The state of LGBTIQ rights in China has again drawn global attention by the Communist country’s attempt to censor them.
During last week’s Eurovision Song Contest semi-final, China’s and blurred out rainbow flags, prompting the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to ban the broadcaster from airing the rest of the competition.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in China in 1997 but up until 2001 it was still classified as a mental disorder. Today, same-sex marriage is still not legal while homosexuality remains taboo.
Mango TV has not responded to repeated requests from media outlets, including from SBS Mandarin, to defend the move or provide comment on who ordered the editing of the Eurovision performances.
As well as LGBTIQ content, the broadcaster has also previously censored or removed footage of tattoos, the Taiwan flag and the faces of a K-Pop group.
Yet despite these past alterations, Chinese media studies expert, Professor Wanning Sun, described Mango TV’s Eurovision censorship as odd. The professor of Media and Communication Studies at the University of Technology Sydney believes, if anything, Chinese authority has been loosening its control of LGBTIQ content in the media.
The performance of Ireland's Ryan O'Shaughnessy was completely cut from Mango TV's Eurovision broadcast because it featured a same-sex love story. Source: TASS
“It is very strange. [Mango TV] is a market-oriented platform,” she told SBS Mandarin, explaining that the station has a predominantly young audience base. “Eurovision is influential in the world and very popular in the gay community.”
While in the wider-community, Ms Sun also thought attitudes and treatment of LGBTIQ people were getting much better.
“Due to its traditional culture, gay issue is not tolerated very well in China.” Professor Sun told SBS Mandarin, “but in recent days it is improved a lot.”
But the professor's view is far more optimistic than others. Tom Le*, a gay man who lives in Northern China, thinks China’s LGBTIQ rights are almost non-existent to the point individuals live in denial and shame.
“In China, people aged over 40 almost have zero tolerance on gay relationship,” Mr Le said. “Even some gay people cannot accept themselves. China has a long way to go.”
China’s censorship laws and LGBTIQ content
The Mango TV’s censorship came just weeks after the Chinese social media platform Sina Weibo enacted a ban on LGBTIQ-related content which was quickly overturned following an outcry from many of the site’s users. The site is considered the Chinese equivalent of Twitter and has almost 400 million users.
On Friday April 13 when Sina Weibo announced it would be removing all LGBTIQ-related content as part of a “clean-up” movement, China’s internet users’ response was swift and damning.
The site was flooded with personal stories and photos from China’s LGBTIQ community and their advocates to protest the proposed crackdown. The hashtag #IAmGay was posted over 500,000 times and viewed more than 530 million times.
Within a week Weibo had released a statement to say it would not be following through with the ban, but not before it had deleted the #IAmGay hashtag and shutdown the accounts for a number of LGBTIQ-right groups.
The official newspaper for China’s Communist Party, People’s Daily, even published a commentary that encouraged tolerance towards the LGBTIQ community and called for people to respect the personal life style.
“Many gay people regard it as an encouraging step. It is a sign from Chinese authority [that it will tolerate gay content],” Professor Sun said.
Gay couples kiss during a ceremonial 'wedding' as they try to raise awareness of the issue of same-sex marriage, in Wuhan, in central China's Hubei province. Source: AFP
While many have felt the Sina Weibo incident is an encouraging sign for LGBTIQ in China, many of those directly affected see it as an empty gesture, which has the Eurovision censorship has only confirmed.
Tom Le* lives in Shandong province, Northern China, and supports Mango TV’s decision cut gay-content from its Eurovision broadcast. If they hadn’t, authorities would tighten its grip on LGBTIQ content across TV and social media. For Mr Le, the supposed improvements to LGBTIQ rights in China are an illusion.
“Mango TV is a pioneering and profit-driven media in China. It is impossible this decision is made by itself,” he said.
“I think Mango TV made the right decision,” he told SBS Mandarin, “Chinese cultural authority introduced a policy to ban gay content. If they didn’t remove it, there will be more trouble.”
For Mr Le, China’s view on LGBTIQ mirrors the United States’ historic policy for gay soldiers in the military. “Chinese government is copying the American’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy,” he said.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, also known as DADT, is a policy that prohibited discrimination against LGBTIQ personnel but also banned openly LGBTIQ people from military service.
In other words, homophobia isn’t an issue if LGBTIQ people remain invisible to the point they don’t enter national consciousness.
“For generations, there’s been no active Chinese state pushback against LGBT rights,” Shenzhen-based journalist and equal marriage campaigner in the US, Adam Robbins, told in April. “Instead, the policy was ‘don’t encourage, don’t discourage, don’t promote.’”
Professor Sun agreed LGBTIQ issues are not tolerated in China, but unlike Mr Le and other LGBTIQ supporters, she thinks there have been big improvements that have been noticed internationally. However, the Eurovision incident has damaged this image.
People take part in the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) parade in Hong Kong on November 6, 2015. Source: AFP
“People [outside China] maybe don’t think Mango TV is just a provincial level media but [think] China is banning the gay content again,” she told SBS Mandarin.
Contrary to Mr Le’s belief that authorities still enforce a strict ban on LGBTIQ content, which it deems on par with pornography and violence, Ms Sun said China’s censorship polices are much more fluid.
“China’s media rule and policy are really soft. Its boundary is blurred,” she said. “Policy implementation can be various due to different interpretations.”
*Name changed to protect anonymity
