KJC Korea
Journal Central

Controversy is being raised as to whether single (unmarried) women can have children through artificial pregnancy procedures that artificially intervene in the pregnancy process, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. ‘The right to self-determination regarding pregnancy and childbirth’ is a unique constitutional right of women. In principle, in vitro fertilization of single women is not prohibited according to the current ‘Bioethics and Safety Act’. However, in accordance with ‘the Maternal and Child Health Act’, state support is provided only to infertile couples, which does not constitute a legal basis to ban artificial pregnancy for single women. Another important constitutional right related to artificial pregnancy is the constitutional social right. This is because artificial pregnancy surgery is a medical practice and requires considerable economic costs. Currently, social rights related to artificial pregnancy are recognized only for married couples, so health insurance is applied only to them, and financial support for co-payments is provided only to them. Differential treatment of single women for artificial pregnancy may amount to discrimination that infringes on equal rights. This is because, in relation to artificial pregnancy, married women and single women are treated differently without any rational reason even though there is no essential difference. From the viewpoint of the right to self-determination of pregnancy and childbirth, the constitutional social right, and the right to equality, which are guaranteed even to single women, it is necessary to provide financial support from the state to single women for artificial pregnancy as well.

In 2019, the ‘Invossa Incident’ occurred in which GP2-293 cells, an abnormal cell, were injected into osteoarthritis patients, causing many victims. This study selected key question such as ‘the data acquiring and entire course of medication’, ‘the reason for receiving the treatment’, ‘situations after medication’, ‘ the serious problems and the radical solutions’, and conducted interviews with 10 victims who were administered with Invossa-K. The research deduced results that there are 4 key categories such as ‘a lot of false or exaggerated content’, ‘the mechanism to encourage high-priced injections’, ‘socio-economic pain’. The research findings are as follow: First, the participants came into contact with the Invossas through hospitals, newspapers, YouTube advertising and local broadcasting programs. Most of these publicity materials lured the victims with false or exaggerated content. Second, the participants decided to receive the treatment despite its high cost and low expected effects mainly because of aggressive recommendations of hospitals. The indemnity insurance coverage of the treatment also played a significant role in attracting patients. Third, after the participants found out that there was something wrong with the treatment, their symptoms did not improve in many cases. They were severely traumatized when they heard that the ingredients were problematic. In addition, considerable socio-economic suffering, such as leave of absence, loss of job, bankruptcy, and family discord followed physical and mental suffering. For women, in particular, the severity of these negative consequences was much worse. Fourth, the participants regarded that it will be difficult to conduct a medical probe or follow-up test for this case. Besides, the victims' grave distrust of the officials and the absence of an occasion to dispel such distrust also served as obstacles of resolving the problem. The participants were especially outraged that Kolon Life Science was trying to cover up the incident with the CEO's resignation and did not make a sincere apology nor show a responsible attitude. They also expressed resentment towards the government for failing to prevent the situation in advance. In addition, the participants urged with one voice about strengthening hospital business ethics and medical ethics of doctors. Lastly, considering that the Invossa incident can be seen as a social disaster rather than a matter of individual mistake, the participants expected that appropriate compensation is provided to relieve physical, mental, and socio-economic suffering even a little.

Since 2007, South Korean society has been witnessing numerous legislative bills to establish a comprehensive anti-discrimination law or equality act. All the proposals have not been successful yet to be passed through the legislative process in the National Assembly (South Korean Parliament), despite dramatic changes in public opinions about the issue during the time. This article is an exploratory study looking into the political process of legislating the Equality Act in the country. Based on theoretical premises of discursive- institutionalism, the paper analyzes political interactions among institutions, actors and discourses, focusing on what particular factors have influenced heavily on the formation process of the institution: The Anti-Discrimination/Equality Act. Study results suggest that discourse effect of the media is a stronger factor than the influence of party politics-related actors in South Korean case. The numbers of liberal and progressive parties show a positive (+) correlation with the frequency of legislative proposals, whereas those of conservative parties and media do not show a significant correlation with it. Furthermore, the discourse competition between pan-progressive and Protestant media shows a strong negative (-) correlation with the frequency of legislation. This is also supported by an increasing trend of media discourse covering the topic of sexual orientation since the 19th National Assembly. Reflecting on the research results, authors discuss about the potential of deliberative democracy to address democratic deficits revealed in the political process of legislating the Equality Act.

Hate speech promotes and incites disparagement, contempt, threat, discrimination, and violence against an individual or group on the grounds of gender, disability, religion, age, region of origin, race, sexual orientation, etc. These hate speeches are gradually increasing in daily life and online(SNS etc), at the Korea and around the world. In addition, hate speech is not only expressing a negative opinion of an individual, but also spreading prejudice against a specific group throughout society and further leading to commit hate crimes. The international community is trying to regulate hate speech. Regulations on hate speech differ slightly depending on region and country for reasons such as historical background, but social consensus on the harmful effects of hate speech is gradually expanding. On the other hand, according to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea's survey on hate speech(2019), 6 out of 10 people have experienced hate speech, and the majority(77.8%) of them say that the problem of the hate speech is difficult to resolve naturally. If hate speech is basically a matter of ‘discrimination’, it is very important to ban discrimination throughout society and create an environment in which equality is realized. Accordingly, the state and its law must take active measures in relation to the hate speech. Therefore, all domestic laws including local ordinances, should accept equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and the prohibition of discrimination required by International Code of Human Rights. All laws and policies that institutionalize discrimination and exclusion should be abolished, and anti-discrimination laws should be enacted or strengthened. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which is responsible for guaranteeing the basical human rights of residents, should prevent hate speech due to gender, disability, religion, age, region of origin, race, sexual orientation etc, including historical denial on the April 3rd incident. In addition, it is necessary to actively respond to the support and protection of the victims. Therefore, it is required to prepare legislative measures at the local government level. The enactment of the ordinance to prevent hate speech and support its victims at the Jeju is the first step to define the definition of hate speech in the region and come up with specific countermeasures such as measures to prevent damage caused by the hate speech. Through this, it will be able to contribute to realizing the “island of peace and human rights, Jeju,” where all Jeju residents can be respected for their dignity and values as humans.

2021년 5월 28일 독일 외무장관 하이코 마스(Heiko Maas)는 베를린에 소재한 독일 연방정부 외무부 청사 앞에 마련된 단상에서 나미비아와의 협상이 타결되었음을 기자들 앞에 발표했다. 이 성명은 독일 연방정부가 과거 자국의 식민지였던 오늘날의 나미비아에서 저지른 만행을 제노사이드(genocide)로 공식 인정했다는 데 의의가 있다. 그러나 여전히 미진한 부분은 남아 있어 논쟁이 계속되고 있는 사안이다. 오늘날의 나미비아(당시 독일령 남서아프리카)는 1884년부터 1915년까지 독일의 식민지였다. 당시 독일은 헤레로(Herero)족과 나마(Nama)족이 1904년부터 1908년까지 일으킨 봉기를 무자비하게 진압했는데, 이 사건으로 8만여 명에 달하는 헤레로족(헤레로족 총인구의 80%)과 최소 1만여 명의 나마족(나마족 총인구의 50%)이 희생된 것으로 추산된다. 마스 외무장관은 식민통치 시기에 자행된 이 잔학행위들을 제노사이드로 공식적으로 규정하면서 이에 대한 역사적, 도덕적 책임을 인정하고, 피해자 후손들에게 용서를 구했다. 그리고 이에 대한 후속조치로 나미비아와 피해자 후손들을 11억 유로 상당의 재건과 개발을 골자로 한 프로그램으로 지원하겠다는 방침도 밝혔다. 성명을 발표한 다음 기자들과의 질의응답 시간은 없었다. 이 성명이 발표된 뒤 피해자 후손들을 비롯해 각계각층에서 다양한 반응과 평가가 나왔다. 한편 발표 당일 독일 외무부 홈페이지에는 해당 성명서 전문이 보도자료 형태로 게시됐고, 다수의 언론 매체에서는 이를 그대로 인용해 보도했다. 그러나 마스 외무장관이 당일 실제 구두로 발표한 성명은 홈페이지에 게시된 성명서와 다소 차이가 난다. 행간을 읽고 함의를 분석할 때 유의할 필요가 있는 대목이다. 이하는 마스 외무장관이 구두로 발표한 성명 전문을 우리말로 번역한 것과 독일어 원문이다.