Press declares homosexuality abnormal

The story first appeared in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, headlined "Court declares homosexuality abnormal". 

The story was then carried, with only slight editing, in Singapore's Straits Times on 14 October 1999.

Most people skim through newspaper articles; they don't stop to think and analyse the stories. Headlines and opening paragraphs make the chief impression. In this instance, readers would be left with the "fact" that a Chinese court has made a definitive ruling (a "landmark decision") that homosexuality was abnormal. As the second sentence in the SCMP report said, the verdict "ruled on the nature of homosexuality" (my emphasis).

A careful reading of the story would indicate that the court did no such thing. Not having the entire verdict, we cannot be sure what exactly the judge intended to say, but there was a clue contained within the press report, which contradicted the headlines.

The judge was quoted to have said, "Homosexuality in China today is considered as abnormal sexual behaviour and is not acceptable to the public." Note carefully the three words that I have put in bold: 'China', 'today' and 'considered'. In my opinion, a correct reading would be that she was ruling on the current social climate, not on homosexuality. She was saying that public opinion in a certain place (China), at a certain time (today) believed ('considered') that homosexuality was abnormal. She didn't make any judgement whether homosexuality per se was abnormal.

This would be consistent with the nature of the court case. It was a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution. Xu Yanguang, the plaintiff was asking the court for damages from Fang Gang, for hurting his reputation and causing loss. Reputation hinges on social climate. The court therefore had to make a judgement as to the prevailing social climate, and then see how the plaintiff had been disgraced and psychologically or financially injured, within the context of the society in which he lived.

In this case, it appeared from the details in the report that the court found that Chinese society today was homophobic, and that when the defendant Fang alluded to Xu being homosexual without any proof, Fang caused injury to Xu, who deserved compensation from the defendant for whipping up homophobia against him.

Isn't this lightyears away from the headlines, "Court declares homosexuality abnormal" in SCMP and "Homosexuality abnormal, court in Beijing rules" in ST?

* * * * * 

Just in case this subtle, but important, distinction is still difficult to grasp, let me give you another example: Imagine a society that is heavily infused with machismo -- men cannot ever do housework, or be seen in the kitchen. Roberto writes a book alleging that Felipe was seen wearing an apron and washing a saucepan (gasp!). Felipe becomes the butt of jokes and is fired from his job. Felipe sues Roberto. Roberto is asked to prove that what he wrote was true. He is unable to prove this. What is a judge to do?

So the judge rules that, yes, machismo is deeply embedded in that society, and Roberto damaged Felipe's reputation, without substantiation. Therefore Felipe should be awarded damages. The judge does not have to rule whether housework in itself is right or wrong, good or bad, just that their society, at that point in time, is full of bias against men doing it.

But then, in reporting the case, a newspaper headline says "Housework is abnormal behaviour, court rules". And machismo is vindicated.

Well, at least the South China Morning Post and the Straits Times carried a long enough report for us to see what the judge actually said, and to see the inaccurate slant they took in their headlines. The New Paper, our afternoon tabloid that believes in keeping stories short and sharp, reduced the story to a newsbite (see box right).

If you just depended on the New Paper story, then it's pitch black. Gays are out! With headlines like that, readers absorb the idea that homosexuality is beyond the pale. It is perfectly legitimate to chase gay persons away, bully them, and the courts will sanction all this.

* * * * *

You might wonder whether I might not have been reading too much subtlety from one quoted sentence of the judge's verdict. China is not famous for its judicial system, and there are a lot of homophobic people in that country, judges among them, surely.

But China can be a surprising place, and it is not beyond (some) judges to act in a principled way. Read this separate story from Chengdu, in Sichuan province, also from the South China Morning Post:

I mention the Chengdu case only as an aside. 

What I wish to underline in this essay about the Beijing case is this: the case was argued in a country not famous for gay freedoms nor a liberal mindset, yet it appears the judgement came out quite nuanced and neutral. It was the press reports in Hong Kong and Singapore that coloured the story into a homophobic one, turning grey into black.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

1. There was an error of fact in the report. Xu was a volunteer with an AIDS helpline in 1992-1993, not a gay hotline. Yes, yes, I know: people still confuse gayness with AIDS! -- source: Wan Yanhai, founder and co-ordinator of the helpline.
   Return to where you left off
2. In the article The Pimp and the Cabby, I pointed out that in Singapore too, male-male sex with payment is not recognised by our laws as prostitution.
   Return to where you left off

Addenda

None