Originally published on the CGS blog on March 15, 2016.
Last week, the Chinese government “banned all depictions of gay people on television, as part of a cultural crackdown on ‘vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content,’” one of many recent acts of censorship following the election of Xi Jinping in 2012.
Unfortunately, this is just one of many recent examples of cultural censorship by East Asian governments. In Indonesia, the government ordered “instant messaging providers…[to] remove gay emoji and stickers from their apps”; in Singapore, President Obama’s positive remarks about the LGBT community on Ellen were censored from public view.
Yet homosexuality is no longer illegal in China, nor in many of these other countries where this kind of discrimination and censorship is occurring. It is clear, then, that while the world may be trending toward legal equality, there is still much progress to be made culturally. So much of acceptance, particularly for children, comes not only from freedom, but also from representation. As one article notes:
Censoring certain content in the media presents major problems for Chinese youth and is an ultimately misguided attempt at influencing behavior. For example, the media can serve to help non-heterosexual young adults better understand their own bodies and know that what they’re experiencing is normal instead of having little to no instruction in this area.
Television also serves educational purposes and can provide a healthy template on which young gay couples can model their own relationships…What is healthier for a society: Forbidding the portrayal of activities that leaves adolescents and young adults ashamed and directionless or giving them an easily accessible way to understand both themselves and different lifestyles?
Often these countries try to justify their actions as being “sensitive to community values,” but which community are they serving? In the same article on Singapore, the author notes that when it came to hosting “openly gay American performer Adam Lambert,” the country was greatly divided:
Two fiercely competing petitions were put up online. The first accused Lambert of promoting a ‘highly sexualised lifestyle and LGBT rights,’ threatening ‘mainstream Singaporean values.’ The other, a reaction to the first, called for more ‘diverse inclusive points of view.’ Both petitions racked up tens of thousands of signatures in days. Lambert’s concert in Singapore went ahead all the same, without a hitch.
We see this same divide over “community values” even in more progressive countries like the U.S. A few months ago, ABC rejected a promo for Carol (a movie about a lesbian relationship), requesting that the trailer—which features “non-explicit nudity and the suggestion of sexual intercourse”—provide “more coverage” on the main characters. Considering the vast number of trailers portraying heteronormative couples that feature “non-explicit nudity” and implications of sexual intercourse, it is curious (let alone frustrating) to think whom these acts of censorship really benefit.
Ultimately, there is still much progress to be made around the world when it comes to just giving LGBTQ individuals basic legal rights; but these cases of censorship show that laws can become meaningless in the face of cultural exclusion. Achieving true equality is both political and cultural, something that takes time, support, but also exposure: how can the world change when the imaginings of it remain the same? We all have the right to feel that our experiences are not just allowed, but also shared. I hope one day to live in a world where that right is fully reached.
