Our Desk | Domestic violence law a right, not a privilege

Lynzy Valles

Domestic violence is a silent issue in Macau, as residents don’t give it as much attention as it deserves.
While domestic abuse could happen to anyone – including all races, religions, income and/or educational levels – there are still insane disparities between the rates of men and women becoming the abusers or the victims.
However all victims, no matter what their sexual orientation is, should not be neglected and should feel protected and covered by international domestic violence laws.
MDT published a report the other day stating that Rainbow of Macau, the city’s first pro-LGBT and sexual minority advocacy group, is claiming that the local government has apparently decided to exclude same-sex couples from the scope of its new domestic violence legislation.
In Hong Kong, the region’s “Domestic and Cohabitation Relationships Violence Ordinance” allows victims of violence in same-sex cohabitation relationships to seek legal remedies and apply for court injunctions, despite doubts that it might be interpreted as a sign that they will recognize and promote same-sex unions.
Hong Kong even agreed to change the name of the previous law “Domestic Violence Ordinance” to the current “Domestic and Cohabitation Relationships Violence Ordinance” to safeguard against such doubts.
If the neighboring region understood that cohabitation is not equivalent to marriage and that such laws would protect individuals from experiencing domestic violence, or if they even understood that such abuse is a human rights violation, I suppose the local government could also consider this.
The region should note that when there is a lack of recognition of same-sex relationships, there is also inadequate attention paid to the occurrence of domestic violence between same-sex couples.
The residents of Macau should realize that just because same-sex domestic abuse isn’t notorious in the region, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Individuals should acknowledge this continuing social problem.
I would like to believe that one of the factors that may hinder the bill from being passed in the Legislative Assembly is the residents’ lack of awareness of the social issue. The locals have been so busy protesting minimum wages, employment laws towards residents and expats, and even the increase of the annual cash handout, that they forget that the city has such social problems as well.
According to Rainbow of Macau, “lack of social consensus,” “inconsistency of laws” and “later resolving same-sex issues in the revision of Civil Code” were used by MSAR back in 2012 to justify the exclusion. The group even implied that the local government is “knowingly enact[ing] a discriminatory law that is against the superiority of international law” because the United Nations Committee has already concluded that victims of domestic abuse should be protected without discrimination.
One does not have to be a social worker nor a political expert to understand that domestic abuse victims are in an awfully vulnerable position. I understand where the concerned group is coming from; discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is unjustifiable. Hence it is understandable that the absence of such laws may result in repeated incidents where perpetrators could commit violent acts increasingly more frequently, and sadly, more severely.
Nonetheless the final reading of the bill is set to be on May 20, so only then will we know whether the accusations are real or not.
I would conclude that MSAR should be able to reach a feasible solution acceptable to its residents. I am not an LGBT activist, but I believe in protecting each individual, from all walks of life, against domestic abuse because protection against such exploitation is not a privilege but a right and should be accessible to all, without any discrimination. Lynzy Valles