MOBILIZING CRISIS, MATERIAL INEQUALITY, AND IDEOLOGICAL SPLITS: Observations from the November 24th LGBTQ Referenda in Taiwan

Written with Brian Hioe.

IN MAY 2017, LGBTQ groups in Taiwan were celebrating the historic ruling of the Council of Grand Justices, Taiwan’s highest court, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 24, five national referendum results show overwhelming opposition against the legalization of same-sex marriage and gender equality education in grade school that would include LGBTQ issues. Heated conversations are happening all over different media platforms on the results, by analyzing the vote. This event has made international media coverage.

While there are many questions that remain to be answered through a more detailed analysis of the voting data, we are here writing as activists to reflect on the movement, offering some observations on how we may want to move forward from here on issues as the international representations of the Taiwanese LGBTQ movement, the leverage of the May 2017 court ruling, referenda versus minority rights, media exposure, and the problem with electoral politics particular to the pan-Green and pan-Blue dynamics in Taiwan.

1. The Problem with the Western Discourse of the “First in Asia”

DESPITE  WESTERN media outlets’ frequent claims that Taiwan will be the “first in Asia” to legalize same-sex marriage, the referendum results show massive resistance backed up by the Christian right’s abundant financial funds and purposely inaccurate information about LGBTQ communities and gender equity education.

It is probable that this gay-friendly image of Taiwan in Western media has provoked a sense of crisis in the Christian right internationally. This led to reportedly millions of USD coming into Taiwan from American Christian right groups and domestic mobilizations. As it has been widely reported, one of the founders of HTC, Cher Wang, backed the anti-LGBTQ campaigns in Taiwan with close to 30 million USD. Foundations owned by Wang are intimately tied to the anti-LGBTQ Evangelical organization, The International House of Prayers (IHOP), from the US.

In the future, the LGBTQ movement needs to develop strategies to cope with what may be a permanent disadvantage of being outgunned in terms of financial resources. It is not impossible that abundant financial resources will continue to come into the Taiwanese anti-gay movement from both within Taiwan and internationally.

2. Whither the Constitutional Court Ruling?

THERE IS STILL the court ruling from May 2017 that favors same-sex marriage for activists to use as legal leverage. However, on November 29, the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan both announced that they will be continuing by drafting civil partnership laws without changing the marriage-related parts of the Civil Code. A portion of the Christian right, in the meantime, is seeking to block the civil partnership entirely after the referendum vote, which could lead to further legal contestation in the Council of Grand Justices again—except that in the changed environment after the referenda, this may influence how the Council of Grand Justices rules in the future.

It is possible that civil partnership laws will lack some rights that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy. This could likely happen with parenting rights. As shown in the referendum question against LGBTQ-friendly gender equality education, with the view taken by Christian groups that this contributes to the spread of homosexuality, Christian groups have a fear of homosexuality spreading to children, and they may fear that gay couples raising children could spread homosexuality to their children. While they have not yet voiced such a demand, they could be not articulating this demand openly at present as a strategic end, in order to look reasonable and as though they actually have the best interests of the LGBTQ community in mind.

Either way, votes against LGBTQ education have placed queer youth in an even more vulnerable position, given the existing high rates of bullying and suicide. This is already too little, too late.

3. Referendum: An Urgent Yet Reactive Response to a Rising Anti-LGBTQ Crisis

THE MARRIAGE equality and LGBTQ education referenda were a reactive response to the anti-LGBTQ referenda initiated by the Christian right coalition. Debates of whether a minority’s right should be addressed by referenda took place among LGBTQ activists in Taiwan, but the push for referenda with wording more favorable to gay marriage and LGBTQ-friendly education later were executed within a short time frame, as well as with very limited funding compared to the Christian right coalition. Prior to the proposal of the anti-LGBTQ referenda, the LGBTQ coalition consistently utilized discourses of minority rights to seek state protection, knowing that same-sex marriage may not be able to win popular votes nationwide.

Notably, Christian right groups have primarily sought to leverage on social fears regarding the possible consequences of gay marriage. This has included claims, such as that Taiwan will become an “island of AIDS” if gay marriage is passed and that the national health system will be bankrupted because of gay people from across the world flocking to Taiwan to take advantage of the national healthcare system. However, Christian groups have notably also learned to articulate their views in ways which sound reasonable and rational to everyday members of society. There has been a visible learning curve since 2013, when Christian groups first began to vocally oppose gay marriage as a political formation. The LGBTQ movement may also need to rapidly develop new strategies—Christian groups may have been quicker to adapt than the LGBTQ movement to date.

Additionally, procedural justice cannot trump material inequality. While it a positive that Taiwan’s democratic system allows civil society to initiate referendum votes on any topic, by not considering the social and economic marginalization of minority groups, the LGBTQ communities are taking a big hit through lack of caution and an ambiguous stance on the issues of the state.

4. Lack of Exposure on Traditional Media Platforms

GIVEN THE results of the referendum, in which over 7 million voted against gay marriage, but only ten million participated in the referendum voting—around 43% of the total population—this either means that the majority of Taiwanese does not support gay marriage or that enough of the public was not mobilized about the issue to vote for gay marriage.

Much discussion now has turned towards the question of how to break out of the “echo chambers” of one’s peers. Seemingly different realities exist on different forms of social media, such as Facebook, mostly used by young people, versus Line, used by the older generation. Different information about the referendum and about the effects of gay marriage circulated on these two platforms. This is also true more broadly of differences between how Internet-based platforms, television, and newspaper covered the issue. Newspapers and television, including the Liberty Timesand Formosa Television, are thought to have not covered gay marriage-related issues because of Christian anti-gay groups advertising in these publications, despite their usual progressive leaning on issues of Taiwanese sovereignty and opposition to nuclear energy.

5. Strategic Alliances in Electoral Politics

THE LANDSLIDE victory of the right-leaning, pro-unification, mostly anti-gay, and pro-nuclear KMT was contributed to by a combination of factors, including Beijing’s meddling in the local elections and continuous threats to Taiwanese civil society, the ongoing economic recession under Tsai’s DPP leadership and its inability to resolve it, and pension reform that the Tsai administration pushed for which affected veterans, government officials, and public teachers who had previously benefited tremendously under KMT’s rule.

The issues of LGBTQ rights in Taiwan cannot be completely separated from the country’s pan-Blue and pan-Green party dynamics. This also becomes a major contradiction within the LGBTQ movement itself—should activists side with a particular party or try to move beyond binary party politics? Sadly, the two major parties in Taiwan tend to see LGBTQ issues as a drawback to their securing of the popular votes and would be willing to sacrifice such issues when they become too inconvenient.

However, by not siding with a particular party, LGBTQ groups also face barriers of insufficient funding and media exposure or being accused by its pan-Green supporters as not taking a firm stance against the strongly anti-gay KMT. Can the LGBTQ movement—which, at present in Taiwan, ultimately takes the form of identity politics—transcend this contradiction and form new alliances? As we know from the LGBTQ movement in the US, it has mostly sided with the Democratic Party since the late 1980s, yet has also experienced major betrayals, particularly under Bill Clinton’s administration. How does the movement form a strategic alliance with some parties while retaining a critical distance from them? These may be the hardest question we all have to answer in this continuous struggle in the current political conditions in Taiwan.

It’s important to note that the nature of LGBTQ movement itself is ideologically heterogeneous, as a coalition based on a sexual minority. Yet as with any identity-based mobilization, the temporal coalition that is formed under is a reactive response to a crisis, and it is likely to be split on different ideological issues at a certain point, such as being pro-business vs. pro-worker or pro-unification vs. pro-independence. Rather than seeing this development as a “crisis” or “division” of the LGBTQ movement, we may as well understand it as an advancement of the current struggle and take it as a political opportunity to build new alliances and strategies in response to the next phase of the struggle.

Original published on New Bloom.


川普的穆斯林禁令:走向國界僵化的美國與邊境的抗爭者

一月二十八日,美國東岸時間的農曆大年初一,甘迺迪機場發生緊急的抗爭行動,現場瀰漫令人忐忑的氣氛。穆斯林裔在海關之外憂心忡忡地等待無法入境的家屬,美國公民自由聯盟(ACLU)的律師一個個拿著筆電席地而坐,飛快地撰寫抗議川普針對伊斯蘭國家移民與旅客行政禁令的申訴書,而機場廳內與廳外擠滿前來聲援的抗爭者,舉著標語”We Are All Immigrants”、”Refugees Are Welcome Here” ,並齊聲呼喊”No Ban No Wall”。美國新任總統川普於一月二十七日針對七個以穆斯林為主的國家,啟動旅行與移民限制行政命令,受到影響國家包含伊朗、伊拉克、利比亞、索馬里、蘇丹、敘利亞和葉門七國公民(包括雙重國籍人士),此項行政命令也將全面暫停救援敘利亞難民的計畫。全美的海關人員開始執行這個行政命令才短短一天,就已紛紛在各大城市的機場引發抗爭與聲援活動。

川普在競選時將針對穆斯林族群的監察(extreme vetting)作為首要政見,從移民與經濟兩大主軸下手,走向鎖國的保守主義,又因此煽動了右派白人國家主義快速成長,兩相呼應川普於就職典禮上所強調的「美國第一」論述。這樣的反穆斯林情結,並不是新的種族主義發展,此項種族審查制度是從小布希時代,9/11 恐怖攻擊之後即走入國家機器的「正常程序」之中。這次川普行政禁令引起眾怒的其中一個原因,除了他本身是一名輸掉將近三百多萬普選票卻當選的總統之外,這條移民禁令粉碎了美國文化長期以來倚賴的美國夢與功績體制(meritocracy):移民者來到美國為了更好的生活與工作機會,他們用自身的勞力、時間,與對國家的效忠來取得相對的公民權利。但在這短短兩天內我們看見的,卻是針對穆斯林裔和非穆斯林裔的中東人民無條件的扣押與審查,多名綠卡持有者,甚至是持有禁令七國之外公民身份的穆斯林裔,也在海關遭到扣押。

自由派所信仰的美國夢敘事,只是故事中美好的一面。美國的確是一個以移民為基礎的國家,但長期以來也策略性地迫害不同種族、宗教、階級、性傾向等等身份的人民。無論是十九世紀末期針對華裔長達數十年的移民禁令,或是二戰期間對日裔美國人的拘留,這些歷史對我們而言並不遙遠。美國夢是一個選擇性失憶的敘事,讓人們忘記了美國國家政策從來都不是站在保護移民權利的那一邊,而是站在鞏固自身最大利益之上。此次針對川普禁令能引起如此廣大的動員,除了因為它觸犯了多數自由派所信仰的美國夢與多元文化主義之外,更讓人憂心的是川普自競選以來即開始煽動的白人優越主義與宗教保守主義,上任後更是掌握著共和黨多數的國會,美國民主程序的制衡作用被一黨挾持,令人堪憂。抗爭者因此認為必須將制衡的權力奪回自己手中,抵制川普政府將美國推往民粹主義的方向。

經過一個下午的抗爭與 ACLU 律師的努力,二十八日晚上九點,聯邦地方法院法官 Ann M. Donnelly 頒下針對川普行政命令的臨時禁制令,讓持有合法簽證而被拘留的人民不用被立即遣返回國。即使這是一個抗爭中的小勝利,但並未全面撤銷行政命令之影響。二十九日上午,美國國土安全部門(Department of Homeland Security)宣告將持續遵守並執行川普的行政命令,嚴審從上述伊斯蘭國家進出的旅客,包含持有合法美國簽證的居民。ACLU 要求國土安全部釋出至今所有被拘留者的姓名,初期預估仍有上百名在轉機中的旅客將受到影響。多數移民權利的倡議組織建議禁令中這七個國家的公民,即使持有綠卡或合法簽證,在未來的這 90 天內,延後任何必須出境美國的旅行計畫。

二十八日在紐約甘迺迪機場,為了響應反對穆斯林禁令的抗爭,紐約計程車工人聯盟進行一小時的罷工,停止接送人們來往機場。Uber 乘車服務公司卻趁勢企圖中斷計程車工人聯盟的罷工效應,引起多數抗爭者的不滿,一天之內,社群網站上發起 #DeleteUber 的運動效應。此外,多數抗爭者指出 Uber 執行長 Travis Kalanick 與川普集團有密切的商業往來,以及他擔任川普政權下的 “Strategic and Policy Forum”顧問,都更加助長了抵制Uber並連帶抵制川普政權的網路運動。同一時間,同為乘車服務公司的 Lyft,宣佈捐款一百萬美元給 ACLU 以反抗穆斯林禁令。從機場到市區街頭,從工人到消費者,這場穆斯林禁令的抗爭效應,勢必將繼續蔓延下去。我們帶著恐懼、疑惑與憤怒,在二零一七年這最黑暗的開端,試圖在體制的邊境尋找集體反抗的可能。

#NoBanNoWall

 

原文刊載於破土