TNAG-1210-FCO40-1513-Hong-Kong-laws-on-homosexuality-employment-of-homosexuals-wi-1982 — Page 23

F/G

H

55

54

CONFIDENTIAL

-3-

I sought substantiation from Hong Kong in

Their

individual case basis.

defence of their policy, in relation to these two areas.

reply in Telegram Number 203 was not entirely satisfactory mainly

because it concentrated on justifying the policy on termination of

employment and did not deal with the problem of the prohibition on

recruitment. (Despite this ban it maintained that 'access' to the

Hong Kong Civil Service was not restricted by the circular.) The

reply argued that the circular reminded Heads of Department of the

need to consider carefully cases involving the employment of homo-

sexuals and that action to terminate employment was taken on a case

by case basis. But it ignored the fact that the circular allowed

no such case by case consideration as regards recruitment.

6. I therefore telephoned the Chief Secretary. While he argued

that there was justification for a tougher policy towards initial

recruitment than towards continued employment he took the point

that it was difficult to justify a blanket prohibition on the

recruitment of all homosexuals to any job. He pointed out that

no case had to his knowledge arisen in which a woman's recruitment

had been stopped because of her homosexuality. In practice he was

confident that the situation would not arise in future. He agreed

that the proposed reply was in the circumstances more appropriate

than a straight affirmative which endorsed the exact terms of the

circular.

7. Hong Kong clearly did not think out the implications of the

circular and check it for inconsistencies. It is therefore open

to criticism if taken literally.

On the basis of commonsense,

CONFIDENTIAL

/however