January potpourri

My Kissing photos headed south to Melbourne last month. They were featured, together with Royston Tan's 15-minute short film Cut, at Dante's Gallery, as part of the city's gay and lesbian pride celebrations, Midsumma. The exhibition runs from 19 January to 9 February 2008.

Here's the publicity flyer:

And here are some photos of the hang provided by Garrie Maguire, the curator of the show: 

Below is an excerpt from the press release:

KISSING:CUT (BANNED in Singapore)

Embrace, kiss, lock-lips, pash, snog, suck face! Whatever you may call it, a photographic exhibition of spooning couples banned in Singapore for fear it may promote homosexual lifestyles is here in Melbourne for the 2008 Midsumma Festival.

Photographer and gay and lesbian arts activist Alex Au presents us with an exhibition of images destined to entrance in their humanity and beauty. This collection embraces the diversity and sensuality of human attraction. In this exhibition Au skillfully captures the tenderness shared by couples irrespective of gender.

The Kissing exhibition was banned in Singapore last year. Our (secular) government said that such pictures would "promote a homosexual lifestyle", using language coined by the fundamentalist churches of America.

Speak up for sex workers!

Some readers might have noticed that for most of January, I was away. However, I wasn't in Melbourne. During the week that the Kissing:Cut event opened down under, I was in Thailand. 

One of the conferences I attended had a talk by Zhao Jiangang from the Asia-Pacific Network of Sex Workers. Zhao (picture at right), who is based in Kunming, China, spoke about his work, especially in relation to transsexuals (one example being the second picture, taken from his online photo album), who put themselves at severe risk of physical abuse and HIV infection because of the work they do. Yet, discrimination in society is such that most of them have little choice but sex work for livelihood reasons.

One of the stories he recounted was particularly sad. The subject person left home to work as a lounge singer, being rejected by her family, and eventually died of Aids last year.

I couldn't help while listening to him but think: Wow, here is someone with a funded NGO who does this kind of work openly in China. Why don't we have something similar in Singapore? Why is it so hard to speak about sex workers here?

The other thing that crossed my mind was how, with groups like transgenders who are deeply marginalised -- migrant workers would be another example -- it takes someone from outside the community to make the first breakthrough in speaking up for them. As you can see, Zhao looks "acceptable" to the mainstream.

The problem in a society like Singapore is how we are often brought up to "mind our own business". We find it hard enough to speak up for our own interests, let alone speak up for others'. In that sense, we're a very stunted people.

HIV campaign posters in China

 
Al Gore supports gay marriage

In a new video statement, Al Gore has spoken up for same-sex marriages. The former Vice President of the United States and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner made his statement in a clip posted on Current TV, a cable and online station he co-founded.

"I think it's wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of a person's sexual orientation," he said.

He's gone further than any of the Democratic candidates contesting the 2008 US presidential election. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have not even gone as far as backing civil unions.

New York to recognise gay marriages registered elsewhere

On 1 February 2008, an appellate court of New York State ruled that marriages contracted outside of the state, even those outside of the US, must be recognised in New York,

This decision came in a case that Patricia Martinez brought against her employer, Monroe Community College. She had formalised her marriage with Lisa Ann Golden on 5 July 2004 in Ontario, Canada, and subsequently applied to her employer for health benefits for her wife. The College refused, arguing that New York State did not recognize the marriage as a matter of law and public policy. 

The court has now said this cannot be the case. Even though the state itself does not legally marry same-sex couples, under the state’s longstanding “marriage recognition rule”, marriages made outside New York should be respected, just as the law recognises those of heterosexual couples solemnized elsewhere. More specifically, the court said that the employer’s denial of health benefits had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation.

According to the New York Times, lawyers for both sides said the ruling would apply to all public and private employers in the state.

* * * * *

ADDENDUM: The following section in light grey was originally part of this essay. However, the author of the blog Musings has since informed me that he was mistaken -- clearly the legalese floored him too  -- and so I should make clear that what's written below is without foundation. But I will leave the section standing, for the sake of editorial transparency. Just so you know, it's incorrect.

 
Meanwhile in Singapore....

While other countries are making strides, Singapore is rooted to the same spot, counting toenail clippings. I see from the blog called Musings that "while prior to 1st February 2008 all persons convicted under Penal Code section 377A had to be registered, this will no longer be the case after 1st February 2008. In other words, persons convicted under 377A after 1st February 2008 will not have a criminal record for this offence."

This "registration" should not be confused with the sex offenders' registry so common in the West. Ours is merely a register of people with any kind of conviction.

Section 377A is the infamous section of the Penal Code that criminalises "gross indecency" between 2 men, whether in public or private. A noisy attempt was made last year to repeal it, but failed.

Musings opined that with this exemption, when a prospective employer asks you if you have a criminal record, you can say "no", even if you have been convicted under 377A after 1st February 2008. It will spare you having to explain the circumstances of your conviction to your employer.

However, as he noted too, some employers phrase the question differently. They may ask: "Have you ever been convicted in a court of law?" In that case, you still have to answer "Yes" to remain truthful. So what good is this change?

And does it only apply to convictions after 1 Feb 2008, or to all previous convictions under 377A? What use is it if, as the government promised, there would be no "active" enforcement of Section 377A in future? It is those who were convicted in the past who have been unfairly treated by state-sanctioned homophobia, and who need to have history righted.

Musings provided some links to the statutes and the subsidiary legislation; however they are written in such legalese that I cannot quite make out what exactly they are saying. So, for now, I can only take Musing's word for it. 

Still, it is absurd that we are dealing with such minutiae. The law should have been repealed long ago and we should be debating issues like non-discrimination legislation and same-sex marriage now. 

And Kissing shouldn't be banned in Singapore. This place is so backward.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None