Honestly, what could possibly be so intimidating about a pair of goat testicles?
That was Chuang Shun-kui’s (莊訓貴) defense in a nutshell, if you will, to charges that he threatened Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) by mailing said objects to him.
The Taipei District Court found Chuang guilty last week of trying to scare Hau when he mailed the gonads — along with a threatening note — to protest the two-step voting process advocated by the mayor for the January legislative polls and two simultaneous referendums.
Chuang argued in his defense that goat testicles don’t really constitute a threat, because some people like to eat them (but apparently not Hau).
It was a long-shot argument and might have worked better had Chuang sent the delectable snack in a heart-shaped candy box on Valentine’s Day.
But the real problem was probably Chuang’s defense team — assuming it consisted of more than himself and a restaurant menu listing “sanbei goat surprise” as an entree. Because while Chuang serves his four months in prison — or converts it to a fine — two men who got off sexual assault charges scot-free have some legislators and activists seeing red.
Recently it emerged that the Changhua District Court handed down not-guilty verdicts in two separate cases, now tastefully labeled the “10-second breast attack” and the “forceful five-second French kiss.”
In the first case from last August, a man was acquitted of fondling a woman against her will for 10 seconds. In the latter, in June, the defendant was acquitted of kissing his ex-wife’s 13-year-old daughter for five seconds.
Disturbing? Absolutely. But what really raises an eyebrow is that someone happened by with a stopwatch when both incidents occurred. I can only assume that person later became a key witness.
The Commission on Women’s Rights Promotion was livid: These two men weren’t let off the hook for lack of evidence. The courts recognized that they had in fact done the dirty deeds and that their advances had been unwelcome.
So where’s the catch? The court found that the short period of unwanted contact did not violate the sexual autonomy of the woman or girl, and that the acts did not involve “violence, coercion, threats or hypnosis.”
“Hypnosis”? We’ll assume that’s code for rohypnol.
The acts against the woman and girl did not fall under the category of “forcible sexual assault,” the court said.
So maybe Chuang just needed a slicker argument. Had he been thinking straight, he wouldn’t have mailed anything in the first place and just marched straight into Hau’s office and molested him.
Apparently that would have been legal — just remember not to use “hypnosis.” Oh, and look out for that guy behind the desk with a stopwatch.
After the Changhua rulings, members of the women’s rights commission, which is convened by Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), sent a petition calling for measures to educate judicial personnel on gender equality. Liu jumped on the bandwagon, formed a task force to address the matter and arranged a meeting with Judicial Yuan President Lai In-jaw (賴英照).
The judiciary in turn said the Supreme Court was divided on whether sexual assault as defined in the law must involve “violence, coercion, threats or hypnosis” or just be “against the victim’s will.” The Supreme Court decided it would look into the matter, the United Daily News reported, and the court handily reminded prosecutors that the charge of “sexual harassment” may at times be more appropriate than “sexual assault.”
You can understand the uproar over these cases. I mean, even Italy — where sexual harassment is, judging from my absent gal Cathy’s visits, a national pastime — eventually overturned its infamous 1999 blue-jeans ruling.
In that ripper of a verdict, Italy’s highest court ruled that women wearing jeans couldn’t be raped because it’s impossible to take them off — and thus acquitted a man charged with the crime, arguing that the purported victim must have consented (jeans: the ultimate in chastity technology. Their complex button-zip action has eluded men for decades).
So I say: If Italy’s judiciary can make progress, so can ours.
But the fun doesn’t end with the task force. After the premier reacted to the outcry, there was an outcry over his reaction to the outcry. Some, such as professional denouncer Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), accused him of fiddling with another Yuan’s powers.
So Cabinet Spokeswoman Vanessa Shih (史亞平) jumped in to defuse the situation: The premier absolutely did not “instruct” a “task force” to “meddle” in the judicial system; he “agreed” to a “team” to “express concerns” to the judiciary. It’s a whole different ballpark.
Ah, Ms Shih. Allow me to wax lyrical on her virtues for a sec. Because what would we do without our dear GIO minister, whose key task is to clarify the “misunderstood” statements of others?
Like when Liu visited Hualien last month. There was a little confusion because the reporters hanging on his every word thought they heard him say the government would “begin constructing part of the Suhua Freeway this year ... to provide residents of eastern Taiwan with a safe way home.”
Now, that was big news, of course, because in April the EPA dealt the Suhua project a blow so strong I didn’t think I’d see its name in print again for at least a decade.
Environmentalists were livid — and rightly so. You spend 10 years fighting something, finally score a major victory, lean back, relax, turn on the news — and nearly choke on your E. Coli-infested liangmian.
So Shih stepped in. Turns out we got it all wrong: Liu said Suhua highway, not freeway. No, really.
But I digress. I believe we were talking about uninvited groping.
Before you get too angry and start sending Valentine’s “chocolates” to Changhua judges, let’s put things in perspective. The judiciary says 92 percent of sexual assault and harassment cases have ended with convictions in recent years — so don’t assume women can’t win.
And there are signs of progress. Since the Sexual Harassment Prevention Law was promulgated in 2005, three companies have been slapped with fines for refusing to look into claims of sexual harassment in the workplace or for leaking details of cases.
And as far as showing dedication to a gender-equal society is concerned, an honorable mention goes to the Taipei District Court for ruling against the Ministry of Miseducation last week.
The court told the ministry to cough up NT$2 million to compensate National Taiwan University of Science and Technology vice president Chen Ching-lian (陳金蓮), who was turned down for the position of National Ilan University president after a screening committee asked her whether a woman could raise funds.
It seems the ministry’s panel went about it completely in the wrong way. If they didn’t want a woman in the job, they should have tried planting a wet one on her, maybe even a bit of tongue hockey. Or brand her with some hickies. That would have scared her off.
Or, in the Olympic spirit, they could have just thrown the candidates in a mud-caked ring and let them wrestle it out. You can’t be sure the female candidate would lose, but at least you’ll get that front-row Beijing feel — something you won’t get here unless you have digital TV.
Personally I would have preferred the real feel of sitting in Beijing with an oxygen mask strapped onto my noggin, but unlike KMT pin cushion Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), I have enough of a backbone to have been barred from that country.
Speaking of Wu, I think I’ll go file sexual harassment charges against him.
Watching him lick Chicom boots in Beijing has been hypnotic, but I strongly suspect my national sovereignty has been violated.
Got something to tell Johnny? Go on, get it off your chest. Write to dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com, but be sure to put “Dear Johnny” in the subject line or he’ll mark your bouquets and brickbats as spam.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath