Fang Yan, deputy to the National People’s Congress and vice chairman of the Shaanxi Lawyers Association, will prepare to jointly submit a proposal on amending the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests” to strengthen the protection of women’s rights and interests. Fang Yan also believes that the protection of women’s name rights should be made clear in the Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, and a provision should be added that “women have the right to use their own names. If children follow their mother’s surname, no one may interfere”.
The representative comrade suggested a loneliness. . . You know what she wants to say, but the logic of the double quote content is seriously wrong. “Women have the right to use their own names. If children follow their mother’s surname, no one may interfere.” It is said that the right to use names is a right granted to all natural persons by the law. However, the right to use name refers to “a natural person’s exclusive right to use his own name in accordance with the law. The use of one’s name is an important part of the name right of a natural person. In civil activities, a natural person can use his or her own name unless otherwise provided by law. One’s own pen name, stage name or pseudonym, etc. No organization or individual may force a natural person to use or not use a certain name. The right to use a name is an exclusive right to use, and others may not deliberately use another person’s name. It is important in reality. The phenomenon of names is not an infringement. Duplicate names are also called parallelism of names, that is, several people legally obtain the same name. Under such circumstances, everyone has the right to use their own names, and they are all legitimately exercising their rights, but deliberately Except for mixed ones.” (Source) does not include the right to name one’s own children. In other words, the father’s surname does not belong to the right to use the father’s name granted by the law. The first half sentence is like saying nothing. Women now have the right to use their names. Then the subject of the phrase “children follow the mother’s surname” is “children”, which means that “children themselves” decide to follow the mother’s surname, and no one can interfere. First of all, this is not limited to daughters, so it has nothing to do with the “right to use women’s names”. Secondly, “surname with mother” is not within the scope of the right to use the name, it should belong to its “right to name” (if there is no name in the original) or “right to change the name”. The guardian of the child before adulthood is probably the biological parent, so when the child is born, the parents should jointly decide the child’s name. No one can interfere with the naming rights of all the children’s biological parents. (It is highly probable that this representative comrade wants to advocate?). Then the adult children, when they grow up, are willing to change their names to follow their mother’s surname, which belongs to the adult children’s own rights, and no one has the right to interfere. Therefore, what this representative wants to suggest may be: minors and their direct guardians have the right to name or change the minor’s name, and no one may interfere. Adults have the right to change their names voluntarily, and no one, including parents, may interfere. It doesn’t have much to do with women-the only high probability that it might have a relationship is: when naming or rename a minor child, the mother’s opinion is as important as the father’s opinion. If the father is deceased, the mother has the right to change the name of her minor child, and no one else may interfere. (Above, if the child can already participate in the discussion, the child’s opinion is also very important!)