香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "彩虹照榆林--影像報導"

Consumer rights

Well, I think this incident is beyond the right of minority.

It is about freedom from bigotry.

As consumers, we have the right to know that this bookshop is run by bigots and speak loud and clear to all booklovers that this behaviors of bigotry is not acceptable to the majority of consumers.

It is about censorship. If one bookshop hypocritically censor materials, then it limited the free throw of communication. They could have the right to deny service, but as consumers, we have to think should this kind of behavior should be encouraged.

I think not.

Let more open minded bookshop owner takes its place. I think this owner of the bigot bookshop is more suitable to run bigot Çhristian bookshop.

Let them. But as for action goes, we have to send a message as the public that we don 't like this form of censorship, and our society would not welcome their bigot behaviors.

How do you like to have someone censor information that meant to be public?

I'm not only opposing this behavior, but as a concern citizen, would make other consumers aware that this is a bookshop that censors some materials, while pretending to be open-minded.

See you all on Sunday.

婦進是怎樣發現的呢?

是否也發現榆林把你們的東西也扔掉? 還是他們決定取消門口的雜誌書架? 抑或明光社背後支持它與平權組織對著幹? 聽說明光社會發動教友到榆林買書以示支持呢!

愉林最新消息

由新婦女協進會製作‧民政事務局贊助的
《平等與包容：促進不同性傾向人士平等機會》月曆
現愉林書店拒絕繼續擺放

今晚潮濕

昨晚71電台的節目"今晚潮濕"中談論有關榆林事件. 大家歡迎收聽:

http://www.radio71.hk/blog/index.php?cat=5&ctt=2

回應勿推極端

謝謝阿譪的提點. 昨天行文太過急, 一時諗起就打, 未想清楚.

這個例子本是想提出現時反歧視法例, 都不是一句"私人機構"便萬事大吉. 例如在自己公司中, 如有一個女性員工懷孕/成為單親媽媽, 亦不可以因為一個"私人機構"而炒左個員工.

希望大家多點討論.

回應One last thing to remember: Will gay group allow Christain act

噢, 教會有這樣的要求嗎?

好的, 要是有教會願意在所有的活動中, 承諾派發性傾向平等的教育資訊, 我們亦願意在所有活動中派發教會的傳教傳單!!!

公平合理的要求. 如真有這要求的話, 歡迎與我聯絡.

回應why not you force TVB to air gay program?

答案是不用force, 因為tvb及atv都有播放過同志平權的節目了.

而今次榆林事件, 組織者不是force該店擺放, 是要求她們開放渠道. 請大家不要亂用force這個字. 就我昨今兩日接觸過榆林的徐小姐, 她亦表示不會開放她們的渠道.

她這樣做, 是完全合法的. 我們是表達我們對此店的不滿.

正如現今在香港, 而沒有標籤的型式賣基因改造食物, 亦是完全合法的. 但綠色和平就難道不可以將賣基因改造食物的公司的名字公開嗎?

回應Perplexing Perspex

"It is disheartening to see how GLBT claims that they are the "weak" social group being discriminated against. GLBT throughout the world and in Hong Kong is an extremely powerful force with lots of resource to push their agenda. This incidence and discussions really show this. They are really a powerful minority group. Small businesses are clearly being persecuted by these powerful GLBT groups"

想問問, 妳從可覺得同志團體的資源十分豐富?
現時香港的現況是, 根本沒有任何一個同志團體有資金擁有一個常設而開公予公眾的會址, 甚至沒有全職的職員.
就香港女同盟而言, 去年的資出約為3萬幾元, 所有幹事均為義工.
而明光社去年的開資是200萬!!!
更有教會組織以幾百萬買戶外廣告牌:
------------------------------------
港澳新聞---巨型經句照亮港九

「耶穌是主」在港島

「耶穌是主」在九龍

巨型經文現鬧市

何文田區林弟兄露台外懸十架
高豎在銅鑼灣維多利亞公園附近一幢住宅大廈屋頂的「耶穌是主」大燈箱，由前年七月十九日開始亮燈以來，到現在已接近兩年。這個耗費超過一百萬元的燈箱，合約是兩年，屆滿後如何，有待決定。

照耀維港勵人心
負責這個大燈箱的合一僕人團隊，有鑒於前年沙士肆虐，香港陷入低谷，為了祝福香港，給予港人盼望，故耗資在港島中心地帶高處，高舉十字架，宣告「耶穌是主」。這燈箱由播道會同福堂管理，按月支付的費用，除租金外，還含安裝、維修和電費。

這四個大字加上十字架是面向北面，前面的維園沒有高樓大廈擋住，日間不亮燈時呈現紅色，晚上亮燈時是白色，從維多利亞港及九龍半島向南看，清晰可見。

「耶穌是主」在九龍大廈牆身在九龍方面，去年亦在佐敦道近英皇佐治五世公園的一幢大廈牆身，髹上直排
「耶穌是主」。這個佔了整幢大廈高度的大字，向西與地鐵九龍站遙遙相對，沒有其他建築物擋住，從西區海底隧道出九龍，向東入佐敦道，就會碰見。這個雖然不是燈箱，但晚上有射燈照亮，耗費也要四十萬元，合約為兩年，也是每月分期付款，由合一僕人團隊負責。

需教會信徒支持
合一僕人團隊的何志滌牧師表示，高懸「耶穌是主」是要高舉耶穌，祝福香港，現仍在禱告看還有甚麼地點需要懸上高舉耶穌的字樣，他盼望得到眾教會和信徒在禱告和財力上的支持，讓銅鑼灣及佐敦道的「耶穌是主」可以繼續照耀港九，並可在第三個地點高舉基督，帶給港人盼望。奉獻劃線支票抬頭可寫「合一僕人團隊有限公司」，寄往播道會同福堂何志滌牧師收，地址是香港銅鑼灣摩頓台11號。

巨型經文現鬧市
本報記者最近在九龍彌敦道241-243號的金峰大廈外牆，也見髹上約翰福音十章十節的經文，沿彌敦道往南行，遠望向佐敦道，必然看見。何志滌牧師稱，這個一整幢大廈高的經文，不屬合一僕人團隊，是該幢大廈業主的心意。他也到過那裡觀看，感覺很好，十分舒服。

私人露台掛十架
本港不少教會利用窗戶及大大小小招牌，寫上經文，祝福街坊。至於個人，本報記者走訪一位住在何文田的一位姓林弟兄，他在四樓的露台上也懸掛一個五呎高四呎闊的紅色十字架，並有計時裝置，可自動開燈和關燈，所以他不在家時，晚上也會自動亮燈。林弟兄表示，他在韓國看見很多大廈都有紅色十字架亮著，十分感動。他參考這個做法，要在自己家中高舉十字架，向世人表明信仰，提醒自己立志，也會鼓勵其他信徒這樣做。

http://www.kingdomrevival.com.hk/new_detail.php?type=hk_new&weeks=15&new...
2550&n_year=2005

------------------------------------

試問究意同志團體如何powerful呢???
要是同志團體也可以像基督新教教會一樣, 在明報買位登全版的文章, 亦不需要以街頭行動來發放消息. 我想, 整個行動當日的支出是約100元.

One last thing to remember: Will gay group allow Christain activ

According to their logic, religion groups do have the right to demonstrate, to force gay group to open their activists for preaching even if they don't want to.

Isn't that a kind of double standard as well if the gay group don't apologise for disrupting Catholic mass( OK, even if you dont know the stand of the bookstore, you couldn't claim that you know nothing about Catholic Church's stand), while they asking further from the bookstore?

I find no adequate reasons on this paradox.

默契

我想, 絕大部份人會認為"榆林"是一個私人的地方(因老闆要交租等等), 因此老闆當然有權選擇是否放置宣傳刊物. 而且,對於大眾, 這想法仍合理非常.

但對於經常在"榆林"擺放刊物的人/團體, 他們可能只需在放置前通知一下店員便可以了, 不需經過任何檢閱. 因而這地方(即放置刊物的架)就成了公共的地方. 因而, 這"公共"的概念可能只有這群經常擺放刊物的人才意識到; 大部份的公眾,即使是"榆林"的常客,也未必會察覺到這沒有白字黑字寫明的"條文"、雙方的協調/默契.

如要將這"公共"的想法為人理解和接受.我想,就先要讓大眾得悉這一直存在的"默契"了.

case concluded

according to the evidence shown so far, "yu lam" has surely viloated the trust to them for displaying the pamphlets. so, wrong in sense of morality. hope that no one would say that i am judgemental.

ways forward:
not much idea except those offered earlier, ask the chain stores and government venues to display.

interesting point:
what are the contents of pamphlets?
"promotion" of homo-sexuality? educating others not to discriminate against homo-sexuality? for the former, no need to promote la, as the gay community believe that it is a result of in-born nature ma. for the latter, a difficult task. for those who would not discriminate the gay and les, no need to educate for those who would, difficult to change their minds.

all the best.

Just a little piece of 'conclusion / comment'

Summarising everybody's view, I think that there are several things we all agree.

1) Throwing away the others' brochures (not because they are old, outdated or left-over, but just don't want to display them) is disrespectful, unethical and very impolite. They should at tell the people who distribute the leaflets or booklets know they don't want to display them and help them distribute instead.

2) A book store is not only a private property, but also somewhere for the public, if it is to set up a place for circulation of information, they should provide equal opportunities for different organisations to display their information. Although...

3) We really have no right to force them change their 'policy' or just their mind. They have the right to do anything, even if it's wrong, as long as it is not against the law.

4) The related organisation might be making it a bit too 'big', but there is no way the media would report this incident if they didn't try to make it big.

5) There are not enough channels for minority groups to express their views and to spread their believes and esp. to distribute their printed materials.

6) The government should do something, lead the society to understand what is 'equal opportunity'. If even the government doesn't help, can't rely on the private sector. For private enterprises, we still have to wait......

7) Religion is not an excuse to support discrimination in any way, yet people should have right to support their own believes and the right to choose their own religion.

8) Even we like it or not, there are people abusing the term 'religion' in such ways.

Don't know if everybody agrees or not. Just a little 'chapter summary' here.

勿推極端

以廸士尼"華人與狗不得進入"的例子無助於榆林事件的討論, 因為榆林是提供賣書服務的公司, 而它並沒有拒絕同性戀者到它那裡購書.

它只是在選擇在其空間流通的items 或知識, 作為一個知識流通的場所, 你可以批評它在沒知會下丟掉你們的刊物, 或其書類的選擇不夠多元, 市場導向等等, 但和"華人與狗不許進入"是兩回事. 而且, 這種講法很危險, 因為反過來, 若人家說gay bar 或 lesbian cafe 拒絕放宗教刊物是歧視宗教的行為, 會令到很多獨立和小眾空間破毀.

譬如說, 在inmedia, 我們的活動資訊只能顯示五個活動, 若宗教團體把它們聚會的資訊都放上來, 便會把其他的活動淹沒. 若我們不放, 這些宗教團體又可不可以以"華人與狗不許進入"來指責inmedia呢? 其實即便我們可以顯示無限多的活動資訊, 但我們也可能不會(編輯還沒有討論過)把宗教活動放上我們的網址, 因為編輯部有其選取權, 你可以質疑這選擇有問題, 但卻不能說我們歧視宗教.

所以我希望大家不要火掩眼地把事情推向極端, 因為這正助長人家把自己推向極端.

少數性傾向平等機會教育渠道

由於時間關係, 作以下簡單回應:
- videopower的片段應該已經修理好, 請大家再嘗試去看看

- 是次榆林行動, 組織者是要求她們開放渠道, 而不是以法律途徑強迫她們開放渠道. 她們要是不開放, 亦不會犯法.

- 現時香港的情況是, 根本沒有一個同志組織擁有常設開放的會址, 可供擺放單張. 可見少數性傾向平等機會教育的渠道是可等不足, 及任可一個渠道的重要性. 謝謝阿藹的建議, 我們會考慮進一步尋求更多宣傳性傾向平等機會教育的渠道

- 明光社等人常說現時以教育作為推動少數性傾向平等機會是最佳的, 但是次事件反映出, 根本要實行教育亦困難重重

- 多個同志組織亦曾邀請明光社等人作活動嘉賓

- 香港女同盟會亦曾於會內發放關於明光社等人的文章(例如一人一信行動), 鼓勵大家討論. 本人十分鼓勵資訊自由流通, 相信真理越辯越明

- 提供一個想像比喻給大家討論: 要是現時有一個私人擁有的公共公園(如狄士尼), 聲明"華人與狗不得進入", 大家是否覺得這是她們的私人決定?

行文匆匆, 可能有思路不清之處, 歡迎討論~

愛者狂的讀白

作為一個愛書狂，但在選擇書店時，我明確有清楚的政治考慮，無論政治及在經濟上，另一方面我亦很喜歡專程去很多單張的書店，拿一些單張及小冊子，知道有什麼活動及最近有什麼話題，這些單張是否多元亦是吸引我的一個元素。如果不是這一次事件，我真的不知道榆林是一個基督徒開而把一些團體的小冊子放進廢紙箱的一間書店，食品都有標籤，這是消費者權益，令我知道如何選擇，但我的權益其實又在何處？