(3) It is unlawful for an organization to which this section applies, in the case of a person who is a member of the organization, to discriminate against the person—
- (a) in the way it affords the person access to any benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him or her access to them;
- (b) by depriving the person of his or her membership, or varying the terms on which he or she is a member; or
- (c) by subjecting the person to any other detriment.
(4) This section does not apply to provision in relation to the death or retirement from work of a member made before the commencement date in so far as any such provision continues for that member on and after that date.
(5) Where, immediately before the enactment of this Ordinance, the main object of an organization to which this section applies was to enable the benefits of membership to be enjoyed by persons of a particular racial group (defined otherwise than by reference to colour), then, in so far as that continues to be its main object, this section is not to be construed as affecting that object and does not render unlawful an act which is done in order to give effect to that object.
(6) In determining whether the main object of an organization to which this section applies is as stated in subsection (5), regard shall be had to—
- (a) the essential character of the organization;
- (b) the extent to which the affairs of the organization are so conducted that the persons primarily enjoying the benefits of membership are of the racial group in question; and
- (c) any other relevant circumstances.
19. Qualifying bodies
(1) It is unlawful for an authority or body which can confer an authorization or qualification which is needed for, or facilitates, engagement in a particular profession or trade to discriminate against a person—
- (a) in the terms on which it is prepared to confer on the person that authorization or qualification;
- (b) by refusing, or deliberately omitting to grant, the person’s application for it; or
- (c) by withdrawing it from the person or varying the terms on which he or she holds it.
(2) Subsection (1) does not render unlawful any requirement for proficiency in either Chinese or English, or in both of them (whether or not to equivalent or comparable levels) imposed for the conferment of an authorization or qualification if—
