An open and inclusive society? Not judging by ongoing outrage over Gay Games

One of my cousins once took part in a local gay tennis tournament. He wasn’t, and still isn’t, gay. He played doubles with a gay friend. He had a great time, played some awesome matches and can attest to never feeling unwelcome during the tournament because of his heterosexuality or pressured in any way to be otherwise.

Most of us would not be surprised or outraged at this. It isn’t something to write home about. Taking part in such a tournament is, after all, about openness and inclusiveness, both very good attributes. Why else would Hong Kong keep selling itself as an open, vibrant and inclusive city?

So all this continued outrage over the Gay Games is really over the top. Executive Council convenor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee was told to resign for her support of the event and presiding over its opening ceremony. The event was called “criminal activity”.

Anti-LGBTQ lawmakers have called the Games a threat to national security and claimed that funding came from foreign organisations, amounting to collusion with external forces and a violation of the national security law. Many people have brushed off those ridiculous accusations and the equally absurd reasoning behind them.

However, the Gay Games returned to the headlines last week after unwarranted comments at a Basic Law legal forum. Apparently, some people can’t even tolerate a prominent mainland legal scholar and constitutional expert saying that the Games “provided a tangible expression of Hong Kong’s openness, diversity and inclusiveness, helping the international community to better understand the city”.

Han Dayuan, a professor at Renmin University law school, speaks at a press conference in 2021. Han said recently that hosting the Gay Games helped the international community better understand Hong Kong. Photo: Simon Song

Basic Law Committee member and lawmaker Priscilla Leung Mei-fun felt the need to go off-script at the forum in response, saying “any discussion on gay marriage would tear apart Hong Kong society with an impact that could be worse than the enactment of the Basic Law’s Article 23”.

She made the leap from the city hosting the Gay Games to a discussion on marriage equality. The fact is that the topic of the evening was not gay marriage. Rather, Renmin University law professor Han Dayuan simply pointed out that hosting the Games showed openness, tolerance and respect for people’s differences, all of which he argued were integral to the principle of “one country, two systems”.

The recent landmark ruling by the Court of Final Appeal requiring the Hong Kong authorities to establish an alternative framework that recognises same-sex partnerships is far from legalising same-sex marriage. And that battle will go on for some time.

For the record, Han didn’t make any provocative statements, and he certainly didn’t talk about same-sex marriage. Neither did Ip in her opening speech for the Games, during which she said the event demonstrated the city’s “commitment to protect minority rights and maintain Hong Kong as a vibrant, tolerant and pluralistic society”.

To take offence at such innocuous statements shows the extent of the prejudice some “leaders” harbour against the LGBTQ community.

At the forum, Leung again reached for the excuse of protecting “traditional Chinese values”. But traditional Chinese core values do not encompass that sort of discriminatory behaviour.

Rather, harmony, benevolence, compassion, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, honesty, loyalty and filial piety require that we consider issues faced by people different from us – whether through gender, race, sexual orientation or otherwise – without hostility and bigotry.

The community can judge what role those who attack the LGBTQ community at every chance are playing in tearing society apart. Their justification for such intolerance is not benevolence. If anything, for society to tolerate them is also a demonstration of the city’s inclusiveness.

Perhaps all this vitriol from a few people has become expected and their diatribes have lost their shock appeal. But if we let them slide, it’s giving them legitimacy.

Leung’s off-script comments also deserve closer attention. At a forum where participants discussed national security and the enactment of Article 23, she warned about society’s potential rupture with the enactment of local national security legislation.

As the member of the Basic Law Committee, Legislative Council and Election Committee, Leung should explain clearly what she thinks the fallout would be of the government following through on Hong Kong’s constitutional obligation to enact Article 23 as soon as possible. Regaining the trust of Beijing is paramount to the future of the Basic Law and one country, two systems. So, Ms Leung, do tell.

Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA