The Council of Grand Justices’ in Constitutional Interpretation No. 791 delivered on May 29 declared that sexual autonomy is a basic right protected by Article 22 of the Constitution, and it is unconstitutional to impose criminal punishments on adulterers based on the Criminal Code.
According to the interpretation, Article 239 of the Criminal Code and a proviso clause in the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) for the crime of adultery are unconstitutional and were to be considered null and void, effective immediately.
Following Constitutional Interpretation No. 748, which said that the Civil Code’s prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, this ruling is another profoundly enlightening interpretation, but goes against mainstream public opinion.
Since the right to sexual autonomy is a basic human right, should a married person who visits a prostitute still face fines in accordance with Article 80 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法)?
Under the article, anyone “engaged in sexual transactions” shall face a fine of “not more than NT$30,000.”
In this case, could a married person caught soliciting a prostitute cite the latest constitutional interpretation to argue that they cannot be punished based on the Criminal Code for exercising their right to sexual autonomy?
The person visiting the prostitute could argue that it is a matter of sexual autonomy, both for the client and for the prostitute.
If punishing a person who visits a prostitute serves the purpose of maintaining a moral code, a spouse’s betrayal of their wedding vows is a much bigger breach of such a code and also contravenes the sanctity of marriage.
The justices determined that imposing restrictions on people’s right to sexual autonomy through criminal punishment is a breach of the principle of proportionality, but their sense of proportionality is clearly different from that of the majority of the public.
After Interpretation No. 791, the next topic of discussion could address the constitutionality of fining people who solicit a prostitute in accordance with the Social Order Maintenance Act. The issue also involves whether local governments should establish red-light districts.
More than eight years have passed since the promulgation of Article 91-1 of the act, which authorizes local governments to “enact self-government ordinances governing the establishment and management of sex districts,” but none have dared stir up public anger by establishing such districts, and only a few city and county councilors have advocated doing so.
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government ordered hostess bars and dance venues to close.
As the pandemic subsides, local governments — with the exception of Tainan — have been vague about whether they would allow these businesses to resume, with some passing the buck to the central government.
This examplifies Taiwanese’s attitude to the sex industry: They turn a blind eye to private and informal premises, but legal establishments are still considered taboo.
Many problems in secret and informal sex businesses remain unresolved, such as exploitation, armed bodyguards, poor hygiene and corruption.
As Taiwan is on the way to implementing transitional justice, while paying particular attention to good governance, perhaps it is time to follow up on the decriminalization of adultery by also thinking about how to establish legal districts for the sex industry.
Jeng Shann-yinn is an honorary professor at Kainan University’s law department.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS