hong kong brisneyland

mood: satiated (is that a mood?)
state i'm in: on track, not sure if moving fast enough however.
tune: peggy lee "i've got the world on a string".



well, one more jurisdiction's discriminatory laws have been overturned...

last august (2005), william leung appeared in court in a judicial review seeking to overturn legislation making it illegal (and carrying a sentence of life imprisonment) for gay men to engage in intercourse. the current law in hong kong makes it illegal for individuals under the age of 21 to have anal intercourse (the law does not specify the gender these laws apply to, but i think one can extrapolate what the law was in effect legislating against). vaginal intercourse is illegal for individuals under the age of 16. mr leung won.

of course, that ruling was appealled against. however, the government of hong kong has failed in its attempt to have the landmark ruling overturned. the court ruled that the laws were "anti-gay". judge michael hartmann ruled that the laws “discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” and “are demeaning of gay men who are, through the legislation, stereotyped as deviant”. thanks mr hartmann! :-)

mr leung's solicitor knew it was a tricky case. “i’d been thinking about (the age of consent) issue for some time... the ordinance was obviously draconian. life in prison... for what? for being in a loving relationship!” he said. he needed someone who was an average young chinese man, not an activist, not a chinese who had spent his life thus far in the (all-corrupting) west, and certainly not a white guy! he got it in billy leung.



and so history has been changed in honkers.



but what of little old brisvegas?

interesting to note, but such a law exists right here in queensland. although it does not carry with it the threat of life behind bars, it is illegal for individuals under the age of 18 to engage in anal intercourse, whilst the age of consent for vaginal intercourse is 16. in fact, queensland is the only state or territory in australia not to have an equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse.

so what does that mean? well, obviously, there is the issue raised by judge hartmann in hong kong, that such a law is demeaning to gay men. but what of the fact that minors, who might be engaging in such sexual acts, are generally unable to gain a great deal of safe sex information on anal intercourse through the usual channels. such material is unavailable to minors, as it is an illegal act. not really good enough at a time when significant rises in STIs (including HIV) are being noted in queensland.

true that the law is likely unenforcable as it is grossly unconstitutional, but why will the state government not erase it completely? premier peter beattie and attorney general linda lavarch maintain their standpoint that "the issue of the age of consent is a vexed one in which there are deeply held and opposing views".

well, homer simpson once said it: "boy, you've learnt a valuable lesson today: if something's too hard, then it's probably not worth doing". now, tell me again, who's running queensland, mr beattie, or mr simpson?