Every day of the week, RTHK runs a programme propagating a minority belief. Although these broadcasts are not prefaced by warnings that their content might upset some listeners, they have not elicited angry protests. The Broadcasting Authority has withheld sanctimonious judgment and there has been no visit by a senior official to the director of broadcasting to ensure that he is adhering to 'the relevant codes of practice'.
I refer, of course, to the daily Radio 4 broadcasts of Christian homilies and prayers. Like the majority of people in Hong Kong, I am not a Christian, but I rejoice in the diversity of the special administrative region and the tolerance shown to minority opinions and faiths that allows them to secure a regular airing on a government-owned radio station.
Even though I sometimes listen to these broadcasts, they have not persuaded me to adopt Christianity nor am I convinced by some of the moral arguments advanced. In other words, it is quite possible to be subject to propaganda without being swayed.
However, an ever-vigilant group of Christian bigots seems to believe that the very act of broadcasting beliefs other than their own will, in itself, lead to the adoption of a lifestyle they dislike and an acceptance of practices they consider abhorrent. It should be stressed, however, that they are not representative of the whole Christian community.
They seem to be particularly obsessed with any mention of homosexuality, a way of life pursued by another minority in Hong Kong. Unlike Christianity, homosexuality is less a matter of conviction than of inborn sexual orientation. Yes, I know there is vigorous debate on whether this is so, but the overwhelming force of research suggests that homosexuality is not a matter of choice but a question of biology. That finding seems to be confirmed with amusing regularity by the exposure of leading Christian fundamentalists who engage in homosexual acts, despite their alleged religious convictions.
Yet, fundamentalist Christians and others who feel that homosexuality 'goes against nature' should be free to express their views, however imbecilic they may be. What is infinitely more worrying is the subtle, and not so subtle, ways in which the Hong Kong government seeks to give them credence.
The often unimpressive Broadcasting Authority seems to be particularly attentive to these fundamentalists. While it stopped short of accepting their more absurd claims about the broadcast of an RTHK programme including a segment titled Gay Lovers, it nevertheless ruled that it should not have been shown during a peak family viewing time. It also said that it promoted acceptance of homosexual marriages.