A dramatic police raid on a well-known gay bar in Taipei on October 3 has ignited widespread shock and confusion, with attorneys alleging authorities overstepped legal bounds and activists warning of discrimination. The incident, which saw around 30 officers take dozens of patrons away for questioning, occurred just four weeks before Taipei's annual Pride celebration, Asia's largest LGBTQ+ event.
Footage circulating from the raid showed officers using demeaning language and what legal experts have described as unlawful treatment. This prompted an estimated 100 protesters to march on precinct headquarters the following day. While several officers have since faced disciplinary action, LGBTQ+ advocates argue the issue extends beyond individual actions, calling for structural changes to safeguard the rights of sexual minorities in a city celebrated for its tolerance.
Sean Du, secretary-general of the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, Taiwan’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, stated, “This incident exposes a serious gap. A city can celebrate LGBTQ+ communities publicly but still not ensure everyone is treated equally by institutions like the police.”
Taiwan has cultivated a reputation as one of Asia’s most LGBTQ+-friendly societies, a significant shift from the police crackdowns and harassment prevalent during the martial law era, which concluded in 1987. The island made history in 2019 by becoming the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage, establishing Taipei as a liberal haven for queer travelers from regions where same-sex relations are stigmatized or criminalized. Its annual Pride parade, held on the last Saturday of October, attracted an estimated 150,000 attendees last year.
The raid specifically targeted Commander D, a 14-year-old BDSM-themed club located in Wanhua District’s Ximending area. Wanhua Precinct police stated they had received 13 complaints about the establishment from members of the public between January 1 and October 3.
While police visits to Taipei clubs for ID checks are common, this operation was different. Officers arrived armed with a search warrant approved by the Taipei District Court. Lin, 34, a clinical psychologist and founder of the independent Threads publication Taipei Rainbow Party Weekly, described the Saturday encounter as “fundamentally different” from numerous previous nightclub inspections he had witnessed, leaving some of his friends traumatized.
More than 30 police officers, including both uniformed and plainclothes personnel, entered Commander D around 4:30 p.m., stopping the music and turning on the lights. Videos shared on social media depicted officers instructing customers to squat down and put away their phones.
Police informed the media that they had discovered used condoms and that some customers were nude. Lin recounted that those not wearing clothes were prohibited from dressing, while individuals who had hastily put on clothes were ordered to remove them, ostensibly to “preserve evidence.” Of the 58 customers police reported being inside, approximately two-thirds were shirtless, most of the remainder were in their underwear, and only a few were completely naked.
Witnesses reported that police did not initially display the warrant to the assembled patrons. A social media video showed officers repeatedly ordering customers to cease talking, telling them to challenge the operation in court. Officers also reportedly mocked a man in a wheelchair, questioning his ability to have sex. When a manager intervened to defend the man, he was handcuffed and forced to kneel on the floor, according to local media citing eyewitnesses.
Patrons had their belongings searched and were subjected to urine tests for drugs. After several hours, 51 individuals were transported in police vehicles to the precinct for further questioning as “witnesses.” Commander D did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Lingwei Li, founder and managing lawyer at Zenkuan Law Firm and founder of the Taiwan Nonbinary Queer Sluts, Taiwan’s first support group for nonbinary people, identified several police actions that day as legally problematic. Li explained that a warrant to search premises does not automatically grant police the right to search every customer’s property; individual searches require separate criteria or consent. Compulsory drug tests, Li noted, should be restricted to persons under arrest, not witnesses. Furthermore, Li stated they were unaware of any legal basis for preventing witnesses from using their phones.
Li also highlighted that police blurred the distinction between a witness and a suspect. A witness cannot be detained unless they fail to appear without valid reason after being formally summoned to testify, and a warrant has subsequently been issued. Addressing the issue of nudity, Li clarified that the Social Order Maintenance Act requires more than mere nudity to constitute an offense; it must involve conduct that offends public decency and continues despite a warning. “This case involves an abuse of police authority,” Li asserted, adding, “Evidence indicates that the police prohibited the nude individual from putting on clothes, which also contradicts the requirement of ‘failing to heed warnings.’” Li concluded, “Ordering people who were already dressed to undress is not preserving evidence. It’s humiliation.”
You have reached the limit of 2 free articles this month.
