法政匯思: 頭條日報社論 令人齒冷
【法政匯思短評：關於頭條日報在2015年6月3日社論 —「爛舌議員 語言暴力始作俑者」的回應】
THE PROGRESSIVE LAWYERS GROUP'S SHORT COMMENTARY REGARDING HEADLINE DAILY'S COMMENTARY OF 3 JUNE 2015 TITLED "SWEARING LEGCO MEMBER, THE INSTIGATOR OF VERBAL ABUSE"
事 件中，有市民看不過眼出言維護陳議員，其正義感正好與此社論形成強烈對比。頭條日報的社論，利用了其他毫無關係的事件及人物來混淆公眾視聽，這不但反映了 其對性小眾缺乏同理心及應有的基本尊重，事實上亦對該事件真正的問題置若罔聞，令「社論」變「歪論」，言論令人極其遺憾。
Legislative Council (“Legco”) member, Mr. Raymond Chan Chi-chuen was verbally abused by two women on his sexual orientation in Hong Kong subway earlier this week. In its editorial today, Headline Daily commented that Mr. Chan deserved to be treated this way. This is utterly disappointing, as Headline Daily did not only fail to speak up for and/or defend the victim, they helped spread such hate speech.
In Headline Daily’s commentary, they quoted as an example that “some” Legco members use foul language. That way, they sought to attribute other Legislative Council members' conduct to Mr. Chan. If in fact Mr. Chan has never used foul language at Legco meetings but yet be labelled by Headline Daily as a “foul language Legco member”, this could well constitute defamation.
Even if Mr. Chan is a Legco member who uses foul language, does it mean that we should tolerate the use of hate speech based on a person’s sexual orientation? Citizens can of course have reservations about the political stance or ability of a Legco member. They can be dissatisfied too but to criticise and attack a Legco member based on his features such as gender, race or sexual orientation is plainly unacceptable.
A person, regardless of gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc., should be treated equally and fairly. If the incident happened to a disabled person or a member of an ethnic minority, section 46 of the Disability Discrimination Ordinance or section 45 of the Race Discrimination Ordinance concerning vilification may already have been breached. Regrettably, there is currently no legislation in Hong Kong in relation to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
There was one citizen who was courageous enough to defend Mr. Chan in the subway. Her sense of justice poses a stark contrast to Headline Daily’s commentary. By referring to irrelevant events and people in its commentary, it does not only show that Headline Daily has no empathy and respect towards sexual minorities, but also that they are willing to turn a deaf ear to real issues and twist facts to suit theories. We are extremely disappointed by fallacies in this piece of so-called "editorial".
Progressive Lawyers Group 3 June 2015