1. Wat 1
Political Opportunities and Discursive Opportunities Utilized by Two Opposing
Movements: Anti-Reform and Pro-Reform Rhetoric in the Case of Domestic Violence Ordinance
(DVO) in Hong Kong
Chi Cheng Wat
Department of Sociology
University of Toronto
2. Wat 2
POLITICAL OPPORTUNITIES AND DISCURSIVE OPPORTUNITIES UTILIZED BY TWO
OPPOSING MOVEMENTS: ANTI-REFORM AND PRO-REFORM RHETORIC IN THE
CASE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDINANCE (DVO) IN HONG KONG
Abstract
Existing literature often treats political opportunities and discursive opportunities as two separate
resources that activists can utilize in social movements. Yet, very little is known the phenomenon
that new political opportunities also generate nascent discursive opportunities. While political
opportunities are important for activists to mobilize and achieve goals of the movement,
discursive opportunities can influence what kind of rhetoric they deploy. Using content analysis
of newspapers, websites, and legislative archives of Hong Kong, this paper examines how the
sovereignty transfer in Hong Kong, a former British colony and now part of the People’s
Republic of China (PRC), creates and provides new political opportunities and discursive
opportunities for right-wing Christians and LGBT activists in the mobilization on the reform of
the Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO). Different political opportunities, especially political
alliances, open to the LGBT activists and right-wing Christians; such political opportunities
constrain LGBT activists from deploying the state—the PRC—directly to claim legitimacy while
enables right-wing Christians to create new rhetoric and combine the new rhetoric with the old
one.
Key Words: social movement, LGBT activism, right-wing Christians, political opportunities,
discursive opportunities
3. Wat 3
Introduction
Existing literature examine how political opportunities and discursive opportunities as
resources activists can utilize to research their goals. Political opportunities include a wide range
of events such as access to the legislation, alliances with political elites, diminishing of state
repression, etc. (Meyer 2004). More recently, in addition to political opportunities, scholars start
to suggest that culture can also have effects on the organization of social movements (Meyer and
Staggenborg 1996; Taylor 1996). The effects of culture can be reflected in the discourses and
rhetoric activists deployed to advance their movements (Williams 2005). As such, in addition to
political opportunities, discursive opportunities—the availability of existing cultural repertoires
that can be used by activists to construct their discourse and rhetoric—are also important
resources to activists (Bröer and Duyvendak 2009). Existing literature often treats political
opportunities and cultural opportunities as two separate structures and little is understood how
these two types of opportunities are related to each other.
In this paper, I will use the case of the reform of Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO) in
Hong Kong (HK), a former British colony and now part of the People’s Republic of China
(PRC), to examine how political opportunities and discursive opportunities are related to each
other. The reform of the DVO was the first legislation that involved homosexual individuals
after the sovereignty transfer in 1997. The pro-reform side supported the inclusion of same-sex
cohabitating partners under the protection of the DVO while the anti-reform side opposed it. As
such, the pro-reform side was also pro-gay while the anti-reform side was also anti-gay. There
had been anti-gay and pro-gay rhetoric circulating in Hong Kong during the decriminalization of
male same-sex sexual behaviors during the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, LGBT (lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender) organizations in HK did not actively participate into politics until
after the sovereignty transfer. As such, analysis on the debates on the reform of DVO can answer
the following two questions: (1) how new political opportunities can create new discursive
4. Wat 4
opportunities available and (2) how differential access to political opportunities by two opposing
movements influences the availability of discursive opportunities and thus what rhetoric activists
of the two sides can make to claim legitimacy.
Literature Review
Political Opportunities
One of the major factors that contributes to the rise of social movements and influences
the movement’s rhetoric is the emergence of favorable political opportunities. Such favorable
political opportunities can happen in the structure of the state such as shifts in political
alignments (Meyer, 2004; Tarrow, 1998). In addition, political opportunities can also refer to the
openness of the governments to opinions by the general public or non-governmental
organizations (Eisinger 1973; Tilly 1995). Divisions among political elites are also considered as
important political opportunities. Usually, a highly disciplined, single-party government will
provide fewer opportunities for activists to access the political system while multiple-party
government will provides more access points for activists to make coalition with divided
political elites (Kitschelt 1986; McAdam 1996). In addition to accessibility of the political
system and opportunities to make political alliances with elites, the convergence of the
ideological positions between political parties and those of activists will also facilitate the
achievement of goals of social movement (Amenta and Zylan 1991; Kriesi et al. 1995). Access
to political institutions and elites are not the only opportunities activists can utilize to advance
their goals. Different organizations who share the same goals can make cooperate with each
other to expand the pool of resources and to mobilize people (Rochon and Meyer 1997). Political
structure can also affect interactions between two opposing movement. When the state allows
activists to challenge policy—e.g. abortion policies—but does not satisfy demands by activists,
interactions between two opposing movements will increase (Meyer and Staggenborg 1996).
5. Wat 5
The examination of political opportunities available to social movements largely does not
take how discourses can be resources for activists. Discourses reflect the effects of culture on
social movement, that is, how activists being able to convey their goals in a way which is
meaningful and persuasive to the intended audience.
Discursive Opportunities
The framing theory addresses the lack of discussion of culture by introducing the concept
of “cultural resonance”—activists will employ rhetoric that will generate the most cultural
resonance, that is, the most hegemonic discourse, among the intended audience (Benford &
Snow, 2000). Some sets of believes, values, and symbols have a much more hegemonic status
than others and thus provides a pool of sources for activists to frame their movement’s goals with
legitimacy—the moral and ideational authority to make the rhetoric binding and persuasive
(Gamson 2004; Williams 2005). Activists can also enhance the appeal of a frame if the frame
seems natural and contain familiar cultural elements (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988). Frames that
contain stories, myths, and folk tales of a society’s cultural heritage can create a great degree of
cultural resonance (Gamson 1992; Snow and Benford 1988). The framing theory predicts that
activists will always use the most hegemonic discourses; however, it is not always the scenario
(Staggenborg, 2008).
To address the insufficiency in explaining diversified rhetoric, Ferree et al. (2002) and
Koopmans and Statham (1999) jointly propose the discursive opportunity structure. The
discursive opportunity approach suggests that there is a gradient of political acceptability and
cultural resonance in which activists can tap into to form their rhetoric (Ferree, Gamson,
Gerhards, & Rucht, 2002; Koopmans & Statham, 2000). Ferree’s (2003) study on debates of
abortion in the United States (and Germanyi
) illustrates the empirical application of the
discursive opportunity structure to abortion debatesii
. Ferree (2003) argues in the U.S., the
6. Wat 6
Supreme Court decision on the case Roe v. Wade—in which the judge drew on individualism to
conclude the state has no right to intervene with a woman’s choice of termination of pregnancy
during the first trimester—set up the discursive opportunity structure for the abortion debates.
Some pro-choice activists employ the “individual’s choice” discourse which resonates with the
Supreme Court decision. Other activists employ a more radical rhetoric and argue that abortion is
not really a “free choice” because the state does not provide sufficient supports such as day care
and housing for disadvantaged mothers. In this sense, abortion is not a choice but a social
coercion. Ferree (2003) shows that within the pro-choice movement, some activists choose to
follow the hegemonic discourse while some others deploy a more radical one. Nevertheless, the
Supreme Court decision provided a discursive opportunity for activists to formulate a rhetoric
that will most likely resonate with the intended audiences.
In addition to conceptualizing the discursive opportunity structure as a gradient of
hegemony to radical, scholars also conceptualize that activists can take rhetoric from different
discursive opportunity structures to assemble their arguments. Activists in women jury’s
movement have drawn from multiple discursive opportunity structures including legal,
traditional gender believes, and even opposing frames to construct rhetoric to promote women’s
service in jury (McCammon, Muse, Newman, & Terrell, 2007).
Critiques of the political opportunity and discursive opportunity approaches state these
two approaches create a false binary between political and discursive opportunities. These two
approaches largely do not consider the possibility that these two types of opportunities may
synergistically influence what claims activists can use in social movements. Scholars have
attempted to combine these two approaches to access the rhetoric and the outcome of social
movement.
7. Wat 7
Political and Discursive Opportunities
Scholar examines how activists utilize both political and discursive opportunities to
achieve their goals. Gamson (1990) theorizes that distinct combinations of political and
discursive opportunities will lead to different outcomes for social movement. For example, the
Italian extreme right gained substantial amount of votes in the national elections after the fall of
the Italian traditional party system so that the Italian government had to form coalition with the
extreme right (Koopmans and Statham 1999). At the same time, the Italian extreme right
mobilized the discourse of ethnic-based nationalism to exclude immigrants. In this case, the
Italian extreme right has both political and discursive opportunities available to them. Study on
women’s movement in Sweden also shows that the combination of both discursive and political
opportunities led to the success of more women to serve in public offices (Sainsbury 2004). On
the other hand, the presence of discursive opportunities and the lack of political opportunities for
the German extreme right allowed activists to influence the public discourse on immigration but
led to their failure o have any actual influence in immigration policies (Koopsman and Olzak
2004).
Scholars also examine the combined effects of political and discursive opportunities on
claims made by activists. A cross-national studies on the anti-immigrant claims made by extreme
right in five European countries show that either political opportunities or discursive
opportunities along can fully explain what types of claims—radical, intermediate, or moderate—
extreme right activists used in each country (Giugni, Koopmans, Passy & Statham, 2005). Rather,
the national discourse of citizenship—civic or cultural-based citizenship—and the extreme
right’s alignment with political parties jointly determine what types of claims activists used
(Giugni, Koopmans, Passy & Statham, 2005).
In addition to the joint effect of political opportunities and discursive opportunities on
claim made by activists, scholars also examine how political context enables activists to make
8. Wat 8
new claims. For example, in the Civil Right movement in the U.S. South during 1960s, activists
of Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was able to expand the legal concept of
“rights” to non-litigational area such as economic boycotts because of activists’ lack of
connection to the federal government and inter-organizational competition within the Civil Right
Movement (Polletta 2000). Although the aforementioned “political context” is not strictly
“political opportunities,” this study in Civil Right Movement suggests that political structure can
influence what kinds of claims and the extent to which these claims can be deployed.
Scholars who study anti-gay and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender)
movements also examine how activists take up political and discursive opportunities.
Anti-Gay and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Movement
Anti-gay movements, mostly organized by U.S. Christian Right, in the U.S. and the
globalization of such anti-gay movement have utilized domestic and international political
opportunities to expand their movements. Furthermore, they have constructed collective rhetoric
that will generate cultural resonance among the audience. The Christian Right seized the political
opportunity that Ronald Reagan needed votes in presidential elections and mobilized evangelical
churches to vote for Reagan. After Ronald Reagan was elected as the president, the Christian
Right has successfully integrated with the Democratic Party (Diamond, 1995; Durham, 2000).
Furthermore, the U.S. Christian Right has taken the advantage of the expansion of the U.S.
imperialism—the Christian Right builds their overseas network through people who work in
diplomacy, military, and business (Brouwer, Gifford, & Rose, 1996). One of the major domestic
anti-gay agendas of the U.S. Christian Right is against the legal provision of same-sex marriage.
One of the major rhetoric against same-sex marriage is the “family-value” argument: the
ideology that only the heterosexual family—the natural family—can uphold the traditional
9. Wat 9
family value and raise children properly (Fetner, 2008). This rhetoric carries cultural resonance
with the notion of family as the safe haven in the hostile world (Fetner, 2008).
LGBT movements globally are not as well coordinated as the global anti-gay movement.
Nevertheless, LGBT movements in different parts of the world predominately rely on similar
discourses of “rights,” “equality,” and “human rights” (Kollman & Waites, 2009). In the U.S.,
the mainstream LGBT movement has modeled after the Civil Right Movement based on identity
politics—LGBT individuals are conceptualized as sexual minorities, who as racial minorities,
should be entitled to equal rights and equal protections (Berstein, 2002; Hull, 2006; Pedriana,
2009; Seidman, 1993). Similarly, the “rights” discourse has been prevalent in the LGBT
movement in Canada since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in
1982 (Smith, 1999). Outside of the North America, the human rights discourse has also become
the major rhetoric LGBT activists employed in Asia and Africa (Altman, 1997; Currier, 2009;
Manalansan, 1995).
In summary, scholars employ the political opportunity and the discursive opportunity
approach to address how activists use these two types of opportunities to organize social
movement and to form rhetoric. Scholars also combine these two approaches to evaluate the
influence of these two types of opportunities on movement’s outcome and the types of rhetoric
activists choose to use. In addition, existing literature also examine how these two types of
opportunities can influence each other also how such influence relates to the types of claims
made by activists. Existing empirical studies and theoretical models on the relation among
political opportunities, discursive opportunities, rhetoric used, and outcomes mainly investigate
such relation within a single movement. The questions of: (1) how two opposing movements’
differential accesses to political opportunities may be related to what types of discursive
opportunities will be available to the two opposing movements and (2) how such differences may
influence the rhetoric activists of two opposing movement use remain largely under-investigated.
10. Wat 10
Discourse analysis on the debates on the reform of the Domestic Violence Ordinance
(DVO) in Hong Kong can bring new insights on the aforementioned two questions due to its
unique political situations before and after its sovereignty transfer from the United Kingdom
(UK) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Such political situations are unique in a sense
that not only the sovereignty transfer was scheduled thirteen years before the transfer but also
such transfer provides new political opportunities both sides of the debates on the DVO.
The Context of Hong Kong (HK): Political Opportunities Created by the Sovereignty
Transfer
In Hong Kong after the sovereignty transfer, democracy and human rights are at the
center of friction between Hong Kong SAR and Beijing. The binary and antagonism between
these two camps grew out of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, its aftermath, and the electoral
reform implemented by the last British colonial governor in HK.
The Tiananmen Crackdown, in which the Beijing government deployed military forces
and inflicted causalities on unarmed civilians who protested for democracy in Beijing, invoked
the collective political consciousness in HK and enshrined “democracy,” “freedom,” and “human
rights” in the political discourse in HK(So 2000). At the same time, the pro-democracy camp
solidified and gained popular support among people in HK, who yearned for political leaders
who would safeguard people’s freedom and human rights after the handover. In the aftermath of
the Tiananmen crackdown, the last British colonial governor, Christopher Patten, put forward a
last-minute electoral reform to introduce more democratic elements into the Legislative Council
of Hong Kong (LegCo). The reform increased the number of seats in LegCo that were de facto
generated by direct elections (universal suffrage). This infuriated Beijing because this reform
was not what the UK and PRC agreed upon during diplomatic negotiation in the early 1980s.
Beijing assembled its own camp, the pro-Beijing camp, in HK to oppose this reform (So 2000).
11. Wat 11
HK right-wing Christians merged with the pro-Beijing camp while LGBT activists collaborated
with the pro-democracy camp in the post-handover Hong Kong.
The Rise of Right-Wing Christians in Hong Kong
The sovereignty transfer in Hong Kong not only shaped the political landscape of Hong
Kong, but also catalyzed the rise of right-wing Christiansiii
. In colonial Hong Kong, Protestant
churches received privileges from British colonial government. Such privileges included paying
low rent to the government for buildings used as venues for social services and education. Faced
with Hong Kong’s return to China, many Protestant churches and organizations panicked about
losing these privileges and employed several strategies in preparing for the sovereignty handover
(Young, 2010). They purchased land and properties, expanded their social network, secured
more funding, and recruited new members (Young, 2010). Some Protestant leaders also started
to cooperate with the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong (Young, 2010). For example, Reverend
Wing Chi So (蘇穎智) of Yan Fook Church of the Evangelical Free Church of China supported
the political agenda of pro-Beijing camp (Kingdom Rivival Times (HK), 9 January 2009). A pro-
Beijing legislative counselor, Priscilla Leung, opposed the second amendment of the DVO
strongly (The Legislative Council of HK SAR 18 June 2008, pp. 8793-8830). The political
situations in pre-handover Hong Kong catalyzed the rise of HK right-wing Christians. HK right-
wing Christians became wealthier and merged with the new hegemonic power in Hong Kong—
the pro-Beijing camp.
The LGBT Movement in Hong Kong
The organization of the LGBT movement was also closely linked to the political situation
of Hong Kong. LGBT organizations that were established in the late 1990s, such as Women’s
12. Wat 12
Coalition of Hong Kong SAR (WCHK) and Rainbow of Hong Kong, started engaging in
political activities. In 2005, in response to Hong Kong right-wing Christians’ anti-gay campaign,
LGBT and other organizations held the first annual International Day against Homophobia
(IDAHO). Several pro-democracy legislative councilors also joined the parades in different years
(Kong 2010). The pro-democracy public platform, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), also
became a major way for LGBT organizations to demand legal protection and equality in Hong
Kong. Three LGBT organizations, including Women Coalition of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (WCHK), Rainbow of Hong Kong, and Queer Sister (QS) are members
of the CHRF. Other member organizations of CHRF include several pro-democracy political
parties, human rights organizations, women’s movement organizations, and labor unions, etc.
(Civil Human Rights Front, 2011). In 2005, CHRF—the organizer of the annual July-1st
Rally—
arranged several LGBT organizations, along with women movement organizations, to lead the
rallyiv
; one subtheme of that year rally was the demand for legislation to ensure equality for
sexual minorities and women. After the sovereignty transfer, LGBT organizations formed a
coalition with the pro-democracy camp while HK right-wing Christians merged with the pro-
Beijing camp. The coalition between LGBT organizations and pro-democracy camp implicitly
situates LGBT activists at the opposite side of the PRC.
Data and Methodology
The primary data include two major types of documents: (1) submissions by anti-reform
and pro-reform camp to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on the bills of Domestic Violence
Ordinance (DVO) in 2008 and 2009 and (2) news articles and related to LGBT issues. The first
source including (a) opinions on the DVO submitted by pro-reform and anti-reform camps to the
LegCo and (b) minutes of LegCo meetings, in which both anti-reform and pro-reform camps
attended, voiced their opinions, and responded to other people’s opinions. The second data
13. Wat 13
source includes news coverage on campaign organized by both pro- and anti-reform sides, their
debates with each other, and also articles written by pro- and anti-reform activists.
(1) The Two Amendments of the DVO
Debates on the two amendments of the Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO) in 2008 and
2009 were the first legal debates involved homosexuality after the sovereignty transferv
. The
Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO) first went into effect in 1986 in Hong Kong (The Alliance
for the Reform of Domestic Violence Ordinance 2007). There had been no major changes of the
DVO since 1986, except some technical changes due to the sovereignty transfer in 1997. The
original DVO only covered married couples and their children living in a matrimonial home, or
couples in cohabitation and their children (The Alliance for the Reform of Domestic Violence
Ordinance, 2007). In 2004, a man murdered his wife and their two children. The victims had
already been living in a woman’s shelter because of abuses they suffered. The tragedy happened
largely due to the insufficient response of the police and the social welfare department to the
woman’s quest to intervene with her husband’s harassments (Ming Pao 12 April 2004). Some
legislative councillors, several women’s organizations, and LGBT organizations submitted a
proposal of reform of the DVO to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo).
The bill of the first amendment proposed to extend legal protection for victims of
domestic violence from married/co-habituating heterosexual couples to the extended family
members of victims and also to same-sex cohabitating couples. However, the administration of
HK government refused to include same-sex cohabitating partners in the first amendment. The
first amendment passed with expanded protection to extended family members, but not to same-
sex co-habituating couples. Therefore, the bill of the second amendment singled out same-sex
co-cohabitating partners as the only concerned party, rendering the second amendment more
vulnerable to attacks by HK right-wing Christians. The proposals of the two amendments
14. Wat 14
invoked a series of anti-reform campaigns by HK right-wing Christians. They argued the legal
protection for same-sex cohabiting partners equalled to legal recognition of same-sex
relationships and thus would pave the road for same-sex marriage.
All submissions to the LegCo are held in the online archive of the LegCo. The online
archive is open-accessed to all internet users and is public information.
(2) Newspaper Articles and Websites of Right-Wing Christian Websites
The period of time of these newspaper articles is from 2004-2009. The chosen period of
newspaper articles predated the bills of DVO because debates between the pro- and anti-reform
sides occurred sporadically before the amendments of the DVO and cumulated at the DVO in
2008 and 2009. Analysis of newspaper articles before the bills of DVO can illustrate changes of
rhetoric of both sides in the period after the sovereignty transfer and before the bills of DVO.
However, on-line archives of these newspapers and right-wing Christian websites do not contain
news articles before 2004. News articles before 2004 are only available in hard copies, which I
do not have access to for this stage of the project. I plan to expand analysis of these archives in
the future. For details of data sources, please refer to Appendix I. In the section of Result, in
addition to the exact name of the source of data, quotes will also be marked by abbreviations. For
example, “S1” stands for “Meeting Minutes and Submissions to the LegCo” in Appendix I.
The newspaper archives include two online archives of one independent newspaper and
one of the most circulated newspapers in Hong Kong. In addition to the online archives of
newspapers, I also included two of HK right-wing Christian websites. The independent
newspaper covers LGBT movements more frequently than other mainstream newspapers and
also publishes articles written by LGBT activists. In the online archives of these newspapers, I
search for keywords “gays and lesbians” and “Domestic Violence Ordinance” in Chinese. The
number of articles generated from such search ranges from 13 to 28 across a period of time of
15. Wat 15
five years. It is relatively small number of articles in a five-year period. However, since I include
websites operated by HK right-wing Christians and a newspaper that covers activities organized
by LGBT organizations, I consider this set of newspapers as an appropriate set of sources. Since
I also include submissionsvi
to the Legislative Council by the HK right-wing Christians and by
the LGBT activists, this set of data provides adequate covers on anti- and pro-reform rhetoric in
the debates of the DVO.
Data Analysis and Chinese Translation
I used the software DeDoose to organize, code, and analyze newspapers and submissions
to the Legislative Council. I perform open coding of documents. Then I looked for the most
salient themes, i.e., the themes appear more frequently than others in the text. I also examined
variations and commonalities within the same themes to derive sub-themes. After I had
determined major themes for the analysis, I performed another round of coding that focused only
on the selected major themes. Then I wrote memos that aim to integrate the selected themes
together to form a coherent analysis.
In regard to language and translation issues, in the situations in which there are official
English translation of the text, such as some of the meeting minutes and submissions to the
LegCo, I quoted directly from the official English translation. For all other texts that are
originally Chinese, I translated the text into English. I also included Chinese characters for key
phrases in the quotes.
Results
The anti-reform side proactively claimed “China” as an authority to legitimize their
arguments in three major different ways: (1) a colonial construct of marriage as timeless Chinese
culture, (2) a moral cultural China vs. a sexually immoral West, and (3) “China” as the current
16. Wat 16
political regime— (PRC). As such, the anti-reform side was able to utilize discursive
opportunities that have been available since the colonial era. Furthermore, the political alliances
between the pro-reform side and the pro-Beijing camp enable the former to use the new
discursive opportunities to claim legitimacy. On the other hand, the political alliance between the
pro-reform side and the pro-democracy camp constrains how the former could discursively
deploy “China.” Pro-reform activists mobilized “China”: (1) in response to anti-reform activists’
claims on “Chinese tradition” and “Chinese culture and (2) indirectly invoke the state—the
PRC—to claim legitimacy by citing local laws to support their arguments.
“China” in Anti-Reform Rhetoric
Anti-reform activists claimed “China” to enhance legitimacy in their arguments. They
first argued the provision of legal protection for same-sex cohabiting partners equalled to legal
recognition of same-sex relationships and thus would pave the road for same-sex marriage. Then
anti-reform activists argued the passage of the bills of the DVO would be against Chinese
marriage, culture, and tradition. There are different “Chinas” that reflect the residue of colonial
discourse of homosexuality and also political tension between Hong Kong and Beijing after the
sovereignty transfer.
Old Discursive Opportunities (1): A Colonial Construct of Marriage as Timeless Chinese Culture
The first way anti-reform activists deploy “China” involves an appropriation of a colonial
construct of marriage as part of the thousand-years-long Chinese culture. There are depictions of
a timeless “China” in which the marriage institution has always been one husband and one wife.
For example, in the submission by Shatin Swatow Baptist Church, it states (Shatin Swatow
Baptist Church, 10 January 2009) (S1, Appendix I),
17. Wat 17
A couple formed by legal marriage is a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This is
not only what the Marriage Ordinance in Hong Kong states but also an important
foundation of our long and thriving (源遠流長) Chinese culture as well as of the stability
of the family and of the nation.
Another submission by an organization called “Thinking Academy” expressed similar concepts
(Thinking Academy, 23 January 2009) (S1, Appendix I),
This organization [Thinking Academy] agree with the current Marriage Reform
Ordinance (Cap.178) and the Marriage Ordinance (Cap.181)’s definition [of marriage as]
a voluntary union between one man and one woman as the foundation of marriage. This
foundation [of marriage] also conforms to the man- and-woman marriage tradition in
China, which has been in well-practiced and has a history of several thousand years
[emphasis added].
Thinking Academy specified that the one-man-and-one-woman marriage has been the marriage
tradition of China for several thousand years. Both the Shatin Swatow Baptist Church and the
Thinking Academy mention “Marriage Ordinance,” which they claimed as part of their Chinese
culture. However, in fact, the Marriage Ordinance was a British colonial rule. Under British
colonial ruling, it was legal for ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong to practice the marriage of “one
husband, one wife, and multiple concubines” as if they were still under the sovereign of Qing
dynasty (清朝) (AD1644-1912). In 1971, the British colonial government enacted the Marriage
Reform Ordinance (Cap. 178). Section 5 of the Marriage Reform Ordinance states, “no man may
take a concubine and no woman may acquire the status of a concubine;” the Marriage Reform
Ordinance also established heterosexual monogamous marriage as the only legal form of
marriage in Hong Kong (Section 4, Marriage Reform Ordinance (Cap.178)). What the Shatin
Swatow Baptist Church and the Thinking Academy claimed as the traditional marriage of China
was a colonial construct. The colonial law on marriage gave the anti-reform side discursive
opportunities to claim legitimacy for heterosexual union. Furthermore, the claim of this colonial-
imposed heterosexual marriage as a “Chinese” tradition creates a sense of cultural familiarity
with the audience, the Legislative Councilors and the general public of Hong Kong, the majority
of which is ethnic Chinese.
18. Wat 18
Old Discursive Opportunities (2): Difference: A Moral Cultural China vs. a Sexually Immoral
West
The second way “China” was deployed is a moral cultural China vs. a sexually immoral
West. Mr. Sze Chung Lok, the representative of a group called “Male Violent Concern Group1
”
stated why he objected the 2nd
amendment of the DVO (Male Violent Concern Group, 23
Jaunary 2009),
Before going back to Hong Kong, my wife and I had been studying and working in the
US for many years. One of the things which prompted us to decide to go back to Hong
Kong was the decay in morality in the US, especially when same-sex marriage was
legalized in California and Boston [Massachusetts]. My wife and I imagined that if our
children were going to go to school in the US, the text books would teach them that
kissing and intimate relationship between two persons of the same sex is not a problem.
We as Chinese (中國人), have morality and conscience; [China] is a country with
manners. It is very difficult for us to accept these unnatural behaviors.
So, we decided to go back to Hong Kong, thinking that Hong Kong was still a society of
Chinese people and that the social atmosphere would be better.
In Mr. Lok’s understanding, the legalization of same-sex marriage in California and
Massachusetts were signs of moral decay in the U.S. Furthermore, Mr. Lok stated that China was
a country with morality and conscience, as opposed to the U.S. Mr. Lok’s also thought that Hong
Kong was a society of Chinese people; as a result, the society had to be “moral” and less
accepting toward homosexuality. Furthermore, this moral cultural China was coupled with the
first way “China” was deployed—the timeless China. Mr. Lok kept on explaining why he
objected to the second amendment of the DVO,
Please don’t misunderstand me. I object to violence; I object to discrimination; but I
respect the benefits of the majority even more; [I] value morality even more; [I] value the
right [emphasis added] family value even more because “The cultivation of the person,
the government of the family, the regulation of the State, and the tranquilization of the
kingdomvii
” is the culture and wisdom of thousands of years of us, the Chinese!
For Mr. Lok, same-sex cohabitation is not the “right” form of family; he relied on Confucianism
as his source. Mr. Lok cited a passage from one of Confucian classics, “the cultivation of the
1
As for now, I cannot verify whether this “Male Violent Concern Group” was an active anti-reform organization.
However, the submission of this group illustrates the use of “China” as a moral cultural China.
19. Wat 19
person, the regulation of the family, the government of the State, and the tranquilization of the
kingdom.” In the second way “China” was deployed in anti-gay rhetoric, this “China” is a moral
cultural China. Anti-reform activists drew the “moral China” rhetoric from the colonial
discursive opportunity structure to claim legitimacy from their argument. Of more importantly,
the anti-reform activists combine this colonial discourse of homosexuality with the notion of
“timeless China” – “Chinese culture” that has not changed for several thousand years.
The binary of West vs. China was very similar to the anti-gay rhetoric during the
decriminalization of sexual behaviors between two men in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The
legal regulation of homosexuality in colonial Hong Kong contributed to the creation of discourse
of “homosexuality as Western,” which in turn became the rallying point of anti-gay rhetoric in
Hong Kong. In 1865, the British colonial government introduced the Offense Against the Person
Ordinance to Hong Kong. Under this ordinance, sexual behaviors between two consenting adult
men were illegal until 1991 (Offense Against Persons Ordinance, 1901). However, sodomy cases
that received attention of authorities and the media usually involved only white men and
occasionally couples of white and Chinese men (Chou 2009). Consequently, the colonial legal
discourse on homosexuality constructed a gay subjectivity in Hong Kong as white/Western
(Chou 2009). A binary of “us” and “them” between the colonizer and the colonized manifested
in the understanding of sexuality. During early 1980s, a series of scandals involving several
prominent British civil servants in Hong Kong who were allegedly homosexual urged the British
government to consider decriminalize sexual behaviors between two men. Christian churches
and groups fiercely opposed the decriminalization of sodomy. Their argument was not based on
Christian teaching that homosexuality was a sin, but rather they argued that homosexuality was
against Chinese tradition, values, and cultures (Chou 2009). Chinese Christians used a binary in
20. Wat 20
which homosexuality was Western, immoral, and individualistic, as opposed to Chinese culture
which was moral and stressed family-based social order (Chou 2009) .
In addition to existing discursive opportunities, the anti-reform side was also able to take
advantage of new discursive opportunities created by the sovereignty transfer. New political
opportunities—the alliance between the anti-reform side and the pro-Beijing camp—facilitates
the use of new discursive opportunities by the anti-reform side.
The New Discursive Opportunity: “China” as the current state—the People’s Republic of China
(PRC)
The “China” in the third usage is the current political entity of “China”—the PRC. As
some of the most prominent figures of HK right-wing Christians were pro-Beijing, they also
incorporated the most frequently used word of Beijing propaganda—“harmony.” Beijing leaders
also use “harmonious society” against political dissidents by accusing them of creating “chaos”
and destroying the “harmonious society” (Cheek 2006).
In their joint submission to the LegCo for the special meeting on the DVO, the Society
for Truth and Light (STL) and Hong Kong Sex Culture Society (HKSCS)—both of which were
considered as right-wing Christian organizations (Cheung, 2009)—mobilized “harmony” and
“China” to state the importance of the one-husband-one-wife marriage and family (The Society
for Truth and Light & Hong Kong Sex Culture Society, 10 January 2009) (S1, Appendix I),
Now Hong Kong is part of China. Although speaking from the system, it is [under] “One
Country, Two Systems,” we cannot ignore the overall harmonious [emphasis added] and
mutual beneficial relationship between Hong Kong and China, both culturally and
institutionally. China also accepts one-husband-one-wife [marriage institution] (一夫一
妻制). Although in the past both Hong Kong and China [emphasis added] also had the
possibility of qie (妾) and bi (婢)viii
, it was the privilege of high officials and upper-class
and was not usual among the general population. As China and Hong Kong are on their
way to modernization, [both of them] abolished the system of qie and bi. As a result, one-
husband-one-wife is already the consensus between China and Hong Kong. If Hong
Kong changes this carelessly, it is inevitable to bring some impacts to China.
21. Wat 21
Since STL and HKSCS mentioned “One Country, Two Systems,” the “China” was the party-
state, the PRC (1949- ). In the first three sentences of the above quotation, “China” was the
“PRC” (1911-1949); however, in the middle of the paragraph (the “China” in italic), it slipped
back to time before 1931, when concubinage became illegal under the Civil Code of the
Republic of China (ROC) (The Legislative Yuan of Republic of China, 2011). A transition back
to the PRC occurred when the authors treated Hong Kong and “China” as two separate entities in
the last few sentences. STL and HKSCS also suggested that any “careless change” in the
marriage institution in Hong Kong would impact the “harmonious and mutual beneficial
relationship” between Hong Kong and the PRC.
The notion of “timeless China” was to some extent marginal in the above quote.
However, “China” can be understood as “timeless” in the way that “China” referred to two
political entities that existed in two different periods of time. The Republic of China exercised
administration in mainland China from 1911 to 1949 while the RPC is the current political entity
that has been established since 1949. The “China” could refer to any period of time in Chinese
history; only this time the time range did not span several thousand years but one hundred years.
Another submission by the Parents for the Family Association (PFA) had similar
reasoning as STL and HKSCS but was more specific about what they were worried about
(Parents for the Family Association, 10 January 2009) (S1, Appendix I),
Hong Kong as a part of China, although it is [under] “One Country, Two Systems,” the
connections between China and Hong Kong are becoming stronger and stronger, not only
economically but also in family and culture; [we are] also connected through blood (血脈
相連). Currently, the society in China also has one-husband-one-wife marriage as the
foundation of the marriage institution. If Hong Kong acts carelessly on maintaining and
safeguarding the one-husband-one-wife [marriage] institution, it is inevitable to bring
impacts to Hong Kong and China. For example, if same-sex marriage is allowed through
legal precedence by some judges who are sympathetic with same-sex couples, then there
must be many ziyouxing (自由行) man and man, woman and woman, who will come to
Hong Kong to get married. This obviously will destroy the marriage institution of Hong
Kong and also bring troubles and turbulence to the motherland.
22. Wat 22
First, the PFA held a biological perspective toward the relationship between Hong Kong and the
PRC—they were connected through blood and vain. Second, what really at stake to the PFA, was
not only morality but also economy. Ziyouxing referred to tourists through Individual Visit
Scheme (IVS), which was launched by Beijing and the Hong Kong government as an effort to
revitalize the economy of Hong Kong after the epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
(SARS)ix
. Before the IVS, mainland Chinese tourists could not visit Hong Kong individually but
had to visit via package tours (Yeung, Lee, & Kee, 2008). The IVS still requires mainland
tourists to apply for visas to travel to Hong Kong (there is a border-control between the PRC and
Hong Kong). The IVS boosted the total number of tourists visiting Hong Kong from 15,536,800
in 2003 to 28,169,300 in 2007. As of 2007, about 55% of total tourists to Hong Kong were from
mainland (Yeung, Lee, & Kee, 2008). Tourism is one of the key industries of Hong Kong,
constituting about 3% of the total gross domestic product (GDP), which was about US$5.7
billion in 2006(Yeung, Lee, & Kee, 2008). The PFA was worried that if Hong Kong legally
recognized same-sex marriage, a lot of mainland same-sex couples would come to Hong Kong to
get married. The PFA assumed that this would be troublesome for the PRC. Based on this
assumption, a possible outcome would be that Beijing would terminate or restrict the scale of the
IVS, which would have a strong negative impact on the tourism and economy of Hong Kong.
“China” in Pro-Reform Rhetoric
The ways in which the pro-reform side can deploy “China” was rather restrained. There
were two major ways the pro-side use “China” to claim legitimacy for their claims. First, when
pro-side mentioned “China” in their argument, it was a response to the way in which the timeless
cultural China was deployed in an ambiguous way by the anti-reform side. Second, the pro-
reform side used China as the current political China—the PRC—in a different way than the
anti-reform side. The pro-reform activists indirectly invoked “China” by citing the mini-
23. Wat 23
constitution of Hong Kong—the Basic Law. The coalition between the pro-reform side and the
pro-democracy camp seems to restrain pro-reform activists from deploying the current political
China the way the anti-reform side did.
(1) Deploying “China” in Response to Anti-Reform Activists’ Argument
The deployment of “China” by Hong Kong LGBT activists was mostly in response to
arguments by Hong Kong right-wing Christians. As early as 2005, there were rumors that the
Hong Kong government would consider introducing a bill of Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Ordinance (SODO) to the LegCo, which would make discrimination based on sexual orientation
illegal. Hong Kong right-wing Christians opposed such bill. One of the major rationales they
based on to oppose such bill was the “Chinese society” argument (The Society for Truth and
Light, 8 March 2005) (S2, Appendix I),
Due to the cultural difference between China and the West, Chinese value family more
while the West values the public sphere more. As a result, the West usually handles
personal issues through legislation. However, it requires more discussions to decide
whether this way [of handling issues] is applicable to Chinese society.
In their argument, right-wing Christians suggested that legislation against discrimination based
on sexual orientation as a “Western” way of managing affairs, which might not be suitable to
Hong Kong, a Chinese society. Although this argument might be difficult to follow, it contained
a framework in which “Chinese society” is different from the “West.” Right-wing Christians
used this difference to oppose the potential legislation. An LGBT activist, Joseph Cho responded
(Cho, 2006) (S4, Appendix I),
The Society for Truth and Light and the Hong Kong Alliance for Family often mobilize
concepts that do not contain very specific meanings, such as “traditional Chinese culture”
and “Chinese society,” to oppose legislation against discrimination based on sexual
orientation or same-sex marriage. However, they have never explained precisely to which
period of the long Chinese history “traditional Chinese culture” refers. […] If the Society
for Truth and Light and Hong Kong Alliance for Family truly believe in and defend
24. Wat 24
“traditional Chinese culture,” they should propose to restore to the old system and
embody the “morality” of “traditional Chinese culture.” I had asked Chi-Sum Choi (蔡志
森) whether he would be willing to see the implementation of [a marriage system of]
“one husband-one wife-many concubines.” Choi replied that he would only choose the
virtue of “Chinese traditional culture.”
“The Society for Truth and Light” (STL) and the “Hong Kong Alliance for Family” (HKAF) are
two major righ-wing Christian organizations in Hong Kong. The LGBT activists, Cho,
challenged right-wing Christians’ generalized and ambiguous usage of “traditional Chinese
culture.” Cho responded to the anti-gay argument by pinpointing to one particular practice of
“Chinese tradition”—the marriage institution of “one husband-one wife-many concubines”—
which many people in Hong Kong may not consider as an acceptable marriage institution. LGBT
activists attempted to delegitimize the “Chinese culture” argument by right-wing Christians by
questioning the particularity of the argument by right-wing Christians.
In the debates on the two bills of the DVO, anti-reform activists, the majority of which
was right-wing Christians, also used similar “Chinese culture” argument. A pro-democratic
Legislative Councillor, Dr. Margaret Ng, also responded to such argument by using the
particularity of “Chinese culture” (original English text from the LegCo official meeting minutes)
(The Legislative Council of HKSAR 16 December 2009, p. 3415) (S1, Appendix I),
Our marriage law was drawn up during the colonial era on the basis of European
Christian matrimonial concepts. It is not based on the traditional Chinese concept of the
family, under which outside of a husband and a wife, there can also be some concubines.
The particular detail of Chinese family exposed the historical inaccuracy in the arguments by
anti-reform activists. LGBT activists did not pro-actively deploy “China” to claim legitimacy or
authority for their arguments. Rather, they pointed out that absurdity and over-generalization of
statements on “Chinese culture” made by the anti-reform side.
25. Wat 25
(2) The Basic Law and Human Right—Deploying PRC Indirectly and the Implicit Opposition to
the PRC— in Pro-Reform Rhetoric
Although the pro-reform side only deployed “China” reactively to claims made by the
anti-side, they did claim the state indirectly by citing human right, which is safeguarded by the
Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The Basic Law is the
mini-constitution of HKSAR, which is only effective in HK but not in mainland China. Before
the sovereignty transfer, there was a widespread fear among HK residents of the prospect of
becoming part of the PRC. HK residents were especially concerned about human rights,
democracy, and freedom after the sovereignty transfer (Chan 1991). The Basic Law was a
product of years of negotiation between governments of the UK and the PRC to alleviate the
anxiety of HK residents. As such, the Basic Law is the promise of the new state—the PRC—to
HK residents.
In the submission by the Amnesty International Hong Kong to the Legislative Council on
the second bill of the DVO, it states (Amnesty International Hong Kong, 10 January 2009)
(original document is in English) (S1, Appendix I),
With this affirmation, we would like to remind the Government that singling out same
sex couples to exclude them from the protection offered by the current Domestic
Violence Ordinance would be a violation of International Law and the Basic Law.
According to Article 25 of the Basic Law, "All Hong Kong residents shall be equal
before the law." After the amendment of the Domestic Violence Ordinance in the
previous Legislative Council session, the current law now covers opposite sex cohabiting
couples as well as persons falling within a list of relationships. To cover only cohabiting
or former cohabiting opposite sex couples and not same sex cohabiting couples would be
a clear violation of Article 25 of the Basic Law.
In this submission, the Amnesty International Hong Kong invoked a specific article of the Basic
Law to support their argument. This stood in stark contrast to the generalized and ambiguous
usage of “Chinese culture and traditions” by the anti-reform side. Although the Amnesty
International Hong Kong did not directly claim the state—the PRC— for legitimacy, citing the
Basic Law was an indirect claim of the state.
26. Wat 26
Another submission by the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor discussed the Basic Law
and human right side by side (Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, 10 January 2009) (original
English text) (S1, Appendix I),
As required under Art. 26 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights] and Art. 25 of the Basic Law, all persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation
are equal before the law and shall be so protected without distinction. [……] Furthermore,
domestic violence impairs the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all including
the right to life, the right not to be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman[e] or degrading
treatment or punishment, the right to equality, etc.
The Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor first states that every individual should be protected
from domestic violence equally under the Basic Law. Furthermore, such provision is a form of
human rights.
Another submission by an organization, Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), reveals some
tension between the claim of human rights and the PRC. Member organizations of CHRF include
several pro-democracy political parties, human rights organizations, women’s movement
organizations, labor unions, LGBT organizations, etc. In the submission, it states,
66 countries signed a ground breaking document at the head-quarter of the United
Nations (UN) in New York. These countries reiterated the general principle of human
rights as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—every individual,
regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—should be entitled to basic human
rights. These countries also advocate for the elimination of discrimination based on the
ground of sexual orientation or gender identity. [……] Therefore, the CHRF hopes:
[……][the Legislative Council] promises to pass the Bill of 2009 Domestic Violence
(Amendment) Ordinance so that same-sex cohabiting partners can receive the same
protection soon.
The CHRF cites international convention and standard on human rights to urge the HK
government to pass the amendment bill of the DVO. The CHRK, some of the major members of
which are pro-democratic parties, did not claim “China”—the PRC— directly may be due to
their political rivalry with Beijing. Instead, the CHRF used the Basic Law and international law
to support their argument. They cited international laws and made claim of human rights, which
are widely understood as a “universal” standard. In addition, reference to the Basic Law, which
27. Wat 27
one can interpret as an indirect claim of the PRC as a source of legitimacy, situates “China”
firmly into the current political China—the PRC. This stands in stark contrast with the timeless
China deployed by the anti-reform side in the debate.
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper shows that the differential access to political opportunities by the pro- and
anti-reform enables and also restrains how they were able to use “China” to claim legitimacy for
their argument. After the sovereignty transfer, the PRC became the dominant political power in
Hong Kong. The Chief Executive, the highest administrative officer of Hong Kong, is de facto
appointed by Beijing and the majority of the Legislative Council (LegCo) is almost guaranteed to
be pro-Beijing (Scott, 2000). There are anxiety and tension on Beijing’s interference into the
autonomy of Hong Kong. Hong Kong right-wing Christians utilized the hegemony of the PRC
and the political tension to their advantage to exclude same-sex cohabiters from the protection
offered by the DVO. For some other people, the issue at stake in the DVO was not “morality”
but the economic prospect of Hong Kong, which largely depended on the PRC. Peculiarly, the
Beijing government had never publicly laid a word on the second amendment of the DVO. This
implied that the Beijing was indifferent to the amendment. Some anti-reform activists took
people’s concern on economy to their advantage—the general public of Hong Kong knew
tourists from mainland China, whose consumption and spending helped the economy of Hong
Kong to recover after the SARS epidemic and have contributed to the tourism of Hong Kong
ever since.
On the other hand, the pro-reform side did not take advantages of the hegemony of the
PRC in Hong Kong after the sovereignty transfer. To some extent, the collaboration between
LGBT activists and the pro-democracy camp might have prevented them from claim “China” as
a source of legitimacy. The political antagonism between the CHRF and the pro-Beijing camp as
28. Wat 28
well as the PRC’s lack of reputation in ensuring its citizens’ entitlement to human rights
implicates such the claim of human rights in a position opposite to the PRC. Furthermore,
although the Basic Law has specific articles that outline the implementation of policies that will
further secure the residents’ entitlement to basic human rights after the sovereignty transfer, the
Beijing government has consistently delayed to propose related legal bills. Therefore, the
deployment of the “Basic Law” and “human rights” also implies an opposition to the PRC. The
discursive opportunities to claim “China” as a source of legitimacy are much less accessible to
the pro-reform side than for the anti-reform side.
The anti-reform side was also able to combine the old discursive opportunities from the
colonial era with the new discursive opportunities. All three discourses—the timeless China, the
moral China, and the political China—can be combined seamlessly because all of them are
anchored by the word “China.” Also shown in the result section, these three different types of
“China” can be put together into different combinations. Sometimes the “timeless China” is
coupled with the “moral China;” sometimes the “timeless China” is coupled with the political
hegemonic China. When combined, these three different types of “China” strengthen each other
and thus the persuasive power of the anti-reform argument. Different combinations of “China”
make the anti-reform’s side claims seems natural, culturally familiar, as well as contains the
notion of political hegemony. This can create a great degree of cultural resonance among the
intended audience. While the anti-reform side mobilized the timeless and moral “China” to
suggest that homosexuality was against “Chinese culture” and “Chinese tradition,” the pro-
reform side pointed out the inaccuracy of historical accounts of the timeless China and also
situated “China” in the current political entity—the PRC. Although the political alliance between
the pro-reform side and the pro-democracy camp restrains the former from taking the political
and economic hegemony of the PRC to their advantage, the argument by the pro-reform side was
29. Wat 29
a response that pin-pointed to the ambiguous usage of “China” by the anti-reform side to
disentangle the seamless combination of “China” by the pro-reform side.
This paper contributes to the existing literature in two major ways. First, in addition to
what existing literature has shown how political and discursive opportunities as two separate
systems jointly influence what kind of claims activists can use, this paper suggests political
opportunities also affect what discursive opportunities are available to activists. Second, this
paper shows how differential accesses to political opportunities by two opposing movements
shape what types of rhetoric the two sides can make to claim legitimacy for their arguments. In
addition to being enabled and constrained by the political and discursive opportunities, activists
also made arguments in response to the ones made by the opposite side.
30. Wat 30
References Cited
Alexander, M. J. (1994). Not Just (Any)body Can Be A Citizen - The Politics Of Law, Sexuality
And Postcoloniality In Trinida-And-Toboga And The Bahamas. Feminist Review(48), 5-
23.
Altman, Dennis. 1997. "Global gaze global gays." Glq-a Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies
3:417-436.
Amenta, E., & Zylan, Y. (1991). It Happened Here: Political Opportunity, the New
Institutionalism, and the Townsend Movement. . American Sociological Review, 56(4),
250-265.
Amnesty International Hong Kong. (10 January 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment
to the Domestic Violence Ordinance from Amnesty International (Hong Kong)
Retrieved February 28, 2014, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search~S10?/aamnesty+international/aamnesty+internati
onal/1%2C6%2C36%2CB/frameset&FF=aamnesty+international+hong+kong&24%2C%
2C31
Anderson, B. (2006[1983]). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism New York: Verso.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview
and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Berstein, Mary. 2002. "Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian
and Gay Movement." Social Science History 26:531-81.
Boellstorff, T. (2004). The emergence of political homophobia in Indonesia: Masculinity and
national belonging. Ethnos, 69(4), 465-486.
Bröer, Christian and Jan Willem Duyvendak. 2009. "Discursive opportunities, feeling rules, and
the rise of protests against aircraft noise." Mobilization: An International Quarterly
14:337–356
Brouwer, Steve, Paul Gifford, and Susan D. Rose. 1996. Exporting the American Gospel: Global
Christian Fundamentalism. New York and London: Routledge.
Chan, Ming K. and David J. Clark. 1991. Hong Kong Basic Law: Blueprint for Stability and
Prosperity Under Chinese Sovereignty? Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Chen, T. M. (2003). Female icons, feminist iconography? Socialist rhetoric and women's agency
in 1950s China. Gender & History, 15(268-95).
Cheung, D. K. T. (2009). Too Bright: An Insider's Discourse of the Society for Turth and Light.
(In Chinese) Hong Kong: dirty-press.
31. Wat 31
Cho, J. (2006). 明光聖戰 (THe Crusade of the Truth and Light) Retrieved 26 April, 2011, from
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/170351
Chou, W.-S. (2009). Tongzhi: Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies. New York
and London: Routledge.
Civil Human Rights Front. (2011). 成員團體 (Member Organizations) Retrieved July 9th, 2011,
from http://www.civilhrfront.org/member.php
Currier, A. (2010). Political Homophobia In Postcolonial Namibia. Gender & Society, 24(1),
110-129.
———. (2012). The Aftermath of Decolonization: Gender and Sexual Dissidence in
Postindependence Namibia. Signs, 37(2), 441-467.
Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the
United States. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Durham, Martin. 2000. The Christian right: the far right and the boundaries of American
conservatism. Manchester and New York: University of Manchester Press.
Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities. American
Political Science Review, 67(11-28).
Fetner, Tina. 2008. How the Religious Right Shaped Lesbian and Gay Activism Minneapolis:
University Minnesota Press.
Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neoliberal
governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29(4), 981-1002.
Ferree, M. M. (2003). Resonance and Radialism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of
the United States and Germany. The American Journal of Sociology, 109(2), 304-344.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping Abortion Discourse:
Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W. A. (1990). The Strategy of Social Protest (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
———. (1992). Talking Politics. . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
———. (2004). Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H.
Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 242-261). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Gao, M. S. (2003). 唐代身分法制研究－以唐律名例律為中心 (Tangdai shenfen fazhi yanjiu --
yi tanglǜ minglilǜ wei zhongxin) Taipei, Taiwan: 五南圖書出版有限公司 (Wu-Nan
Book, Inc.).
32. Wat 32
Giugni, M., Koopmans, R., Passy, F., & Statham, P. (2005). Institutional and discursive
opportunities for extreme-right mobilization in five countries. Mobilization: An
International Quarterly, 10(1), 145–162
Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: the Structural Bias of
Political Process Theory. Sociologial Forum, 14(1), 27-54.
Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The Rise and Fall of Social Problems. American Journal of
Sociology, 94(53-78).
Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. (10 January 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment
to the Domestic Violence Ordinance from Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. Retrieved
28 February 2014, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search~S10/?searchtype=g&searcharg=CB%282%29635
%2F08-
09%2807%29&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg
=aamnesty+international
Huang, P. C. (2002). Code, Custom, and Legal Practice in China: The Qing and the Republic
Compared Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jennings, R. (2007). A Lesbian History of Britain: Love and Sex Between Women Since 1500
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Kingdom Rivival Times (HK). (9 January 2009). 東北遼寧興建亞洲首個聖經主題公園
(Building the first Asian Bible theme park in the Northeast Liaoning) Retrieved 11 July,
2011, from http://www.krt.com.hk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5687
Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political Opportunity Structures and Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in
Four Democracies. . British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57-85.
Kollman, Kelly and Matthew Waites. 2009. "The global politics of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender human rights: an introduction." Contemporary Politics 15:1-17.
Kong, T. S. K. (2010). Chinese Homosexualities: Memba, Tongzhi and Golden Boy. Florence,
KY, USA: Routledge.
Koopmans, R., & Muis, J. (2009). The rise of right-wing populist Pim Fortuyn in the
Netherlands: A discursive opportunity approach. European Journal of Political Research,
48(5), 642–664
Koopmans, R., & Olzak, S. (2004). Discursive Opportunities and the Evolution of Right-Wing
Violence in Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 198–230.
Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (2000). Migration and Ethnic Relations as a Field of Political
Contention: An Opportunity Structure Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
33. Wat 33
Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J. W., & Giugni, M. G. (1995). New Social Movements in
Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Legge, J. (2005[1893]). The Chinese Classics. With a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes,
Prolegomena, and Copious Indexes: Volume 1. Confucian Analects, the Great Learning,
and the Doctrine of the Mean. New York: Adamant Media Corporation.
Leung, H. H. S. (2007). Archiving queer feelings in Hong Kong. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies,
8(4), 559-571.
Lumsden, I. (1996). Machos, Maricones, and Gays: Cuba and Homosexuality. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Ma, N. (2011). Hong Kong's Democrats Divide. Journal of Democracy, 22(1), 54-67.
Male Violent Concern Group. (23 Jaunary 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment to the
Domestic Violence Ordinance from Male Violent Concern Group. LC Paper No.
CB(2)703/08-09(07) Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/Xm%3A%28CB%282%29703%2F08-
09%2807%29%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&submit=Submit/
Xm%3A%28CB%282%29703%2F08-
09%2807%29%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&SUBKEY=m%3
A%28CB%282%29703%2F08-
09%2807%29%29/1%2C3%2C3%2CB/frameset&FF=Xm%3A%28CB%282%29703%2
F08-09%2807%29%29&SORT=D&1%2C1%2C
Manalansan, Martin F. 1995. "In the Shadows of Stonewall: Examining Gay Transnational
Politics and the Diasporic Dilemma." GLQ 2:425-38.
Massad, J. (2002). Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World. Public
Culture, 14(2), 361-385.
McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J.
D. McCarthy & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements:
Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (pp. 23-40).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCammon, H. J., Muse, C. S., Newman, H. D., & Terrell, T. M. (2007). Movement framing
and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the US women's jury
movements. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 725–749.
Meyer, David S. 2004. "Protest and Political Opportunities." Annual Review of Sociology
30:125-45.
Meyer, David and Suzanne Staggenborg. 1996. "Movements, Countermovements, and the
Structure of Political Opportunity." American Journal of Sociology 101:1628-60.
34. Wat 34
Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist apporaches and their critics. American
Political Science Review, 85(1), 77-96.
Nagel, J. (2003). Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers
Oxford University Press.
Offense Against Persons Ordinance, 1901. edited by Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Retrieved November 19, 2011, from http://www.hklii.org/eng/hk/legis/ord/212/
Olson, D. V. A. (1997). Dimensions of Cultural Tension among the American Public. In R. H.
Williams (Ed.), Cultural Wars in American Politics: Critical Reviews of a Popular Myth
(pp. 237-258). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Parents for the Family Association. (10 January 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment
to the Domestic Violence Ordinance from Parents for the Family Association. LC Paper
No. CB(2)559/08-09(02) Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/?searchtype=X&searcharg=CB%282%29559%2F
08-
09%2802%29&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg
=Xm%3A%28CB%282%29559%2F08-09%2802%29%29
Pedriana, Nicholas. 2009. "Intimate Equality: The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Movement's Legal Framing of Sodomy Laws in the Lawrence v. Texas Case." in Queer
Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law, edited by S. Barclay, M. Berstein, and
A.-M. Marshall. New York: New York University Press.
Peña, S. (2005). Visibility and Silence: Mariel and Cuban American Gay Male Experiences and
Representation. In E. Luibhéid & L. Cantú (Eds.), Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S.
Citizenship, and Border Crossings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Polletta, F. (2000). The structural context of novel rights claims: Southern civil rights organizing,
1961-1966. Law and Society Review, 367-406.
Rochon, T. R., & Meyer, D. S. (1997). Coalitions and political movements. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Sainsbury, D. (2004). Women's political representation in Sweden: Discursive politics and
institutional presence. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(1), 65-87.
Samshasha. (1984 [1997]). 中國同性戀史錄 (History of Homosexuality in China). Hong Kong:
Pink Triangle.
Scott, I. (2000). The Disarticulation of Hong Kong's Post-Handover Political System. The China
Journal, 43(29-53).
Seidman, Steven. 1993. "Identity and Politics in a 'Postmodern' Gay Culture: Some Historical
and Conceptual Notes." Pp. 105-42 in Fear of a Queer Planet, edited by M. Warner.
Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis.
35. Wat 35
Sexual Offenses Act 1967. edited by Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved November 19,
2011, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/60
Shatin Swatow Baptist Church. (10 January 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment to
the Domestic Violence Ordinance from Shatin Swatow Baptist Church. LC Paper No.
CB(2)624/08-09(04) Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/Xm%3A%28CB%282%29624%2F08-
09%2804%29%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&submit=Submit/
Xm%3A%28CB%282%29624%2F08-
09%2804%29%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&SUBKEY=m%3
A%28CB%282%29624%2F08-
09%2804%29%29/1%2C2%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=Xm%3A%28CB%282%29624%2
F08-09%2804%29%29&SORT=D&2%2C2%2C
Smith, Miriam. 1999. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-
Seeking, 1971-1995. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Snow, D., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.
In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi & S. Tarrow (Eds.), Structure to Action: Comparing Social
Movement Research across Cultures. (pp. 197-217). Greenwich, CT: Jai Pr.
Staggenborg, S. (2008). Theories of Social Movements and Collective Action. In S. Staggenborg
(Ed.), Social Movements (pp. 11-25). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Verta. 1996. Rock-a-by Baby: Feminism, Self Help, and Pospartum Depression. New
York: Routledge.
The Alliance for the Reform of Domestic Violence Ordinance. (2007). For Justice, Equality and
Harmony: Proposal on Reform of the Domestic Violence Ordinance (公義,平等,和諧: 家
庭暴力條例修訂建議書 2007) Retrieved July 28, 2011, from
http://aaf.org.hk/files/publication/DVO_proposal2007.pdf
The Legislative Council of HKSAR. (18 June 2008). Official Record of Proceedings Retrieved
November 19, 2011, from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-
08/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0618-translate-e.pdf
The Legislative Council of HKSAR. (16 December 2009). Official Record of Proceedings.
Hong Kong: Retrieved from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-
10/english/counmtg/hansard/cm0421-translate-e.pdf.
The Legislative Yuan of Republic of China. (2011). 民法親屬編施行法 (The Enactment of the
Civil Code) Retrieved August 2, 2011, from
http://lis.ly.gov.tw/lgcgi/lglaw?@65:1804289383:f:NO%3DE04514*%20OR%20NO%3
DB04514$$10$$$NO-PD
36. Wat 36
The Public Opinion Programme. (2009). The July1 Rally Headcounting Project Retrieved 3
June, 2010, from http://hkupop.hku.hk/chinese/features/july1/headcount/2009/index.html
The Society for Truth and Light. (8 March 2005). 大部份香港市民對同性戀行為保留 並反對
政府就性傾向歧視立法 (Most Hong Kong Residents Have Reservations for Same-Sex
Sexual Behaviors and Oppose the Government to Introduce Legislation in Regard to
Sexual Orientation Discrimination) Retrieved 20 November 2013, from
http://www.truth-light.org.hk/statement/title/n2804
The Society for Truth and Light, & Hong Kong Sex Culture Society. (10 January 2009). Joint
submission on the proposed amendment to the Domestic Violence Ordinance from the
Society for Truth and Light and Hong Kong Sex Culture Society. LC Paper No.
CB(2)635/08-09(04) Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/?searchtype=X&searcharg=CB%282%29635%2F
08-
09%2804%29&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg
=Xm%3A%28CB%282%29635%2F08-09%2804%29%29%26SORT%3DD
Thinking Academy. (23 January 2009). Submission on the proposed amendment to the Domestic
Violence Ordinance from Thinking Academy. LC Paper No. CB(2)703/08-09(05)
Retrieved November 19, 2011, from
http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/?searchtype=X&searcharg=CB%282%29703%2F
08-
09%2805%29&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg
=XCB%282%29635%2F08-09%2804%29%26SORT%3DD
Tilly, C. (1995). Popular Contention in Great Britain. 1758–1834. . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Yeung, Y.-m., Lee, J., & Kee, G. (2008). Hong Kong and Macao under Chinese Sovereignty.
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49(3), 304-325.
Young, W. Y. (2010). The Birth of the Christian Pro-Beijing Camp (基督教保皇黨的誕生). In
L. W. Sang & L. Y. Kung (Eds.), Religious Right (宗教右派). Hong Kong Dirty Press.
Williams, Rhys H. 2005. "The Cultural Contexts of Collective Action: Constraints, Opportunities,
and the Symbolic Life of Social Movements." Pp. 91-115 in The Blackwell Companion
of Social Movements, edited by D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
37. Wat 37
Appendix I
List of Archives of Content Analysis
Abbreviation
Chinese
Name
English
Name Brief Description
Number
of
Articles Time Range URL Link
S1
Meeting
Minutes and
Submissions
to the LegCo
LegCo meeting
minutes on DVO
and Hong Kong
residents written
opinions on DVO
to the LegCo 406 2008-2009 http://legco.gov.hk/
S2 明光社
On-Line
Archive of
The Society
for Truth
and Light
One of the most
vocal and high-
profile right-wing
Christian
organizations that
opposes legal
protection and
rights for LGBT
individuals in
Hong Kong 28 2004-2009
http://www.truth-
light.org.hk/
S3
基督
日報
Gospel
Herald
On-Line
Christian
Newspaper 16 2004-2009
http://www.gospelheral
d.com
S4
獨立
媒體 inmediahk
Hong Kong On-
Line independent
media. 13 2004-2009
http://www.inmediahk.
net/
S5 明報 Ming Pao
Considered to be
the most credible
Chinese
newspaper in
Hong Kong 26 2004-2009
http://premium.mingpa
o.com/
i
I do not discuss the application to the case of Germany because the U.S. case can illustrate the empirical
application of the discursive opportunity structure.
ii
I illustrate this study in details to provide a concrete example of the application of the discursive opportunity
structure.
iii
“Right-wing” refers to Protestant conservatism on person-moral issues since HK right-wing Christians have
expressed little concern about economy-justice issues. According to Olson (1997), in the context of the US, there
can be two-dimensions of liberalism (left) and conservatism (right)—the degree of regulation on personal-moral
issues (by state/church) and economical-justice issues (by state). Personal-moral issues include issues such as
sexuality, gender roles, and free speech; economic-justice issues refers to whether or not a state should, to some
degree, redistribute wealth in order to reach equity and social justice. In the US, according to Olson, “right” refers to
people who support more regulations on person-moral issues, but not on economy-justice issues, while “left” refers
to people who support more regulations on economy-justice issues, but not on personal-moral issues.
38. Wat 38
iv
The theme of 2005 July-1st
Rally was “Oppose government collusion, strive for universal suffrage.” About 22,000
people participated in the demonstration in 2005 (The Public Opinion Programme, 2009).
v
Debates on legal protection on sexual minorities such as legislation against discrimination based on the ground on
sexual orientation are ongoing in Hong Kong. Inclusion of analysis of these debates could allow me to analyze how
discourses on homosexuality change over time after the handover. However, it will be beyond the scope of the
practicum paper.
vi
The number of submissions in the table in Appendix I include submissions by the general public, whom I cannot
identify whether they associated with HK right-wing Christians or the LGBT activists. However, I can for certain
identify submissions written by HK right-wing Christians because names of Christian churches and Christian
organizations were recorded on the submission. The same applies to submissions written by LGBT organizations
and activists. In my data analysis, I will only include submissions that I can for certain identify the source.
vii
This is the translation by James Legge (2005[1893], p. 29). The original Chinese text is “修身, 齊家, 治國, 平天
下” (the author of the submission mixed up two words). This is a quotation from the Great Learning (大學), which
is one of the chapters in the Record of Rites (禮記), which is one of the Five Classics (禮記) of the Confucian canon
(Legge, 2005[1893]). According to the Great Learning, there are seven steps to reach to the tranquilization of the
kingdom—the investigation of things, the completion of knowledge, the sincerity of thoughts, the rectifying of the
heart, the cultivation of the person, the regulation of the family, and the government of the State (格物, 至知, 誠意,
正心, 修身, 齊家, 治國) (Legge, 2005[1893], p. 29).
viii
I do not know to which period of Chinese history STL and HKSCS referred. I guess they might have been
referring to a very general concept of qie and bi—both were concubines and socially recognized by the family and
by the wife. People practiced concubinage, which was legal in many dynasties. For example, concubinage was legal
and socially accepted at least in Tang Dynasty (AD618-907), Ming Dynasty (AD1638-1644), and Qing Dynasty
(AD1644-1911) (Gao, 2003; Huang, 2002).
ix
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) was an epidemic first started in Guangdong province, China, and
then spread to Hong Kong and 26 other countries within weeks (Wang & Jolly 2004). There were a total of 1755
known cases and 299 deaths within 3 months and a half in Hong Kong (WHO 2004).
