Colonialism and discrimination of spiritual minorities are based on similar prejudices, as the history of the Tai Ji Men case demonstrates.
by María Vardé*
*A paper presented at the webinar “The Judiciary, Freedom of Religion or Belief, and the Tai Ji Men Case,” co-organized by CESNUR and Human Rights Without Frontiers on January 11, 2025, Taiwan’s Judicial Day.


The celebration of Judicial Day in Taiwan holds significant historical and symbolic importance. It commemorates the signing of the treaty on January 11, 1943, which abolished extraterritoriality and special privileges granted to American and British citizens in the Republic of China. This day not only underscores the importance of the judicial system in protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens but also reaffirms Taiwan’s commitment to democratic values and equality before the law. In both historical and contemporary contexts, this celebration acquires special relevance as it recalls the challenges and struggles for justice and equity in the Republic of China.
The international treaties that granted privileges to foreigners were agreements imposed on China by foreign powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries. These treaties were termed “unequal” because they were signed under coercion and granted unilateral privileges to foreign countries, thus severely restricting the sovereignty and rights of the Chinese people. After decades of diplomatic and political efforts by the Chinese government, the abolition of these treaties was only achieved when the circumstances of World War II demonstrated to the privileged nations that it was necessary for China to regain its sovereignty and national unity.
The geopolitics of the 20th century is too complex to address here, but we can highlight an important point emphasized by numerous scholars specializing in the history of these treaties and comparative international law. Although China was never formally colonized, the “Unequal Treaties” had a colonial character, allowing foreign countries to control significant legal and cultural aspects of Asian peoples. Those countries justified these treaties using essentialist and civilizing arguments, claiming that the politics and culture of these peoples were less developed and needed to be controlled by Western nations. This colonial and paternalistic discourse not only delegitimized Chinese sovereignty but also perpetuated a hierarchical and discriminatory vision of international relations.
As an anthropologist from Argentina, a country with a colonial past, I have studied the history of colonial political power structures and discourses. My current research focuses on the judicialization of religious minorities with an approach informed by legal anthropology, and I find significant parallels between these processes and those of the colonial era.


I am familiar with situations of power inequality in the judicial sphere and understand that, often, the criminalization of religious groups is based more on the discourses created about them than on concrete facts. In these cases, prejudices about little-known beliefs are mobilized in the media, where the practices of these groups are pathologized, presenting them as a threat. Thus, spiritual minorities are dehumanized and portrayed as dangerous or irrational, justifying intervention and control by the State. Ultimately, these prejudices affect judicial decisions because they permeate even the most educated classes.
The Tai Ji Men case is a clear example of the use of essentialist and discriminatory discourses to defame spiritual groups and mobilize political interests. Shifu (Grand Master) Dr. Hong Tao-Tze, along with other members of Tai Ji Men, was unjustly detained in 1996 and accused of fraud and tax evasion. This occurred in a context of harassment of spiritual groups for not supporting certain political sectors, despite Tai Ji Men always maintaining a neutral position. To turn public opinion against Shifu and his dizi (disciples), the prosecuting attorney Hou Kuan-Jen spread a series of fanciful stories in the media about the activities conducted at the academy, such as the accusation of raising goblins, and made strong and false criminal accusations against them.


This criminalization and defamation caused enormous losses to Tai Ji Men and created an injustice that has yet to be rectified. According to numerous testimonies, due to the bad press orchestrated by Prosecutor Hou, the academy members lost familial, friendly, and professional ties. They had to face violence, persecution, and scorn. They also lost assets, such as the sacred land in Miaoli, intended to host a self-cultivation center for Tai Ji Men, which was seized, unsuccessfully auctioned off, and nationalized in 2020 by the state and never returned.
My interviews with members of Argentine spiritual groups who were falsely accused and defamed in the media revealed that these circumstances generate despair, frustration, and distrust in the legal system. They feel treated as second-class citizens and perceive that their human rights are less important than those of others. Even the alleged victims of these groups were treated paternalistically by state agents when they tried to explain that the accusations were false. These people were stigmatized and their experiences delegitimized with the pseudoscientific argument that they had been brainwashed and therefore could not understand what was happening to them, reflecting a pattern of discrimination and exclusion based on prejudice and stereotypes. In the eyes of this people, their value as individuals in society was destroyed.
What is the difference between this discrimination and racism or colonial essentialism? Indeed, there is a parallel between colonial discourses, used to seize power over other peoples, and the use of discriminatory discourses to control spiritual minorities. In both cases, domination is justified by dehumanizing and delegitimizing the cultures and beliefs of others. These discourses create a narrative of superiority that allows the sectors of political power to impose their control and maintain their position.
The abolition of extraterritoriality in China marked the beginning of the end of the unequal treaties throughout the East, legally equating the independent states of the East with those of the West. This was an important step towards the formation of a universal community committed to respecting the right of all peoples to choose their form of government and to restore the equality of rights for all who had been deprived of it by force. To honor this milestone and renew its commitment to defending the equality of all its citizens, Taiwan must resolve the Tai Ji Men case. By addressing and rectifying the injustices committed against Tai Ji Men, Taiwan can demonstrate its dedication to the principles of justice, equity, and respect for human rights.