Approaching midnight on Thursday, a small group of people gathered outside Taipei’s 228 Peace Memorial Park. They had brought a high-pressure hose and a metal stencil stamped with the Chinese for “absolutely no compromises with marriage equality” and “refuse a separate law for heterosexuals and homosexuals.”
Their “reverse graffiti” marks the sidewalk not by staining it with paint, but by stripping away ingrained dirt, leaving behind a clean impression. It not only leaves the message on the sidewalk, but also symbolizes the removal of the lies about homosexuals they believe have been perpetrated by opponents of same-sex marriage during the debate over the issue.
Last week, tens of thousands of people gathered along Ketagalan Boulevard in a protest organized by the Coalition for the Happiness of Our Next Generation against the government’s proposed amendment to Article 972 of the Civil Code — rather than a separate law — incorporating gay couples’ rights to get married and adopt children. There were large companion rallies in Taichung and Kaohsiung the same day.
Yesterday, UN Human Rights Day, these were answered by a rally called “Love, Don’t Lie” along that same road, outside the Presidential Office Building, organized by supporters of the proposed changes.
The issue of the legalization of same-sex marriage is about one significant minority calling for more inclusion in the fabric of society on one side, and on the other a percentage of a majority group fearful that this inclusion will tear the fabric of society apart.
The need to be included is not merely about acceptance and understanding: It is about very practical matters, too, such as legal rights of access and authority in issues concerning your loved ones, as in medical emergencies. And the fears are real, too, in the sense that they are felt, even if many would question whether they are well-founded. These are people who believe they are fighting for the happiness of the next generation.
Taiwanese are right to be proud of the democracy they fought long and hard to achieve. It is right that diverse voices are listened to, and the rights of diverse groups are protected in a democratic society, so that they are not oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority.”
And yet, many of us have sat aghast and exasperated at the apparently newly ascendant brand of political debate being called “post-truth” politics — modern mendacity — notably in the UK’s Brexit vote and the US’ presidential election, where appeals to emotion intentionally obfuscate rational debate, and proponents are uninterested in the veracity of their assertions, or in understanding opposing points of view.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is standing up for what it believes to be the basic human right of marriage equality. With a sympathetic government in power, and a largely supportive public, it has a real chance of this becoming reality. However, part of this process within a democracy still requires a rational debate about how society as a whole feels marriage should be defined.
Assertions that the legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow open the door to unions with animals, that sexually active homosexuals are morally corrupt, that same-sex parents will necessarily raise homosexual children — or that this is necessarily undesirable or even empirically likely — that changes to the Civil Code will somehow preclude people from calling their parents “mother” and “father,” or that same-sex unions will undermine the rights of married heterosexual couples, are pure hyperbole, and only compound ignorance and prejudice. However, the demonization of conservatives and religious groups is misguided and unhelpful, just as the demonization of homosexuals is. Neither is a monolithic entity.
Fear stems from ignorance. “Post-truth” politics perpetuates, and hides behind, ignorance. People need to debate this issue rationally. It is too important for too many people.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath