Fabulous Pride Parade in Hong Kong Today Saturday Dec 13

[anakot]

There was a fabulous Pride Parade in Hong Kong today Saturday Dec 13. Lets hope its gives a shove to badly needed gay law reform and sidelines the homophobes.

A great feeling on the march, lots of humour and dancing.

Thanks for the pics.

I'm puzzled about the "badly needed' extension of the gay law reform. Chris Patten slipped the decriminaliation of homosexual acts into the Basic Law in the run up to 1997 withut much help from ten years of ineffective lobbying by well intentioned campaigners who were really being shouted down by mumbo-jumbo. Consequent generations of Hong Kong youth are much more confident than their previous generations. What specific being called for?

Chris Patten slipped the decriminaliation of homosexual acts into the Basic Law in the run up to 1997 withut much help from ten years of ineffective lobbying by well intentioned campaigners who were really being shouted down by mumbo-jumbo.

Patten took over as governor of Hong Kong in July 1992 until the handover in 1997. Homosexuality was de-criminalised in Hong Kong in 1991, with further clarification of the law being made in the Hong Kong High Courts in 2005 and 2007, giving homosexuals unqualified similar rights to heterosexuals in terms of age and sex in public places.

Chris Patten had nothing to do with it but, like you, I do question what "badly needed gay law reform" needs a "shove" as there are no longer any legal grounds for discrimination.

[anakot]

Here is a bit of commentary from last year concerning two cases:

COMMENTARY ONE
"In a unanimous ruling announced on July 17 2007, the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region held that Section 118F(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, which, as summarized in one of the opinions, "criminalises homosexual buggery committed otherwise than in private," is unconstitutional under the equality requirements of the Basic Law governing Hong Kong. Upholding the dismissal of a prosecution against two gay men, the court held, in effect, that the government had provided no justification for specifically outlawing homosexual conduct when the analogous conduct is not illegal when committed by heterosexual couples. _Secretary for Justice v. Yau & Lee_, FACC No. 12 of 2006 (July 17, 2007). Trial and intermediate appellate courts had ruled against the government, which appealed to the highest court. (my italics)

[18 July 2007] "In future, even though the law remains, the police would find it difficult to apply with the latest ruling," Law said, urging the government to review the related ordinance and clear up any law that discriminates against homosexuals.

However, Law doubted the new government would have the courage or commitment to push the boundary further by amending the law. He said this is a "hot potato" the government would be reluctant to handle for fear of provoking an outcry from religious groups and moralists.
"This could be very dangerous for our civil rights. I doubt the government would take any action at all. But leaving the law the way it is, the government is losing face and [the law] is disrespectful of the gay community," Law said.

Society for Truth and Light - a conservative Christian group - called the verdict "regrettable" and "disappointing," saying it has set a "dangerous precedent." "

ANOTHER COMMENTARY:
тАЬEarlier, a 20-year-old Hong Kong gay man successfully challenged another law that punishes men under 21 who engage in gay sodomy by up to life imprisonment. The consensual age for heterosexual intercourse in Hong Kong is 16.
A local judge ruled in 2005 that the law infringed on the rights of privacy and equality for gay men.
The Hong Kong government also unsuccessfully appealed that ruling.
Now that the ban of public gay sodomy and the higher consensual age for gay sex have been struck down in court, such restrictions are technically unenforceable, but lawmakers still need to remove them from Hong Kong's laws, lawyers say.
Gay activist Cho Man-kit welcomed Tuesday's ruling as a victory for gay rights.
"The government has no way to avoid amending the law now that the court has ruled unanimously against it," he said.тАЭ

Some of the law changes that need a shove:
1. Adjust sodomy law in line with Court of Final Appeals Ruling
2. Age of consent to be in sync with hets. ie 16 years age.
3. In other words "clear up any law that discriminates against homosexuals" of which there are many. In Australia they had to amend 100+ Federal laws when recently rectifying the situation there!

And another thing remove the bloody Society for Truth and Light from the Gov't "gay" consultative committee. What are these people doing on this committee. I mean to say these Christians are a hateful lot really...

Basically this governement is a timid outfit and I don't expect much. But may be marches like this will give some support to the few legislators on our side.
Sorry about the long reply. There is tons more which I will spare you...

Get goin' Hong Kong. Taipei is already miles ahead and you are supposed to be the one!!

Thanks Anakot for the photos -- you even managed to get a photo of my ex in one of them :)

Thanks, Anakot. Seems to be mostly "housekeeping", but it is dangerous to leave discriminatory statutes lying around.

Exactly what I said, anakot ("with further clarification of the law being made in the Hong Kong High Courts in 2005 and 2007, giving homosexuals unqualified similar rights to heterosexuals in terms of age and sex in public places"). In other words they are technically unenforceable, cannot be applied, and so are not "badly needed" reforms.


And another thing remove the bloody Society for Truth and Light from the Gov't "gay" consultative committee. What are these people doing on this committee. I mean to say these Christians are a hateful lot really...

I can find no trace of such a committee, however assuming that you are correct (a link with a list of members would be helpful) I can see no reason to object to their presence on one as long as those holding opposing views are equally represented - consultative committees are, after all, there to be consulted and to provide a cross-section of all views, hateful though some may be to some people (on all sides).

I cannot help but be reminded of the thread on why "gay marriage" was so opposed in the States, and why it is currently doomed to rejection, while the technically similar "Civil Partnership" was approved with no major opposition in the UK. I am not advocating doing nothing, however very often those who are most vocal in forcing their views on others and to the fore end up polarising views and creating opposition, doing their cause far more harm than good. This would seem to be a case in point.

[Brad the Impala]

I am not advocating doing nothing, however very often those who are most vocal in forcing their views on others and to the fore end up polarising views and creating opposition, doing their cause far more harm than good. This would seem to be a case in point.

In what way? You're saying that this parade will make it less likely that the age of consent, for example, will be equalised?!

If you are a 17 year old gay man, in a fairly homphobic chinese society, the potential to be penalised for having sex, whether the law is ultimately enforceable or not, would cast a heavy shadow.

Full support to those working to remove the shadow.

[anakot]

...In other words they are technically unenforceable, cannot be applied, and so are not "badly needed" reforms.

Disagree.

These changes are badly needed, particularly anti discrimination legislation. More important than rectifying (pun intended) age of consent and abolition of sodomy laws.

Hong Kong needs to get its act together if it wants to remain in the first world.

You're saying that this parade will make it less likely that the age of consent, for example, will be equalised?!

No, I am saying nothing of the sort nor have I suggested that.

I am saying that the age of consent, to all intents and practical purposes, already has been "equalised" and that by insisting on unnecessarily changing formal legislation, which no longer casts any "heavy shadow" or gives any "17 year old gay man (in Hong Kong) ... the potential to be penalised for having sex" creates opposition totally unnecessarily in what I agree is "a fairly homophobic chinese society" and is therefore counter-productive.

I am saying that I agree with anakot in his latest post in that there is far more important legislation which needs to be passed which would have a direct effect on many homosexuals in Hong Kong, such as those laws concerning immigration for gay partners, pension, housing and mortgage rights, etc, which are of far greater practical importance yet would receive far less opposition if they were seen as a "human rights" and not a "gay rights" issue and not linked unavoidably with the issues of a homosexual age of consent and homosexuals having sex in public places.

I am saying that, well intentioned though it may be, your "support to those working to remove the shadow" is a perfect example of what I meant by "very often those who are most vocal in forcing their views on others and to the fore end up polarising views and creating opposition, doing their cause far more harm than good".