KMK: Hanopolis & Homophobia

I am  a bit late on this topic, nevertheless I thought I’d weigh in with my 100Won. Last January Hanopolis posted a piece on Korea’s decision to sign on to the UN Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. This act opened the door for gays and lesbians, persecuted in their own countries, to seek asylum in South Korea.

Hanopolis has issues with this:

But can homosexuals be refugees by the mere fact of their sexual orientation? Is there a difference between a taboo breaker and a refugee?

Korea may have opened up a Pandora’s box of unintened consequences by their misguided decision.

Misguided? I would like to point out that being a taboo breaker and a refugee are not mutually exclusive. Further, according to the legal definition of a refugee:

Main Entry: ref·u·gee
Pronunciation: "re-fyu-'jE
Function: noun

an individual seeking refuge or asylum; especially an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution or fear of persecution ( as because of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.)

I believe, Hanoplis, that gays and lesbians do indeed fit the description of being a member of a particular social group and thus are entitled to the protections therein. Your own homophobic bias against those people does not disqualify them.

The article focuses on the case of a Pakastani man’s petition for asylum in South Korea.

“My life, as a homosexual, was in danger in my country,” the plaintiff told Yonhap. “My family and relatives were my enemy. They said I was insulting my family, Islam and my country and threatened that they would report me to police,” he said.

Hanoplis goes on to state:

To be sure, sexuality is a private affair but all societies have taboos. No place on the face of the planet believes all acts of sex are equal nor do they always look the other way. Sometimes, when a taboo is broken that is deemed especially foul, they will lock you up, or even worse.

First, being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with a sex act. It’s about sexuality. You can go your entire life and never once have an intimate act with anyone and still be gay or lesbian. Hanoplis goes even further with a patronizing display of hubris that’s so egregious that my temper flared while reading.

Was the Pakistani man ignorant of native mores? Was he not aware that his society considered homosexuality taboo?

While we don’t wish the man any harm, it seems a stretch to us, to say the least, to grant a gay person asylum simply because his native society refuses to accept his lifestyle. Ultimately, his decision was his alone as a native member of his society cognizant of its mores and rules. At some juncture, personal responsibility needs to come into play.

There are some societies which practice FGM (female genital mutilation) for women. I suppose that while Hanoplis may not wish harm upon a woman from such a country it may seem a stretch for them for them to grant asylum simply because her native society does not accept her refusal to adhere to their customs and practices. Ultimately, her decision is hers alone as a native member of  her society cognizant of its mores and rules.

I don’t know. Maybe breaking some taboos would be okay with Hanopolis while others less so. What about the taboo of free speech in China? Would breaking that disqualify Chinese activitst from asylum due to their speaking out against the government? Perhaps Hanopolis needs a more palatable taboo for them to consider a plea from a refugee.

Hanoplis has no regard or conception of individual rights. The group, society, has no authority to impose itself on an individual’s freedom, self-expression or  self determination if it does not adversely impact on another individual. Thankfully, the Korean court systems proved be much more discerning and civilized.