Han Dong-hoon stirs controversy for using the justice ministry’s social media account to post personal opinion

The personal statement of Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon, which was posted on the ministry’s official social media account at 9:12 p.m. August 15, Liberation Day. Captured from X (formerly Twitter)

Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon personally refuted a media interview of Judith Butler, a distinguished professor in comparative literature at the University of California, Berkeley, and has come under fire for the way he voiced his rebuttal as well as for the argument he made.

In an e-mail interview with the Kyunghyang Shinmun, Dr. Butler, a philosopher who has been at the forefront of poststructural feminism, spoke about Minister Han’s argument that it was too early to enact the Life Partner Act due to problems of allowing same-sex marriage, before the parliamentary Legislation and Judiciary Committee in June, and said, “He is trying to avoid something that is unavoidable.”

The Life Partner Act, which Yong Hye-in, a Basic Income Party legislator, proposed in April, recognizes two adults not connected through blood ties or marriage as a family.

On August 15, the day the interview was published, Minister Han released a statement and said, “I have told the Democratic Party of Korea to stop trying to secretly pass the (life partner) bill with the majority of seats they hold, by pretending the bill is something else when it is actually an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage, and to properly discuss the issue up front if they are so sure they can convince the people.”

At the same time, he also said, “Establishing same-sex marriage in law is not simply recognizing same-sex marriage in our family system. It is directly and indirectly imposing on the people a variety of rights and obligations that ensue from acknowledging same-sex partners as a legally married couple.” The justice minister argued that this required sufficient deliberation and a national consensus and argued, “I don’t think there was ever a national consensus.” He added, “Therefore, I think the Kyunghyang Shinmun should ask the Democratic Party of Korea as well as Dr. Judith Butler.”

Han’s statement was published on the official social media accounts managed by the Ministry of Justice, such as Facebook and X, shortly after it was distributed to the members of the ministry press. Citizens online criticized the fact that the minister’s personal opinion was distributed through the justice ministry’s official social media accounts. One Facebook user asked, “Regardless of whether his argument is right or wrong, is it right for the minister to use the (ministry’s) official channel for personal matters, as a window to express his personal views?”

On the justice ministry’s X account, over 1,900 comments were posted as of 3 p.m. August 16. One X user wrote, “It’s a bit horrible in that it is an example showing how Han Dong-hoon, the individual, is using the state agency known as the justice ministry for personal intentions.” People also responded to Han’s argument about asking the Democratic Party first and about the need for a national consensus and said, “The justice ministry is not the possession of the People Power Party.” They also asked, “Was there a social consensus on the discharge of contaminated water from Fukushima?”

Politicians also voiced their criticism.

In an opening comment at a meeting of the Justice Party legislators Thursday, legislator Jang Hye-young said, “From start to finish, not a single word in it (the statement) was correct. First, the method of communication was wrong. The official account of the justice ministry is not the personal possession of Minister Han Dong-hoon.” She further argued, “The argument that the Life Partner Act, which the Democratic Party is promoting, included clauses that established same-sex marriage in law was also incorrect.” She added, “Minister Han saw the Life Partner Act as a bill that was really about same-sex marriage, but the two bills actually state different purposes and details. If he was not aware of this when he made the statement, then he should immediately apologize and make corrections. If he did it knowingly, then it was a malicious act of distortion.”