Hong Kong Intelligence Report #159 在軟對抗背後進行的真正軟對抗乃《同性伴侶關係登記條例草案》

Ryota Nakanishi
Jul 24
7 min read

Open-source intelligence (OSINT)

A traditional Chinese junk boat with red sails on water during sunset, city skyline in background, golden hues create a serene atmosphere. — FILE PHOTO: © Envato

🔻 IMPORTANT 【重要】- 在'軟對抗'背後進行的真正軟對抗

▪️ 就該政府議案《同性伴侶關係登記條例草案》以及終審法院《岑子杰訴律政司司長》（Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice；FACV 14/2022; “Sham Tsz Kit Case” of September 5, 2023）的判例提出反對。其理由並非針對同志或性別議題等身分政治立場。理由如下：

1）該政府議案和終審法院判決都欠缺‘國家’概念，違抗有關男女性別的國策，和阻礙國家統一發展的整體大局。足認香港自從殖民主義時期以來根深蒂固的本土主義體現在此議案和判決。誠然，其政治意圖並不在同志，而在於以製造‘制度藩籬’來阻礙中港融合。當國家目前需要積極促進化解中港藩籬，中港隔閡，中港分歧，邁向大灣區一體化，全國統一大市場的大融合之際，黑暴圖謀早已失敗的本港既得利益勢力繼續搞反國家統一，反國策，反國家的‘軟對抗’。這個政府議案《同性伴侶關係登記條例草案》以及終審法院《岑子杰訴律政司司長》（Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice；FACV 14/2022）都不僅是最終導致‘變相改變’目前的男女異性婚姻和登記制度的政治詐術(「若條例通過是中⾨打開，變相承認同性婚姻」)，如《婚姻條例》第40條規定，香港婚姻須為一男一女的結合，也直接違抗中國整體的保守主義國家政策，如《民法典》第一千零四十一條中，明確指出婚姻制度是「一夫一妻、男女平等」。

2）所謂regime change一詞，內涵有二，第一是政權更替；第二則是制度改變。透過看似與regime change毫無相關的議題來推動社會制度改變。這可謂既得利益勢力通過司法機構搞出判例來強制香港社會立法，如此輕易得逞制度改變。在此整個過程，完全把人民和國家（中國國情）棄之不顧，實在是‘地方’司法專制極權，藩閥叛徒的叛國圖謀。顯然，這只不過是regime change的手段的不同，而非其圖謀和不可告人的實質。市民要注意，最近本地既得利益勢力積極報導所謂‘軟對抗’諸現象只是政治煙幕，公關煙幕，至今為止，真正的所謂‘軟對抗’是由‘黑暴’御用丑角岑子杰，‘租界’外國法官主宰的終審法院以及香港政府三者攜手並肩搞出來的事件。

政府議案《同性伴侶關係登記條例草案》以及終審法院《岑子杰訴律政司司長》都製造出‘性解放區’（香港）和‘性’淪陷區（內地），或‘性自由地區’ （香港）和‘淪陷區’（內地）的二元對立。這可謂寧靜的顏色‘性’革命，實屬和平演變的叛國侵略圖謀。也就是足令市民唾棄的政治操縱。

一言以蔽之，足認其政府議案和判決法例都欠缺‘國家’概念，足以阻礙中港大融合，甚至提高國家統一的制度藩籬高牆，如此體現了香港特色‘無國家’的本土主義的狹隘視野。

❗在最近所謂‘反對軟對抗’的大煙幕背後，本港既得利益勢力正在推進的則是真正的軟對抗。

實在是鬼打鬼，賊喊捉賊。難道既得利益勢力可以矇騙所有的市民嗎？騙人騙己騙中央。其實，本港從反對逃犯條例修訂案，反對動態清零國策，反對房住不炒國策之後，如此繼續搞反國策的。此次就是利用同志議題來製造中港制度分離的。這純然是叛國叛變叛徒！市民可以在這個議案上驗證香港藩的所謂愛國是否真的。

▪️In consideration of the government bill bearing the title "Draft Ordinance on the Registration of Same-Sex Partner Relationships (Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill)" and the judgment rendered by the Court of Final Appeal in the case of "Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice" (Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice; FACV 14/2022; "Sham Tsz Kit Case" of September 5, 2023), it is imperative to delve into the intricacies of the legal implications and the implications for the LGBTQ+ community. The rationales underlying this opposition are not rooted in identity politics concerning LGBTQ+ or gender-related concerns. The following reasons have been posited:

Firstly, the government bill and the Court of Final Appeal's judgment both fail to incorporate the concept of "nation (state)," thereby defying the national policy on male and female gender and hindering the advancement of national unification. This phenomenon is indicative of the profoundly entrenched localism that has persisted in Hong Kong since the colonial era, as evidenced by this legislative measure and the ensuing judicial decision. The political intent is not directed at the LGBTQ+ community; rather, it is aimed at creating "institutional barriers" to hinder the integration of Hong Kong and mainland China. At a time when the nation urgently needs to actively promote the resolution of barriers, divisions, and conflicts between Hong Kong and the mainland, and move toward the integration of the Greater Bay Area and the establishment of a unified national market, the vested interests in Hong Kong—whose 2019 plots have already failed—continue to engage in "soft resistance" against national unification, national policies, and the nation state. The government bill entitled "Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill," along with the final court ruling in the case of "Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice" (FACV 14/2022), must be regarded as more than mere political maneuvers aimed at "subtly altering" the current system of heterosexual marriage and registration.

"If the ordinance is passed, it will open the door to de facto recognition of same-sex marriage," as stipulated in Section 40 of the Marriage Ordinance, which states that marriage in Hong Kong must be between a man and a woman. The plotters’ position directly contradicts China's overall conservative national policy, as clearly stated in Article 1041 of the Civil Code, which defines the marriage system as "monogamy and equality between men and women."

The term "regime change" is inherently ambiguous, with two distinct connotations. Firstly, it refers to the replacement of the prevailing political order. Secondly, it signifies a transformation in the underlying system. By leveraging issues seemingly unrelated to "regime change" to advocate for social system changes, it can be posited that the ruling elite is leveraging the judicial system to establish precedents and compel Hong Kong society to legislate, thereby achieving systemic change with minimal resistance. Throughout this process, the interests and well-being of the populace and the nation state (China's national conditions) have been wholly disregarded. This phenomenon can be characterized as a manifestation of local judicial authoritarianism and a treasonous conspiracy by factional traitors. It is evident that this is merely a different modality of regime change, not its true intentions or hidden agenda.

It is imperative for citizens to be cognizant of the fact that the recent active reporting by local vested interests on so-called "soft resistance" phenomena is merely a political tactic and a public relations strategy. The "soft resistance" that has been observed thus far has been orchestrated by a number of key actors, including the "2019 black violence" puppet Sham Tsz Kit, the "concession" foreign judges who dominate the Court of Final Appeal, and the Hong Kong government. These actors have been working in close collaboration to advance their shared objectives.

The government's bill, the "Same-Sex Partnership Registration Ordinance Draft (Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill)," and the Court of Final Appeal's ruling in " Sham Tsz Kit v. the Secretary for Justice" have created a binary opposition between a "sexual liberation zone" (Hong Kong) and a "sexual occupation zone" (mainland China), or a "sexual freedom zone" (Hong Kong) and an "occupation zone" (mainland China). This opposition can be described as a "quiet color revolution" of sexuality, a treasonous plot of peaceful evolution and invasion. This political maneuver merits the public's disdain.

In essence, it is evident that the government's proposals and judicial rulings lack the concept of "nation state," thereby obstructing the integration of Hong Kong and mainland China and even raising the institutional barriers to national unification. This phenomenon can be interpreted as a manifestation of Hong Kong's "stateless" identity, characterized by a distinct localism that transcends national boundaries.

The recent movement referred to as "opposition to soft resistance" is, in fact, a strategy employed by vested interests in Hong Kong to advance true soft resistance.

This phenomenon can be likened to a metaphorical confrontation, wherein one sin is held up to another, highlighting the ethical implications of their actions. The extent to which these vested interests have the capacity to deceive the general public is a critical question that merits rigorous examination. These individuals are engaging in a deliberate and systematic effort to deceive the public, themselves, and the central government.

In fact, Hong Kong's ongoing opposition to national policies, as evidenced by its stance against amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the "dynamic zero-COVID" policy, and the "housing for living, not for speculation" policy, underscores this persistent resistance. In this instance, the LGBTQ+ issue is being utilized as a means to establish a divide between the Hong Kong and mainland systems. This constitutes a flagrant violation of national security and is a clear instance of treason. The resolution enables citizens to evaluate the authenticity of the Hong Kong authorities' claims of patriotism.