may seem neutral, the current Anti-Discrimination Bill, after its distortion by the Ministry, defines as 'indirect discrimination' grounds that ultimately lead to discrimination. If so, the deletion of the seven protected categories ultimately constitutes discrimination notwithstanding the Ministry's claim that it has resorted 'neutral' judgment criteria for the omission. Despite the Ministry's argument that it 'neutrally' considered both domestic and foreign laws in deleting the seven categories, the entire process was by no means objective or reasonable. The Ministry claims that it has applied 'neutral' standards when it has in fact succumbed to pressure from discriminatory groups, thus endorsing discrimination. We are extremely disappointed with the current Participatory Government, which announced early on that it would protect the people from all forms of discrimination. The legislation of the distorted and reduced Anti-Discrimination Bill undo all efforts made by the soon-to-end Roh Moo-hyun administration to promote human rights in the past five years.

Third, the Ministry must legislate a proper Anti-Discrimination Act instead of a Pro-Discrimination Act!

We therefore cannot but call the current Anti-Discrimination Bill, from which seven categories and relief steps have been deleted groundlessly, a de facto Pro-Discrimination Bill. A proper Anti-Discrimination Bill must not only include protected categories clearly stipulated in the National Human Rights Commission Act but also be equipped with actual and practical relief steps for victims of discrimination.

- The Ministry must immediately stop the current legislative process, which
   promotes discrimination!

- The Ministry must legislate a restored version of the Anti-Discrimination Bill, which
   has been grossly distorted and reduced with the deletion of seven protected
   categories and relief steps!

- The Ministry must champion human rights against groups that hinder the
   legislation of the Anti-Discrimination Act and promote discrimination!