陳志全被人罵，就要立性傾向歧視法？惡法來呵！ (3)

做個記錄

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1819386/lets-keep-vulgar-comments-gay-hong-kong-lawmaker-perspective

SCMP News

Let's keep vulgar comments on gay Hong Kong lawmaker in perspective

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 10 June, 2015, 2:52am

UPDATED : Wednesday, 10 June, 2015, 12:40pm

 

Michael Chugani

Let's keep vulgar comments on lawmaker in perspective
Public Eye will neither condone nor condemn the vulgar taunting of gay legislator Raymond Chan Chi-chuen by two middle-aged women on an MTR train. Only bigots would condone such tasteless mocking of someone for being gay. But appalling as their behaviour was, the two women have a right to free speech. Unless Hong Kong outlaws non-violent hate talk - and Public Eye is averse to criminalising it - the pair have as much right to mock the supposedly small size of Chan's penis as others have to use racial slurs against minorities and call mainlanders locusts. We wonder if the two women would have bothered to taunt Chan had he not made taunting a trademark of his behaviour in the Legislative Council. Mocking Leung Chun-ying as "689" for the number of votes he got in the chief executive election is Chan's mantra, as is hurling missiles and verbal abuse at officials. Could the two have been paying back in kind, that their jibes were aimed at Chan the politician rather than Chan the gay man? Chan wants tougher laws against discrimination. Good, but we would like to remind him that landlords refusing to rent to minorities is as vulgar as someone mocking him for being gay. If he is to fight against bigotry, we urge him not to make it a self-interested battle.
Taunting of Raymond Chan takes us to a new low
Public Eye watched dumbstruck the YouTube video of the two women deriding Raymond Chan as a "d**k-less" man and a gay with a penis measuring just three inches. Well-dressed, middle-aged tai-tais aren't supposed to talk like that, especially on an MTR train. What have our politics done to us? If bisexual pop idol Leslie Cheung Kwok-wing were alive today and the pair saw him on an MTR train, they would have pleaded for selfies with him rather than mock his sexuality. The foul-mouthed abuse of Chan has taken us all to a new low. We don't even want to guess what's next.
Parents of mainland children are fair game
We are all expected to condemn radical groups that target mainland parents and their Hong Kong-born children who compete for school places here. That's the politically correct thing to do. But we'll say something politically incorrect. Yes, leave the children alone but their parents are fair game. They're scamming the system at the expense of Hong Kong taxpayers. They came here as tourists to give birth so their babies would qualify for residency and all the benefits that come with it, including free education. They live on the mainland, pay no Hong Kong taxes and their children are not Hongkongers in the real sense because they just cross the border daily to attend school here. If they eventually choose to settle here, they can apply for their parents to join them. It's all legal but that doesn't mean it's right. We don't condone but can understand why radical groups resort to thuggish actions to make their voices heard against this absurdity. If it's politically incorrect to say that, so be it.
Michael Chugani is a columnist and television show host. mickchug@gmail.com

陳志全被人罵，就要立性傾向歧視法？惡法來呵！ (2)

做個記錄!

2015 年 06 月 08 日
作者：端木皚
文章短網址：


http://www.pentoy.hk/%e6%99%82%e4%ba%8b/t553/2015/06/08/%e6%8f%9b%e6%8e%89%e8%a7%92%e8%89%b2%e4%b9%9f%e8%a8%b1%e4%bd%a0%e9%83%bd%e6%9c%83%e5%8c%85%e5%ae%b9%ef%bc%9a%e8%ab%87%e6%85%a2%e5%bf%85%e3%80%81%e5%8f%8d%e6%ad%a7%e8%a6%96%e6%b3%95%e5%92%8c%e8%a8%80/

早前立法會議員陳志全（「慢必」）在乘搭地鐡由鰂魚涌到油塘時被兩名中年婦人（「大媽」）就其性取向作出辱罵，引起社會熱議。同志平權團體大愛同盟及慢必本人均促請政府及早就反性傾向歧視立法。
罵街大媽的行為固然粗鄙欠缺修養，但借此要求立法又好像跳了一步，忽略了一個重要的向度。
我們似乎忽略了，無論罵街大媽說話有多難聽，她也有言論自由去表達她的想法的。她用了不恰當的語言去這樣做，我們可以批評她，規勸她這樣的行為不符一個有修養的公民的行徑，但這無損她有表達想法的自由這個事實，也不代表我們可以理所當然地立法禁止她的說話。
容我舉個例去說明。試想，如果大媽謾罵的對象，不是有同性傾向的慢必議員，而是一個相貌並不討好的人，或者一個行為可能有點怪異的人（例如在車廂內行來行去，自言自語），大媽看不過眼，破口大罵這個相貌不算娟好的人士「樣衰」，和這個地鐵怪客「痴線」。我們毫無疑問可以批評大媽行止不當，沒有品味，但我們又是否覺得一定要對她立法規管呢？
若我們覺得不一定要立法禁止人在公眾地方罵人「樣衰」（樣貌歧視條例），或在公眾地方罵人「痴線」（精神狀態歧視條例），為什麼我們會自然而然地覺得可以立法規管人在公眾地方罵人「基佬」呢？
何況，如今要求制訂反歧視法的人，似乎不只針對大媽表達意見的方式（ie 罵街），而是也針對其內容。也就是說，即使當日是一個西裝骨骨斯斯文文的年輕人心平氣和的和慢必討論和批評他的性取向，或任何人在城市論壇客觀理性地討論性傾向的問題，也一樣會受反歧視法影響。
我們當然應該反歧視，但反歧視不一定要引伸到立法禁止歧視言論的結論，當我們要立法禁止某些言論發表，就必然牽涉更多其他的考慮。
我們的討論必定是先假設每個人都有其言論自由去說任何他想說的話，然後問在該情況下是否有理由去限制他行使這個自由。其實歷來言論自由均有明文的限制，香港人權法案 16(3) 條指明，言論自由可以於以下情況被限制：
（一）尊重他人權利或名譽；或
（二）保障國家安全或公共秩序，或公共衞生或風化。
罵街雖然欠缺修養，但又似乎未到損害他人名譽甚至影響風化或公共秩序的程度：若指罵就算影響公共秩序，那情侶在公共地方吵架應該也算是「在公眾地方行為不檢」了；而與其說謾罵是損害了慢必的名譽，還不如說罵街大媽損害了自己的名譽。
我們不能單單因為粗鄙、欠缺修養和品味，或某樣評價缺乏事實基礎就立法將之禁止，否則我們必然要禁止大量我們不喜歡的言論，大大縮窄言論自由的空間。若我們禁止針對性傾向的批評，一切又將伊於胡底？
言論自由本身就是一個讓人可以說一些社會上大部分人都不歡迎，甚至厭惡的說話的自由。我們又何必要一個憲法權利去保護一些有品味、有趣味和人人愛聽的說話？
其實仔細想，若這次被謾罵的角色是一個大陸人（被罵是「蝗蟲」，來搶香港資源云云），甚至六八狗（雖然很難想像他會乘地鐵），我們又會否對這個行徑予以包容，一笑置之，甚至拍案叫絕呢？但言論自由作為一個憲法下的權利，不能因「受害」角色而影響其範疇，所以無論是針對慢必議員、大陸人或六八狗的言論，都應該有空間可以發表－即使他們的用詞是多麼的粗鄙和沒品味。
同志平權組織經常高舉平權的旗幟，但有時其所作所為有時偏偏是最不能容忍異見。上述本來只是簡單的道理，但不知為何一旦討論和性傾向有關的議題時，我們就自動放棄自己的理智分析。
我知道我這樣說並不討好，甚至會被人說我「左膠」，但我並不介意，因為我知道，能夠做到接納異見，尊重言論自由，特別是尊重我不喜歡言論的自由，才是真正文明的表現－而文明，是無分左中右的。

陳志全被人罵，就要立性傾向歧視法？惡法來呵！(1)

事件是陳志全在地鐵被兩位女仁仕辱罵，內容針對其政見和性傾向。
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzeT3lYNkXM

跟住大愛同盟聯同一大班志同道合的同運人仕乘機發動網上聯署行動，目的想迫政府就性傾向歧視立法。

我吾係話個兩位女仕做得對，她們的態度實在不對，但同運團體乘機上綱上線迫政府就性傾向歧視立法，我就絕不認同，性傾向歧視法本身要強迫別人認同同性戀絕不公義，香港每日有好多樣貌豬扒、四眼仔、肥仔肥妹、矮仔、甚至好多政客也俾人鬧、言語粗口侮辱、為何我不先立歧視法保護以上眾多的星斗市民。點解同志能先有特權？

好彩都有有心人出聲講番句公度說話
http://www.pentoy.hk/%e6%99%82%e4%ba%8b/t553/2015/06/08/%e6%8f%9b%e6%8e%89%e8%a7%92%e8%89%b2%e4%b9%9f%e8%a8%b1%e4%bd%a0%e9%83%bd%e6%9c%83%e5%8c%85%e5%ae%b9%ef%bc%9a%e8%ab%87%e6%85%a2%e5%bf%85%e3%80%81%e5%8f%8d%e6%ad%a7%e8%a6%96%e6%b3%95%e5%92%8c%e8%a8%80/

裡面講到『
我們不能單單因為粗鄙、欠缺修養和品味，或某樣評價缺乏事實基礎就立法將之禁止，否則我們必然要禁止大量我們不喜歡的言論，大大縮窄言論自由的空間。若我們禁止針對性傾向的批評，一切又將伊於胡底？
言論自由本身就是一個讓人可以說一些社會上大部分人都不歡迎，甚至厭惡的說話的自由。我們又何必要一個憲法權利去保護一些有品味、有趣味和人人愛聽的說話？
』間直正。

有一人發聲已夠感動，點知過兩日，又有人係南華早報出聲：
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1819386/lets-keep-vulgar-comments-gay-hong-kong-lawmaker-perspective

Michael Chugani 舉張國榮例子，更顯出這是政見不認同問題多於性取向問題，同運人仕何必要上綱上線，就算不認同你性傾向都是應有自由，你迫政府立性傾向歧視立就迫我連不認同你的言論自由也拿去，同運人士未免太霸道。

重申我吾係話認同那兩位女仕的無禮，我係吾認同同運人仕上綱上線迫政府立惡法。

家庭要保護?

這個題目好似好老套，但期實好值得討論。希望透過這裡分享，比大家知道為何要保護家庭。

要保護，因為家庭是很重要。
要保護，因為有人要破壞家庭制度，同性戀運動 (同運) 好明顯就係一個家庭制度最大的敵人。