明光社搞 "一人一信反性傾向歧視法"
--阿藹
據明報(2月16日)報導, 民政局委任一個獨立諮詢小組，就即將進行有關市民對同性戀者看法的電話意見調查所設計的問卷，提供意見。
諮詢小組成員為：
陳耀莊:執業律師及國際公證律師，陳耀莊鄭樹深律師行高級合夥人；
張妙清教授:香港中文大學心理學系講座教授兼系主任；
梁美芬博士:香港城市大學法律學院副院長。
民政事務局發言人說，計劃在第二季進行電話意見調查。民政事務局已經委託弘達顧問有限公司進行意見調查。調查的對象為年齡介乎十八至六十四歲的居港人士，抽樣人數為二千名。
諮詢小組將於日內召開首次會議。有關問卷調查旨在評估市民對不同性傾向的認知、對同性戀者的接受程度和對同性戀者及其權利的看法，並尋求方法解決同性戀者所面對的歧視問題。
討論重貼:
明光社的公開信
i think it is better to paste their letter here, much to be discussed, like the abuse of the word "discrimination".
wonder if there is any counter action by the sexual minority groups on this...
一係收聲 一係收工？
沉默不是開明 發言衛護公平
──性傾向歧視立法將會帶來甚麼危機？
性傾向歧視法在歧視誰？
加拿大有教師在報章撰文討論同性戀的健康與道德問題，結果失去教書的權利；瑞典有牧師在教會講道時根據聖經批評同性性行為，被判坐牢三十天。……這是維護同性性行為權利所應付上的代價嗎？如果「同性戀平權」是某些人所言的世界趨勢，我們憑甚麼認為這些事將來不會在香港出現？二○○三年同志組織在彌撒進行時衝擊天主教堂，不就表明了他們對同性戀異見人士的態度嗎？
民政事務局在同志組織的催迫之下，已傾向為「性傾向歧視」立法，將於四月進行意見調查，若有逾半受訪者支持立法，便會隨即展開立法程序。然而「性傾向歧視」跟性別歧視、殘障歧視不同，並不是毫無爭議的，甚至可以說：這是一條危險的法例！特區政府自成立以來，幾乎所有重要的決定都出亂子，這次，我們憑甚麼認為它不會又出問題呢？所以我們應該克盡公民責任，幫助政府做一個合乎公眾權益的決定。
性傾向歧視缺乏堅實的立法根據
反歧視是現代社會信奉的共同價值，然而歧視卻是一個含糊的概念，容易被誤用及濫用。現代社會追求自由與平等，卻應避免出現「人人自由平等，但有些人比別人更加自由平等」的情況。而且，「政治正確」還須「知識正確」，我們不應該容讓官員及政客根據偏頗的觀點作為立法的依據！
自從同性肛交非刑事化後，同性戀者已有權自由選擇其生活方式；近年傳媒更似乎與同志運動同氣連枝，一面倒對同性戀歌功頌德，說香港人還普遍存在同性戀歧視，已是遠離事實的講法，除非那是指我們連對同性戀存有異見都不可以吧！
事實上不是所有同性戀者都認同同志運動的言論，他們有些一直想離開同性戀生活（有些已成功改變其性傾向）；有些只想過自己的生活，不希望社會傳統倫理為他們而改變；……然而同志運動卻企圖包攬所有同性戀者的言論，使同性戀族群的不同意見消音，更散佈許多不盡不實的資訊，甚至多方阻攔一些想改變的同性戀者接受治療，又不斷抹黑宗教團體和一些幫助同性戀者的組織和人士。
我們尊重同性戀者，是因為他們作為一個人就應該受到尊重，而非認為同性性行為不具爭議。然而一旦性傾向歧視立法，等於宣告同性戀跟異性戀一樣正常，同性肛交跟異性性交一樣正常，而這卻有違社會大多數人的想法，甚至有害公共健康，因為肛交容易引致失禁、腹瀉、直腸潰瘍等問題，與性別歧視、殘疾歧視等沒有相同的立法基礎。
立法有違多元、平等原則
更重要的是，性傾向歧視立法表面上是在保障平等，實際上在製造特殊階級。同志組織雖然口口聲聲說他們不會濫用這條法例，但外國的經驗卻告訴我們：這條法例不斷被濫用！而且屆時他們可以運用公帑來控告異見人士，但對方卻必須自付律師費，即或最終證明被告人無辜，已消耗了不少的金錢、時間與心力，也不可能得到甚麼賠償，這就是所謂的公義、平等嗎？這樣下去，一切反對同性戀的聲音就會被迫消音。這就是「多元社會」的意思嗎？只能贊成不能反對，充其量只是一個「偽多元社會」或「寡頭多元社會」吧！而我們又是否希望政府在這種本應是透過民間討論來解決的議題上，擔當仲裁者，扮演道德警察呢？
如果我們社會真的有甚麼地方傷害同性戀者作為一個人的基本權益，我們可以透過其他方面的修法來保障他們，卻毋須訂立一條甚具爭議且危險的法例。所以，如果你擔心以上的局面將會出現，我們請您支持「一人一信行動」，致函有關政府單位反對立法（有關做法請參下文），以免我們重蹈西方社會為求「政治正確」而犯下的政治錯誤，帶來社會更大的不公平。
維護家庭聯盟、生命領航培訓協會
香港性文化學會、生命教育關注組
性傾向歧視立法關注組、教師牧養團隊
謹啟
-- 阿藹 於 February 18, 2005 12:16 AM (按此看回應全文)
我諗支持同性戀陣營都要發動一下文宣攻勢喇
好似明光社咁, 鼓勵下大家表達意見, 咁社會先至可以有更熱烈o既討論。
結果唔係問題, 最重要反而係討論o既過程。
-- fred 於 February 18, 2005 12:32 AM (按此看回應全文)
與明光社討論，平台從何而來？
有時候我真的有點混淆了我們到底是不是必須要先得到明光社的憐憫，才可以在他們的大愛底下竊得丁點阿爸父的慈愛。
我們還先不討論他們一直把自己當成天國代言人，和因應個別團體的利益取向去解釋神的話語。但我總得要說一句，討論平台大概也應在一個平等的位置才應該展開，因為我們是同性戀雙性戀還是異性戀，我們的發言權絕不由得他們憐憫而來。
在他們而言，他們有的是一整個教會的 back up，不論在資源與言論上都得到很大的支援與支持。反觀作為發言渠道一向淺窄的性小眾，我們就只好自己死籌爛籌幾位不怕別人「把你當正常」的目光的好同志/同袍/同工…，才可以有一少點「力水」發一小點「聲」。
當然地，我們性小眾因為是小眾，所以什麼曝光機會都欠奉，而還得把行動攪得有如行政院開會一樣的吵鬧才可獲得本地傳媒的點點憐憫。
作為性小眾的我們當然很希望又可以成功地攪一個「一人一信支持立法」的全地同志平權運動。然而圈內的人總是對 come out 或相關的可疑消息異常敏感，要不就是只愛躲在衣櫃安身立命保養自身的「安全」而拒絕「攪事」。試問我們還應該做些什麼才能算是一個回應呢？
-- 睿貽 於 February 18, 2005 06:17 AM (按此看回應全文)
同意無法與明光社討論, 但
我亦同意無法跟他們討論, 但難道就讓他們這樣地代表真理下去嗎? 看看美國的右翼(其實真的不應該常把美國變成我們的reference...), 它們的坐大與明光社這類以宗教語言來動員社會的做法有密切關係. 所以我覺得反擊明光社不單是性少數團體的重要議題, 亦是相信多元, 差異, 保障弱勢多數的人要聯合起來做的事情.
-- 阿藹 於 February 18, 2005 11:30 AM (按此看回應全文)
no way to deal with them...
i don't remember how many times i read the same letter. same arguments since i first read it almost years ago... every time, there is any legislation proposal, or anything about equal opportunities on the ground of sexual orientations, they will "come out" and use the the same letter, the same arguments.
yet, they have a lot of networks. and they do have influence.
i met them twice in person. they are those who are so hard to talk to. every single thing is a moral judgement. and according to the bible...
they will never think of reading the bible differently, or within the historical context back then.
if we have to "follow" the bible, then women have to cover their heads and to serve men only. the fact that it was written in bible to forbid homosexual acts (not really homosexuality) was because they wanted more man power at that time. and homosexual acts were a waste of energy in this sense. yes reducing sexual acts to reproduction...
only if we understand the bible back in the context that we really understand it.
ming kwok group is so hard to deal with. i have no tactics for them. only to do something else in some other places. you can't change them.
really hard. if you have ever seen them in person talking and pointing at you saying homosexuality is a crime, then you will know there is no way to change them....
let's work in other aspects, there are a lot of other things we can do.
things will change and things have changed a lot ever since the late 80's. it is good sign, though slow.
-- ahsun 於 February 18, 2005 12:26 PM (按此看回應全文)
支持同性戀者的合理權利
我唔係支持同性戀, 只係支持他們的合理權利.
同明光社好難有計傾喎. 佢反反歧視嘛, 即係擺明要歧視人啦, 仲話你受邪靈影響, 同呢亭人你可以說什麼.
話說回來, 有朝一日, 如果同志大晒, 要搞串人地教會聚會又唔好.
-- 錢恨少 於 February 18, 2005 12:33 PM (按此看回應全文)
如果教徒同志不能上教堂，難道他們真的沒有信仰及敬拜主的權利嗎？
看到一句話說回來，雖然當年衝教堂事件發生時，我還未在圈內移動，而做法是否全盤贊同亦待進一步思考討論。可是說我們得到平權（是否真的有一天可以大晒嗎？我十分質疑我有生之年是否真可見到。）之後，就會攪亂教會／破壞現時所有道德信仰嗎？
這是十萬個不可能。
要是明光社一類的宗教團體不是一天到晚逼迫在他們信仰中的「異見人士」，我想我們還是可以不去打攪他們的。因為他們對同志所造成的傷害並不單純地負責「領導公眾意見」，成為「道德代言人」。
他們對個別沒有對自己身傾向了解很深的教徒同志影響至深，因為教會（即以道德代言人的身份）會導引他們想像出自己的「不正常」，強調他們因此所損失的「權益」，進而迫他們上ｃｏｕｒｓｅ，進行大量徹底侵略性的「輔導」，誘使他們對本來「沒法產生性趣的性別」產生興趣。
難道圈內真的只愛針對教會嗎？
問題只是教會是否真的需要不斷憑著「悍衛」某些個別人士的信念，才可以在不同的事題上不斷發聲，是以保衛教會本身在社會上的領導性的，權威的地位？
難不成他是在害怕有天人們會把他們懂得發聲與事事有立場的「姿態」遺忘了嗎？
-- 睿貽 於 February 18, 2005 02:39 PM (按此看回應全文)
logic
firstly, i state that i am not a christian nor gay. but if my logic, to be illustrated below is right, i think there should be no problem of gay christian.
做基督徒就唔可以唔跟聖經教訓, (我唔知聖經點説, 但如果真係唔准做同志) 咁只可唔做同性戀行為.
如果想做同志, 為什麼要信一個唔接受你的神.
又打個不恰當比喻, 點可以又做妓女又要牌坊?
-- 錢恨少 於 February 18, 2005 03:34 PM (按此看回應全文)
想對「恐同者」有多些理解︰你到底怕什麼？
自己沒有參與過任何運動組織，策略方面實在想不出可以如何回應明光社。
這兩天的一些討論，倒是令我回過頭去思考一個或許一早應該要想的問題︰就是「恐同意識」的內涵到底是什麼？如何在生活實踐中一步步步向牢不可破？為什麼那樣牢不可破---即破了對該主體會引發什麼危機？
同性戀於我一向是自然不過的事，從來沒經歷過任何掙扎，倒是花了一些時間去理解和明白雙性戀。很可惜，雙性戀至今依然苟存在同性戀的「護蔭」之下，不見臉面，更別提再複雜一些的性別經驗了。層疊式的打壓機製，一層壓一層。
剛說了同性戀於我自然不過，所以我從沒仔細去想過「恐同者」抱持的到底是一種怎樣的想像？他/她們也可曾認真去問過自己，其實怕的是什麼？
若以道德問題為由，實在沒說服力，若對方硬要說因為聖經say no所以就是no，那根本就沒有討論的餘地，唔洗傾。
而生理、生育、物種等鋪陳出來的反對原因都是可以被拆解的(我昨天已費了很多唇舌)，所以基本不成立。換句話說，這些理由只是理性層面的遁詞，「恐同者」恐懼的基本，我想應該是非理性的。就像一些人無緣無故會怕青蛙，你告訴他/她青蛙是不會咬人的是不會傷害人的是根本不會主動接觸人類的，但他/她還是怕，一見到就毛管棟。
何解？
一個人成長的過程如何塑造了這種非理性的恐懼並且如此牢不可破？因為幼稚園老師已教給我們一個家要有爸爸有媽媽才是正常？不正常又是什麼？伴隨的是一幅怎樣的圖像？
而當我們提出不同性傾向的權利訴求時，我真的很想知道，對「恐同者」而言，造成的是什麼衝擊？因為他/她一向賴以建立的世界會忽然變得動搖，所以無論如何為了維護其主體的完整，不得不努力去反對？
我真的很希望反對不同性傾向的人能解答我的問題，如果有人願意善意溝通的話。不過，我期待的答案不是「因為不正常lor」「因為變態lor」「因為核突lor」。那麼，先讓我修正問題︰為什麼是不正常、為什麼是變態、為什麼是核突？又或更直接的︰你怕的是什麼？
我真的希望在這個平台，還存在溝通的可能。
-- ab-the-norm 於 February 18, 2005 06:07 PM (按此看回應全文)
近乎公義的歧視
自人類群居，組成了社會以來，弱勢、小眾所受的壓逼從沒有停止過，即使現在所謂的文明、平等社會之中，仍有不少自稱衛道之士的人，用種種的方法壓迫他們所歧視的小眾。他們甚至說，如果通過了反歧視法案，會剝削了不接受同性戀人的自由(公教報，蔡志深語)，這樣我們如何還能夠以理喻之？
我們既然不能與他們平心而論，只能夠將我們僅有的人手組織起來，努力發出一點聲音，讓其他們的良心自我判斷吧。
-- Stargazer 於 February 18, 2005 06:32 PM (按此看回應全文)
remarks
stargazer題目之"近乎公義的歧視", 是小弟自陳日君主教口中親耳聽到的~
說此話時, 陳主教謂: 如果一間中學之老師, 被發現是"同志", 而校方將其炒尤, 是近乎公義的歧視. 如屋主發現租其單位者為"同志", 而屋主拒絕租屋予此人, 是近乎公義的歧視.
唉~ 這就是主教心目中的公義乎?
-- will 於 February 18, 2005 06:40 PM (按此看回應全文)
如布殊的公義之戰
把公義這些universal value放在壓迫異己之中, 真是很恐怖, 歷史上很多慘劇都是這讓造成的...
-- 阿藹 於 February 18, 2005 06:45 PM (按此看回應全文)
只可以說
這是近乎歧視的公義......
-- will 於 February 18, 2005 06:47 PM (按此看回應全文)
May I?
Ah Oi, may I add you to my contact list as well (in ICQ)?
Anyway, I need to do that later, as ICQ2go doesn't work lately. Thanks for your reply in advance!
-- Frostig 於 February 18, 2005 10:16 PM (按此看回應全文)
sure
free to add me in icq, but i don't login so often.
-- 阿藹 於 February 18, 2005 11:08 PM (按此看回應全文)
I think 'law' is useless in changing people's mind...
Education is the way to counter discrimination.
Even if you pass the law, people can 'make up' 'reasons' (or excuses) not to employ the 'supposed to be protected' people, or not to rent the flat to them.
Let's just say, you can't find two identical people in the world, right? If there are more than one applicant for the same job, then the employer finds out that one of them is HIV +ve(which relates to 殘疾歧視條例 in HK), (s)he can say anything to hire the other one, e.g. (s)he can say the education background is concerned even if the person who carries HIV is graduated from Cambridge, while the other one is from BU (don't mean to say that BU is not a good university, don't misunderstand, just an example).
Also, what's the reason of hiring a male, but not a female if they have similar background and level of experience? They can point out anything not to give a certain kind of people 'equal opportunity'.
It is not exactly what you guys are talking about here, I know, just a bit of my feeling.
Well, for instance, I would not mind homosexual couples having the right to apply for public housing, the right of inheritance, etc. However, as how it is being done in many countries, the legal confirmation of the relationships between two same gender persons should not be called 'marriage', but 'registered partners' (in case the term is not correct, please correct me). I don't discriminate them, just to bear in mind that 'marriage involves a male and a female' (male(s) & female(s) in different cases) by how it is defined. If you apply the 'name' marriage to this kind of 'weddings', it is reasonable to feel uncomfortable with same sex marriage for a lot of people.
But the worries of this organisation do not seem to be totally 多餘﹐but it shows that they don't know how most countries work for anti-discrimination.
In fact, to eliminate (or at least reduce) a certain type of discrimination, many governments do impose a discrimination in opposite as a balance. For example, HK government is also doing this (forgot the name of this kind of practices, sorry!). When they hire people, they state at the end that if all criteria fit, the handicapped would be given priority. However, we can't really say this is 'discrimination', because they do that just to balance the fact (not admitted by law, though, as the handicapped should have been protected by law from discrimination already) that other (or many other) employers gives a higher priority to people without serious (or obvious, in different cases, again) disabilities.
For their 'objection', I can only see that they are kind of ignorant about this mechanism, or they are trying to use the ignorance of this mechanism of the public to fulfill their aim (stop this law to be passed).
Actually, I think that the government has been too controlled by the big businesses. I have heard people from EOC (who worked in publicity and education section) admitted that why 'gender discrimination' was not protected was because of the pressures from many big companies. For example, one very big bank in HK has imposed a much lower retirement age for female, which in in fact a very obvious discrimination. And EOC could not establish such a law because of the influences of these BIG BIG companies. I think, passing such laws are really a lot more for politics than really to protect the people involved. I really think education is better than setting up laws as they re more useful. But of course, having such protections by laws are better than not having la!
-- Frostig 於 February 18, 2005 11:23 PM (按此看回應全文)
對明光社而言，又何嘗不是一場死守戰？
先說明我的背景：羅馬天主教徒，不上聖堂多年，性／別政治立場較「左傾」。
我會把明光社當成一支有一定力量，但在捱打的隊伍。未有明光社前，福音派捱了一次打：二十一歲以上男性肛交非刑事化；有了明光社，賭波之戰輸了，福音頻道跟情色頻道在同一個電視平台並存，鹹書不絕，大世界的道德沒能跟他們的信仰，那他們相信要傳遍普天之下的信仰接軌。但他們卻沒法也難以放棄他們的信仰，那有弟兄姊妹傳道長老互相支持的，被視為拯救自身至世人的，信仰，和真理。
是故他們必需死守，寸土必爭寸土不讓，主動妥協幾同背叛。唯有如此，他們才覺得對得起自己。——如果這樣的了解是跟實情相差不遠的話，另一邊陣營藉此或可明白，他們為何如此。
相關的隨想：（一）看不出反同同路人有結成連線的可能，至少我依然覺得梁立人和明光社不會連成一線。（二）新教一般信徒（也叫平信徒嗎？）相信也是千差百別，策略而言值得拉攏。（三）恐怕得罪說了，死守的心態，會否也出現在其他族群，包括社運陣營裡？這種死守心態是必要之「惡」，或只會造就更多的悲劇，還是……？
-- 肥力 於 February 19, 2005 12:39 AM (按此看回應全文)
一點回應
我想，明光社所舉外國的例子不會在香港發生吧。
香港同志更關注的可能是婚姻的合法化，及跟隨的領養、申請公屋或居屋等關乎他們個人生活多一點的問題。
雖然這對明光社而言可能是大災難，但若回望基督教已經作出了的妥協 (如避孕、墮胎、離婚、再婚)，同志婚姻亦不過是多添一項，兼且，若兩人相處愉快，基督朋友們是否該為他們帶來更多的愛與幸福 (甚或因而少了個孤兒) 而祈禱祝福呢？
-- 阿丙 阿丙 於 February 19, 2005 01:04 AM (按此看回應全文)
Psychoanalyically speaking，好棘手！
回應ab-the-norm：「恐同者」到底怕什麼？我一直很好奇也很困惱為什麼某些偏見(像恐同、種族歧視、年齡偏見)在某些人身上那麼牢不可破。有段日子會把這些偏見視為意識型態的產物，是虛假意識，可以批判清除。但令人困惱的是，對上述型型種種的偏見的批判多如汗牛充棟，為什麼不少時候對著某些人仍像對著機械人說話？半根汗毛也動不了對方？
後來讀到Althusser的意識型態論，如夢初醒：意識型態不是虛假意識，而是人的自我的基本存在構成條件！To be or not to be，怪不得偏見在某些人身上可以那麼牢不可破，因為這些偏見可能正是這些人的自我的存在基本命脈！
Psychoanalyically speaking，好棘手！
另，多年前在中大聽宗教系的江大惠老師說過一句話(他本身也是基督徒)：既然在上帝的眼中，人那麼有限，我們又怎知道自己一定是對的？我們為什麼不放開眼界，對待不同的性取向？(大意)
我覺得江大惠老師一語中的，基督教的原罪論講的正是人的有限性。
-- 小西 於 February 19, 2005 01:35 AM (按此看回應全文)
性少眾最少也要有個出頭天﹗
to 錢恨少
我們真的要相信一本由無數只為捍衛個人利益而書成的一本 so called 聖經嗎？
既然那些宗教人士可以單憑自己的感受就為神的話語而自編解釋，那麼同性戀雙性戀等性少眾為何不可編一本 pro 性少眾的聖經 with 一個 pro 性少眾的教會？
難道人多就代表了教會的權威嗎？
to Frostig
性少眾界別中，我們當然明白到單憑一個法例保障不足以令全地的人們都一下子了解同性戀雙性戀等等在概念上或實際上到底是什麼。
可是就這一個法案的通過，我們就有機會爭取更多的空間與平台。就公共空間而言，只要傳媒沒有機會再把同性戀套上性濫交等等的道德惡名，這都已是一個很好的開始了。
只有在一個沒有抹黑的公共空間裡，大眾才會有機會真正了解什麼是性別、性傾向等等概念。要知道，一個理性的討論空間須由互相了解去打造。
而再說性少眾的生活空間而言，圈內人常常要因為家庭、職業等等原因而隱藏自己的身份，躲在衣櫃裡獨自看管著一個怕不能為人所接受的秘密。可是，我們不會知道在所謂正常的人當中，有多少是天生只向異性發情的，而成為異性戀者。這不是懷疑這個 scale會錯誤把人歸類，而是這種盲目灌輸的概念的確會限制了一個人對自我認識的可能性。
但這都不過是因為我們從小到大都沒有接觸過有關任何性別或性傾向的教育，結果在我們把自己預設成異性戀者的同時，我們不會知道我們到底有沒有忽略過一些同性親密交往的情誼。
所以我們不會知道如果在我們由小到大的教育中，要是加入了認識性別、性傾向等課題後，我們是否會有一個更好的 scale去把自己歸類，從而成為一個了解自己性別角色、性傾向的人。
-- 睿貽 於 February 19, 2005 02:26 AM (按此看回應全文)
responding...
小西, Psychoanalyically speaking... mmmm....
be it the movement in itself, the "misunderstanding", the phobia, or even the debates here, or even for ming kong group, what hurt us/them/all most (we are part of it) are the 執著 one's has. please let me explain this. it is not about we have to give up some principles. but the systems of thoughts we have been into that composed our own subjectives.
肥力 is very right, ming kong group has its own difficult situation. in a way what he said about 死守戰, is the notion and bloody awful 執著. ming kwok group has also its limitations and the problems by fighting "till" the end. what i want to raise is by understanding theirs, we also realize ours. this is the most important. it is not a matter of going against and there is no way to do so. political advancement cannot be put in the notion of going against (yet not going against doesn't mean we have to agree, it is NOT about how people say we have to "put down" the burden of June 4th things like that...) as when you are sick, you don't fight it, you accept it and deal with it.
i will say we (we are part of the problem), or the rationale behind a movement, any ideology (no matter how complicated it is being pertinent and interwoven with institutions), have too much 執著. and this is what hurt us most. 執著 is the worst negative energy for human being. as what i wrote Frostig in the end i really hope she can give up the idea of normality, as the repetition in her language accents so much that 執著, so it is not a matter of language, or even the idea of normality after all... it is "Psychoanalyically speaking...".
執著 is a difficult notion to deal with as it takes us so much effort to reflect upon ourselves and to deal with it. after all these years, i really think reflecting upon ourselves is prior to that of a movement. this is why i have been so mute in the last 4-5 years. 執著, we LIVE by it, we LIVE on it. so the only way is to realize it and unlearn it. and to change by admitting we are wrong (this is the hardest part. and to destroy part of ourselves and subjectivities). i always make a joke to myself -- until the day ming kong group would realize they are wrong, they will not be the same group already, as they are not the same persons, or some other turn zen and buddhism?haha...
執著... it is as if we have to live on these 執著 in order to build, keep, organize, render one's own subjectivity, or the very meanings of presence almost as if if these things are destroyed, we/group/movement/or ideology can no longer go on...
but what makes us really "go on?" we are not always right. that's why we have to give up more our 執著. and instead of learning, i try to unlearn. and i am still learning... learning to unlearned what we have learned by the idea of unlearning that needs to be unlearned somehow.
actually, i didn't write comments publicly for a long time. i stopped because i think i am not always right and i was wrong in many ways. but recently, i started to write again but about the thinking behind, not only on the arguments themselves. from the language i did, i started to realize my own changes and how i evolve because of other people's views.
i move away from Christianity to zen. and i believe zen helps movement more, that may be contradict to what people "normally" think.
talked to an-the-norm a lot last night and s/he said i wrote not good enough and people don't get my point. s/he is right so i am trying to write more.
from ming kong group and tung zhi movement, let me explain a little but more my experience, if not augment and stance.
not to go against but to understand is -- realizing and understanding those who come out and point at your head and said you were a crime and you need forgiveness and to repent as if they have all-mighty power over you (anyone has face to face with ming kong group before pls share your experience), i realize how sad it is to be in such 執著, as if it is the only way they can form their subjectivites -- meanings of being, if there is any meanings of life; and their inter-subjectivies -- how and what they could relate to the world and one another, can only make sense based on these 執著, it is so very sad. then i realize i should unlearn our own 執著 so to learn.
this is how i try to rework for movement now, not in political correctness ( i gave it up even when i was still working in the movement 10 years ago already... this is the worst thing... like the hk tung zhi film/video festival...), not mere coming out, but giving information and promoting this thinking...
an example of my experience of 執著. i used to hate ming kong group a lot. i was so angry at them if you understand how destructive they can be to cancel out all your effort in a movement. also, i used to hate the term "tung zhi" as i thought it was (and still is but having a different attitude) so exclusive. and one of the basic idea of queer sisters when i first started it was to deconstruct tung zhi. it worked and it didn't work. it progressed in way and yet stopped some other things. but i was too 執著 about this term that hurt me a lot i always got angry (this is very bad for mental health in a long run) and i couldn't give up these stance as they were so much part of me, i even wrote an entire chapter on tung zhi discourse in my m.phil thesis.
then i realize one day (around last year), i should stop to hate the term, nor happily embrace it without questioning, , nor to give it up. just let it be there, observe it, and understand it and see its limitations. now tung zhi as an sexual ID, is being used and being talked about, is a reflection on the entire discourse of sexuality in hk. that is to say, by observing how people using them (yet not hate it), we can see how things are here, though still problematic. but i am not to go against it. i just try to understand it and its limitation, then to also realize my own limitations. in the end, the conclusions i could make on the problematic in tung zhi discourse may not differ much, but i change. and what matters is the process of realization. if people change, things changed, if ways of thinking changes, things will really change. if things change and yet people don't, it is not really changes.
somehow regarding legislations on same sex marriage if people don't change, say the idea of normality, it will work and will not work somehow. yet, of course it is essential to have legal protection, as it is the bottom line of equal opportunities. 睿貽 is right, it is the basics... (though i always hope it is a domestic partnership. that is anyone regardless of sex can form a family and having the same right as others in a conventional kinship system. that is if you are a couple of different sex (pls note we don't have to name people homosexual or heterosexual sometimes, it is not necessary sometimes, ID is just a tactic), they have a choice to go for domestic partnership but not marriage... anyways... this is also how i think bisexuality is still being neglected in the hetero vs homo discourse or the homosexuality based tung zhi discourse. but anyways... it does not matter, it is not the most important).
oh yeah.. being too long winded...
Psychoanalyically speaking... this is the key, 小西.
ab-the-norm, thanks for the long talk. yes, if i want to try to promote this thinking, and in such a platform (inmedia)... mmmm. in a way it is vital for me to decide to write like this in such a platform about political movement, i should pay more effort and make it clear.
oh... i spent too much time writing. got to go to work :-) raining heavily these days in valencia... :-) good day for you in hong kong. it is so nice that by inmedia, i keep so much close contact with hk. i am so grateful and happy, thanksssss all inmedia people...
-- ahsun 於 February 19, 2005 04:10 AM (按此看回應全文)
EOB and EOC, more info
Frostig, from your writing, seems like you are not sure of what are the EOB and the relations with EOC. please let me explain it.
you mentioned, "Actually, I think that the government has been too controlled by the big businesses. I have heard people from EOC (who worked in publicity and education section) admitted that why 'gender discrimination' was not protected was because of the pressures from many big companies. For example, one very big bank in HK has imposed a much lower retirement age for female, which in in fact a very obvious discrimination. And EOC could not establish such a law because of the influences of these BIG BIG companies. I think, passing such laws are really a lot more for politics than really to protect the people involved. I really think education is better than setting up laws as they re more useful. But of course, having such protections by laws are better than not having la!"
EOB was firstly raised in 1994-5 by anna wu when she was in the legislative counil in the first place. later luk kung wai and lau chee shek worked on it. at that time the proposed equal opportunities bill had different sessions -- family responsibility, gender, physically challenged, race and sexual orientation.
yet, race and sexual orientation were NOT passed at that time.
so actually, there is a EOB, or law on gender. EOC is an independent govt commission that deal with complaints and cases, they don't MAKE laws, legislative council does. and EOC can only work according to law. that's why it is hard for them to deal with complaints of cases related to race and sexual orientation as there is no "law". or the EOB doesn't include these issues. so, they can only do negotiation, not able to make a law case. and if you remember, anna wu did make a law case with govt education system years ago about girls and boys had a separate line for secondary school. and they won. what they based on that that time legally is the EOB on equal opportunities on gender.
now after 10 years time, they started to talk about race and sexual orientation again for EOB. as at that time, they use "timing" to delay it. they said people were NOT YET ready for it. so, 10 years after, are we ready???
this is the story...
we do have legislation protecting discrimination on the ground of gender (this is their wording). yet as you said, law is NOT everything, it takes a lot of other things. YET it is THE MOST BASIC.
one more information. as the government used timing as an excuses back then, we argued and suggested let's do education. so, there is fund developed and organized by the home affairs bureau for promoting ideas of equal opportunities on the ground of sexual orientations. they haev yearly application on projects for "educational" propose. a lot of tung zhi groups and some projects lived on this funding. this is at least the very little thing we got after pushing them so hard 10 years ago. actually, very few asian govt will sponsor any activities on promoting EO on sexual orientations... hk is an unique city.
-- ahsun 於 February 19, 2005 04:59 AM (按此看回應全文)
回應與執著
深感執著的壞處, 但是在回應明光社之流, 可以有甚麼策略?
有人提意一人一信行動, 我處於兩難之中. 因為覺得唔想同佢地一般見識, 煩死魚手指先生(小弟作給民政事務局余志穩先生Mr. Fisher的暱稱); 兼覺得一人一信浪費掉太多紙張. 另一方面, 又覺得有回應的需要, 唔可以由得佢地唔理; 亦想更多人可以參予回應.
一直都想試一些"溫和有趣"的行動, 可是都不能引起多大的關注如聯同長毛的"我愛我的情人"行動, 最終, 即使有長毛, 也只有3份報章小小篇幅的報導. 可能創意還是未夠.....
有想, 明光社之流有一問題, 就是含糊其辭及所持原因混淆. 例如指出"肛交"的可能壞處, 指為"同性戀"的壞處, 再繼而認為不應鼓吹"同性戀". 中間的邏輯因果關係, 我只可以說, 全錯!!!
我想, 就是次明光社一人一信事件的回應, 可能會在於指出她們的荒謬言辭. 立場方面, 我覺得不用理她們, 不用執著地要改變她們的立場, 對嗎? 只是, 要指出其不對, 以減輕對其他對性傾向平權議題認識不深的人.
真想大家可以給我一點意見.
另, anson, nice to meet you here~~
-- will 於 February 19, 2005 01:41 PM (按此看回應全文)
回應小西、ahsun、Will
回應小西、ahsun、Will︰
很同意小西所講，「恐同」(姑且只用這個詞，因為恐bi恐其他還未被帶進視域，所以這篇討論集中以恐同為主)是由文化築成的深層心理建構，牽涉的是個體主體得以確立的問題。而明光社之類，是背負了捍衛整個意識型態的機制，「死硬」是理所當然的。所以明光社是不可能會改變的，我們能做的或許就是減低其諸如發起「一人一信」的動員能力。
所以當我問︰你到底怕什麼？我心目中叩問的對象並非明光社等權力機制，而是會被其影響的個體。我希望那裏才是有機會鬆動成見、執著的場所。
我不知道in-media的讀者(好像是每天有約六百人次？)，內裏有多少其實對不同性向存有恐懼、忌諱。但我很appreciate Forstig(除了明光社這種立場鮮明的機構，一般公開討論中已甚少有人會用「不正常」或病態這類字眼)和小狼(小狼說雖然理性層面很明白，但心理上總有些uneasy)的坦誠，因為在這個大家都對PCness很conscious的年代，更多人慣常隱藏自己的成見，無論是理性的還是非理性的。經過這兩天，我也相信來這裏的讀者，都是願意作善意溝通的，否則不會花時間心機去讀這些很長的文。
Will說的要指出明光社的荒謬言辭，當然很重要，也是我們要做的，但假如我們看到偏見與執著更多時候是非理性的，那麼光在理論層面說道理是不夠的。
承著小西「Psychoanalyically speaking」這個題，我想拆解問題應從如何替文化解咒的方向去想。即如何作為一個文化的psychotherapist，這也是Lacan的理論何以對文化研究顯見重要。
我想，要解決問題，首先就是不應把恐懼壓抑下去吧，承認自己恐同是第一步。然後，真正有意義的溝通才有可能。
對我來說，語言是關鍵。用什麼語言，決定了我們看到一個怎樣的世界。舉一個非常簡單的例子。假若我問自己︰全身是否有拉緊的感覺？極可能我真的會感到有點不舒服，因為當我的意識中出現「拉緊」兩字時，我已把這兩個字指稱的感覺交給了身體。但如果我換一個問法︰身體現在有什麼感覺？那麼意識就會根據身體當時的狀況向我匯報。兩種問法，很可能得出對身體很不一樣的判斷。
分別只在，是否一開始就帶了價值判斷。
一邊寫一邊想，我也應修正我的問題，問「你怕什麼」可能不太妥當，或許問「兩個相同性別的人相戀，對你有什麼影響？」
這樣會否好些？
-- ab-the-norm 於 February 19, 2005 03:51 PM (按此看回應全文)
以幽默作武器？
數日下來都是沉重的討論，突然想起十年前的一伴小事，現在說來讓大家鬆鬆。
當年我某女性雜誌寫過些名人生平的文章。寫Foucault那次，該雜誌的某女編輯走來電剎有其事的問："唔知佢第一次知道自已鍾意男人時有乜感受？"
那些我差點兒衝口而出笑著說："咁你第一次知道自已鍾意男人時有乜感受呢請問？"
: p
-- 小西 於 February 19, 2005 11:09 PM (按此看回應全文)