Joint Statement | Wanhua Bar Raid: Taipei Must Not Dismiss Abuse of Power as “Inappropriate Language”; Ministry of the Interior and Control Yuan Must Investigate

On October 3, officers from Taipei’s Wanhua Precinct entered a BDSM-themed gay bar to execute a search warrant. A series of discriminatory and humiliating actions during the operation prompted public concern and criticism from civil society organisations. The following day, more than a hundred people gathered outside the precinct to protest.

On October 5, the Taipei City Police Department issued two reprimands each to the precinct chief and four officers, citing “inadequate supervision” and “inappropriate language,” respectively. Mayor Chiang Wan-an also issued a public apology.

Gender equality and human rights organisations called for an independent investigation and a comprehensive review report, asking the Taipei City Government to respond publicly by October 19. Yet the city government has still offered no substantive response, apparently treating the matter as closed.

Reducing unlawful and improper police conduct to “inappropriate language” betrays a perfunctory response and an unwillingness to confront the underlying problems. The token disciplinary measures also send a message that police misconduct will be treated leniently. Do the Taipei City Police Department and the officers involved truly understand the harm their conduct caused? We must state unequivocally: without a proper response and meaningful follow-up, similar abuses of police power will recur.

Ten civil society organisations—the Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), Taiwan Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Covenants Watch, the League for Persons with Disabilities, R.O.C. (Taiwan), Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, Taiwan Labour Front, Amnesty International Taiwan, Awakening Foundation, Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, and Independent Living Taiwan, which has newly joined the statement—strongly condemn the Taipei City Government’s perfunctory handling of this incident.

We will petition the Control Yuan and the Ministry of the Interior with four demands:

1. Publish an investigation report covering the entire operation, so the public can understand what happened and how the authorities have reviewed their conduct.
2. End the practice of claiming that offending officers “cannot be identified.” Investigate individual conduct thoroughly and pursue any criminal or administrative liability.
3. Review training and management to prevent further discrimination and unlawful conduct during police operations.
4. Amend the law to expressly guarantee the right to have a lawyer present during searches, so people are no longer left defenceless when confronted by police power.

I. Police Misconduct Must Not Be Minimized as “Inappropriate Language”: Taipei Must Produce and Publish an Investigation Report

Accounts from people at the scene suggest that what the police department has understated as “inappropriate language” may encompass the following conduct.

1. Refusing to Provide Police Identification Numbers When Asked

Article 4 of the Police Power Exercise Act requires officers exercising their powers to identify themselves by wearing a uniform or presenting identification, and to explain the reasons for their actions.

Yet when a city council candidate arrived to inquire about the operation and asked officers for their identification numbers, they responded: “I’m not answering” and “I don’t have one.” (Video)

2. Searching Patrons and Their Personal Belongings

Under Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prohibition on general warrants, a search warrant must specify the persons or premises to be searched, the scope of the search and the items to be seized. It cannot give executing officers unrestricted authority to search at will.

Searching the person or belongings of a third party who is not a criminal suspect must also satisfy the requirement of sufficient grounds under Article 122, Paragraph 2. Authority to search a bar does not automatically extend to the bodies and personal belongings of every patron.

According to media reports, people at the scene questioned why they had been subjected to body searches when they were merely customers and were not named in the warrant. (Report)

Did the warrant authorise only a search of the bar, or did it specifically authorise searches of patrons and their belongings? The police have offered only the vague assertion that they “conducted a lawful search under a warrant,” without further explanation.

3. Publicly Humiliating a Person with a Disability and Making Discriminatory, Sexually Harassing Remarks

During the search, an officer mocked a person with a disability: “You’re disabled and you can still have sex in there?” When another person challenged the remark, the officer replied: “I wasn’t talking to you” and “We’re carrying out our duties.” (Video)

Such degrading remarks, which injure personal dignity, plainly have no connection to the lawful performance of police duties. They may also constitute sexual harassment through discriminatory and insulting speech.

More egregiously, the Wanhua Precinct initially lied by denying that officers had behaved in this way. When the Taipei City Police Commissioner subsequently announced disciplinary measures, the commissioner neither acknowledged nor apologised for this conduct.

4. Handcuffing the Manager and Forcing Them to Kneel After They Challenged the Humiliation of a Person with a Disability

According to people at the scene, the bar manager challenged an officer’s degrading treatment of a person with a disability, only to be handcuffed and ordered to kneel.

As the person responsible for the premises being searched, the manager may have been a suspect in the case. Even so, did this treatment comply with the principle of proportionality? Or did it amount to retaliation against someone who challenged the police, intended to intimidate others present?

5. Improperly Compelling 51 “Witnesses” to Go to the Police Station for Questioning

After several hours of searching, police took 52 people, including the person responsible for the bar, to the station. Police initially said the 51 patrons were being dealt with under the Social Order Maintenance Act because they were bare-chested, but later described them as “witnesses.” (Statement)

People at the scene alleged that officers threatened to send summonses to their homes if they refused to give statements—an implicit threat to out them to their families. Others reported being threatened with handcuffs if they refused to be questioned. (Report)

These instances of improper and unlawful conduct cannot be brushed aside with references to “inappropriate language” and “inadequate supervision,” followed by reprimands.

Recordings and accounts from the public suggest that officers treated the warrant as a licence to wield unchecked power: once they had it in hand, everyone present was expected to submit to whatever they demanded. Their conduct also laid bare discrimination against particular communities, expressed through the coercive power of the state.

II. The Responsible Authorities Must Establish and Publish the Facts, Pursue Legal Accountability and Address Institutional Failures

October is Pride Month for Taiwan’s LGBTQ+ communities. Yet the events of October 3 reopened