反AIDS歧視與法律動員-以台灣AIDS防治法制為中心（1981-2009)

Abstract

社會運動的法律動員是研究法律與社會關係的取徑之一，運動者可運用法律來形構動員議程展開行動，以達成運動者的目標。分析法律對於社會運動的意義，可讓研究者從運動者的動員面向動態地思考法律與社會之間的相互形塑關係，進而對台灣的法律與社會互動提出更具脈絡的反省。本文以社會運動的角度出發，研究台灣民間的AIDS運動者，探究AIDS運動者進行法律動員的條件與方式，並分析法律體系將對運動者的回應，我將循著AIDS歷史的軸線探究AIDS運動的變遷，並同時關照動員時的社會脈絡與政治結構，以探求反AIDS歧視運動的發展歷程。 衛生署在1985年正式推動AIDS防治政策，在醫學專家與防治官員的疾病建構下，感染者與男同性戀者有著本質上的關連，感染者被當作是不正常的人，而男同性戀者則為AIDS所烙印。〈後天免疫缺乏症候群防治條例〉在1990年通過立法三讀，立法者對於感染者雖有「隱私權」的保障，但並未考慮到感染者可能受到歧視的社會處境，法規以防堵病毒為核心考量，並不重視感染者隱私權之外的保障，此後〈防治條例〉成為台灣AIDS運動中，重要的法律動員對象。在1990年後，以防治條例為抗爭場域，爭取對感染者權益的保障以及相關AIDS人權規定成為台灣AIDS運動者重要的行動議程。 1992年台灣第一個民間AIDS組織出現後，關懷AIDS議題的民間行動者逐漸現身於台灣社會，在行動者的動員之下，AIDS政策的權力結構開始受到挑戰與質疑。1996年運動者進行了第一次對〈防治條例〉的修法行動，在謝啟大立委的合作之下，成功地開起了一次修法動員。此次修法增訂了反歧視法令，明文規範感染者之人格與權益應予以保障，不得因感染事實而歧視感染者，可謂防治條例對於感染者權益保障的肯認。1997年之後「愛滋感染者權益促進會」成立，象徵著台灣AIDS運動的法律動員走向組織化的進展， 反歧視法雖然在1997年通過，但卻沒有能夠具體保障感染者權益，台灣社會對於感染者的排斥以及恐懼並不因為反歧視法的制訂而有顯著的改變。反歧視法不曾被執行，感染者權益也經常在公衛防治傳染病的考量下，受到侵害。〈防治條例〉曾在2000年與2005年進行修法，兩次的修法都涉及到外籍感染者之處境，雖然民間團體試圖以感染者權益保障的立場參與修法，但卻未能開創出有利於外籍感染者權益的法令制度，在防治政策中的「國族主義」思維下，外籍感染者被認定有害於國人健康，而必須被驅逐出境。反歧視條款雖為保障感染者權益而制訂的法令，但卻沒有能夠將反歧視價值落實於政策與社會之中，使得反歧視法僅具有法令宣示性意義。 儘管如此，反歧視法象徵的國家對於感染者主體權利的肯認仍然是重要的，在2005年侯水盛立委試圖提案刪去反歧視條款時，引起了民間運動者的不滿，進而展開守護反歧視條款的抵抗行動，由此可見縱然反歧視法令雖可能不具實效而流於宣示性意義，但對於容易受到排擠、歧視的群體而言，法令的象徵意義也是值得加以動員保衛的規範。 2005至2007年的關愛之家事件，是台灣近年來最受注目的AIDS議題之一，收容感染者的關愛之家受到社區住戶已不受病毒威脅之權利要求關愛之家遷離，事件進入訴訟後，關愛之家一審敗訴，引發社會對於感染者權益關注，而這樣的關注也連帶了影響了民間運動者所進行的修法動員。 2007年，防治條例進行了歷次最大規模的修法，運動者與黃淑英、王榮璋立委合作，是歷次修法以來最接近運動者期待的一次修法，法案名稱也改為《人類免疫缺乏病毒傳染防治即感染者權益保障條例》更加強調了防治政策對於感染者權益的重視，修法過後，關愛之家二審法院也以新法宣判關愛之家勝訴，不須遷離。感染者權益保障的主張在立法與司法場域都獲得了勝利的結果。然而，修法2年以來，感染者之處境是否有明顯的改善？仍屬未知，仍有待時間來檢證2007年運動者的法律動員成果。 由本文的研究可知，運動者要進行法律動員有其行動上的條件，並非所有的社會運動者都將法律當作達成運動目標的手段；而運動者的法律動員雖然無法在一次修法的成功或一次訴訟的勝訴判決後，達成運動者所期待的理想目標，但法律象徵著國家權威對於特定狀態的合法性承認，如果運動者在法律場域中的抗衡行動成功的爭取到國家對其價值的承認，將使運動者更容易達成其推動社會變遷的目標，法律動員意謂著運動者爭取一次合法性競逐的機會，僅管機會並不必然帶來成功的結果，但如果運動者放棄了法律作為異議行動的場域，則可能將使得既有的壓迫節構更加強大，反而可能增加了運動者的不利及動員成本。

The legal mobilization of social movement is one of the research approaches to the study of Law and Society. The Activists can use law to frame the agenda of social movements to achieve their aim. Studying the role of “Law” in social movements can let researcher thinking about the mutual framing relationship between law and society, and then reflect on Taiwan’s law and society. I would start from the social movement study to find the conditions and methods for Taiwan AIDS movement activists mobilize the Law, I also analyze the feedback from Taiwan Legal System to AIDS movement. In order to seek the historical development of AIDS movement, I will focus on the historical dimension of anti-AIDS-discrimination movements, and also on the social context and political structure of the collective action in the legal mobilization of AIDS movement. In 1985, department of Health started to proceed the AIDS policy in Taiwan. The hiv-infected was seen to be related essentially with gay from the disease construction of the medical experts and the governmental officials. The Infected was regarded as the abnormal, and gay was stigmatized by AIDS. The “Hiv Infection Control Act” was legislated in 1990; the legislator did not put much emphasis on the right-protection of the infected, rather on the control of the infected. After 1990, the Primary Regulation, Hiv Infection Control Act, becomes the important agenda of Taiwan AIDS activists. In 1996, the activists made the first attempt on legal mobilization. They drafted a law amendment to proceed a legislative lobby, the activists tried to persuade the legislators into accept the draft of the activists, which is concerned with the rights of the infected and the anti-discrimination article. From the amendment of the Act in 1997, we will agree that the activists got a good outcome in the first legislative lobby. The anti-discrimination article was added, and the debate of legislative committee sided with the activists. But the law reform in the legislative dimension can not be viewed as the achievement of social movement apparently. The anti-discrimination law was passed in the Legislative Yuan 1997, but the law is not capable of being the legal protection of the infected. The social rejective attitude and fear toward the infected don’t change by the law reform. The Act was amended twice in 2000 and 2005, the twice amendment were about the alien infected’s rights, due to the nationalism thought of the AIDS policy, the alien infected are believed to harmful to the Taiwanese and shall leave the county. Even though there is one important organization that uses legal discourse to persuade the protection of the infected set in 1997, which is the primary legal mobilization organization in Taiwan AIDS movements, but the anti-discrimination law is still just a symbol with no real effect at all. The outcome of the legislative lobby in 1997 seems to be useless for the activists. . But the symbol is still important to the activists. In 2005, there is one legislator tried to erase the anti-discrimination article, the activists object this suggestion soon. In this event, we can find the power of law, that though the law is just declaratory but still can’t be canceled. In 2005, there is still another important event, the Harmony Home Association case, which is concerned with the housing right and the people’s not-to-be-infected right. However the other side of the rights conflict is the attitude toward the infected, and the effect of the anti-discrimination law. After the loss of Harmony Home Association in the district court in 2006, the department of health begins to draft the law amendment, in another hand, the activists try also to make a legislative amendment to hang out a draft which is much care about the rights of the infected. In 2007, the Legislative Yuan passed the amendment which is closest amendment to the expectation of the activists; the name of the Act is also changed to be: “HIV Infection Control and Patient Rights Protection Act.” The new law put much focus on the right of the infected. And Taiwan High Court made the decision by the new anti-discrimination law and the Harmony Home Association won this case after all. Two years later, the success of legal mobilization of AIDS activists in 2007 is still questioned. We can still not say that: “the rejective attitude toward the infected is eradicated, and the AIDS stigma is finished, and there is no more denial to the AIDS. The outcome of legal mobilization in 2007 still needs time to be examined. From my study, I find that the legal mobilization has its own conditions, even though the activists use the “law”, it doesn’t promise the fulfillment of the activists’ aim. But once the activists get the confirmation of authority of the state, the activists will be closer to their aim, and vice versa.