Dear Dr. Chow,
Your Article on "Respect"
I appreciate very much your article entitled "Discussion about Gender and Sexual Orientation Should Start with Respect" (SCMP, 2 July 2013). I appreciate especially your remark that "Cultural discrimination against LGBT individuals has been propagated for centuries by different religious factions" and that "it is time all religious leaders began approaching this issue with objectivity and universal compassion". Please continue your anti-discrimination stance by not excluding the Islam minorities. Kindly translate your article into their languages so that all the Islamic minorities in HK have the equal opportunity to read your remark about religious prejudice.
You wrote, "One may still privately hold a belief as long as one does not act on it publicly in a way that would be discriminatory." This is extremely insightful, and goes 100% in line with the big bosses in Beijing who think that people can privately hold a belief against the Communist Party as long as they do not act on it publicly in a way that would hurt the Party. In HK, the government has also tried to legislate Article 23, only with no avail—Article 23 precisely seeks to prevent any privately anti-patriotic citizens from publicly acting on their anti-patriotic beliefs.
EOC has been expert in concealing the fact that, unlike race, sex, family status and disability, sexual orientation is orientation towards a certain kind of behaviour. And people might disagree with other people’s behaviours, without discriminating them as persons. But let’s continue to pretend the two are the same. The gay activists have certainly very successfully portrayed disagreement as discrimination, whether it is from employers, education bodies, or parents. The label of discrimination will come in super handy to discredit anyone who simply disagrees with homosexual behaviour. And yes we call it "respect".
Let’s also pretend that homosexuals freely falling in love and cohabiting, and the majority’s disagreement with their behaviour, cannot co-exist in a diverse society. And that it must be the majority’s disagreement that has to go, using legislative power. Whenever people give reasons for their dissent over this legislation, such as the freedom of speech and the high risks associated with homosexual behaviour (again, behaviour) you can simply ignore them, as, I found, you already did.
Anyhow, Beijing would be more than happy to see you, and the gay activists, gradually disintegrate the traditional family, religious institutions, and traditional values—the three things they precisely fought to break down when they came to despotic power a few decades ago.
I do not expect you to respond to my letter, just as you have simply thrown the opposite side’s arguments over the back of your mind. You said that it is clear (even after meeting numerous bodies opposing SODO) that the proposed legislation would "neither destroy ‘family values’ and freedom of speech nor would it lead to reverse discrimination". To say this takes immense bravery as it involves totally turning a deaf ear to what these bodies have said to you. This is "respect", I can see that.