Hong Kong Court decides a man may war his hair long if women were allowed to do so (Gender Stereotyping)
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal was persuaded not to follow the England and Wales Court of Appeal: Smith v. Safeway plc (1996; female employee could wear her hair in a pony-tail but male employee could not; no sex discrimination).
The Court thus pave the way for a man’s right to wear a skirt or dress or lipstick if he wants to! And to a woman’s right to wear anything a man can wear!
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=132118,
[2020] HKCFA 37
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
FINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2019 (CIVIL)
(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 34 OF 2017)
________________________
| BETWEEN | ||
| LEUNG KWOK HUNG | Appellant | |
| also known as “LONG HAIR” | ||
| and | ||
| COMMISSIONER OF | Respondent | |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICES |
________________________
| Before: | Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Chan NPJ and Lord Collins of Mapesbury NPJ |
| Date of Hearing: | 28 October 2020 |
| Date of Judgment: | 27 November 2020 |
29. However, care needs to be taken when adopting the package approach to ensure that it does not become an exercise of merely comparing features applicable to the complainant with separate features belonging to the compared person and then asking whether overall, the two persons have been treated equally. The approach in discrimination cases is not a “tit for tat” or “swings and roundabouts” approach. As has been said [David Pannick: Sex Discrimination Law (1985)],[41] “In deciding whether a woman who is prevented from wearing trousers to work is being less favourably treated on the ground of her sex than a comparable man, courts and tribunals should be wary of arguments which seek to balance the fact that a woman is denied opportunity X with the fact that men are denied opportunity Y”. This passage was referred to in the [1997 Modern Law Review] article by Robert Winte[m]ute Recognising New Kinds of Direct Sex Discrimination: Transsexualism, Sexual Orientation and Dress Codes[42] who says this: “Sex distinctions applying to different choices cannot be lumped together and their net effect examined. Courts must look instead at their effect on the ability of individuals to make each specific choice. For the woman who wants badminton at the same price as a man, free swimming is no consolation. For the man who wants to wear a pony‑tail or a skirt, it is no consolation that women are prohibited from wearing short hair or trousers.” …
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 