TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 453

5

After airing this cưbjut for most of the hour he gave me for the interview, hé asked if there was any law I would like to see changed. I immediately mentioned the law on homosexuals, because that subject was still preying upon my mind. The Attorney-General told me that he had no intention of changing the law, because the Chinese wouldn't like it. Since he was just trying to find out about Hong

SO I Kong, it struck me immediately that his views seemed to be inflexible, asked him if he knew that there were no laws against homesexuals in China. He did not know. In fact, I too am against "legalising homosexuality, as it gives the Chinese the impression that we might have homosexual dens in every area, just

In my as we now have betting centres everywhere since gambling was legalised. opinion, the best way I explained to him, was to ignore homosexuality unless it involved the procuring of boys, assault, or public indecency. In fact, in my opinion the law on assault against the person should cover heterosexuals and homosexuals as assault can be equally against men, women, boys or girls. But what two men do willingly in the privacy of their own bedrooms should be ignored just The Attorney- as we ignore what happens between men and women or even Lesbians.

General assured me, however, that as long as he was in that position, the law would not be changed. I explained to him that as a result of the law, many crimes were being committed: blackmail of homosexuals, procuring of boys by triads

4

for male prostitute services, and so on. I then told him that a Police Inspector was being pressed to "frameup" (as I called it) another inspector on homosexual charges. At this point the Attorney-General cut me off abruptly saying, "I don't want to hear about individual cases." I was surprised that he cut me off when it was my duty to report crime to him. I did not at that time know that the Attorney-General had already been informed more than once about the MacLennan set-up by one of his own officers, that he had rejected the reports, and that he had in fact already given orders for the arrest of John MacLennan. Had I known all this,

But the I would most certainly have taken some steps on John MacLennan's betalf. Attorney-General explained nothing. Rather Piqued at his reaction, I asked the Attorney-General why he had sacked one of his own officers from his department after the man had been found in court with no case to answer" on homosexual

charges. His reply staggered me, "Because I know he is guilty even though the court found him not quilty. I would seek the dismissal of anyone I knew to be breaking this law. "As I knew that the homosexuality of more senior men was public knowledge, I quipped back rather abruptly, "Then why don't you do something about

? "1 He raised his eyebrows. "Do you know about him?" he asked. "Common knowledge," I replied. He recovered himself quickly (he is good on the defensive as I later discovered). "Well, it's a matter of evidence.' To this I could make no protest, though I should have replied that evidence is often manufactured where it does not exist. My interview with the Attorney-General ended quickly

after this. Yet I held nothing against him at this point. Not knowing that he was already aware of the MacLennan affair, I considered that he was perhaps sincere

but as a new comer perhaps slightly uninformed, a judgement that was perhaps too kind and certainly wrong.

A

11