Chinese Law Prof Blog

Editor: Donald C. Clarke
George Washington University Law School

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Sociologist Li Yinhe on the criminalization of group sex

The ChinaGeeks blog has published a partial translation of several blog posts by sociologist Li Yinhe criticizing the recent criminal case brought against Professor Ma Xiaohai and others for organizing group sex activities. If you haven't heard of this case, here are excerpts from the introduction to the translation. Please click on the link above for the rest.

Sexologist and activist Li Yinhe has dedicated her latest three blog posts to the defence of Ma Xiaohai, a Nanjing Technical University professor who recently pleaded ‘not guilty’ to accusations of group licentiousness, having been caught organising group sex meetings. . . .

Professor Ma is involved in the ‘swingers trial’ currently in progress in Nanjing, in which 22 people are accused of violating group licentiousness law for participating in ‘wife-swapping’ activities. The law forbids all sexual activity between three or more people, even when private and between consenting adults, but has never been invoked before.

The case has attracted plenty of attention from the media and on message boards, especially given that Professor Ma was the only defendant to plead not guilty. Interestingly, although the media have generally slated him, Ma receives considerable support in online discussion forums.

April 13, 2010 in Commentary, News - Chinese Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, April 11, 2010

New developments in Chinese drywall litigation

There's a class action suit going on in Louisiana over drywall from China that is alleged to have emitted corrosive gases, damaging many homes. On April 8th, the judge issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FFCL), finding the defendant Taishan Gypsum Company Ltd. (Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.) liable. Here's a report from the Asia Times. The report seems to think it's a big deal that Taishan Gypsum's ownership can ultimately be traced back to the Chinese state in the form of the State Asset Supervision and Administration Commission, but I'm not sure why. It's not clear that Taishan Gypsum attempted any kind of defense on sovereign immunity grounds; if they did, the FFCL don't deal mention it. Nobody's going to be seizing assets of the Chinese state to satisfy the judgment. Indeed, I wonder what the plaintiffs plan to do with their judgment. The chances of getting it enforced in China are virtually zero. US courts don't typically enforce Chinese judgments, and Chinese courts don't typically enforce US judgments. (There have been very rare exceptions in exceptional circumstances, but none of those circumstances apply here. See, for example, my comments on the Robinson Helicopter case and my paper on enforcement of US judgments in China.)

April 11, 2010 in Commentary, News - Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)