POLITICS – Photos from HK’s Biggest Ever Gay Pride Event 24


Below are photos from HK’s 5th and biggest ever gay pride gathering on Saturday. All are courtesy of AFP correspondent Jerome Taylor… He said: “Much less openly camp but no less radical, Hong Kong’s pride march is part celebration of all things LGBT, part two fingers up at the pro-Beijing establishment and social orthodoxy.” Follow Jerome’s photography on Flickr.

luUdDir.jpg (640×427)

Organisers estimated that 5,200 people took part (police estimated 4,500). This is double the number of participants compared to two years ago. Click here to see the blog’s coverage of last year’s march.

8JpNFYn.jpg (640×427)

There were a number of other, less happier, stories related to HK’s LGBT community making the headlines over the weekend…

  • News of a TVB actress’s love affair with a same-sex actor emerged – she was suspended by the broadcaster for 2 months (Apple Daily Chinese).
  • The Liberal (sic) Party collected signatures from the public to oppose marriage equality for LGBT people (Apple Daily Chinese).
  • A domestic helper employer attempted to “convert” their maid to be straight (Apple Daily Chinese).
  • Earlier in the week, a transgender woman accused immigration officials of behaving ‘like animals’ during a search at HK airport (SCMP).

WQ0PEsy.jpg (640×427)

Equal Opportunities Commission chairperson Dr York Chow Yat-ngok was joined by politicians, celebrities and key figures such as Tanya Chan, Michael Vidler, Charles Mok and Long Hair…

DEGDJ3I.jpg (640×427)

Corporate entities, such as JP Morgan, Citibank, Barclays, Goldman Sachs and Nomura sponsored and attended the event. Despite this, many of the financial institutions that were present remain oddly silent when it comes to LGBT rights in their other areas of operation, such as in sub-Saharan Africa.

TGdE6rv.jpg (640×427)

HK remains years behind other ‘world cities’ with regards to LGBT rights. Homosexuality was only legalised in 1991 and the age of consent was only equalised for gay couples in 2006 (despite opposition from Donald Tsang). In 2008, a judge upheld a ruling against RTHK for broadcasting a programme about homosexuality which failed to give air-time to homophobic counter viewpoints. And until as recently as 2009 , co-habiting gay couples were not recognised in the Domestic Violence Ordinance.

y64SZ8J.jpg (640×427)

Meanwhile, anti-discrimination laws remain flimsy. Same-sex marriage and civil unions are illegal and sex changes are not recognised by the state. However, there was progress this year for marriage equality for trans-gendered people.

qOxaJbS.jpg (640×427)

There are still no specific laws targeting hate crimes directed against the LGBT community in HK.

8Ep2W1i.jpg (640×427)

In 2012, legislators voted against a motion urging the government to consult the public on new laws to protect the rights of sexual minorities whilst 27% of citizens surveyed believed gays should “keep their views to themselves”.

vJKQAu9.jpg (640×427)

Much of the local opposition to gay rights has been fanned by religious folk and the right-wing Society for Truth and Light (who have been quite rightly described as the SAR’s “moral Taliban”.) Earlier this year, thousands of bigots gathered at LEGCO, united in intolerance, demonstrating against homosexuality.

5rAiBSp.jpg (640×427)

The ongoing debates still raging in Hong Kong plant our city firmly in the 1970s, whilst the rest of the world moves on at break neck speed.

dDW5tpW.jpg (640×427)

At this year’s rally, ex-legistlator Tanya Chan told GayStar News that “You don’t have to be gay to support equal rights… I believe everyone who believes in justice should strive for equality.”

HyQPEcL.jpg (640×427)

y64SZ8J.jpg (640×427)

9OquTAk.jpg (640×427)

W1EwUEm.jpg (640×427)

H6p3rdU.jpg (640×427)

kMp0VCZ.jpg (640×427)

YukVRei.jpg (640×427)

blnqlWF.jpg (640×427)

14TGlRy.jpg (640×427)

xyE3Dpo.jpg (640×427)

Upcoming LGBT events are listed on the Pink Alliance FB page.

kW546pPl.png (640×231)

4eky8jL.jpg (508×720)

Hong Kong’s LGBT community…


  • iddqd

    You can be gay and all but….do you really gotta drag Doraemon into this?
    And the kissing Barbie dolls.

    Listen, you don’t want other people to judge you for your beliefs, but at the same time, you drag Doraemon and Barbie dolls, children’s toys and cartoons into this mess to make them represent/support your beliefs. That’s wrong, man.

    • Pedro

      Why would that be wrong? Your morality implies that homosexuality is a topic only suitable for grown ups. What a mess, indeed. But I’m talking about your logic.

      • iddqd

        Wait, what. What the fuck?
        Wow.

        No, I meant shit that’s made for children to enjoy shouldn’t be exploited to fulfill roles it wasn’t originally created to fulfill.

        Speaking of messy logic, Pedro,
        jesus christ,
        get your shit together.

        You just embarrassed yourself and now I’m embarrassed for having to explain a very straightforward message to you.

        • Tom

          There’s no misunderstanding – you’re clearly a plain old homophobe.

          “exploited to fulfill roles it wasn’t originally created to fulfill.”

          No-one is “originally created” to fulfil any “role”, nor is homosexuality by any means “a belief”.

          The mind boggles… Imagine how you’re going to look in the future: http://bit.ly/1cDrBeK

          • iddqd

            I’m a homophobe for forwarding the notion that something made for the entertainment and upbringing of children shouldn’t be exploited to advance the aims and ideals of homosexual activists.

            >No-one is “originally created” to fulfil any “role”
            See, now we’re just strawmanning here.

            I *get* activism. I also *get* civil rights.
            I also *get* what homosexuals want, and what they want to achieve.

            I’m not going to stand here and pretend I’m OK with things exploited/twisted in a way that they’re not supposed to for a “greater good”. That’s the wrong way to go about things.

            That’s just another form of ignorance.
            And you know what we call this?

            Hypocrisy.

          • Pedro

            iddqd, I think you missed my point, so allow me lay it out in a way that I hope that you can understand.

            Do you feel that the nature of a children’s symbol (be a cartoon character or otherwise) is “neutral” and has a benign purpose? And that purpose is to safely and impartially educate children based on rock-solid pedagogy? Therefore, any use, or adaptation for an activist purpose will -almost by definition- rob it of its “neutral” status and, therefore subvert and pervert it and cease to have an educational function towards infants and become a political weapon?

            Well, if you fully agree with the statement above, I could hardly feel embarassed by your words. Because it would show a tremendous naivety on your part.

            Who are you to say that a role of a symbol is constant throughout time? Things adapt. Even (or maybe specially) religious dogma evolves a lot. Face it – in a century’s time all but the most diehard religious followers will equate gay ostracism with Taliban morals. That’s the nature of human culture – like it or not. Taking the “back in my days this wasn’t like this – therefore it’s perversive” only proves a dangerous and irrational single-mindedness.

            And, even as important, do you really believe that cartoon characters/children’s symbols are somehow neutral and don’t serve a purpose of social normativity and conformity? Don’t they represent, at least partially, maybe even mostly, society’s values? I’m not saying that’s entirely bad. But one must recognize all aspects and consequences of such admission. If you fail to recognize even a modicum of this, it would go further to reveal your naivety. Or even worse – it would be a cloak to bigotry under the disguise of conservatism.

          • iddqd

            First of all, I suggest you don’t use any more big words that don’t really fit into what you’re saying. Your main point is already a mess and it’s clear you have difficulty expressing what you want to say.

            And yes, I’m implying that the creators of Doraemon didn’t plan to have their main characters tonguing each other in support of gay rights. Also, I expect that children won’t appreciate it either.

            It’s true that cartoons do teach children values and morals, but not the kind that goes along with homosexual activism. If homosexual tension was implied in the anime, then go put Nobita and Doraemon kissing each other or jerking off on a carboard cutout.

            In any case, I think it’s fine to take a Taiwanese flag and put the rainbow all over it because the flag serves you just as much you represent it, but not children’s cartoons, man. It’s unsuitable, I personally don’t want kids to see images like this at 5/6/7 years old and wondering why the guy and girl characters of his favourite cartoon are kissing each other. Let’s leave the sexuality stuff out of their lives until their a bit older to understand and appreciate it.

          • Pedro

            Tom’s right. You’re just a plain old homophobe. And a rude one to boot.

          • Tom

            Agreed. Don’t feed the trolls.

          • iddqd

            I’m rude for responding the way you talked to me, and a homophobe for not going along with gay activists using children’s cartoon characters kissing each other.

            Let’s not forget who threw around the terms “homphobe” and accused me of having “messy logic” first, causing a confrontation.

            (Hint: It was you guys)

            If you’re gonna get butthurt for someone being rude to you, then perhaps don’t be rude to them, Mr. Pedro.

          • iddqd

            This is a neat site and all, the culture stuff is really swank, but all this activism/political stuff makes you out to be a humongous dumb-dumb.

  • iddqd

    You can be gay and all but….do you really gotta drag Doraemon into this?
    And the kissing Barbie dolls.

    Listen, you don’t want other people to judge you for your beliefs, but at the same time, you drag Doraemon and Barbie dolls, children’s toys and cartoons into this mess to make them represent/support your beliefs. That’s wrong, man.

    • Pedro

      Why would that be wrong? Your morality implies that homosexuality is a topic only suitable for grown ups. What a mess, indeed. But I’m talking about your logic.

      • iddqd

        Wait, what. What the fuck?
        Wow.

        No, I meant shit that’s made for children to enjoy shouldn’t be exploited to fulfill roles it wasn’t originally created to fulfill.

        Speaking of messy logic, Pedro,
        jesus christ,
        get your shit together.

        You just embarrassed yourself and now I’m embarrassed for having to explain a very straightforward message to you.

        • Tom

          There’s no misunderstanding – you’re clearly a plain old homophobe.

          “exploited to fulfill roles it wasn’t originally created to fulfill.”

          No-one is “originally created” to fulfil any “role”, nor is homosexuality by any means “a belief”.

          The mind boggles… Imagine how you’re going to look in the future: http://bit.ly/1cDrBeK

          • iddqd

            I’m a homophobe for forwarding the notion that something made for the entertainment and upbringing of children shouldn’t be exploited to advance the aims and ideals of homosexual activists.

            >No-one is “originally created” to fulfil any “role”
            See, now we’re just strawmanning here.

            I’m gonna make a cardboard cut-out of Jesus slipping Judas the tongue. I’m not exploiting Jesus’ image in any way, nor does The Bible have a specific purpose. Anything you think is wrong with this just proves how much of a homophobe you are.

            I *get* activism. I also *get* civil rights.
            I also *get* what the gay community want, and what they want to achieve.

            I’m not going to stand here and pretend I’m OK with things exploited/twisted in a way that they’re not supposed to for a “greater good”. That’s the wrong way to go about things.

            That’s just another form of ignorance.
            And you know what we call this?

            Hypocrisy.

          • Pedro

            iddqd, I think you missed my point, so allow me lay it out in a way that I hope that you can understand.

            Do you feel that the nature of a children’s symbol (be a cartoon character or otherwise) is “neutral” and has a benign purpose? And that purpose is to safely and impartially educate children based on rock-solid pedagogy? Therefore, any use, or adaptation for an activist purpose will -almost by definition- rob it of its “neutral” status and, therefore subvert and pervert it and cease to have an educational function towards infants and become a political weapon?

            Well, if you fully agree with the statement above, I could hardly feel embarassed by your words. Because it would show a tremendous naivety on your part.

            Who are you to say that a role of a symbol is constant throughout time? Things adapt. Even (or maybe specially) religious dogma evolves a lot. Face it – in a century’s time all but the most diehard religious followers will equate gay ostracism with Taliban morals. That’s the nature of human culture – like it or not. Taking the “back in my days this wasn’t like this – therefore it’s perversive” only proves a dangerous and irrational single-mindedness.

            And, even as important, do you really believe that cartoon characters/children’s symbols are somehow neutral and don’t serve a purpose of social normativity and conformity? Don’t they represent, at least partially, maybe even mostly, society’s values? I’m not saying that’s entirely bad. But one must recognize all aspects and consequences of such admission. If you fail to recognize even a modicum of this, it would go further to reveal your naivety. Or even worse – it would be a cloak to bigotry under the disguise of conservatism.

          • iddqd

            First of all, I suggest you don’t use any more big words that don’t really fit into what you’re saying. Your main point is already a mess and it’s clear you have difficulty expressing what you want to say.

            And yes, I’m implying that the creators of Doraemon didn’t plan to have their main characters tonguing each other in support of gay rights. Also, I expect that children won’t appreciate it either.

            It’s true that cartoons do teach children values and morals, but not the kind that goes along with homosexual activism. If homosexual tension was implied in the anime, then go put Nobita and Doraemon kissing each other or jerking off on a carboard cutout.

            In any case, I think it’s fine to take a Taiwanese flag and put the rainbow all over it because the flag serves you just as much you represent it, but not children’s cartoons, man. It’s unsuitable, I personally don’t want kids to see images like this at 5/6/7 years old and wondering why the guy and girl characters of his favourite cartoon are kissing each other. Let’s leave the sexuality stuff out of their lives until their a bit older to understand and appreciate it.

          • Pedro

            Tom’s right. You’re just a plain old homophobe. And a rude one to boot.

          • Tom

            Agreed. Don’t feed the trolls.

          • iddqd

            I’m rude for responding the way you talked to me, and a homophobe for not going along with gay activists using children’s cartoon characters kissing each other.

            Let’s not forget who threw around the terms “homphobe” and accused me of having “messy logic” first, causing a confrontation.

            (Hint: It was you guys)

            If you’re gonna get butthurt for someone being rude to you, then perhaps don’t be rude to them, Mr. Pedro.

          • iddqd

            This is a neat site and all, the culture stuff is really swank, but all this activism/political stuff makes you out to be a humongous dumb-dumb.

  • Joseph rodriguez

    Where is CY in the parade?

  • Joseph rodriguez

    Where is CY in the parade?