May 2nd, 2013
不反對平權諮詢 聖公會秘書長：同志唔係怪物
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130502/18246851
平權之聲，依舊熾熱。平等機會委員會新主席周一嶽是英國聖公會信徒，承認該會在同志議題上作風保守，香港聖公會教省秘書長管浩鳴牧師直言教會內對反性傾向歧視立法未有共識，個人不反對政府進行諮詢，但認為立法非唯一途徑。對於有宗教團體擔心立法後出現逆向歧視，管浩鳴認為教會只是宣講真道，不憂慮為義下獄，又認為同性戀不是孌童癖，因為性傾向而拒絕聘用同志當教師的做法不恰當。
記者：張嘉雯
周一嶽上任一個月，表示可考慮為宗教團體制訂豁免條文，以換取各教會支持。本報專訪管浩鳴，他不反對政府進行諮詢：「所謂諮詢即係有一個傾談嘅空間，畀成個社會去了解件事，教會唔贊成歧視。」但他認為，立法以外尚有很多空間：「立法係咪唯一嘅方法呢？單係用法例叫人唔好做錯事，係消極嘅方法，啲人心底仍然係歧視佢哋，最重要係大家對同性戀者多啲認識，佢哋唔係咩洪水猛獸，唔係咩怪物。」
毋須過慮逆向歧視
教會雖在反歧視法上未有共識，但他說對同性婚姻有一致立場：「有一啲底線要守住，教會唔會同意同性婚姻，婚姻係一男一女，婚姻以外嘅關係，我哋可以另外訂一個名畀佢。」他表示不會刻意向周一嶽表達觀點，又透露個別教會團體曾游說香港聖公會就立法一事表態，但該會沒有答允。
對於有宗教團體引用教會學校不聘用同性戀者當教師、不為同性戀者主持婚禮等例子，擔心立法引發逆向歧視，管浩鳴認為毋須過份憂慮：「教會講婚姻係一男一女，係講真理，如果為基督真道嘅緣故而要坐監，咁就抵啦，我唔擔心。」他亦不認為拒絕為同志主持婚禮會招來官非：「𠵱家教會都唔會幫離咗婚嘅人主持婚禮㗎，政府告我哋，我哋歡迎，我哋都有底線，宗教有自主，教會都有自己嘅立場，要保守返基本嘅信念。」
社會對同志多誤解
對於學校不聘用同性戀者當教師，管浩鳴認為不應以有色眼鏡看待同志：「首先我哋唔應該將同性戀者等同孌童癖，唔應該因為佢係同性戀，就當佢哋冇晒道德標準，咁對佢哋好唔公平，咁即係男先生唔可以教女校？講真係咪同性戀，都唔應該孌童㗎啦。」他認為社會對同志仍很多誤解：「太多唔好嘅嘢同佢哋拉上關係，好似愛滋病、濫交、孌童癖咁，可能有啲係個別嘅問題，但唔好完全歸咎於同性戀。」
談到同志家庭的領養議題，管浩鳴有信心政府不會輕率而行：「政府要平衡，保障同性戀者嘅基本權利唔受歧視，但亦唔等於可以完全開放，例如我作為牧師，我去領養一個小朋友都係唔得㗎，咁係咪歧視我呢？小朋友應該由傳統家庭去領養，有時係我哋諗得太多，擔心得太多，其實我哋個社會比我哋想像中嚴謹，我自己唔擔心。」
“Consultations offer a chance to discuss and to allow the society to better understand the issue. The Church does not support discrimination.”
“Is legislation the only way out? By asking people to not do the wrong thing is a negative approach. One may still harbor discrimination deep down. It’s important that one learns more about homosexuality. They [homosexuals] are not wild beasts, they are not monsters.”
“There are some bottom lines we ought to defend. The Church will not support same-sex marriage as marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Relationship other than marriage, we can give it another name.”
The Church believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, it’s about the Truth. If believers were to be jailed for the Truth, then so be it. I am not too concerned.”
“The Church does not officiate wedding ceremonies for divorcees. If the Government sues us, we welcome it. We have our bottom lines. Religion has freedom and the Church has its own stance. We need to preserve our fundamental beliefs.”
“First we should not equate homosexuals with pedophiles. It is unfair to think that they are immoral because they are homosexuals. Is this to say that a man cannot teach in a female school? Whether homosexual or not, one should not be a pedophile anyway.
“One should not affiliates it [homosexuals] with AIDS, promiscuity or pedophilia. Some could be isolate cases, but one should not blame it all on homosexuality.”
“The Government needs an equilibrium, protecting homosexuals from discrimination does not mean the rights can be fully open to them. For example, as a reverend, I cannot adopt a child. Am I being discriminated? Children should be adopted by traditional families. Sometimes we think too much, worry too much. Our society is more rigorous than we think. I am not worried.”
April 21st, 2013
啟動反性傾向歧視 平機會用「私房錢」搞諮詢
政府以《反性傾向歧視條例》立法極富爭議為由，拒絕展開立法諮詢。與之立場相反的平機會，更被政制及內地事務局就開支預算回覆立法會的文件指，推廣反性傾向歧視的宣傳和研究工作，並非平機會的職權範圍。平機會新任主席周一嶽（圓圖）昨出席電視節目《講清講楚》時反駁，不認同局方說法，並會動用平機會的儲備資金，盡快進行有關條例擬立法前期的諮詢工作。
不諱言政府「另起爐灶」
周一嶽稱，平機會較一般政府機構具備獨立性，並非以政府角度看待問題，作為監察本港人權情況的重要機構，特別在歧視方面，若某一組別人士明顯受到歧視，平機會當然有責任進行研究工作。因此他清晰表示，性傾向歧視方面的研究，是平機會的責任。
他繼而指，政府在2013至2014年度，沒有向平機會明顯增撥資源，故會考慮運用本身的財政儲備，為《反性傾向歧視條例》作擬立法前期的諮詢，因性小眾被歧視的情況在社會討論已久，不排除將來再向政府申請撥款。周謂，雖然立法工作始終要由政府啟動，但平機會的職責亦包括檢討現行4條《反歧視條例》的實施有否加強的必要。
有意見指，政府另外成立性小眾歧視諮詢委員會，是因不同意平機會立場而另起爐灶，周一嶽不諱言，該委員會與平機會立場有別，委員會必然有政府立場，亦沒邀請平機會代表加入。他希望與政府溝通，先了解委員會的目的、模式及職權範圍，以找到雙方合作空間。
初選特首須廣泛代表性
另外，被問到2017年特首普選，當中投票權與被選權是否應普及而平等，周一嶽稱，若《基本法》與《國際公約》條文有衝突，當然以《基本法》為準，但他理解《基本法》設計本身，亦有參考《國際公約》，相信本港未來修改特首產生辦法，必為世界所矚目，故希望香港的選舉制度，可令每個人都被考慮。
他認為，普選特首前應有提名及初選機制，因「不能由700萬人來選700萬人」，但初選機制必須有廣泛代表性，他直言，現行的選舉委員會的組成不會被社會主流意見接受。對於中央訂下普選特首的前提，周指，以香港人的角度來看，不擔心會選出不愛國愛港的特首，籲中央多信任港人，相反市民亦毋須對前提過份憂慮。
http://www.hkdailynews.com.hk/news.php?id=279892
April 16th, 2013
Religion and culture cannot justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, Ban warns
Pledging that “we must right these wrongs,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today denounced discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and declared that religion, culture and tradition can never be a justification for denying them their basic rights.
“Governments have a legal duty to protect everyone,” he said in a video message to the Oslo Conference on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, voicing outrage at the assault, imprisonment and murder of. LGBTs. “Some will oppose change. They may invoke culture, tradition or religion to defend the status quo.
“Such arguments have been used to try to justify slavery, child marriage, rape in marriage and female genital mutilation. I respect culture, tradition and religion – but they can never justify the denial of basic rights.”
Mr. Ban, who has frequently condemned violence and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, said the world should be outraged when people suffer discrimination because of who they love or how they look.
“This is one of the great, neglected human rights challenges of our time. We must right these wrongs,” he said, warning that far too many governments still refuse to acknowledge the injustice of homophobic violence and discrimination.
“My promise to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the human family is this: I am with you. I promise that as Secretary-General of the United Nations, I will denounce attacks against you, and I will keep pressing leaders for progress.”
The conference is jointly sponsored by Norway and South Africa and is one in a series of regional seminars scheduled to take place in France, Brazil and Nepal in March and April, and another is planned for Africa. The main purpose of these seminars is to gain better understanding of the specific human rights challenges for sexual minorities in each region, and to discuss how these challenges may best be overcome.
The seminars stem from a report issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights addressing the responsibility of states to end violence and discriminatory laws and practices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44660&Cr=discrimination&Cr1=#.UW66yKIuOKV
March 30th, 2013
GAY POLITICAL POWER—OR GOOD SURVIVAL SKILLS?
Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, there has been a lot of discussion of whether gays and lesbians individually, and the gay-rights movement in general, have become so politically powerful as to hardly warrant the safeguards of the equal-protection clause of the Constitution.
Substantial attention focussed on an exchange during the argument between Chief Justice John Roberts and the attorney for Edith Windsor, who is challenging the law. Justice Roberts asked Roberta Kaplan, “You don’t doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same-sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?” When she disagreed with him, the Chief Justice somewhat snarkily responded, “As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”
The issue is legally important—so important that it merited its own front-page story in the Times today—because in order for the court to apply what’s known as “heightened scrutiny” in an equal-protection context, it has required, in the past, a finding that the group seeking redress has historically lacked political power. Heightened scrutiny would mean, for example, that a court would look especially skeptically at a law that treated people of different races dissimilarly—the law would be suspect from the start. (One of the reasons that gay-rights groups may have been initially reluctant to take Windsor’s case for a large tax refund was that it looked like a claim for more money by an already affluent person.)
What is often lost in this discussion is that the legal test requires a finding of lack of political power historically. It has much less to do with political power, or lack thereof, in the present moment. In the DOMA context, what the court would need to look at, if it wanted to remain true to its precedents, would be the political power of gays and lesbians in 1996, when the law was enacted. Perhaps the best evidence of the lack of political power at that time is that the law—one of the most discriminatory anti-gay measure in American history—was passed by veto-proof margins in both houses of Congress and signed by a President who, even though he personally opposed the goals of the legislation, was unwilling to stand up against it in an election year out of fear that doing so would require that he defend himself against the charge that he supported the group stigmatized by the bill’s sponsors.
Moreover, and going directly to Chief Justice Roberts’s point about the success gay-rights advocates had in last year’s election—winning ballot initiatives in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington—I hardly think having to raise tens of millions of dollars to obtain your rights, when they are free to everyone else, would suggest a lot of political power in the first instance. It’s more like good survival skills and ingenuity.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Windsor, which is being reviewed by the Supreme Court, actually made a specific finding on this point. ”Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public,” Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in the controlling opinion. He might have added the modifier “historically,” but he was not wrong. After all, Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative, was passed not in 1978, or even 1998, but in 2008. And in May 2012—less than a year ago—voters in North Carolina approved a state-constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rob Portman is still the only sitting Republican senator to express his support. He didn’t have to fall over any of his colleagues.
But on a much deeper level than the court was prepared or able to get into, there is a difference between the political powerlessness of gays and the political powerlessness of racial minorities. That’s because gays and lesbians can hide their true identity in ways that racial minorities mostly cannot. So there are (and have always been) gays and lesbians who are extremely powerful but closeted. The attorney Roy Cohn, who, at various times between the nineteen-forties and the seventies, controlled much in both Washington and New York, certainly comes to mind. But that is not the kind of political power the equal-protection clause considers. Just because a group is able to marshal its resources to undertake what is essentially a Herculean effort to protect itself, in a very limited and targeted way, does not mean it is unworthy of constitutional defense. Or think of it this way: just because the gay teen-agers on “Glee” are accepted, well-adjusted, loved by their peers, and able to kiss on television without consequence in their fictionalized reality does not mean that a poor, young, gay teen-ager living in the red-state South is not having a hard time of it. It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t deserve a day in court.
March 22nd, 2013
EOC looks to combining equal rights laws
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1196553/eoc-propose-combining-equal-rights-laws
Outgoing EOC chairman wants to combine all four of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinances to pave a smoother path for new ones in future
The Equal Opportunities Commission will complete by this year the drafting of a consultation document to review the four anti-discrimination laws, so that a public consultation into the matter can be launched next year.
Commission chairman Lam Woon-kwong made the announcement after his last – and coincidentally 100th – meeting with members of the commission yesterday.
Former health secretary Dr York Chow Yat-ngor will take over his role next month.
Lam said the four ordinances had been drafted 18 years ago based on those in Britain and Australia. But while these two countries had improved on them over the past two decades, Hong Kong has lagged behind by at least 10 years, he said.
“The aim of the review is to modernise the existing four ordinances,” Lam said, referring to the sex, disability, family status and race discrimination ordinances.
“If we combine the four ordinances into one main ordinance … this will be more flexible.”
Doing so would make it easier and faster to introduce new anti-discrimination laws, as all that would be required then would be an amendment to the main ordinance instead of having to put forward a new and separate law, Lam explained.
“In the past, the government always said that the amendments we suggested were too trivial and so they could not be presented to the Legislative Council,” he said, adding that the amendments presented in Legco had to go through a priority-based selection process.
“So now we are hoping to make the changes all together. The government cannot say the changes are trivial any more.”
Lam hopes the commission will be able to submit a proposal to the government within two years, after listening to public opinion.
When asked whether the proposal would discuss introducing the controversial anti-sexual orientation discrimination law, he said the review would focus on improving the four existing laws.
He believed the public would voice their opinions on sexual orientation discrimination during the public consultation.
But whether such views would eventually be included in the commission’s proposal to the government was out of his control as he would no longer be chairman then, he said.
Lam praised his successor Chow as being highly experienced in the public service sector. He also applauded Chow for supporting the underprivileged on many occasions.
Lam called his work at the commission the happiest and most meaningful time of his 40 years in the public service sector.
