Last weekend, I received five emails in a day regarding the boycott of City Without Baseball, from students as well as the media, everyone of them asking: Do you agree with boycotting?
City Without Baseball actor and member of the Hong Kong Baseball Team Leung Yu Chung
In the interview, radio host Brian Leung expressed concern over Chung's "homophobic" opinions, and Chung himself admitted, "I did not say that I am not (homophobic)", "I don't know that many people", and "you can call my thinking conservative!"
At the end of the interview session, Brian was critical about the fact that despite being involved in a film with gay content, the interviewees have very shallow understanding of gay culture, demonstrating a lack of effort in their background research, and so in his opinion, have not displayed the professionalism expected of an actor. Brian also advised young athletes to note that while they are engaged in a macho profession, they should not resort to violence so very readily.
It is doubtlessly discomfiting for anyone to be labeled "abnormal," or to be accused of being unprofessional. As a public forum for debate, We Are Family provided a platform for opinions from both sides to be adequately articulated and discussed within a limited time, so while it may make some people uneasy, such discomfort is precisely the essence of a civil society. The issue was placed unambiguously on the table, with the homophobic guest and gay radio host opening their hearts to discuss it, amicably taking steps to enable honest communication and attempting to mutually understand each other's feelings and thoughts. Other media platforms in Hong Kong, such as the radio, television, Internet channels and print media, should grab the opportunity to take it from there in creating more avenues to expand and deepen mutual understanding among different communities.
It was, however, unfortunate that the events took an abrupt turn when shortly after, (film director) Scud's film studio was reported to be vandalised - the main glass door smashed. In media reports about this incident, Scud claimed to suspect that it was related to the homophobic comments made by his actor, though apparently there has not been any evidence to support such claims. At the same time, netizens started a Facebook campaign to "Boycott City Without Baseball," and equated Chung's "hate speech" with "hate crimes," highlighting the case of the 15-year-old Californian student Lawrence King, who was killed by gunshot after expressing his attraction for a (male) classmate, and called for a concerted effort to end all homophobic crimes, in order "to create a better world for embracing diversity." The campaign also accused City Without Baseball of being a "pseudo-gay movie," which makes use of male nudity to titillate and entice gay viewers and "maybe fujoshi audience" obsessed with peeping into gay people's lives (resulting in the popular boys' love genre), and that such a movie does not help "in the advancement of (sexual) equality in the world."
(Fujoshi is Japanese term which refers to a female fan of manga and novels that feature romantic relationships between men.)
I am not so sure whether the discourse of "pseudo-gay movie" stands, as I wonder myself whether there could be any gay movies in the world that would ever measure up to the label of being "authentically gay". In fact, just imagining various possible criteria which might be used to ascertain whether a film is "authentic" or "pseudo" (gay or straight) would give me creeps. What I am more certain, is that in advocating diversity, one needs to start with accommodating and understanding people's opinions and feelings different from one's own. In Hong Kong, we know very well that there is very little behavioural freedom in public space (even sitting down by the street to rest after a tiring walk would attract questioning from the police), while on the other hand we seem to think that we enjoy a considerable amount of freedom of speech, so our understanding of what we can and cannot say and the effect of our speech has never been equivalent to that of what we can and cannot do and the effect of our action. For instance, would not telling you that "I have a strong desire to rob you of your bag so don't you ever shove it in my face again - you bitch," and actually snatching it from you be quite different? Should both acts be considered criminal?
Chung has done nothing more than making a few statements, so what "hate crimes" has he committed? He has been so willing, amidst all the stress of appearing, speaking up and contradicting the host in a gay program no less, to tell us his true feelings, which without a doubt reveal a lot of misconceptions, fears and anxiety tied to homosexual and homoerotic tendencies often felt by straight-identified young men growing up in a widely homophobic environment such as Hong Kong. If such emotions are suppressed indefinitely, what will become of them? To advocate suppressing differences in order to achieve an apparent state of harmony is a very easy approach to take, but history has never shown us a success story of attaining civil equality through silencing speech. The Americans have in recent years upped the ante on many kinds of hate speech, resulting in racial discriminatory and homophobic emotions which have not been dissipated but yet could find no vent for outpour, being driven progressively underground, and that may explain the recurrence of many campus tragedies, including but not limited to the aforementioned. Many studies have shown that hate speech in itself does not easily lead to hate crime, but conversely, hate speech that has not been given adequate relief and debate will just increase the likelihood and intensity of actual occurrence of hate crimes. If the campaign to boycott City Without Baseball really succeeds in wiping out homophobic speech from Hong Kong society, but then, what do you think will happen at the end of the day?
This column was originally written in Chinese to be published in the July issue of HKinema.
YAU Ching is an author, filmmaker and Associate Professor in Cultural Studies at Hong Kong Lingnan University. She is best known for Ho Yuk (Let's Love Hong Kong), Hong Kong's first lesbian feature film. An anthology on sexualities in China and Hong Kong is forthcoming from Hong Kong University Press. She has been involved with the Hong Kong Tongzhi movement since the early 1990s, is a founding member of the LBGTIQ group Nutong Xueshe, and is currently on the Executive Board of Midnight Blue, a male sex workers' network in Southern China.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
We may dished out all our critical hoopla to the rest of the world and have anyone for that matter been gunned down for such individualistic opinion ? To provoke a response and to provoke
exchange of ideas is it not what all this about?
Are we revisiting a Salaman Rushdie drama ? Will there be a pink assasin squad created to raise on a mission to exterminate with extreme prejudice on anyone who offer a difference of opinion? What happen to winning the hearts and minds of the people to understand the gay community or any fringe community ?Have we become so narrow minded and so bankrupt of ideas that we cannot accept diversity of opinions ? Do we need to assume the militant stance as the only option when confronting a situation that provokes a emotiona response ?
that is definitely not being conservative. That is judgemental, lacking kindness, self-righteous and evil.
beating up and using unplasent language on someone just because he is "abnormal" is the act of being conservative? I beg to differ.
- The author is an apologist for radical gay culture to the mainstream. Nothing more, nothing less.
- I'm not sure if Fridae did it on purpose, but there is an ad for this very movie directly next to the article.
- Either Fridae are doing a great job of extra advertising through comment, or it was a mistake.
My original message was far more fiery. Poo.
i always suspect those so-called straight actors who play in gay-themed movie ...
are they really straight, really?
i dun know what the movie is about, but not interested anyway.
btw ... the actor looks very mean, indeed. good luck for his career!
I perfer to say we are [heterosexually challenged] ;P
Or let's be HETEROphobic instead?? Lolz~
But then, hating back at them does not make us any different from him.
If you guys have facebook account, go back 2 more pages and read this total homophobic male comments about how gays [have pathetic gay brains], [gays are selfish and idiotic], [homosexuality is a disease], [gays must be deported to pulau ubin and forbidden from any contact with the straight majority lest a gay epidemic spreads] ETC ETC, just to name a few..
THAT'S hate speech.
By the way, only those who join the group in facebook can comment on the wall.
And i wonder why that guy joined that repeal 377a group in the first place. Lolz~
Check out his lameness:
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=12917180369
Well said Madfoxx!!! I can't agree more. We won't make these people change their minds by trying to boo them. It will just increase their level of intolerance.
Being from Europe, I have witnessed racist people say: "oh my, now these niggers/arabs have won, we can't even call them names anymore, or we'll get punished by law". It's good to make racist or homophobic comments punishable by law, but it only solves half the problem. Sure, they will think twice before saying ugly things, but will that change them? These people will still be here, except they will keep silent. Nothing is more dangerous than silent hating people. At least, when they speak, we know where they are. If they're silent, how to detect them and take the necessary steps?
So at the end of the day, congrats on your comments madfoxx, we have to win their minds. Once this is done, we won't be hearing many homophobic comments...
Easier said than done of course, because this is something to be enforced at the political and educational level. Here in Singapore, when I ask other guys if they're interested in politics, they invariably reply: oh, i can't be bothered. Well, this issue is to be addressed at the political level, there's a total mindset to be changed. Let's repeal this 377a for starters, and then have some educational programs in schools to let students know that gay people are just another part of society and that they deserve respect like everybody else. If Taiwan could do it, why not Singapore? (not sure about what the situation is in HK).
One is political correctness and the other is homophobia.
In the past few decades political correctness has invaded the world more effectively than McDonald's junk food. There are obvious and non obvious reasons for that and i'm not going to develop here on this topic because there's enough to write several books. The article only brushes on the subject but it does so remarkably well and clearly.
The second issue is homophobia, and there again books can be, must be (and have been) written about it. What strikes me almost every time the word comes up (here in the comments, not in the article itself), is that it's used as a synomym of "hate of homosexuals". Wrong ! The word "phobia" comes from the Greek and it means fear, not hate. It's not just a technical detail it's very important. Yes, of course fear is often the root of violence but if you don't adress the fear it's no use trying to rein the violence (which is precisely what political correctness tries to do, ie acting on the consequence, not the cause).
One book which absolutely enlightened me on the subject is "XY, on Male Identity" by Elisabeth BADINTER (Columbia University Press, New York 1995 ISBN 023108434X translation by Lydia DAVIS) and i strongly advise all those who wish to think with real ideas and not just stereotyped cliches to read it asap, and more than once !
It is not about homophobia, it's about the Male Identity in western style societies.
What is it that makes guys see themselves as guys ?
I can't sum up the book here in a few lines, but here's what i see as the core of its argument :
1. female identity is firmly anchored in essentially ONE POSITIVE factor, the fact of giving birth (which makes life hard for sterile women)
2. male identity, on the contrary, is based on THREE NEGATIVE statements which every man is expected to embrace in the early stages of his life. One, I am NOT a baby, two, I am NOT a woman, three, I am NOT a homosexual. Males are literally brainwashed into constructing their manhood on these three attitudes, and this is the cause of endless suffering for children, women... and gays.
To put it somewhat bluntly, men will be men only when they have succeeded in killing :
- the child in them
- the woman in them
- the gay in them
Look at the world around you and you will be struck by how frighteningly true this is. Indeed, my gay friends, look at yourself and see the struggle between the "social man" and the "gay man" in yourself. Homophobia strikes ALL men, including gay men of course, because it is deeply ingrained in our mental and behavourial structure.
Feel that he is not fit to be an athlete and my question is, why did he agree to act in a movie that has gay content since he has "homophobic"?
As many mentioned, he is afraid he will become PLU as he is still not sure about his identity. He is not confident with his own sexuality. He must be PLU.
This same hypothetical question could have been posed to the same actor in the same interview (since he may become a father one day). Would his answers be any different from what we have heard? Would our response be any different from now?
Have we ever wondered why a gay boy will want to express interest in a straight man? (That's the situation described in the radio host's question and depicted in the movie plot) We need to have an understanding of why he ended up in that situation, in the era of Fridae and modern society.
By any count of probability, the following situations are more likely to happen, since many lesbians and gays are not out to people around them:
What is the response of a typical gay boy to a straight girl who expressed interest in him?
What is the response of a lesbian girl when she meets a straight boy who shows interest in her?
If these two straight girl and the straight boy in the above scenarios do what Chung does, should someone be boycotting too?
Why not and why do they need to?
If anyone were to make a similar statement that threatens violence against any other minority group - e.g. "i will kill women" or "I will kill Muslims" etc - would we even be having a debate about whether it was OK? The fact is that this is hate speech and while he has his right to express it, there are also consequences. If I were to claim a right to denigrate and incite violence against a minority group and claim it as free speech, those who have been injured have as much right to respond.
>Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or mental health. There has been an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on socio-economic class in the United States, same goes to regional slurs and comments in Europe. But for many North Americans and western Europeans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public), immoral and sometimes, it is taboo to use certain words or discuss certain subjects they fear may be offensive or illegal. In some contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria.
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.
* In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. Since the start of the 21st century the UK has also become one of the most progressive countries in the world in its attitudes towards homophobic crime. In 2003 the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations was introduced, followed by the 2007 Equality Act which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services based on sexual orientation.
* In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).
* In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."[1]
* In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
* In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)
* Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.
* New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
* France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.[citation needed]
* Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.[citation needed]
* In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".[2] In 2006, a joint-action between the Federal Police and the Argentinian police has cracked down several hate-related websites. However, some of these sites have recently reappeared -- the users have re-created the same sites on American domain. The federal police have asked permission from the FBI to crack down these sites, but the FBI denied claiming that the First Amendment guarantees the right to any speech, even if it involves racism.
* Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[3]
* Finland prohibits hate speech, kiihotus kansanryhm vastaan/hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.[4]
* Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[5]
* Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.[6]
* Serbia - Serbian constitution guaranties freedom of speech, but declares that it may be restricted by law to protect rights and respectability of others. Because of inter ethnic conflicts during last decade of 20th century, Serbian authorities are very rigorous about ethnic, racial and religion based hate speech. It is processed as "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" criminal act, and punished with six months to ten years of imprisonment.[citation needed][7]
* The Council of Europe has worked intensively on this issue. While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit criminal laws against revisionism such as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went further and recommended to member governments to combat hate speech under its Recommendation R (97) 20. The Council of Europe also created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (www.coe.int/ecri ) which has produced country reports and several general policy recommendations, for instance against anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims.< - Wikipedia
I banned your professionalism and boycott your upcoming works/performance so call.
Its a low budget movie, they dont have that much of money to advertise, even the actors are amateur, I didn't even know that it has a gay contents in it until now. So thanks to all the publicity on boycotting and hate speach, the movie finally made some public awareness.
Freedom of speach = Responsibilty
I do not agree with Yau Ching that the man commits no "hate crimes" when he was merely speaking out his mind and being honest to himself. Sharon Stones did the same thing too, she was merely saying what she think is right in her own context..
So do we need to wait for the actual crime to be commited before we admit to ourselves that such hate feeling was never put to stop in the first place?
Look at Sharon Stone when she calls Sichuan earth quake a Karma, dose that mean we have to condone her ? Dose that mean she do not have to take responsible for her speach ?
Did we not participate in the boycott of Indianna Jones ? What's so different between now and than? Just because one touches a more sensitive issue while the other is a bumb blond remarks? No! Because we all know deep inside ourselve that we want justice to be done, and everyone should be responsible for their words and actions. Super star or just a layman, we all need to take responsible for the things we say.
When a person is given the right to speak his or her mind openly and freely , they can express what ever view and ideas that they have but at the same time they should also take responsible for what they say. Remember words can kill too !
Anyway I dun think there is a need to rally for a boycotting of this movie, as personally and alot of people out there , straight and gay equally, we wont even waste our money and time to watch it.
It's about the use of violence. Violence is not justifiable as a tool for rejecting someone who merely expressed interest!
violence = prejudice
Isn't hate = prejudice
while violence = discrimination
Lolz~
Cos' Prejudice is an attitude, often rigid & irrational generalization towards a person or an entire group of people. Whereas Discrimination means action which, towards categories of people, treats them unequally.
Talk to any marketing firm or look at the market place. Gay people have a lot of economic power now. We change things, we influence a lot by our money, to be simple and a bit crass.
So boycott this film, boycott this actor, the director and everybody associated with it.
As a baseball player, and a gay guy too, I am also upset that this stupid film ruins the name of baseball.
Why is Fridae posting this film advertisng on this website?
Making some profit for the actor and director?
Why?
Some of the responses on this matter advocating, "tolerance, education, non boycott..etc"...geez...bloody boring..zzz
No wonder they say gay people are soft and limp wristed. Reading such spineless comments makes me feel like bashing their pin heads against the wall and cursing their families. These are truly abnormal people with perverted views who would not to stand up against hate speech, expects everyone else to follow!
So how,guilty people? Did I get it right? Was I butch enough? How does that feel being harassed and humiliated by just words?..LOL!...hey , don't knock me ok? In the spirit of free speech, educate , tolerate and offer me your left cheek too ok?...and I dun mean your face...:p
I wonder if the world would have had Stonewall if no one stood up then. Such hypocrites these days to those who feel otherwise.
Hey back off naysayers, free speech, free speech! I have deep poke man d.i.c.k immunity! :p
It's amusing that these 'macho' guys that bench over 200 lbs and pride themselves on how well they can fight, cower in the shower if they so much as get a glance . Poor baby Mr. Chung. Try less bench work, and a little more reading on issues before you try to pawn your inane self views to the public. I'll waste no time in viewing your movie by the way.
if we should use boycott when ever needed to show we are unhappy but never violence .
freedom of speech is indeed important, but why is hate speech illegal in many countries? because it's exactly those hate speech that encourages violence and hatred! It is hate speech that make Hitler's soldiers kills millions.
and it is always the fear in the victim/target that reinforce the hatred. the bully will think the target are easy and weak.
therefore, i totally support the boycott of the movie. it is a very calculative movie-it's intention is to add a subplot about gay love to draw in gay audience, as many gay movies make huge success worldwide. but now the calculation back fired.
gay people should let them see that, gay are not the coward and keep silent when bullied anymore. show them the power of PINK DOLLAR!
while the actor and the film team have their freedom of speech. gay people have the right to the freedom of speech too.
i was in a suit and tie then/that night. i then stepped outside the bar on to Christopher Street, and then the Gay Riot Fight Back began. the rioting went on for two nights at least. gays fighting back. (for those of you who don't know this gay history, the Stonewall Riot is the basis of Gay Pride Weeks.)
That night, in the riot on Christopher Street, I had been in that kind of situation before with Vietnam War protests and the situation started to get out of hand, very chaotic. I thought it was heading toward guns being used, maybe. so I left, came back, then left again. it was dangerous as gay people really fought back against oppression and hate.
so, what is the point? the point is, don't take this anti gay slurs and shit from anybody, stand up for our rights and dignity. that is all, pretty simple. best wishes.
~ Albert Einstein
he reinstates hong kong's freedom of speech. well, if he considers gays as sex attackers, we can consider him as a persona non-grata, and an absolute asshole. freedom of opinion
Basically, IMHO suppression of unfounded hateful feelings towards gays deserves far less of our consideration and concern than the suppression of feelings of shame and self-hate of gays living in a straight man's world. So I'm saying, Hey what about our free speech??!!
Just letting a supposedly-straight guy flaunt his macho bravado by basically saying he'd kick the - - - - out of any guy who made a pass at him because that's free speech is basically condoning and ultimately encouraging such behavior.(He's probably that pathetic not-so-attractive straight type who thinks all gay guys are slobbering over his less than average looks. Get a clue and a life!)
An actor who is so arrogant, self-centered and dimwitted to take a role in a movie that he has from the first start major moral issues with, then make hateful and scornful remarks about the potential viewers of that movie needs to be 'scolded' back (without any foul language though) that that's not acceptable behavior, and possibly not a very good career move.
Well, who knows, if we just keep letting guys like these have their say while we keep swallowing our feelings of being shamed and verbally attacked, his career path in that future ultra homophobe-supporting film industry may very well be paved with gold.
Young, Gay and Murdered
newsweek.com/id/147790>1=43002
Please log in to use this feature.