Can we finally dispense with the whole “no gay in Korea” myth … ?
… now that the Korean Supreme Court is considering the case of a certain “Sergeant A?”
A sergeant identified only as “A” was initially booked on a charge of making a sexual attack on a private in a platoon that he led, but the suit against him was dropped with the victim’s consent. However, the sergeant has been newly charged for violation of Clause 92 of military criminal law. [Joongang Ilbo]
In the American system, cases very rarely become “test cases” unless there is (a) a live case or controversy and (b) an error of law asserted by one of the parties. The case of an accused barracks rapist would seem a poor choice for a test case by gay rights advocates, who may well lack the legal sophistication of their American counterparts. Here, however, it appears that the military court itself sent this up to the Supreme Court for review, which may reveal yet another way in which the Korean system differs from ours. I had to wince at this dubious citation of authority:
The military court argued that considering today’s currents, it seems excessive to sentence those engaged in consensual sex to prison.
“Not only in foreign countries, but also in Korea, the national consciousness about homosexuality is changing [to be more open] as films, plays and novels dealing with homosexuality earn publicity and social gatherings of homosexuals increase in number,” the court said in its ruling.
Right. And as authority for our new landmark decision, we cite “The King and the Clown,” scene six. With that sort of logic, it’s not hard to imagine a judge citing “The Host,” the completely fictionalized film “No Gun Ri,” or taking judicial notice of the equally fictionalized U.S. beef controversy to support a conviction or enhanced penalties for an American tried in a Korean court. In a country as polarized and volatile as Korea, taking the measure of “today’s currents” seems an exceptionally imprecise and undemocratic way to interpret a constitution.
Related: The Korean Supreme Court has ruled in favor of granting refugee status to a Chinese democracy activist, reversing a 2005 decision that would have allowed the repatriation of the activist and two family members. For all of his claims to liberalism, Roh was always more deferential toward the rights of dictatorships to oppress than to the rights of individuals to express themselves. Technically, the Korean judiciary is supposed to be independent, but I’ve noticed a suspicious alignment between court decisions and the views of the elected branches. I guess the ability to cite “today’s currents” gives you all the flexibility you need for that.