Along with Saturday’s elections, citizens will be able to vote in 10 referendums, five of which are concerned with same-sex marriage or gender equity education.
Three of these referendums were proposed by groups that do not support LGBT people and two by pro-LGBT groups. Interestingly, many parents support one of the referendum propositions submitted by the anti-LGBT side.
Referendum No. 11 asks voters whether they agree that the “gay and lesbian education” called for by the Enforcement Rules for the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法施行細則) should not be taught in elementary schools and junior-high schools.
This begs the question: Is the Gender Equity Education Act (性別平等教育法) not supposed to safeguard gender equality? And if it is, what harm could the “gay and lesbian education” that the act calls for possibly do to future generations?
As defined by Article 2 of the act, gender equity education means “to generate respect for gender diversity, eliminate gender discrimination and promote substantive gender equality through education.”
In plain language, it is for schools to teach students to respect those of a different gender or sexual orientation and to prevent gender prejudice and bullying.
The referendum concerns Article 13 of the enforcement rules, which stipulates: “The curriculum related to gender equity education ... shall cover courses on affective education, sex education and gay and lesbian education in order to enhance students’ gender equity consciousness.”
One could say that the point of “gay and lesbian education” should be to tell students that LGBT people should receive the same respect and rights as everyone else.
A quick online search will produce examples of existing textbook content about “gay and lesbian education.”
The Central Election Commission’s Web site and the Executive Yuan’s declared opinions about referendum No. 11 also explain the purpose of the “gay and lesbian education” that the act says should be provided, in terms similar to the above.
Again, one must ask what could be inappropriate about teaching such a course.
The Council of Grand Justices has confirmed that same-sex marriages should be safeguarded by law. No matter whether it is done by amending the Civil Code or drawing up a special law, as soon as such legislation is enacted, same-sex marriage will become a reality in our society.
Furthermore, social networks have developed to the point where it is almost impossible to suppress or control the flow of information in Taiwan.
Elementary and high schools are relatively capable of giving fair and objective guidance to their students.
If we say that schools cannot mention LGBT-related issues in their teaching materials, and instead leave children to be bombarded by possibly true and possibly false information via TV, the Internet or other media, might that not more easily cause children to get bad attitudes and mistaken ideas, and might it not tend to encourage undesirable consequences such as bullying and gender prejudice?
If something already exists, but we are unwilling to understand and encounter it, it can only lead to more suspicion and misunderstandings. That is probably not the outcome that people want to see.
Whether you accept the above points of view, we all undoubtedly care about what happens to the next generation.
Let us hope that before going to vote in the referendums, everyone who has the right to vote can fully understand what “gay and lesbian education” really entails.
Anderson Chang is a judge.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS