International Law

Concerned Korean Scientists Beat Back Mandatory Homosexuality and Multi-Culti B.S.

UPDATE 11/20 11:00 A.M.: All fun aside, Korea’s first Anti-Discrimination Act is an important step toward a fairer society that can include not only all persons of Korean descent who are heterosexual (or closeted) and in good health, but also gay and lesbian Koreans, foreigners, immigrants, and the disabled. There is a lot of brutal discrimination in society at this time, and first steps to reducing the impact are very important.

The Ministry of Justice reports to us that the bill has been withdrawn for further study and revision, and the new draft will be released to the public next Tuesday, November 27. We repeat that this law has NOT been passed by the National Assembly, and is not effective yet. MOJ predicts the revised bill will not come to a vote in the National Assembly until “March, sometime”.

Ordinarily, an important Korean statute not immediately needed by the financial industry will come into effect a year from its passing. Employment-related statutes, such as this one, frequently have two-year gaps between passage and effectiveness. Our estimate is that the soonest this law will become effective, therefore, is sometime in the spring of 2009.

Anyone wanting to stay informed on this law should watch Korea Law Blog and the Marmot’s Hole, or e-mail me (see the link to the right) to be placed on a list to receive a bulletin from Hwang Mok Park P.C.

Now back to the fun.

ORIGINAL POST:

On Wednesday the 7th, as I started finishing up our firm’s English translation of the pathbreaking Anti-Discrimination Act (a provisional title for a bill introduced October 2, but which hasn’t passed the National Assembly yet), the Human Rights Watch in New York City informed us that the Act was being watered down significantly in response to a petition from concerned citizens.

Predictably, the issue of sexual orientation was the primary lightning rod (heh heh, you said rod, heh heh):

The petition was spearheaded by the Assembly of Scientists Against Embryonic Cloning (Baeah-Bokjerul-Bandae-Hanun-Moim), which is directed by Professor Gill Wonpyong of Pusan University. Professor Gill has stated, “If homosexuality is allowed, the morals of our society will immediately collapse and the society will become a world of animals” (Newspower 10/23/2007)

I still remember the first time I was told “No Gay in Korea”. It was 1990. I believed it, too. How could such a definitive statement uttered so confidently by a man with his hand on my upper thigh be untrue?

But the intervening years have seen an explosion of gay in Korea capped by the emergence of Dong Bang Shin Ki (TVXQ) and Super Junior. Plus I have my suspicions about my partner Doil, who likes Westlife.

If we’re that close to Korea being a “world of animals” that a human-rights bill would cause immediate collapse, it seems these concerned scientists acted not a moment too soon. Plus, it seems the original draft of the bill was more far-reaching than I had expected:

A petition, spearheaded by an organization called the Assembly of Scientists Against Embryonic Cloning, was sent to all branches of government claiming that if the bill becomes law, “[H]omosexuals will try to seduce everyone, including adolescents; victims will be forced to become homosexuals; and sexual harassment by homosexuals will increase.” [emphasis added]

My main concern with gay marriage has previously been Why should homosexuals get to have all the sex? Make them get married too! I thought live and let live would be a good principle. But now that homosexuality is going to be mandatory for everyone, I’m concerned. Very concerned.

See, I haven’t kissed a dude since I got out of the Navy, except for that one New Year’s Eve party in law school. But I did that as a joke, and it was my choice. My Dad did kiss me on the lips in front of all those other recruits when he said goodbye to me at the Navy recruit depot, but that was just to embarrass and humiliate his son one last time.

Mandatory gayness is no joke! Yes, we’ll all dress more stylishly, live in better-decorated apartments, and have fabulous haircuts with the appropriate amount of product, but still… I just think it may be too late for me to pick up new skills. Thanks, Assembly of Scientists Against Embryonic Cloning! You’ve saved all our bacon.

The draft legislation first announced on October 2, 2007 by the Ministry of Justice included sexual orientation along with a range of other categories as prohibited grounds for discrimination.

But according to Democratic Labor Party officials and news reports, the original version of the law we broke our backs translating was changed to exclude protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, military status, nationality, language, appearance, family type, ideology, criminal or detention record, and educational status.

My associates and I have been busy for the last two weeks, and haven’t yet dug up a copy of the new version of this statute. So we haven’t yet confirmed that all of these protected statuses have been removed from the scope of protections in the Act.

Anyway, we busted our humps to produce a good translation so you’ll have to bear with me. All the good stuff relevant to this post is in the beginning of the Act in its definitions of what was to be prohibited conduct. Read it, and dream of paradise lost, homos:

Art. 2 - Definitions

Defined terms used in this Act shall have the following meanings:

1. “Gender” shall mean male, female, or any other sex which is difficult to classify as male or female.

2. “Disability” shall mean a condition in which physical and/or mental impairment or loss of function imposes considerable restrictions on the individual’s functioning or social life.

3. “Illness” shall include the following:

(a) The state in which a disease has been cured;

(b) The state in which a chronic disease is controlled through appropriate medical treatment; and

(c) The state in which a disease does not affect physical functions.

4. “Place of Origin” shall mean birthplace, place of family registration, and primary place of residence before attaining adulthood.

5. “Educational Achievement” shall mean graduation from or course completion of an educational institution prescribed in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act; completion of a course of study in an educational training institution evaluated by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development pursuant to the Act on Recognition of Credits, etc.; acquisition of a bachelor’s degree by passing an equivalency examination pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Academic Degrees through Self-Education; acquisition of academic degrees or certificates by completion of a course of study in a continuing-education institution pursuant to the Lifelong Education Act; as well as whether or not there is an academic record, graduation, or completion of a certain educational institution including grant of academic degrees pursuant to Art. 43 para. (1) and Art. 47, para. (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

6. “Sexual Orientation” shall mean heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.

7. “Educational Institution” shall mean a nursery school according to the Article 6 of the Infant Care Act; any school pursuant to Art. 2, para. (2) of the Early Childhood Education Act, Art. 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Art. 2 of the Higher Education Act; continuing-education institution pursuant to Art. 2, para. (3) of the Lifelong Education Act; educational training institution evaluated by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development pursuant to the Act on Recognition of Credits, etc.; vocational education and training institution pursuant to Art. 2 of the Vocational Education and Training Promotion Act; and/or any other institution provided by the Presidential Enforcement Decree to this Act.

8. “Harassment” shall mean any or all acts causing physical pain, mental anguish, fear, sense of shame or insult to individuals or groups.

9. “Advertisement” shall mean any indication or advertisement defined in the Act on Fair Indication and Advertisement, Art. 2, paras. (1) and (2).

10. “Employer” shall mean a business proprietor, chief executive or any individual working on behalf of a business proprietor with respect to matters regarding employees.

Article 3 - Scope of Prohibited Discrimination

(1) Discrimination prohibited under this Act (hereinafter, “Discrimination") shall mean any unjustifiable act of separating, distinguishing, limiting, excluding or unfavorably treating an individual or group for reason of Gender, Disability, age, nationality of origin, race of origin, racial group, skin color, language, Place of Origin, Illness, physical condition (including appearance), marital status, pregnancy or childbirth, family type or situation, religion, ideology or political opinion, criminal record or record of institutionalization, Sexual Orientation, Educational Achievement, social status or the like (hereinafter, “Protected Status") in any area falling under the following subparagraphs:

1. Employment (including recruitment, hiring, training, posting, advancement, promotion, payment of salary and other valuables in lieu thereof, provision of company loan, age limit, retirement, dismissal and the like);

2. Provision or use of goods or services;

3. Education and vocational training at an educational institution; and

4. Execution of statutes and policies.

(2) Cases where a certain group or individual are unfavorably impacted without justifiable reason, even where neutral standards have been applied, shall be deemed Discrimination.

(3) Harassment due to Gender, Disability, racial group, skin color, nationality of origin, race of origin, skin color and/or Sexual Orientation shall be deemed Discrimination.

(4) Advertisements indicating or promoting separation, distinction, limitation, exclusion or unfavorable treatment of a certain individual or group shall be deemed Discrimination prohibited under this Act.

These definitions are extremely far-reaching, and added some categories—Educational Institution, and Educational Achievement—which hadn’t heretofore been included in Western concepts of anti-discrimination. I wasn’t at all sure how these could be implemented in fact, given Korea’s education mania.

But what’s this? Nationality, language and appearance (i.e. racial discrimination), family type (i.e. continuing to harass single-parent families and their children) and military service (i.e. gender discrimination against women, who aren’t drafted) are all back in the mix? Wait a minute. What kind of anti-discrimination measures are left? Kicking the homos is all well and good, but this looks like it falls on me.

We’ll follow this again as the revised bill gets released to the public.

Full post as published by Korea Law Blog on November 18, 2007 (boomark / email).