Leave theology out of public policy on homosexuality

In Hong Kong's secular, plural society based on rule of law, private religious belief is a core individual freedom. But personal religious belief merits no primacy in the formation of public policy, in particular when it conflicts with the broader principle of legal equality for all citizens. Sadly, a series of irrelevant proxy arguments have dominated discussions on a proposed official consultation towards an anti-discrimination bill for sexual minorities.

Hong Kong's fundamentalist Christian groups vehemently object to even a debate on a debate for public consultation. These assemblies would appear to have gagged this long-overdue public discussion on the spurious grounds of protecting free speech. Thus - with unintended irony - they have confounded the underlying basic principle they sought to protect.

Theological objections to homosexuality can be argued until Hell freezes over, but ultimately, this strand of discussion is completely irrelevant to the issue confronting contemporary Hong Kong society. Equality for all citizens before the law is the ultimate issue - no other.

But the current furore has nevertheless revealed a long-present elephant in Hong Kong's collective living room: the pernicious influence of fundamentalist Christian belief within the top ranks of the Hong Kong administration. Fundamentalist Christian tycoon influence on policy through strategic funding is, likewise, another seldom-discussed political reality.

As with widely alleged government-business collusion, links between private religious belief and public policy formation are nearly impossible to conclusively prove.

But a reasonable inference that some significant influence on policy has occurred over time can be drawn from certain key decisions. What else adequately explains support given by the former education and manpower bureau to the openly homophobic Society for Truth and Light to educate teachers on human rights and anti-discrimination views? Or why, in 2011, a psychiatrist affiliated with the group was hired by the government to give a talk to social workers about long-discredited pseudo-psychiatric "gay cure" practices on vulnerable teenagers?

What else explains the public-private partnership scheme that enabled the creationist, "educational" Noah's Ark theme park at Ma Wan, internationally promoted by the Hong Kong Tourism Board? These are merely some well-known examples.