Out & About

Sutthirat ‘Mod’ Simsiriwong, local brand manager for a French cosmetics firm, shows her national indentification. A transsexual, she was refused entry into the CM2 nightclub at the Novotel Siam because her ID lists her as ‘Mr’.

Perhaps we should all thank the Novotel Siam hotel for the small miracle that sexual diversity is recognised in the constitution draft. Not long ago, the charter's drafting committee overwhelmingly voted down non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Then the hotel's refusal to admit Sutthirat "Mod" Simsiriwong - for whatever reasons - to its Concept CM2 club brought other cases of such discrimination to the surface and turned an abstract debate into an undeniable reality looking at the committee in the face.

But, of course, the real heroes are the Human Rights Commission and the brotherhood of gays, lesbians and transgenders who devoted enormous efforts into this hard-fought campaign. Even if it had failed, such across-the-board cooperation is still historic.

However, it's still important to look at the argument that defeated the issue before the CM2 incident changed matters at the 11th hour. Who knows when we will have to fight this battle again? Indeed, the draft must be approved in a referendum.

While there are a few enlightened individuals on the drafting committee, there are many dissenting voices. Some thought it inappropriate to endorse the rights of homosexuals while refusing to install Buddhism as the national religion. This false analogy is based on some sort of imagined "homosexualism". The fact remains that endorsing one national religion creates inequality by definition, while gay rights are integral to human rights and equality - exactly what we need in a pluralistic society.

Others were heard saying that the constitution shouldn't encourage or promote those who behave "against nature". They might as well argue against women's rights on the reason that people would make too many baby girls, or say no to those of the disabled otherwise able-bodied people will start maiming themselves.

If human laws were slave to nature, obviously the first thing to go wouldn't be gay rights, but democracy itself or any form of government for that matter.

Then they might as well throw out the sick, the unemployed, the handicapped, the elderly and children into the street to fend for themselves, as healthcare and social welfare are clearly human inventions not found in nature. And don't forget religion while we're at it.

The notion that homosexuality is "against nature" is vestige of a time when male chauvinism, racism and slavery were acceptable. Fortunately, human rights have come a long way since then. Today's nations cannot call themselves civilised, unless their laws guarantee equality for all. If the majority of our lawmakers still think homosexuals and transgenders are "less equal" than others, they are highly recommended to read the Yogyakarta Principles (www.yogyakartaprinciples.org) on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

It's crucial to debunk the myth that homosexuality is "against nature". Currently on is an exhibition in Norway which reveals how gay Mother Nature actually is, but that will have to be elaborated on next time.

AYOR  

Share idea on gay issues at ayor@nationgroup.com.