From the office of Lawrence Law Tat Hung, 羅達雄 :

It is important to note that a person will have protection against discrimination under the three identical ordinances only if he/she is discriminated against on the prohibited grounds. There is no protection for discrimination on other grounds, such as age, race or religion. Ilowever, if the discriminator is the government or other public authority such person can arguably rely upon the equality provision (art 22) of the Bill of Rights, which binds the government and public authorities.

Accordingly, unlike other provisions of the ordinances which render unlawful only the prescribed acts, the provisions render unlawful all discriminatory conduct in the performance of government functions and the exercise of government powers.

Lawrence Law Tat Hung, 羅達雄 :

The equality provision provides that all persons are equal under the law and are entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection of the law. In this respect the law prohibits all discrimination and guarantees to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground. Since a person who is being discriminated against on the ground of sex, marital status, pregnancy, disability or family.

Further, art 1(1) of the Bill of Rights stipulates that the rights recognised in the Bill of Rights shall be enjoyed without distinction of any kind (eg race, colour, sex, language, religion, ete). Hence, the government should be encouraged to seriously consider enacting similar discrimination ordinances covering those other grounds in order to give fresh spirit to the equality provision.

One matter I would like addressed is the reason for the failure of the EOC to prescribe, pursuant to the discrimination ordinances, the forms by which a person aggrieved may question the respondent on his/her reasons for doing an unlawful act and the forms by which the respondent may reply to such questions. Such questions and reply are admissible evidence and, if it appears to the court that the respondent deliberately and without reasonable excuse failed to reply within a reasonable.

Useful Links from Lawrence Law Tat Hung, 羅達雄 

http://www.yp.com.hk/iypbusiness_e10/ch/html/all_search/searchresult_all.aspx?entry=home&txtKeyword=lawyer

http://www.yp.com.hk/iypbusiness_e10/en/html/company_search/searchresult_company.aspx?txtKeyword=lawyer

http://barlist.hkba.org/hkba/BarList/411.htm

Article by Lawrence Law Tat Hung, 羅達雄 

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/regulatory-compliance-articles/article-on-discrimination-from-lawrence-law-tat-hung-4768653.html

Law, Lawrence T.H. 羅達雄 *

Address:

11/F, 8 Wyndham St,
 
Central, H.K.
 

Tel. No.:

25250221

Fax  No.:

28452441

Areas of Practice:

Civil & Criminal/A1/A3/B1/B2/C1/C3/C4/C5/C6/C7/C8/ D1/D2/E2/I1/I3/I4/L1/L2/M1/P1/P2/P5/S1/S2/S3

Quals:

LLB (City U.), PCLL (HKU), LLM (China), LLM (Chinese & Comparative Law)

Call:

HK (1992)

From the office of Lawrence Law Tat Hung, 羅達雄 :