邊緣者的聲音，誰有權遏制？ － 進一步剖析榆林事件
--李偉儀
「雖然我不贊成閣下的論點，但我誓死捍衛閣下發表言論的權利。」(I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.) 伏爾泰(1694-1778)
「榆林書店」老闆以基督教背景為由，拒絕擺放民政事務局資助、香港女同盟會編纂的《她們的女情印記》口述歷史；另一份同志刊物《拼圖》於送往書店後被扔到街上，若不是編輯碰上拾破爛的婆婆，差點未能贖回那幾百份將成廢紙的《拼圖》。自從此事發生，伏爾泰的事跡不斷腦際縈繞。
伏爾泰(1694-1778)是一位以維護思想、言論、表達自由及寬容原則見稱的知識份子。伏爾泰的房子常年掛著孔子像，他欣賞孔子以哲理說服別人，不像歐洲地區運用宗教狂熱及權力迫害別人。於十八世紀歐洲，幾乎沒有一個啟蒙主義作家可以逃過書刊檢查制度的迫害。伏爾泰所著的《哲學通信》、《哲學辭典》、《老實人》等，以及他有份支持朋友狄德羅出版的《百科全書》，都曾遭禁止流通及焚書。他的名言「雖然我不贊成閣下的論點，但我誓死捍衛閣下發表言論的權利。」(I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.)是他對焚書的慨嘆。
伏爾泰批評宗教狂熱得罪政府及教會而遭放逐，允許回法國已是八十高齡，海關官員問他：「有否帶違禁品？」伏爾泰答：「只有我本人是違禁的。」跨越二百多年，言禁與審查仍以基督之名瀰漫著，伏爾泰作品與女同志寫作受到唾棄。
新聞紙太快將事件兩極化──對立了「激進vs.保守」；「霸道女人vs. 私人地方」，再有衛道之士乘機對反歧視立法反撲而掩蓋其它有意思的討論。
書店，獨特文化空間
我從來不知道「榆林書店」是一片道德高地，我誤以為它跟其它二樓書店的做法一樣，自動騰出小架子讓民間團體送來宣傳品，沒理由會出現審查的問題吧。假象之所以浮現，基於兩個原因：
第一，印象中旺角西洋菜街是民主運動聲音最有活力的地方，不論是行人專用區，抑或二樓書店，都是前進知識傳播的好地方。知識份子去蘭桂坊嬉戲，去西洋菜街卻是為了治學。猶記得「東岸書店」的一位店長，曾獲政府資助編寫反歧視教材，以身作側，為二樓書店帶來非常正面的形象；而剛結業的「洪葉書店」更是民間刊物的集散地──像雜價攤、單張亂飛的架上可尋獲女性主義、綠色運動、同志平權、宗教反思、另類藝術媒體刊物，更有牛棚課程。擺放單張的架子面積細小，卻帶來知識境界無限的空間，愛書人購得書本，又可從架上得到意外知識和啟發，掌握民間和小眾資訊。
第二，我本身也是「榆林書店」的常客，更剛付了年費做了VIP會員。我曾於店裡買過不少有關女性情慾的書，就算是同志書籍也買得到。農曆新年後不久，極度苦悶，與女朋友逛上「榆林書店」打書釘，看到台灣大學哲學系楊惠南教授剛於一月份面世的新書《愛與信仰：台灣同志佛教徒之平權運動與深層生態學》。假如比拼激進，坦白說《她們的女情印記》簡直是小毛見大毛了。楊教授探討同志佛教徒平權運動以及台灣佛教對於環境倫理的態度，其觀點是同志佛教徒不應受到責難，個人化「心靈改革」的環保運動也行不通，全球化和資本主義才是環境生態最大威脅者。楊教授認為同志和生態議題蘊含了同樣的宗教主題──眾生平等。我們一口氣買了三大本《愛與信仰》，並稱讚「愉林書店」的書種多，店員主動說如果有需要的話可代訂性傾向書籍。
書店拒絕宣傳品時有何審查準則？賺錢的性傾向書籍容許出售，政府資助派發的教育刊物卻被拒？究竟是只歡迎乎合宗教原則的？還是可圖利的才笑臉迎人？
書店當然擁有最終的控制權，但書店不是純粹的消費場所，不像上樓咖啡店。它是獨得文化空間，知識寶庫，聚集愛書人，刺激新思維，發揚公民智慧。知識與智慧應該容讓差異，也就是伏爾泰所指的寬容，絕非一言堂，更不以任何藉口如宗教理由作壓迫之事。它應是百花齊放，讀者得到多元化觀點。宣傳品放在架上，讀者自會運用個人選擇權。台灣導演蔡明亮新作品《天邊一朵雲》上畫，裡面男性口交的場面能通過「一刀不剪」，台灣新聞局長表示「不想看的人不要去看就好」。學校、社區中心等場域亦跟經營書店的理念相似。知識經由老師和社工傳授，不應先被某些道德考慮而掩過，褫奪青年人的資訊權利。但多數學校和社區中心同樣逃避「敏感」議題，2002年理工大學一項性傾向調查顯示，青少年接觸到政府資助出版的性傾向平等教育刊物人數近乎零，刊物不獲准許於書店擺放，更遑論進入教育與社區機構。
不要騎劫了基督徒
還有一件十分重要的事情需要討論，是否基督徒只有一種對待不同性傾向的想法？不少基督教朋友對我說書店丟了基督徒的臉，基督宗教對同性戀根本無統一口徑，所謂基督徒反對同性戀，只是論述的騎劫和壟斷罷！同是理工大學研究便發現七成基督徒支持性傾向平權。香港有同志基督徒，外國更有同性戀獲授聖職者。
就例如Rev. Dr. Leanne McCall Tigert是女同性戀者，她獲聯合基督教會授以牧師聖職，領有牧養心理治療師資格。她出版“Coming Out Through Fire: Survive the Trauma of Homophobia”(1999)，一書時，擔任為美國新罕布什爾州首府康科特“Spirit of the Mountain”牧師。Tigert在書中指出，同性戀教徒應該出櫃，並受到尊重，出櫃可令同性戀基督徒更自主。更重要的是，很多反對同性戀人士反駁醫學上並沒有「恐同症」，這是同性戀者「創作」出來抹黑他們的東西。Tigert受心理治療訓練，她指出「恐同症」是一種情緒及心理症候，可量度出來，亦可透過心理治療(psychological healing)的方法一步步的讓恐同心理得以康復。Tigert的觀點是重要的，因為向來有心理學陣營中，大多數心理學家均出“Homosexual”是需要治療的心理問題，Tigert卻指出其實“Homophobia”更值得留意。Tigert現為美國市中心長老會牧師，康科特婦女輔導中心的家庭治療師，定期於教會內舉行「基督信仰與LGBT經驗」等屬靈講座。
此外，又有Bruce Hilton出版了“Can Homophobia Be Cured?”(1992)，他是美國國立生物倫理中心主管，曾出任聯合衛理公會研習同性戀委員會(The United Methodist Committee to study Homosexuality)成員，並獲頒“Bishop Leontime T.C. Kelly Peace and Justice Award”之殊榮。書中他教導基督徒及一般人如何克服「恐同症」，他風趣地指出同性戀不會傳染，但恐同的心理卻會蔓延，但可以治癒。以Tigert及Hilton二書作剖析，主要是為了釐清基督徒身份之建構與權力糾纏不清，但可以肯定，在上主愛內的基督徒，不只一種。
民間團體憂戚與共
「榆林書店」事件令一群愛書人、知識份子、文化界、的朋友感到痛心，罷買是其中一個表達不滿的做法，事實上亦有很大機會在審查下書店根本無書可買。支持罷買行動的朋友，請把你的名字及感想傳到SexForOne@gmail.com或於inmedia本回應欄中留下你的名字和意見。
希望愛書人、知識份子、文化界、民間團體的朋友能對此事的進展作出關注。對於反同性戀人士先扭曲「逆向歧視」的概念，再四處散播謠言，大用特用「同性戀霸權」的可恥說法。這實在需要我們加把力去澄清，以免公眾受到誤導。
愛書人、知識份子、文化界、民間團體互相之間的連線，憂戚與共。我們不幸言中，有團體的刊物已進一步更到禁制，婦進的《平等與包容：促進不同性傾向人士平等機會》月曆被拒絕繼續擺放。我們要有準備反同性戀人士在「平衡人權」（明光社成立了另一“平衡人權監察會”）的包裝下，指「任何社會政策和法律，或任何個人行為選擇的權利和自由，都不可有損於他人的基本權利和自由，亦不可造成社會不公平、不公義或其他損害」。也即是說，我們向來爭取的民主運動、婦女運動、綠色運動、同志平權、宗教反思、關注貧窮等等的議題，都可被這種「平衡人權」的論調指為偏頗，忽略國家權力、父權、資本家、異性戀者、原教主義者、中產及上流階級的觀點而被反對。一如「逆向歧視」的概念受到濫用，則會出現當有懷孕婦女／殘疾者被老闆解僱，當她運用《性別歧視條例》或《殘疾歧視條例》投訴的時候，老闆便可以「逆向歧視」來指她「恃著大肚的霸權來歧視我對她的歧視」或「恃著跛腳的霸權來歧視我對他的歧視」。
二戰結束以後，一位叫馬丁的德國新教牧師為自己在納粹暴行中沈默而感到悔咎，他寫道：
「起初他們追殺共產主義者，我不是共產主義者，我不說話。
接著他們追殺猶太人，我不是猶太人，我不說話。
後來他們追殺工會成員，我不是工會成員，我繼續不說話。
此後他們追殺天主教徒，我不是天主教徒，我還是不說話。
最後，他們奔向我來，再也沒有人為我說話了。」
（本文章的精華版刊於2005/4/17明報副刊）
相關文章
回應
【榆林書店回應了】
下文出自本地的基督教教內報紙"時代論壇"網上版
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/Version/Show.jsp?Pid=2&Ch...
============================================
榆林書店嚴正聲明
榆林書店
小書店艱苦經營 同志搗亂影響生計
事發經過：
今年四月十日，約二十名香港彩虹及香港女同盟會的同性戀者人士於下午約三時突然衝入旺角榆林書店。該等人士在未經本書店同意下手持相機、攝錄機等不斷拍攝，並立刻在書店內宣讀聲明，要求本書店免費派發其組織的宣傳書刊。當時該等人士幾近擠滿店內空間，在宣讀聲明後，他們又滋擾店內顧客，要求他們做問卷調查，場面之混亂令不少顧客逃離書店。最後本店店主表明將報警求助，他們才勉為其難離開。事後店員更發現，部份書籍被夾入寫上「要求開放渠道予不同性傾向平等資訊」的單張。事件除了令本店顧客逃離現場，亦讓本店店員感到不安。
當日他們在書店樓下召開記者招待會，公開譴責本書店將二百份女同志雙月刊《拼圖》拋棄：該組織指稱曾向本店店員表明《拼圖》是女同志刊物而獲准擺放；而月前該等組織人士曾將二百份《拼圖》補充時，隨即被人全數拋棄。
重點澄清及回應：
A 關於《拼圖》
該團體從未清楚向本書店說明其出版人身份及表明其刊物《拼圖》為女同志刊物。
本書店並未曾被知會及准許該團體擺放二百份《拼圖》。
本書店的慣例是不會一次過接受過百份刊物擺放，以免積存過量，阻塞走火通道。
本書店有需要定時整理各出版人所擺放的免費書刊，因不時有未經准許而自行擺放的刊物及逾期刊物。
對該團體的指控，本書店感到被誣衊和名聲受損，現積極考慮循法律行動追究。
B. 店方有需要篩選免費派發的書刊
本書店每月均接獲約百次來自不同出版人的要求，要求擺放其免費派發的書刊，然而書店運作乃按商業原則及客戶對象作決定，選擇篩選書刊必須以機會成本及效益為基礎。
本書店的開辦自有其獨特市場定位及價值取向，在自由選擇空間下經營有特色的書店。
本書店只按目標的需求來篩選書刊。
在自由商業運作及尊重私產的原則下，本書店認為任何團體（包括宗教組織）均不能強行要求本書店免費派發或售賣其物品。
市場中已有不少書店推介同志的書刊，該同志團體宜向該些書店接觸。
該等團體的行為已嚴重影響我們的生計，本書店對這種以干擾為威脅的行為感到難以接受和遺憾。
榆林的立場：
本書店嚴正聲明不會因為此等騷擾行為而改變我們的價值取向，拒絕開放渠道予該等資訊。
香港一直看重言論自由及法治精神，商業機構亦可按其文化與價值取向運作。我們的經營既合乎香港法律，卻受到同志組織的連番滋擾，嚴重影響書店的正常運作，營業額因而下降。
榆林書店現明確要求該組織停止一切滋擾行動，否則將即時報警求助。而本書店保留一切法律追究權利。
榆林書店
（編按：本文張貼於榆林書店門外，並於店內派發。蒙允准刊載。）
當然支持
作為受害者，我當然支持罷買行動。不過作為一個學生、知識愛好者，對於榆林書店對各項刊物的審查，我更感心痛。七百多份《拼圖》刊物被丟掉，我們感到憤怒、無助，因為我們天真的相信榆林書店是一個自由開放的空間，我們覺得被欺騙。
其實我不過是一個喜歡文化及資訊的大學生，覺得圈內久缺此類刊物，故自資編印。我不明白到底我們做錯了什麼，以致一向開明的二樓書局要丟掉我們的心血。
對於這件事，我感到極為失望。
anyone can clarify on the below allegation?
當時該等人士幾近擠滿店內空間，在宣讀聲明後，他們又滋擾店內顧客，要求他們做問卷調查，場面之混亂令不少顧客逃離書店。最後本店店主表明將報警求助，他們才勉為其難離開。事後店員更發現，部份書籍被夾入寫上「要求開放渠道予不同性傾向平等資訊」的單張。事件除了令本店顧客逃離現場，亦讓本店店員感到不安。
咁多人?
片段都見只有幾個女同志上書店,其他的應是記者喎。
「逆向歧視」 是混淆視聽的言詞
偉儀說明光社扭曲了和濫用了「逆向歧視」這概念，但事實是我從未聽過「逆向歧視」這樣的概念。我聽過affirmative action ，但這概念跟跟明光社所講的甚麼「逆向歧視」完全是兩碼子事。
從「維護家庭聯盟」的「反對性傾向歧視立法登報聲明」內容來看，明光社創造了「逆向歧視」這用語（說是「用語」而不說「概念」是因為它根本稱不上是概念），為的是將一般歧視性例界定為違法的行為(即被視為歧視的行為) ，跟法例沒有界定為違法的行為混為一談。
譬如，很多地方(包括香港)的歧視法例根本不將言論納入管制的範疇(涉及性騷擾的例外)，原因很簡單——保障思想和言論自由(亦即明光社等所講的「良心自由」。所以，現時香港雖然有「性別歧視法」，但任何人公開說「女性天生低男性一等」都不會觸犯法例，因為他只是在說出他的想法。但如果他將他的想法變成行動，拒絕給他的女性員工提供任何晉升機會，那麼他就觸犯了法例。其實歧視法例的建立是為了保障每一個人生活的各個範疇享有平等的待遇。所以，某個拒絕僱用女性的僱主可能說「我沒有歧視女性，我不僱用女性是因為我覺得女性應該留在家裡享清褔」，但他還是觸犯了法例，因為法例不會理會觸犯法例的人怎麼想，法例要防止的是任何人因為另一個人(政府、僱主、上司、店東、業主、校方、老師等)的想法而失去一些基本權利，或所享有的權利比其他人為少。
以「性別歧視法」未實施前為例，消防員是不聘用女性的，大部份巴士公司也不聘用女性做車長。這些做法就是剥奪了女性從事這類工作的權利。現在香港推行了「性別歧視法」，任何人都可以繼續說女性不適宜做消防員和駕駛巴士。他不會因此觸犯法例。當然，如果說這樣的話的是巴士公司要員，自然會引起人懷疑巴士公司是否繼續暗地裡為女性設下各種關卡。
如果一條反性傾向歧視法是以現行的「性別歧視法」作為藍本，一旦通過，明光社之流絕不會因為公開說同性戀者都該下地獄，或者說同性戀者大都濫交、大都是戀童癖、大都玩SM等等而觸犯法例。但如果某間學校校長因為懷疑某個老師是同性戀或雙性戀而解僱他，或者因為懷疑某個學生是同性戀而開除他或懲罰他，那麼這位校長就觸犯了法例，因為他剥奪了這個教師或這個學生的工作和教育機會。事實上，我深信現時有不少教師就是因為害怕失去教職而隠藏自己的性傾向，
換句話說，如果一條反性傾向歧視法是以現行的「性別歧視法」作為藍本，即使通過，明光社之流也不會因為表達他們的信念而被起訴或遭受法律制裁。所以說其麼「逆向歧視」簡直是無中生有，混淆視聽。
不論我們是否贊成同志團體到榆林書店遞信的舉動，但明光社將同志團體的行動說成是其麼「逆向歧視」的典型例子，實在是胡說八道。我記得婦進會員在香港未有「性別歧視法」前，曾連續兩年到一些製作我們認為是歧視女性的電視廣告的廣告商那裡遞抗議信(也通知了記者到場) ，當時也沒有遭人指責我們的行為是甚麼「逆向歧視」。現在這類我們一向認為歧視女性的廣告仍到處可見，廣告商並沒有因為遭受「逆向歧視」而不再製作這類廣告。(我倒是聽說較早時明光社動員基督徒投訴Ma Belle一個以「女性精神自動獻身「為口號的地鐵廣告而導致那個廣告很快就給除下。)因此，我覺得不應批評同志團體的舉動給了明光社口實，而應該清楚指出明光社如何利用一些混淆視聽的言詞來誤導公眾和其他基督徒。明光社這種做法根本反映他們不能以「擺事實講道理」的態度來討論社會應以怎樣的方式來處理同志的權利問題。
婦進為推動「平等與包容: 促進不同傾向人士平等機會網上宣傳行動」而製作的月曆三月中在得到榆林負責人李小姐的同意下，送了九十本到榆林的三家分店擺放。上星期我聽說榆林將一些擺放在書店供市民免費取閱的涉及同性戀題材的東西丟掉，便打電話到榆林查問婦進製作的月曆是否給丟掉了。那位李小姐說沒有，還說派得不錯。同日稍後她致電婦進跟我說不能再擺放婦進的月曆了，因為怕給人說他們雙重標準。她在電話談了很久，解釋他們為甚麼願意擺放婦進的月曆而不擺放女同盟的小書。她說他們也贊成平等，婦進的月曆雖然涉及同性戀，但不明顯。女同盟的小書可不同了。「我整本書由頭到尾看了一遍，也沒有涉及性的東西，但涉及女性同女性之間的愛情wo!實在太明顯了! 」這是李小姐在電話中跟我說的話，所以我看到榆林的公開聲明中說不擺放女同盟的小書是因為有性的描述，實在令我有點驚訝。我覺得榆林書店如果過去曾讓一些團體擺放涉及同性戀議題的刊物，但因為某些原因決定改變這個做法，只要承認有這個改變就是了，何必說謊呢? 這樣就不免令人對榆林董事們的言行有更大的懷疑了!
more on 榆林事件
hey, i have written something about 榆林事件. pretty long, so i put it on my blog. please go if you are interested. thanks.
sorry, it is in english.
http://www.aahsun.com/newblog/C1378546566/E1053482329/index.html
關於逆向歧視
我也同意ahchoii逆向歧視(reverse discrimination)的確是無中生有的說法，它是衝來積極行動(affirmative action)而來，對著幹的．或許應該說逆向歧視是要把積極行動加以醜化的發明，令普遍人士誤以為自己的利益因立法而受損了．逆向歧視會惹起敵視與分化．
獵巫行動
我相信榆林事件很快便會被市民遺忘，但同志受到壓迫的事卻無日無之．反對同性戀組織已開始在教會和學校「吹雞」，第一方面以危急存亡來鼓動教友對於立法的恐懼；第二方面審查個別教會及教友的道德水準，若不願表態的則被視作可疑，我有朋友說她所認識的一些教友，已不想返教會，因為常常都被要求表態．他們也贊成立法，但不可能說出來，唯有的折衷便是不參與崇拜了．第三方面，反對同性戀組織已著手教導教會及學校揪出可疑的信眾、職員、學生、老師，查看他們的性取向．獵巫行動展開了，當了三十年教徒的我，敢問一句何以教會竟已變成滿載仇狠的地方？
更正
昨晚太睏了，記錯了一些事：榆林是在接受明報訪問而不是在公開聲明中說女同盟的「會愛上女人的女人的故事」有性的描述，會教壞細路等，所以不能擺放在書店。
我覺得榆林的董事也許是明光社在教會內發動的「政治正確」運動的犧性品。如果榆林一向有在書店內售賣一些涉及同性戀議題的書和曾經願意擺放婦進的月曆，這反映他們也不是認為凡事是非黑即白的，即使他們可能只是因為商業原因而售賣某些他們不同意其內容的書，但起碼這表示他們承認社會上有不同的看法，而這些不同的看法可以各自表述，而讀者(包括基督徒讀者)是可以自行判斷自己同意或不同意那些看法的。
現在榆林否認他們曾經容許一些涉及同志議題的刊物擺放在書店內，又暗示他們從沒有售賣同志議題的書，顯示他們為了証明自己從來反對同性戀，所以過去不曾而以後也不會讓同志議題的書在書店出現。我覺得這種態度正正落入了明光社等為基督徒設下的「政治正確」陷阱——將不同的人的經驗/信念/看法和因此產生的分歧化約為非黑即白的所謂「屬靈爭戰」，令基督徒不能以擺事實講道理的態度來進行討論。偉儀引述的伏爾泰的說話不應只是一種表示自己開明的姿勢，而應該是一種對不同意見間的對話能帶來好處的信念：我之所以誓死捍衛對方發表言論的權利，是因為我相信通過對話和辯論能促進雙方對一件事情的理解和思考，而這對人類的進步只會是好事而不會是壞事。
明光社的問題不在於他們堅信同性戀是罪或在其他涉及性的議題上站在保守的立場。明光社的問題在於在他們利用混淆視聽的言詞來掩飾他們真正的看法，因而令不同的意見和看法不能得到坦率的表逹。
什麼是歧視？
我很想知道，李偉儀在文章及回應中常強調真正的歧視是指什麼？如何才能構成歧視？是否當我只是「言論」時這便不是歧視？
因為我聽明光社講，外國有些人(主要是神職人員)因講道中反對同性戀而被控告歧視。這到底應不應算為歧視？因我也是教書的，若我對著學生說，我不認同同性戀，我也想你改(但沒有作出強制或不公的行動)，會否變成歧視？
相反，有人攻擊像我一些持相同立場(反對同性戀)的人是無知及恐同症，這又是否歧視？
【關啟文的回應：我們為甚麼發起「反對性傾向歧視立法運動」？】
以下連結出自本地基督教教報"時代論壇"
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=286...
歧視 and 言論
//我很想知道，李偉儀在文章及回應中常強調真正的歧視是指什麼？如何才能構成歧視？是否當我只是「言論」時這便不是歧視？//
言論 in most cases would not be considered as discrimination, unless you are an employer and use your 'speech' to make the workplace hostile for your employee.
According to Home Affair Bureau on discrimination based on sexual orienation:
"歧 視 "指 基 於 性 傾 向， 或 根 據 傳 統 觀 念 所 認 定 的 性 傾 向， 而 作 出 的 任 何 區 別、 排 斥、 限 制 或 優 惠， 其 目 的 或 結 果 是 要 消 除 或 損 害 人 權 和 自 由。 這 並 不 包 括 為 協 助 不 同 性 傾 向 人 士 克 服 不 利 條 件 而 自 發 地 採 取 的 各 項 符 合 促 進 平 等 機 會 精 神 的 措 施。 值 得 注 意 的 是， 凡 基 於 下 列 原 因 而 給 予 不 同 人 士 不 同 的 待 遇， 都 不 構 成 歧 視：
其 用 意 是 合 理 而 客 觀 的；
是 為 了 達 成 某 項 合 乎 法 理 的 目 的； 及
有 關 待 遇 的 水 平 與 所 要 達 成 的 目 的 相 稱。"
http://www.hab.gov.hk/tc/policy_responsibilities/the_rights_of_the_indiv...
//因為我聽明光社講，外國有些人(主要是神職人員)因講道中反對同性戀而被控告歧視。//
The 神職人員 that 明光社講 is being charged for 'hate speech' according to the hate speech law. His sentence was reversed on appeal.
Hate speech law is a complete difference matter. It is a law that prevent a person to advocate hatred against an identifiable group of people. Any Christian, no matter who they are against, should not use hatred filled language when speak of another person.
//這到底應不應算為歧視？//
Usually no. Just a passerby and you said something bad against a person, you are just being rude but not necessary violate any anti-discrimination law.
Just as you said something racist, you are being rude but not necessary violate any anti-racial discrimination law.
//因我也是教書的，若我對著學生說，我不認同同性戀，我也想你改(但沒有作出強制或不公的行動)，會否變成歧視？//
Depend on how you said it. But if you are a teacher, and you make the classroom an hostile place for a gay student in class, you are not being discriminatory, but you may caused teen sucide.
Think about that before you said anything mean and nasty to your students.
For me, it is a shame that teacher haven't learned enough to show respect for others and not be rude and discrimintory based on person bias (you may say it is your personal belief, but as a Christian, I know for a fact that there is no uniform doctrine on this issue, so you are just acting out of your own meanness.)
憎恨的到臨
硬地問歧視的定義，言論的算不算，是不是行動的才算？
歧視可以是一種法律定義，當日後有反性傾向歧視法例之後，便會伴隨明確的定義，亦會有法庭案例出現．
在法律之外，現時公眾可以怎樣理解歧視呢？歧視是對某一群體的惡意針對，包括性別歧視，性傾向歧視，殘疾歧視，年齡歧視等等．歧視包括「偏見」及「社會排斥」兩個要素，「偏見」會導致「社會排斥」．
「偏見」是想法上的扭曲，例如把同性戀者等同罪行和疾病，這便是「偏見」．
「社會排斥」是行動上的敵意對待，例如無理解僱．
在香港現存的法例當中，例如性別歧視條例，單是「偏見」是不會觸犯條例的；但「社會排斥」的行徑例如可證明的無理解僱懷孕女性或殘疾人士則可以被控告．「偏見」與歧視是孿生的惡，但在香港，法例對於歧視者十分寬宏大量，所以硬地你實在不用擔心你會因為歧視言論而犯法啊！
單是閱讀硬地你說話的口吻，已可看見你對於同性戀者的不屑，這態度真令人擔心．明光社連性別歧視條例也質疑，我怕你聽得他們的說話太多，就連老闆無理炒大肚婆也要質疑是不是歧視啊，在最最最保守的看法中，女主內是必然的，老闆炒大肚婆只是為了可以讓她回家安胎．我真的非常十分最擔心你會對學生說這種謬論呀！你既為人師表，也應好好反省自己是不是太過偏執吧！不如好好去認識不同的弱勢群體，不要過於自我中心，若你認識了一些同性戀者，你便會發現情況並不如你所想像的醜惡．
關博士也是支持立法的！
關啟文博士的文章標題是－－我們為甚麼發起「反對性傾向歧視立法運動」？－－挺有意思，原來關博士也是支持立法的！
老師的言論與專業守則
正如上述眾人的解釋, 言論不在歧視的立法範圍, 但作為老師, 我想在教導學生的時候要小心一點, 很多時候你自己以為是表達自己的立場, 可能對學生造成心靈傷害, 所以避免"再生產"歧視性言論應該是教書專業守則的一部份. 正如記者專業守則, 以及一些公共空間的管理也會定明不許發表歧視性言論, 當然有很多人都沒有格守專業要求...
親痛仇快
我的愚見是，同志組織搞榆林事件是有點拖泥帶水。
這行動令人混淆了幾個層面的事
(1) 書店是否一個公共空間？誰有權決定這類性質含糊的 (半) 公共空間的使用權責？
(2) 榆林 書店的主事人，是否有歧視、恐同的問題？
(3) 整個行動是否為反歧視立法作案例？
如果主力在於 (1)，同志組織的行動，應令人了解一些類似的公共空間，都存在不同程度的排斥現象，例如其他大書店亦不見得無條件接納同志刊物的流通擺放。同志組織若果事先點名表列黑名單，而非針對榆林一間，人們會更正視及將焦點放在討論同志資訊被排斥的問題。
將保守派基督徒團體招引出來，單打獨鬥，只會令榆林這些灰色地帶 (原來只以商業為先) ，更強化他們退到保守陣營。但同志組織要求擴大公共空間的目標，由於失去自由派的同盟者(他們雖或同情同志訴求，但以尊重私產權為優先 )，同志更陷孤軍作戰。
榆林顧客才是有資格、有能力與老闆爭持，轉換或確立書店空間性質的主體。如果同志組織能先以榆林讀者身份，投訴不能取得預期可以取得的同志刊物，或者聯名榆林讀者投訴，以消費者身份要求，書店或會改變態度。成功機會有多大，不敢說，但同志訴求會有支持基礎，因為沒有人會反對顧客有權要求書店提供服務。
但訴諸直接行動，令對方無法下台，這個空間自再無negotiation的餘地。直接行動也不遍及類近性質的地方，令人覺得有針對性而無普遍性，甚至是克意報復，上綱上線，十分不智。
我起初以為找來議員等大頭做新聞是為法例作輿論，但後來知道並無此企圖。可是明光社卻乘勢反戈一擊。我覺得正是因為有如此含糊的策略，才平白給明光社製造逆向歧視案例，因為這種照顧不周的行動，正中對手煽動恐同意識的下懷，令人人 (包括普通營商者)都恐懼自己是否會冒犯同志而被衝擊，甚至惹官非而對立法增加戒心。
關鍵不是對手是如何強辭奪理，而是為甚麼可以無端給對手口實，強化他們的偏見，並廣傳天下。
敵強我弱的大形勢下，策略就更不能不小心。
子華 , have been longing for your comments.
Not disappointed.
什麼是歧視？
response to 硬地
XOX and ah oi are so very right. we can never really understand discrimination and stop it just through law (thought it is VERY VERY IMPORTANT). and law is just part of the movement, if we need genuine movement but not the one trapped in the political correctness.
i am more interesting to see what and HOW you think. (this is a different ways of doing activism that i really want to practise, that is learn how people who go against you think. make dialogues with them). when you ask such a question about "什麼是歧視？", what were you thinking?
were you thinking in a way like HOW you will be NOT be caught by law by "saying" your thought, what kind of careful calculation you have to do to make yourself free from law?
yet, i will rather ask, have u ever thought of the feelings of the students also when you ask that question? i am sure you do care about your students, but in what ways?
this is the essence of the anti-discrimination, which is NOT ON LAWS (though it is extremely important and i agree with zhi wah on the tactics rethinking, confrontational tactics are not always useful. i am not against it, but it i snot always useful).
the essence is on how come we let (intentionally -- hate crime; or unintentionally -- reduce it to personal choice) other people suffer because of our thoughts. i will say bias, and you may not agree, but it doesn't matter. both come as a form of thought which will affect our actions and behaviour, and may hurt or benefit people.
please consider this -- if you have a student, who has affection/passion/love to same sex, or both sexes. and when you make the "seemingly" your own argument. you are hurting her/him a lot.
imagine you are one of your students, and you have affections (or crazily in love with) to same sex of both sexes. and a teacher whom you respect so much tell you in class and in "public" that it is wrong and evil, bad and unethical. what would u feel? it is not hard to imagine if one's heart is filled with compassion.
law is one thing, but it is not all. compassion in the heart and understanding is more important.
actually, this is the MAIN issue of the yu lan event for me. their ways of handling the booklets, how they lied, how they irresponsibly trash other's treasures. i rather redirect problems to thougths in the hearts.
硬地 before you make the judgement that homosexuality is wrong, did u really study and learn more on the issues (as XOX suggested)? is your argument, which is NOT and cannot be reduced to a matter of choice, valid, or thoughtful to different students' conditions?
are we learning to deal with different students and try our best to understand their different situations?
or i would also say, even if you want to make that statement because at that time you still so much believe in homosexuality is wrong (and on one can change anyone except themselves, i am NOT here writing to change you. i am just sharing my thoughts), would it be better to say it like -- in your own personal opinion, homosexuality is wrong. yet, there are other comments and ideas that support it. study what are those ideas as well and tell students. and you can also inform students (as for them to care what is happening in our society) there are now people fighting for laws to offer people with different orientation equal rights. and you can raise it as a discussion for students to discuss? their answers may surprise you. you may learn from them.
we must learn from students.
i was a teacher too (now i study again). i realize open up and publicly claim to support different forms of sexualities (NOT JUST HOMOSEXUALITY) are so important. and i come out as a bisexual (NOT homosexual) in school too. i can see many students who can talk more with you, and you understand about them a lot better.
i would like to make another everydaylife example to further explain my point of discrimination which in fact is about care and love.
will u say in front of other students that girls are weaker than boys? i am sure you will not. BUT IT IS NOT because of the EOB on gender, right? it is not because you are afraid that you will be caught by the law right? it is the "you" who believes girls and boys should be treated as equal. at least i hope you think that way. and you don't want to hurt the girls like this and reinforce that kind of bias.
anti-discrimination is the understanding and care for different people, and a NEED to reflect upon ourselves. how come we think that way before? did we hurt anyone because of our thoughts?
do u care about your students? or just care about whether you make certain statement will be against the law? i am sure you do care for the students, right?
as i said in my writings about the yu lan event in my blog yesterday --
we need changes, including ways of lives and; ways of thinking; and ways of doing activism, at least for me, and as a everyday life practice.
i would very much love to talk to you further.
did u talk to your fellow co-workers in school about it?
if you do, i will be greatly appreciate it.
would u mind sharing the discussions if you do?
回應小小啦~
好多外國宗教人士點解會俾人告呢~
個事情當然就唔止係講左一句半句「令人不開心的句子」咁小兒科啦~
通常好多 case 都會係有個教友面對左一 d 同志；可能係租屋呀、工作呀、咁o既野，然後一d教會人士用一d宗教語言去俾意見俾佢 d 教友，例如唔好租屋俾佢地呀、唔好再用呢個員工呀等等。
本來一句半句話同志唔道德都算啦~因為呢個係佢地o既意見，關係於立場、諗法，咁呢個係我地阻止唔到的。
但係事情唔係佢講一句都有咩責任，而係佢呢個言論係屬於教唆他人不為性小眾人士提供服務或不平等待遇，咁就係有「教唆歧視」的罪行~
個 point 非常清楚咁指出佢o既問題係在於佢直接叫一個人去用不平等的方法對待性小眾人士，而最終令該性小眾人士因著這個教唆而蒙受實際的傷害，即租唔到屋或被炒尤魚。
當然佢清唔清楚呢個責任問題我唔知，但係因為無知就大叫性小眾有太多特權就係冇道理的。
Response from 自由派的同盟者
//由於失去自由派的同盟者(他們雖或同情同志訴求，但以尊重私產權為優先 )，同志更陷孤軍作戰。//
Who told you that? I think you have got it wrong.
As far as I know, 自由派 Christians have been very supportive.
See this link on the discussion. http://www.voy.com/174951/2814.html
Also the discussion on Christian Times.
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=286...
Also, 自由派 Christians have participated on the April 17 street forum.
//我起初以為找來議員等大頭做新聞是為法例作輿論，但後來知道並無此企圖。//
Are you there, they have discussed the issue on discrimination, and they have the ground for it.
The materials that got rejected are sponsored by the Home Affair Bureau for the purpose of educating the public on sexual orienation issue. If these Chrstians who couldn't even stand the distribution of education materials issue, you could have an educational guess that how they 'practice discrimination' in real life. This is a good reason to have law that prohibite open discrimination of this kind.
Also, this incident has reported to the EOC. But because there is no law against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, EOC couldn't take any legal action.
The anti-gay has more to say because they don't have to follow any rule. They could lie, cheat, use scare tactics out of hatred and prejudice.
同志組織 is just a group of minority in Hong Kong that have been oppressed. Some are so oppressed that they are afraid of going out in the public in case they are being 'caught' on camera and forced out of the closet.
I dislike the shallow intellectual discussion on tactics, and shifting the focus from the issue.
我不是指自由派基督徒
回應xox
(1)我上文說的自由派，不是指自由派基督徒，是指社會上各種起碼自以為是對同性戀抱寛容態度的人。如果你認為這些人都跑到street forum或都上了你說的網上論壇，那我亦無話可說。我的愚見指出這些人的觀感，正因為這件事已經廣泛為其他公眾所知，公眾中的自由派的觀感，更多是憑印象、直覺，也少有像大家在這裡作深入辯論，更多是沉默的一群。這些人的想法，是否納入行動者的計算中呢？
(2)你說的論壇我沒有出席，我說行動和推動反歧視立法的關係不清楚，是憑此網上一些行動者的討論中得出此印象。當然，有關沒有關，都可以隨時轉變，我不作爭論。
歧視同性戀是廣泛的社會問題，不單只是基督徒的問題。就算是保守派基督徒的問題最嚴重，在策略上是否要讓人覺得只是基督教vs同性戀，這是當前這個問題的關鍵。如果首要目的是爭取公共空間，是否要single out基督教？
我正是從旁觀者角度，得出行動可能有反效果的觀察。如果搞行動的人都覺得這些都只是一些無聊空論，只是想聽支持者的意見，那我亦好自動收聲。
definition please
what is a liberal christian?
Matter of pro-human rights and anti-human rights
//歧視同性戀是廣泛的社會問題，不單只是基督徒的問題。//
Agreed. Emily Lau in HAB meeting said similar point.
For those who are pro-human rights, regardless of personal religious belief, would support law that protect a group of individuals for being discriminated.
I don't think it is a matter of liberal or not liberal. It is a matter of supporting human rights or opposing human rights.
//就算是保守派基督徒的問題最嚴重，在策略上是否要讓人覺得只是基督教vs同性戀，這是當前這個問題的關鍵。如果首要目的是爭取公共空間，是否要single out基督教？//
Those who are now against protecting human rights for sexual minority claimed to be conservative Christians. No one singled out them.
I have met these conservative anti-human rights Christians in various meetings and forum.
Their attitude is not only rude but they are not interested in reasons at all.
I would summarize their points for you.
1. We are conservative Christians and if we believe homosexuals are sinners, they are sinners. Only heterosexuals have rights to live and have a life.
2. As we Christians have already said homosexuals are sinners, they should not have any rights unless they agreed to try and change their sexuality by dangerous Christian-product "Reparative therapy".
3. If these unrepented homosexuals are not willing to change, they should be discriminated against for their sinfulness because we said so.
Any objection to their bashing and labelling would be considered as siding with sinners.
As you are not even at the forum, maybe you could go to one of those meetings with pro-human rights groups and see how many liberals are frustrated by these Conversative Christian gay-bashing.
/
/
執位黎過再跟章
子華一出，我等潛水人士也出來了，何況還有frostig呢——你橫掃的角色被錢恨少取代了，我在一邊暗地為你加油呢！（錢恨少，雖然幾乎每一個你的留言我都感到不能同意，但我還是欣賞你的熱情參與。）
子華，人將降大任於斯人也，必先勞其筋骨，餓其體膚，你要忍耐，我也會在一邊為你加油，大跳角十舞（日本雪條「角十棒」的廣告舞。因為看見某些人我格外傾向無聊）。我們當然明白，你沒去17/4論壇，不代表你沒去過任何性傾向論壇，更不代表你不明白保守基督徒是什麼樣子的。基本的邏輯總還有不少人懂得的。
不過，這次我也要在跟章之餘，對你提出小小抗議。你每次都是扮演一個冷靜旁觀、注重策略的批判角色，但你的角色有少少矛盾的地方在於，策略往往在失敗之後才能成為批判的材料。所以旁觀的人（無論多麼冷靜）談策略，往往會接近藝術品而多於匕首和投槍。我當然是扮演過這類角色，才會有這種體會。上次國際化事件因為是坐而論道，所以裂縫還不那麼明顯；而這次榆林事件的問題是，現在大家的分歧已經是逼上梁山了（我覺得啦。當然我每次都係頭一個衝上梁山的），榆林不可能會退——就一定要同志組織退麼？我就是（替她們）吞不下這口氣。
另外是「自由派」的問題。在我看來，自稱「自由派」的人士（你好像還不算是啦），其實是保守的（現在大陸的「新自由主義」就是這個樣子），類似藝術上的中產階級美學，眼中看去一切都要精緻平和，容不得一點卑賤物和衝突。大長今熱下，已經有不少文章藉而比較港韓的抗議文化（韓尚宮留下來的不止是精神，還有怨恨！娘娘！），提醒我們注意南韓的激進街頭抗議文化，無礙他們文化之發展傳承，以及經濟繁榮。如果這些自命自由中立的人士，看不到自己「自由」的外衣下保守的胴體，那麼我們社會的開放也許只是接近虛偽的禮貌。
顧客心聲
作為一名顧客，我對榆林在事件中的取態和處理，感到極端失望，明報的榆林負責人的言論顯得欠缺視野，「嚴正聲明」打的商業牌更是關上大門。
我是異性戀人士，榆林長期顧客。旺角這麼多二樓書店我會幫襯榆林，是因為它書種多。書種多不只是「精明消費」的考慮，我更以為是賣書者的眼光和其包容的心胸之表現，於是願意以購物回報。否則我大可去圖書館借。
1.徐美玲的回應便完全把我從上述幻想中摑醒。她考慮內容是否適合兒童只在於「情節」，即出現中一生的性行為就不能接受，而完全沒有考慮到具體整體的表達上，才是激進與否的真正關鍵所在。這不是一個有深度的讀者之表現。再者，我以為，做書店的人應有這份意識：有關書的地方，資訊的自由流通是最重要的價值之一，審查則是最與書本相排斥的行動。
當然，榆林「嚴正聲明」中一再強調自己是商業機構。聲明在宗教網頁上發表，也是劃清界線。
2.以我和我部分朋友之經驗來看，買書從來難以做到「理性消費」，我們會為書店付上商業以外的感情。如果旺角二樓書店之運作純粹倚靠商業邏輯，某些專買一些非流行又無必要的學術貴書的朋友，亦只好把自己的感性情懷收起。
當然，書店有書店的經營方針，沒有的話都可以即時作一個出黎，我亦只有過主。
3.免費派發的資訊就應有審查的說法真是吹彈即破。設有一名三尺童子經過榆林，彼在架上無法取得筆觸溫和的《女情印記》，即可到書店內翻閱各種激進的性別理論、文學作品。難道店員趨近溫言：小朋友請你停手，或者請你家長陪同觀看？如果書店根本不會吸引不成熟的小童，那麼在書店外架子上擺設所謂「兒童不宜」的資訊亦不會造成問題——都冇小童會經過個度。
另外，相對於《女情》那樣甜美的筆觸（淡化到都醒唔起係中一生了），任何一名三尺童子，經過報攤買份法庭版都激過佢多多聲（何況還有網上）。6元和免費的距離，真有徐女士所想像及形容般的大嗎？
4.「艱苦經營」？我想來想去，愈想愈氣。
4.1榆林在旺角區共有三處店子，是近三年間開設的，是怎麼個艱苦法呢？
4.2你賺錢沒人能怪你，但三間分店都開在同區，對區內書店生態會有極大影響——如果真的有為同業考慮，會這樣嗎？
4.3榆林在昔日東岸書店樓下開第一家分店的時候，書店的人曾對我說是為了方便管理才開在同區。好罷，再看榆林分店的位置：
以前開在東岸樓下；東岸執左，搬到樂文樓上；還有一家，開在洪葉樓上。有必要做到這個地步嗎？現在洪葉執了，樂文搬了，榆林再乘大家感傷之際走出來說自己「艱苦經營」。
說是同類相食還差不多吧。
回頭一想，便覺得自己以前在榆林初開時，擔心它做不住而特地上去買書，都是腐儒的濫情。
最後，和應李偉儀的呼籲在此留下名字和意見。我叫鄧小樺（答應jo去論壇卻無端在床上睡著了，實在十分羞愧。），以上是我的意見。
嚇死人咩, 橫掃?!
我都話我係留言狂熱份子, 又唔鍾意開題, 咪跟尾講兩咀囉, 大家留意下會發覺, 我打得好短, 因為我打中文很慢, 另外唔係好有料, 不想自暴其短.
我對性取向話題很少講, 因為不熟悉, 學下野. I know that I am a minority in this site which I enjoy the most. I probably know where to post my mail to reach those think alike as me, but not interested. 成班人都同聲同氣, 搞同鄉會咩? 你估我真係維園亞伯磨?
回 錢恨少 君
"自由派"基督徒在香港是弱勢，你可以先到以下網址認識一下他們。除了神學觀念不談，自由派基督徒一般都接受當代的民主制度、支持女男平等(也就是會接納女性成為牧師，與新教宗的保守立場可作一比較)、對各項性議題(如墮胎、同性戀、婚姻、自慰)都採一更包容的態度等等。
http://www.voy.com/174951/
去看看吧
角十舞??? Are you a clown, t sw?
Was a bit thrilled seeing my name being mentioned again. Thanks, t sw, for remembering me.
I think that you are really gifted to make people laugh, right? Humurous people like you have been one of the reasons why I couldn't quit this website! Have also been anticipating for your participation here, frankly, just couldn't imagine in what way it would come.
First of all, I know most people wouldn't care, just out of courtesy as you have mentioned, I have kept reading everything, or nearly everything here, not disappointing you, right? Then why I haven't been posting so many comments? First, I have been quite busy at work, and the working hours are the only time I can get Internet access, except when I go to my friend's home to get online. Second, I feel that the the readers here have built up an atmosphere of discussion, so my status of being a dart is quite finished, hopefully, as it doesn't seem necessary anymore. Third, I haven't found any particular topic I feel deeply involved and have a strong urge to comment on as either somebody has stated all my points or I simply don't care enough. Fourth, regarding this topic, I was nearly going to swear that I wouldn't say anything further (at the end of one discussion, under the article about the event on the previous Valentine's Day) about any issue on this matter (homosexuality and sexual orientations). And now, the topic seems to become 'Christianity VS equal opportunities' or 'Christians VS homosexuals' as I name them just for now, how dare I take part in this discussion 呢 (if you have noticed my standpoints and my religion status)?
As I have developed a liking towards 子華 and you, I have also obviously got a feeling that I dislike some people. This is not discrimination, I REPEAT, and REPEATED, and AM EXPECTING TO REPEAT again in the future, as I dislike a person or a group of people because of a characteristic I dislike, related to that action I am taking. Emotion or preferences aren't equivalent to discrimination. So, I really don't like to discuss with somebody who don't understand simple logic anymore. Or maybe, I should say, I don't hate those people as a whole, but the way they speak or think, or more precisely the way how they express themselves to make people perceive how they think, so, I just don't have the motivation to discuss with them, yes, about nearly everything, whether they share my viewpoints or not.
So, about this matter, finally. Just a little bit of comments. The bookstore is not right, but what's the point relating it to religion or to simply generalise this single incident in a not-exactly-convincing way? Of course I understand how you feel if people throw away what you published. I have actually published something myself, believe it or not; so I totally understand that what you spend in them are not only time and money, but also your sweats and blood, so I know why they are so upset, and even angry. I might have been even angrier if I were them, in fact. Really have nothing more to add, as I quite agree with 子華, again.
看了
謝謝. 有幾位朋友原來有雙重會籍.
Christain organizations has used this incident to start smear ca
I also have my like and dislike, but I usually try to keep it to myself. But name-calling is kind of "low" even for a bad tempered poster and would damage more civil discussion.
I would say it is the Christian organization that try to have this 'us vs them' type of discussion.
Christian organization has already sent out email to ask other anti-gay Christians to buy book from this bookshop as if they have found a common enemy.
As for smear campaign, see the few examples from below and see how these Christian organizations have made this a Christian vs homosexual issue.
http://www.truth-light.org.hk/index.jsp
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/Version/Show.jsp?Pid=1&Ve...
If anyone get information that 同志 organizations have done similar mud-slinging campaign, I would like to know about it.
建立“對同志友善的社區”論壇
大家好:
這是4月17日論壇當日的發表的大會立場, 現附上一小段翌日的報章報導, 供大家參考:
-----------------------------
建立“對同志友善的社區”論壇
大會立場
呼籲「榆林書店」開放渠道 共建對同志友善的社區
資訊自由
榆林書店的網站中寫了：「我們盼望，透過閱讀，能夠幫助你擴闊視野、提昇智慧、改善生活。」我們希望榆林書店真正能擴闊視野，容讓各方意見在公共空間內流通。
書店是獨得文化空間和知識的寶庫。知識是具有差異性的，百花齊放，讀者得到多元化觀點，不應以一言堂的理由作壓迫之事。
讀者需要資訊的自由流通，讀者自會自行判斷如何選取，這是資訊自由最可貴之處。
公共空間與平等對待
榆林書店事件已波及其它團體。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》月曆亦被拒絕擺放。
書店內售賣哪些書籍是書店的選擇，但資訊流通架的情況則不同，榆林書店開放資訊流通架，是模仿其它二樓書店向來的做法，二樓書店向來以多元文化定位，從來未見有一般二樓書店有言論審查。
榆林書店多年來沒有聲明這是他們禁止性傾向言論的發放，榆林書店從來並沒有言明自己是基督教書店或反同性戀書店。
針對性地「拒絕」提供給某一族群，是「不平等」的對待。榆林書店容許佛教等宗教團體擺放刊物，希望榆林書店將其對待其他宗教的雅量，擴展到少數性傾向族群身上。
誤導市民
近日不斷有反對同性戀人士四處散描謠言，指若果性傾向歧視立法之後，異性戀者便會受到「逆向歧視」。
理性而思路清晰者，斷不會相信這種叫做「逆向歧視」的說法。例如，有殘疾人士受到僱主不合理解僱，當他使用《殘疾歧視條例》興訟時，難道老闆可以用「逆向歧視」的說法，指「你（殘疾人士）這是歧視我（老闆）因為你的殘疾而歧視你」？
而且，「逆向歧視」是一種西方國家於立法後，歧視者製造出來、煽動不安情緒的說法。我們不應上當，應以理性去辨別，更沒理由相信現行的「性別歧視條例」及「殘疾歧視條例」對歧視者構成歧視！
我們希望反對同性戀人士應就事實平情而論，切莫胡亂砌詞，誤導公眾！
打破偏見與排斥
這次事件反映反對同性戀人士的偏見，以及對於弱勢社群之排斥。就連一份政府資助出版的公眾教育刊物也容不下來。不幸言中，有團體的刊物已進一步更到禁制，新婦女協進會的《平等與包容：促進不同性傾向人士平等機會》月曆已於事件後被拒繼續擺放。
我們呼籲民間團體及政府，透過事件而明白到社會上對於不同性傾向人士之偏見與排斥是何等地強烈。儘快立法，同時間加強教育，共建對同志友善的社區和社會生活。
----------------------------------
新報A08, 2005-04-18
同志搞論壇 抗議拒售書
同性戀愛往往較具爭議，同志團體彩虹行動、香港彩虹以及香港女同盟會噚日o係旺角搞論壇，抗議區內二樓書店榆林書店，以內容同「同性愛」有關，而老闆有基督教背景為理由，拒絕團體o係店外書架擺放小冊子《她們的女情印記》。據同志團體話，呢本小冊子，係o係民政事務局資助o既「香港會愛上女人的女人口述歷史計劃」下出版o既，旨在推廣性傾向平等機會訊息，但竟然都被封殺。
Prejudice and Discrimination
//I dislike some people. This is not discrimination, I REPEAT, and REPEATED, and AM EXPECTING TO REPEAT again in the future, as I dislike a person or a group of people because of a characteristic I dislike, related to that action I am taking. Emotion or preferences aren't equivalent to discrimination.//
Yes, if you dislike a person or a group of persons because of their skin color, you are a racist. No matter how many times you said you are not a racist, it is just you are in denial.
A racist would not necessary discriminate against the group of persons a racist "dislike", but it is very likely.
For example, a racist would not 'date' a person from a race he/she dislike. That is not discrimination, but personal 'preference'.
But when the same racist refused to hire a person from a particular race based on personal dislike, that is discrimination. Now, the racist may insist that it is a personal dislike, but as it caused damage to another person, it could be classified as discrimination.
The same could be said about sexist, homophobe, anti-semitic as well.
Now, I don't like to talk to someone who insist that everything could be based on her personal feelings even when it is irrational and caused damage to other individuals.
扯開一點
joi ito: "maybe some of them can try to talk to their allies in Japan like me instead of trying to force or scare into submission their enemy."
他所說的是中國和日本的關係, 但可應用到很多地方. 在社會上絕大部份人都是無知的(我不是想冒犯), 因為社群跟社群根本缺乏渠道去了解對方, 敵意不能化解誤解與衝突, 善意的對話和進步力量的連結才能促成改變.
I have predicted correctly again......
Tiring.
Ok, so, just say, because I don't like the way how a person talks, I don't talk to him / her, it is not discrimination. See? I KNEW I would need to repeat my conceptions again.
Basically, XOX has supported me on my point, rarely. So, thank you! Just the same idea, 'personal preference is not equivalent to discrimination'. So, please don't say that I discriminate against those who speak without bringing their brains when I refuse to discuss with them, please, as the reason and the action taken are 'relevant'. Just like, if you don't hire a physically weak old woman for a position which needs to move heavy cartons and big boxes of goods the whole day, it is reasonable, so it is not regarded as either 'sexual discrimination' or age discrimination', ok?
我這人挺簡單的。就算我不喜歡跟一個人談話也可以跟他打球游泳看電影﹐就算我多喜歡跟一個朋友聊天﹐也很可能因為他不漂亮不願幫他拍照寫生。怎麼說都不認同這也能算是歧視﹐最多你說我膚淺就好了﹗歧視這‘莫須有’的罪名我可不願擔當。我也知道我是怪物﹐很多人不會這樣﹐分得那麼清清楚楚﹐可我不正常不代表我是歧視呀﹗冤枉呀﹗﹗﹗
同意阿藹
好簡單﹐針唔O吉到肉唔知痛。有幾何見到男人搞男女平等﹐又幾時見到幸福家庭出面幫單親家庭搞活動呀﹐爭取福利呀咁丫﹖又或者李嘉誠要搞‘扶貧’我都會懷疑O下係唔係真同有O羊動機。如果我而家忽然走去幫忙搞‘同志平權’﹐以我不‘男女男’中意搞事亦肯定大把人問﹕‘失戀受唔住刺激變lun O左﹖’﹐信唔信﹖
最重要我O地能夠好似阿藹話齋﹐認清自己O既盲點﹐努力了解其他人﹐呢個世界肯定更和平美好。不過﹐講開又講﹐‘同理心’始終比較似理論多於實際﹐問心﹐都真係唔易。
不合時宜
其實我對網上寫意見，開始愈來愈沒有興趣，因為網是甚麼呢？有時有人當它是百分之百的公共戰場，大家寸土必爭，建立主導的進步思想 (我不用甚麼霸權字眼了)。但有時它又好像是一塊你可以講講私人感受、分析、反省、甚至自我批判的地方。但你總不知道幾時反省、自我批判會被讀成是拉後腿，放暗箭？那個空間才是講真心話的地方？或者根本就沒有。
對榆林 事件，當我第一時間知道，直覺有問題。但既然這個小地盤都己炮火連天，自知沒有能耐身掛炸藥筒子，也不甘被任何一方充作彈葯，那就不妨自覺 "沉潛" 下去。只是最近，我見道理都辯得七七八八，才敢以親痛仇快四字為擋箭牌，表達一些不合時宜之意見。原來才發覺，在這個非友即敵的戰場，可能根本就沒有正合時宜的時空，因為諸神大戰一直還在世世代代重演百年孤寂。
不過，局外人就是局外人，我倒很樂意當一個真正匿名的局外人，最好不要讓我真的認識你們任何一位當事者。這種取態，隨得你喜歡不喜歡，可以叫超然、旁觀，總是該死的在失敗的傷兵身旁指劃，卻萬不能號之為 '冷靜'。因為，或者只有這種抽離，我才會曉得警省自己天外有天，管你劃下的前線雙方如何還是殺得性起。
真正反異性戀 (或其他任何形式)霸權的地方，其實是充塞著偽善無知的自由派的網外廣大天地，而不是相濡以沫的小圈子。只有網外這些愚眛偏見充塞的平常心、平常人的經驗國度，才是社會運動真正要爭取產生作用的地方。
寢室冒起硝煙，不意味門外響起了抗戰勝利的鞭炮，它只是一個訊號，要命的是時候逃了。親愛的，請請。
agree with ah oi
ah oi wrote:
他所說的是中國和日本的關係, 但可應用到很多地方. 在社會上絕大部份人都是無知的(我不是想冒犯), 因為社群跟社群根本缺乏渠道去了解對方, 敵意不能化解誤解與衝突, 善意的對話和進步力量的連結才能促成改變.
joi is a japanese who travelled around the world and been lived in the US for sometimes. his view is board, though he is a business person. he was one of the persons who joined a conference about technology cooperation in memory with the people who werekilled by a terrorist attack on train in spain last year (if we still remember). many people were killed.
ah oi, you are so right. this is what i meant by different senses/ways of activism. i was the one shouting and speaking in a public forum pointing at the "enemy", saying political correct statements that i spoke so many times to the press and other public setting that they just ran out of my mind without thinking.
since the 10%club i don't remember how many public speakings i did. queer sisters started as a women rights and human rights group, rather than a tung zhi group. we called ourselves sexual rights group, it was a very important thinking. we wrote the human rights report for UN alternative human rights report. we spoke in the legislative council. but how much we could achieve though we were almost full time worker for an ngo that was named a sexual rights group (still misunderstood as lesbian group)?
we didn't do enough. not because we were not political and radical enough. but i (i can only say i) was too stupid and not to be able to speak a different language. a language that really go for communication, that really asks for dialogues, that generates reflections with the mind and heart.
yes our hearts.
they are not our enemies, even they treat us as one. if it is not us who start the "we/other" notion but the Christians, then it is exactly this very reason we shouldn't use the we/other thinking.
putting thoughts and feelings to the priority is not to reduced complicated matters to personal levels.
it is a method, to view and to think of a problem, so is also a tactic. tactic is not just about whether or not using confrontational politics, or guerrilla tactics. the stress is not about the actions, but the ways of thinking behind. this is why sometimes certian tactics work, and sometimes not, cos people have different thinkings. those who don't agree with us are not ONE, as we are not ONE with multiplicities and differences.
this is the view (and also a tactic, i am very consious i am doing activism but in a different light), how i wrote the yu lan event writing in the first place on my blog.
i'd rather have dialogue with people who don't agree with equal rights for different sexualities (NOT JUST HOMOSEXUALITY, please... ). it is important to understand what they think, not just to restate (or simply repeat) what we believe. cos when we try to understand them, we really re-state and in different forms.
i wish 硬地 will reply me.
join my palms.
Prejudice is really difficult to eliminate
//we didn't do enough. not because we were not political and radical enough. but i (i can only say i) was too stupid and not to be able to speak a different language. a language that really go for communication, that really asks for dialogues, that generates reflections with the mind and heart.//
I do appreciate you try and discuss things with bigots who oppose human rights for non heterosexuals.
I don't think it is because you or other activists haven't done enough, but the teaching of prejudice against non heterosexuals are too wide spread by bigots, many who are leaders in churches.
At the UN Commission on Human Rights sixty-first session
"Stresses that women should be empowered to protect themselves against violence and, in this regard, stresses that women have the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence;"
"Stresses that States have an affirmative duty to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women and girls and must exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish all acts of violence against women and girls, and calls upon States:
(e) To condemn violence against women and girls and not to invoke custom, tradition or practices in the name of religion or culture to avoid their obligations to eliminate such violence;"
More on that at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G05/138/77/PDF/G0513877.pdf?OpenE...
or http://www.ohchr.org/
This is the drafted resolution which was opposed by some anti-women country representatives and the Holy See because it affirm women sexual and reproductive rights.
We know we are doing the right things when we regard women have the rights.
This concept that women are human and have the same rights as men is still a new concept for many people, especially those who go to church.
Don't give up hope yet. The root of the problem is not only sexism, but heterosexualism (only heterosexuals are acceptable).
别洩氣
子華兄,
別洩氣, 我都好歡喜看你的文字的, 雖然我唔係每篇都明白或同意你的觀點, 冇謂為糾纏不清的人放棄發言. 我就冇你咁好氣, 即使有人叫陣, 都唔會參與類似筆戰的討論, 人生苦短, 好得閒咩. 自己又唔係魯迅上身
respond to xox.
thanks for your response xox.
i guess you don't get my point.
what i was trying to say is we need to reflect upon ourselves, our limitations, rather than repeatedly condemn the heterosexist world. i am not disagreeing with you.
yet, somehow, i DO think the reason why we didn't do enough was because we were too absorbed in our believes that we were not able to have a language doesn't results in communication and the lack of a open attiude to understand those who oppose us.
after all these years... i believe in a different kind of activism and tactics.
and this is even more difficult to promote that kind of tactics. by the response i got from here, i know. but i won't give up. i have millions times more patience than i was a front line activist.
we have to learn to restate because of the people we are commicating, rather than simply repeating our stance. it doesn't mean that we change our stance though.
i did write back and forth with gum on the yu lam issues. please read her article in hkej in the coming few days if you are interested.
good health to you,
anson
新一期拼圖
新一期拼圖已經出版, 大家可到以下網址看看:
http://lesbo.hk-stargazer.net/
Pro-human-rights activists who support 同志 are not necessary 同志 t
//i DO think the reason why we didn't do enough was because we were too absorbed in our believes that we were not able to have a language doesn't results in communication and the lack of a open attiude to understand those who oppose us.//
Well, that is only one side of it. Communication is two ways, if one side is 'blocked', no matter how good your communication is, they will not really 'listen'.
See it from the point of view of civil rights activists. You could ask the non-white to have a better attitude whene they speak of discrimination so that the majority white would listen, but sometimes, they just have to clearly sstated that being racists is wrong.
Remember the lady who first sat on the bus on the 'white-only' part of the bus? Do you think she was asking for trouble, or do you think she was brave?
I think she was simply too fed-up to care.
And that is the attitude of some of the pro-human rights activists on anti-gay issue. The kind of prejudice is too much for us that it is hard to comprehend.
Why do you think there are less racists now after the civil rights movenment? Do you think there were no backslash? People struggle for years to gain acceptance, but by sweet talk and gentle discussion, but actively pointed out that bigotry is wrong.
Bigotry is wrong. Be it against a person of another race, or a person of a different sexual orientation.
I would think this is another approach to this problem.
是可互相補足
直接行動有其好處(引人注意, 為大家提供討論的動力. 之前民政事務局成立性小眾討壇咁大件事, 大眾都無乜討論.....)，討論有其好處，和平大使式會面亦有好處，出聲明有好處，做聯署有好處，出書有好處，做輔導又有好處.....
各式行動都有其好處，可以互補不足. 不需要"單一"的說那一種才是好, 而其他的不好.
其實不同組織都正在做不同的行動，大家可多多留意.
基要派基督徒打壓言論自由?真的獵巫了嗎?
兩篇文章皆出自本地基督新教的官方報紙"時代論壇"的討論區內，各位看官可以參考一下。就算不是基督徒的網友，如果有興趣，亦可以到場中發言的，謝謝。
時代論壇的"時代論場"：http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/Channel/ShowPage.jsp?Cid=150&Pid=6&Version=0&Charset=big5_hkscs&page=0
=============================================
回應文章: 對教牧和信徒的呼籲 回應者: Verona
目前同志運動，以及各種各類的異端邪說，甚至不信派，聯同起來，攻擊教會，甚至滲透教會，情況日趨嚴厲，對基督教會構成嚴重損害。在道德方面，在社會方面，在價值觀念方面，在信仰方面等等，基督教會正面臨前所未有的挑戰。美國聖公會同志牧師的按立，以及多個外國國家為同性婚姻立法，都對作為人類至高道德倫理準則的基督教價值造成嚴重打擊。可以預見，無論在本地，或是在外地，基督教會將會遭受越來越厲害的攻擊。西方教會的腐敗衰落，是由於對神話語的不相信、不堅持，向世俗道德倫理價值觀念妥協低頭，讓各種各樣的思想不加批判地進入教會生活當中，大大損害了教會的聖潔和純粹。幸好神在東方仍然保守著一班堅持神真理的屬靈勇士，但他們仍然受到各種來自西方的污染所影響，有時搖擺不定，未能在真理的道路上有所堅持。異端邪說不斷入侵教會，擾亂信徒。
有鑒於此，回應神的呼喚，堅守神啟示的真理，並且遵從使徒的教訓，在世界面前作鹽作光，呼喚罪人悔改，讓聖靈在教會得以自由運行，都是必須的。教會不靠著主的靈、靠著主的道、靠主的寶血來，而得著基督的潔淨，就無法成為合適器皿，為主所用。
首先，弟兄姐妹應該守望相助，堅固軟弱的弟兄，斥責罪但愛罪人。聖經說：「你要成為聖潔，因為祂要管教你，使你在祂的聖潔上有分。」「你在一切所行的事上都要聖潔，因為我呼召你的神是聖潔的神。」「我們順從聖靈就是生命平安，順從肉體的邪情私慾就是死亡。」不隨從神的，就會死亡；隨從神的，得到永生。
其次，教會要把假弟兄假教師抽出，從而潔淨教會，分別為聖。教會總會有假冒的弟兄混進來，總是有閒雜人。在保羅時代有假弟兄。在約翰的時候，也有假弟兄。有人自稱是弟兄，事實上不是弟兄；自稱是屬神的，實在是沒有生命的。他們是憑著人的道理，憑著人的知識進到教會的。假弟兄包括所謂同志基督徒，犯姦淫的基督徒，妄稱主名的基督徒，不信派。假教師包括不承認聖經是啟示的人，按私意解聖經的人，用人的理性代替神的心意的人。我們要向教會、教牧、教會機構舉報這些人，奉神的名棄絕這些不悔改的人。應該建立教會資料庫，互通消息，面得他們在教會中躲藏起來，侵蝕教會。
為了基督的教會，我們需要聖靈火的潔淨！
阿們。
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=286...
==============================================
回應文章: 抗議時代論壇不聽從VeroNa及Ken S.所言，向同志惡勢力讓步！！！ 回應者: 言
VeroNa和Ken S.說得對，為保聖潔和清白，時代論壇應將所有同志基督徒言論驅逐出論壇，否則勢必為教會眾人所唾棄！！！！！！
http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=286...
所謂的逆向歧視
今天，在榆林找到維護家庭聯盟(即係明光社+宣道會+浸信會)出的單張，內裏寫了十七個外國因性傾向平等法例而被剝奪「良心自由」的例子。大概就是沒有具體的歧視，只是表示反對同性戀而被無理對待的例子。有無人知道詳程，可以講講
Good information and wrong information
I have read similar things from anti-gay sites. I don't have time to go over it one by one, but if there is any case you have found that you are interested, I would give you more information so that you will come to realize how the anti-gay has distorted the truth.
For example, Ake Green was a pastor who have been jailed but has set free on appeal. The case has nothing to do with discrimination but has a lot of do with hate speech law.
Another example is of a nurse who is quite famous for being involved in terrorist activity. This nurse is also a strong anti-gay Christian who has used hate speech and was fined because he has violated the ethical code of being a nurse professional.
Other famous case is one of the key instructor in NARTH (one of the biggest anti-gay Christian group who used misinformation and half truth) who got expelled for life from the American Counselling Association. Hong Kong anti-gay organizations got their information from NARTH and even hired speech from NARTH to spread the lies in Hong Kong.
Another case is about same sex marriage that got nothing to do with discrimination.
It is one thing to oppose the anti-discrimination, yet another unethical tactics to bring in unrelated incidents to stir hatred among Christians against sexual minority.
Feel free to ask questions.
香港人民廣播電台：(拉闊政治)--"對談會"的報導及評論
大家聽下啦~ 睇下 d 基要派基督徒 點講啦~ 哈哈
=================================================
香港人民廣播電台
2005年4月22日。《我是否有自由歧視同性戀 》
主持：鄭永鍇 (MICHAEL)、葉寶琳(BOBO)、袁敬皓(JOE)
嘉賓：煒煒(香港彩虹)
http://prhk.no-ip.org/livepolitics/20050422/livepolitics20050422a.mp3
http://prhk.no-ip.org/livepolitics/20050422/livepolitics20050422b.mp3
http://prhk.no-ip.org/livepolitics/20050422/livepolitics20050422c.mp3
必睇錄像：蘇牧發動基督精兵 動員教友反反歧視
蘇穎智牧於恩福堂口工作，統領五千基督精兵，這個聯結必聽必睇：
<<緊急呼籲>>
有關反對『性傾向歧視』立法之呼籲
(43min)
http://www.yanfook.org/video/broadcast002.asx
有心機可以聽下睇下佢點講道 點樣動員下線5000人簽名反對立法~~~ 哈
(小心,受得先好)
請廣傳:支持反性傾向歧視法的朋友請簽名~ 謝謝
請各位睇好戲之餘亦支持一下同志平權運動、消除歧視。
為回應明光社及性文化等人的「四版全版廣告 + 9800 人簽名反對立法」的行動，同志
社區聯席發起網上簽名運動「支持立法」，請各同志及親同志的朋友為消除社會上對同
志的歧視簽名支持，多謝！
---------------------
Dear all,
(中文版本請往下看)
In order to gauge public support of an anti-discrimination bill to outlaw
sexual orientation discrimination, the Hong Kong government will commission
a third party to conduct a survey on public atitudes towards gays and
lesbians and protective measures for them. There will be no Sexual
Orientation Discrimination (SOD) Bill if the results show less than 50%
support from the public. As a member of the LGBT communtiy, we all have
witnessed instances of discrimination, if not experienced them ourselves. It
is important that we voice out the need to outlaw discrimination against us.
It is important that the public knows about our needs and the prevalence of
discrimination before the survey takes place. If you are not a member of the
LGBT community, I trust you too agree to equality for all and a legislation
to protect us from discrimination. Thus, I urge you to sign this petition in
support of an SOD Bill which will outlaw discrimination against us. It will
also convey a strong message to the public and the government of how serious
discrimination is in Hong Kong.
To sign the petition, follow this link (your signature will be handed to the
Chief Executive and Secretary for Home Affairs):
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/sodbhk/
(Chinese Version below)
為掌握公眾對反歧視草案的支持度，香港政府將委任獨立人士調查公眾對同性戀者以及
有關保障措施的態度。如果民意調查結果反映有關支持度低於百分之五十，相信政府對
提出草擬性傾向歧視法案有一定困難。作為同志社群的一份子，即使我們可能未