Sarah, I don't believe that's the issue at all.

As I understand the chronology, CopyLion signed up for G+ using the name "CopyLion" because, in keeping with Google's suggestion on the sign-up page, it was "the name (his) friends, family, or co-workers usually call (him)."  However, it was declared an invalid name and in order to have his account re-activated, he was instructed to provide proof of identity.  The problem with that is that Hong Kong identity documents are contradictory and involve multiple iterations of names, many of which aren't even translations of each other, in at least three different languages, which might raise red flags in the minds of Google staffers in spite of being the only legitimate documents he has.  From what I understand, the use of any of those names would also make him unrecognizable to the online friends and acquaintances he would be trying to connect with.

It's worth noting as well that at least one G+ user, complaining elsewhere, said that when he submitted a copy of his driver's license, he was compelled to do so via an unsecured http:// form rather than a secured https:// form, potentially exposing his submission to interception and opening him up to the risk of identity theft.  This is a very serious matter that has nothing to do with the name fields' coding systems themselves and everything to do with the way Google is attempting to police people's online identities in ways that conflict with the real world.