x光社笑料接二連三

明光社那本討論同性戀議題的「杰」作<<平權還是霸權?>>(不記得這是不是全名)我看過....
看完之後發現呢本書其實好應該歸入笑書類別……

幾日前在報紙上看到港台節目因「偏袒、鼓吹同性戀」而被警告，只令我感到啼笑皆非…

上網又要見到維護家庭同盟的搞笑聲明....(汗)....
大佬呀，到底x光社與及他們的同道炮製的這些粗鄙、自以為是的「笑話」我們還要承受多久?

不要一面倒，嘗試從不同角度看！

你的價值觀取向及對事物認同與否都看個人在怎樣的環境裹成長，作為成年人這是一次很好的機會，教導青少年如何接納及遵重一些弱勢社羣，另一方面要讓他們知道有些“路”是不易走，在途中可能要付上很大的代價，我們應該如何接受挑戰呢？這是值得去思考的問題。曾經讀過一篇文章，裏面說：「多一份思考空間，少一份盲目。」我認為節目正正給青少年這寶貴一課，也能幫助他們建立自己的價值觀。

廣管局因爲22宗投訴強烈勸喻港台，不是更荒謬嗎？政府是否干預媒體報道自由？

小西說得好。

廣管局因爲22宗投訴（我們連誰投訴，投訴什麽，理據是否成立都不知道）就貿然警告港台，仿佛他們在為民除害，然而我們的聲音又有誰聽得到呢？

我看過那集《鏗鏘集》3次（7月在電視看了一次，最近因爲這件事，重新在網上看了2次，嘗試分析投訴是否合理），每次我也覺得節目非常精彩，而且頗感人。

當我為港台鼓掌，還以爲社會開始勇敢面對敏感議題，消除對弱小社群的歧視的時候，廣管局居然因爲22宗莫名其妙的投訴而嚴重警告港台，政府還“高調介入”，這不是干預言論自由，媒體選材/報道自由是什麽？

該節目本身並無立場，既沒偏袒同性戀者，也沒鼓吹同性婚姻，只如實報道幾個主人翁的故事，他們的感受和盼望。如果廣管局覺得客觀報道同性戀者故事，讓社會對他們多點了解，竟是鼓吹同性戀，荼毒青少年，廣管局是否戴了有色眼睛看這件事，本身已為同性戀定罪？

這單不是一個支持和反對同性戀的問題，而是反映政府對具爭議性社會問題之處理手法。

香港自稱是個多元社會，能包容不同思想文化，我們自以爲先進開通，但香港政府居然這麽保守，怕事，落後，爲了討好主流思想而打壓弱小社群，干預敢於報道月亮背面的媒體之創作自由，不是很荒謬嗎？

社會上居然會發生這樣的事，我實在太氣憤了。早幾天寫了一封信給申訴專員，在此與同樣關心這件事，渴望社會可以更加和諧共融的朋友分享：

I’m writing to complain about Hong Kong Broadcasting Authority’s decision regarding the 22 complaints concerning the RTHK's television program "Hong Kong Connection"(鏗鏘集) broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB on 9 July 2006 from 7:35pm to 8:00pm.

I see this issue much more than a debate on the legitimacy of homosexuality, but also how a regulator approaches a social issue and how it sees its role in upholding truth and equality, therefore is worthy of more attention in the society.

Learning about HKBA’s decision against RTHK, I am deeply disappointed about HKBA’s overreaction to 22 complaints of individuals and I’m extremely pained by its implicit biased stance as a regulator.

I watched the program back in July and was very impressed about RTHK’s courage to undertake a social responsibility to help the voices of a minority group to reach the mass public. I was also impressed by its extremely objective fact-based depiction of the homosexual protagonists without putting any judgment on the issue.

However, receiving 22 complaints from the public, HKBA’s conclusion was that “the program presented only the merits of homosexual marriage and featured only the views of three homosexuals on the legislation of homosexual marriage, rendering the presentation unfair, partial and biased towards homosexuality and having the effect of promoting the acceptance of homosexual marriage. The BA also considered the program unsuitable for broadcast within the FVH as children and young viewers watching the program might have no knowledge of homosexuality and might be adversely affected by the partial contents of the program if parental guidance was not provided.”

I was dumbfounded by HKBA’s judgment based on a few arguments:

Objectives of the RTHK program:

First of all, as RTHK declared, the program was produced only to reflect a social phenomenon, to present factual and real stories of a few representatives of the homosexual community.

《鏗鏘集》節目監製梁慶華指節目只反映社會少數社群現象，將同性戀者內心感受、身邊人看法以特寫形式說出，並非鼓吹及偏袒同性戀，而且拍攝手法平實及以旁白剪接交代爭議部分，並無任何親密鏡頭出現。他希望，當局不會因今次而開先例打擊創作自由，也不希望社會愈來愈保守，希望繼續維持編輯獨立自主。
- excerpts from RTHK website

The program only serves the purpose of heightening public awareness on an existing social issue. It depicts homosexual people as normal, rational and healthy people. It reports interviews with those homosexual protagonists and presents their thoughts in a very objective and complete manner. It tells audience the types of pressure the homosexual community faces from family and society. It provides a platform for protagonists to voice out their personal dreams and aspirations for a more receptive society.

It does not judge the protagonists or endorse their views in any ways. It does not judge the opposing voices (anti-homosexuality groups) in the society. It does not have an independent point of view on the issue.

Role of RTHK as media:

I believe the role of a media with conscience and social responsibility is not just producing programs that appeal to tastes of the majority. It is also committed to heighten awareness of various social issues, to report related facts not currently understood by the majority, to provide a platform for minority groups to voice out their opinions, to stimulate a rational discussion in the society, so as to help the society to make a better judgment on issues based on more unbiased information.

I saw that RTHK’s program was exactly fulfilling these criteria.

Lack of information/ knowledge breeds misunderstanding. Misunderstand leads to prejudice and discrimination.

While the majority voices in the society is opposing homosexuality, we seldom hear what these discriminated group think and feel as members of the society and as individuals of flesh and blood, with families and a profession. This is a missing piece of data for the public to form a well-informed conclusion on the issue. Without jumping to a conclusion on the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, I’d say RTHK is doing an exceptional job to present some less accessible information to public audience on this social issue.

I’d even say that the controversy the program stirs up is healthy. The program should encourage discussion and debates. It is absolutely unsurprising that there are complaints. 22 is not a big number, I’m sure that there are definitely more than 22 members in the society who thinks the opposite too. Stimulating debates is a healthy first step to address discrimination as compared to turning a blind eye to it and refusing to discuss.

Role of HKBA as a regulator:

As a regulator, I believe HKBA is supposed to have a neutral stance on controversial social issues that do not have a right or wrong answer.

When the majority of the society is only familiar of the negative side of a subject, and a media comes out and presents the public with some other overlooked facts and the non-mainstream opinions, should the regulator immediately condemn the media as “unfair and partial”?

If so, are we saying that as a society, we should only be free to discuss the negative side of homosexuality without being able to listen to the voices of the discriminated group, without being able to explore some alternative views? Is it wrong for a media to present us with views that we seldom hear about or views that we don’t “like”? Is that what HKBA considered as fairness?

What role does HKBA see itself playing? Pleasing a selected group of audiences who’re first and loud to complain? Conforming to mainstream opinions? Suppressing discussion on sensitive topics in order to play safe?

Questions on HKBA’s judgment:

HKBA’s criticism that the program advocates homosexual marriage is ungrounded. The program only shows clips of the protagonists sharing their personal pursuits for a legal marital status and the legal rights and benefits that come with a legitimate marital relationship. The program producer does not have an independent opinion on the issue and never aims to advocate the legislation of same-sex marriage.

The criticism that the program’s portrayal of homosexuality being unfair, partial and biased towards homosexuality is also questionable, because the program only objectively presents the personal stories of the three protagonists without any judgment. Why is the program unfair and partial when it was only “reporting new stories” of the protagonists, as the program did for every episode for different topics?

Right, the program could have interviewed religious groups, political parties and members in the general public who can also tell us why they are against homosexuality. However, given it is only a 20-minute TV program, it is understandable why the program chooses to skip the arguments that we are all too familiar with, and focuses on the stories of the protagonists, so that we can learn more about “the other side of the story” within the time constraints.

Besides the program is not painting a one-sided positive picture about homosexuality, instead the whole story was set in a context that this group is surviving in a society of opposition and rejection, and so audience are definitely well aware of the facts that there are opinions against homosexuality. Therefore, even if the program focuses on the voices of homosexual individuals, it is still not presenting a biased pro-homo message.

Further, HKBA concludes that “the program unsuitable for broadcast within the FVH as children and young viewers watching the program might have no knowledge of homosexuality and might be adversely affected by the partial contents of the program if parental guidance was not provided”, and this is a very thought-provoking statement.

I believe, in a healthy society, our children and youngsters should be brought up in an environment where we always present the two sides of an issue and stimulates them to think and form a well-informed judgment. In a society where the negative views on homosexuality is prevailing, where children and adults are insensitive to the issue and making hurting gay-jokes, why should youngsters not be exposed to the other side of the story so that they can grow up forming a balanced view? Why should they not learn about homosexual people as legitimate individuals in the society? Why should they not understand more about the pressure they face and the thoughts they have? Why should we hope to blind our next generation and let them grow up in a one-sided world?

If RTHK is broadcasting a program in which people are advocating violence, drug abuse, or any crime and unethical behavior, we can easily say that those arguments are wrong and we should protect our children from being misled.

However, I believe in Hong Kong, we have already established that people should be treated as equals regardless of age, gender, religion, marital status and sex orientation. That means homosexual individuals should enjoy their basic human rights to voice their opinions, and be treated with respect.

With such principles, if we want to address unjust discrimination in this society, shouldn’t we start with informing and educating the public?

By suppressing media coverage on homosexuality, is HKBA already assuming homosexuality is a condemnable subject? Is HKBA already assuming that this is unethical that we should protect our children’s minds from being contaminated by these homosexual protagonists?

I have a reason to believe that HKBA’s decision is rooted in their own implicit sex orientation discrimination.

Taking the homosexual topic aside, I have a problem understanding why HKBA’s warning to RTHK is not an infringement of freedom of speech. Don’t homosexual people have a right to express their personal opinions? Don’t they even have a right for their dreams? If a media is doing a news story on this subject, shouldn’t they be responsible for reporting the complete truth? Are we saying that because homosexual should always be framed as a negative subject, if the protagonists appear to be too positive, the media should better take them off from the screen because that is not aligned with the views of the majority?

I do not understand that RTHK does not have to right to broadcast the interviews in a factual and non-judgmental attitude, and why condemning this program is not an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of media.

Advocating equality in a society:

This issue reminds me of the painful fight for racial equality in other countries decades ago. Back then in countries like the US and the South Africa, the majority (the whites) also thought that the discriminatory treatment of the blacks was rightful. People who advocated racial equality were condemned. The voices of the blacks were nowhere to be heard. The change from racial discrimination to racial equality was a long fight.

Changes, as always, are painful. Accepting novel ideas are painful, admitting old views as obsolete and inapplicable are not easy. It takes years of education, and communications is the first step. Sadly speaking, in the past years, Hong Kong has not moved forward in addressing sex orientation discrimination.

Hong Kong takes pride in its ability to embrace diversity, it is very painful to see that in this issue, our regulator who is supposed to be impartial is depriving the society of hearing about voices of the minority. It is painful to see how a regulator can act so brashly upon 22 individual complaints. I do not criticize people who make the complaints, it is absolutely understandable that some individuals are less informed and less familiar about this topic and may find such discussion uncomfortable, what surprised me was the ignorance of the regulator in making this decision.

I am very very disappointed by HKBA’s decision, I strongly believe this is a mistaken one and I urge the Obudsman to investigate thoroughly and to restore justice to RTHK.

Thank you very much for your attention.

維護家庭聯盟何必轉彎抹角?

《維護家庭聯盟》的指責，真的有點奇怪。

1. 我想每一個節目都有它主要希望探討的問題、探討的重點，同一堆素材，可以用來探討不同的問題，就算是同一的問題，探討的重點也可以相當不同。《維護家庭聯盟》對「同性戀人」深感失望，其實是因為節目探討的問題以及探討的重點，跟他希望的有點不同吧。其實原聲明中的第三點才是《維護家庭聯盟》所希望探討的重點吧，何必轉彎抹角?

2. 關於『客觀、持平及公正』，我覺得張翠容有句話講得很好:「有的記者以為各打五十大板就叫做客觀，但終於明白，應該要八十大板的，就打八十大板，四十大板的，就四十大板。」反同志的聲音在社會上從來都是majority，單挑「同性戀人」出來，同志的聲音，很多，但從個社會看，同志又可佔多少發聲的空間?

3. 其實，基於篇幅的限制，節目在內容上有詳略的偏重，在所難免(依《維護家庭聯盟》的意見，「同性戀人」應該是個超長篇; 不過，我petty sure，若果港台真的把「同性戀人」拍成超長篇，《維護家庭聯盟》會反得更激烈);就以《維護家庭聯盟》提的"一名男同性戀者的孖生哥哥"例子，節目也沒有提孖生哥哥後來接受弟弟性取向的事。依《維護家庭聯盟》的『客觀、持平及公正』論，節目應否也包括那名孖生哥哥在態度上的轉變?

4. 而且不反對同性婚姻，不等於鼓吹同性婚姻吧。況且，節目的重點也不在於反對定鼓吹同性婚姻。《維護家庭聯盟》提"反對/鼓吹"的問題，反而欲蓋彌彰的倒影出它的反對立場，這個跟它對港台的『客觀、持平及公正』的要求，產生了一種微妙的反諷關係。

另外，我覺得回應呢類聲明有一個好處﹕這樣會讓我們多明白一點呢類聲明的話語邏輯，呢類聲明是話語分析的上佳材料呵。

Do we really need to respond to the homophobic bullshit?

The article is just bullshit from some hatred-filled, church-going homophobic bigots.

Do we really need to respond to them?

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "《鏗鏘集》鼓吹同性婚姻，維護家庭聯盟作出回應 "

打倒「明光」社！

X光社呢個名改得真好

x光社笑料接二連三

不要一面倒，嘗試從不同角度看！

廣管局因爲22宗投訴強烈勸喻港台，不是更荒謬嗎？政府是否干預媒體報道自由？

維護家庭聯盟何必轉彎抹角?

Do we really need to respond to the homophobic bullshit?

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "《鏗鏘集》鼓吹同性婚姻，維護家庭聯盟作出回應 "

打倒「明光」社！

X光社呢個名改得真好

x光社笑料接二連三

不要一面倒，嘗試從不同角度看！

廣管局因爲22宗投訴強烈勸喻港台，不是更荒謬嗎？ 政府是否干預媒體報道自由？

維護家庭聯盟何必轉彎抹角?

Do we really need to respond to the homophobic bullshit?

廣管局因爲22宗投訴強烈勸喻港台，不是更荒謬嗎？政府是否干預媒體報道自由？