Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

On 15 December 2008, the London Daily Mail ran an article with the following headline: “Gay penguins expelled from zoo colony for stealing eggs are given their own to look after following animal rights protest”

In an apparently serious attempt to inform readers of the exploits of purportedly homosexual male penguins in a Chinese zoo, reporter Caroline Graham has given her readers a new take on the egg-sitting antics of penguins and the so-called assistance of their zoo keepers. In the captive colony of Polar Land in Harbin, Northern China, two penguins unburdened by female companionship, have resorted to egg-napping. The reader is led to believe that this is a nobly inspired move of desperation, similar to the human homosexual quest for parenthood.

Two male inmates were caught placing stones at the feet of parents and waddling away with their eggs. The initial and reasonable response was to segregate the birds. Angry visitors complained that it was unfair to deny the egg nappers the experience of becoming surrogate parents. Zoo bosses were urged to give them a chance. In response, zoo keepers stole two eggs from an inexperienced mother and gave them to the exiles. Zoo officials will closely monitor the program and if the two male penguins are successful, they will be given the opportunity to become real parents through artificial insemination. In doing so, zoo officials may have laid the foundation for another stolen generation (‘penguineration’?), with a same-sex adoption twist. Once upon a time, single mothers experienced pressures to surrender their children to a better life. Some of these pressures could not be resisted. In Polar Land, the eggs are removed at the whim of the keepers and the relinquishing penguin parent has no say. In the future will Polar Land officials be inspired by our Mandarin proficient Kevin737 and say sorry to the stolen penguineration? Will aging penguins seek compensation? Surely community tail feathers will shake furiously until justice for all stolen penguins is achieved.

Perhaps something positive can be gleaned from the Polar Land experience. Can this be the means of circumventing the one chick policy of the Polar Land governing body? The effects of a ratio of 95 females to 114 males need no longer be a problem for this artificial microcosm. Ultrasounds could be used to detect the presence of female chicks, with gender culling being more closely monitored to ensure that breeding stock is geared towards meeting the future needs of male ‘homosexual’ penguins. Once sustainability of the species is assured these principles may be adapted for other species, including homo sapiens. Polar Land environment executive Peng Xing Wong is closely monitoring the project. Examination of the Polar Land One Chick Policy raises some concerns. Female penguins are subject to the whims of the zoo keepers and animal rights activists; being courted by interested males will be a thing of the past! No longer can they exercise the choice to experience maternity to the full with the mate of their dreams! The penguin Covenant on the Rights of the Chick has also been circumvented. No longer do chicks have a right to a mother and a father; a male parent and his Polar Land partner will be the norm. Polar Land will then need IVF and cloning factories to produce the future penguinerations and new standards of quality control will be called for. Is an egg suitable for incubation? Should it be frozen? Are rejected eggs suitable for embryonic stem cell experimentation, or should they be destroyed? Will female penguins be coerced into surrogacy endeavours without the opportunity to negotiate conditions and recourse to the Polar Law?

When these Polar Land Penguins become oppressed by the Marxist Utopianism of their society and seek asylum in the Australian Antarctic Territories, will they be placed in detention. Will detention centres spring up in neighbouring territories in the search for the Great Southern Solution? Sentenced to a term of detention at the mercy of contracted keepers, will a rash of penguinicides ensue? It is possible they may resort to self harm to bring their cause to the attention of the Penguin media. Will we see pictures of Penguins, with their beaks stitched, plastered over the Front Pages? Will their keepers be blamed? Will they retain the right of appeal to the Penguin High Court? Is there a congress of penguin lawyers shouting “Social justice for penguin detainees!!”? Will church leaders call for the release of females and their offspring? If they are released, where will the male (homosexual?) detainees get their eggs? This will simply reprise the discrimination experienced in Polar Land. One can only wonder how Charles Darwin might react to Caroline Graham’s account of the survival of the penguin species. Perhaps there will be a newly discovered status for penguins that choose to interact with penguins of the opposite sex. The desire to nurture eggs with the other penguin blokes, even though they lack a designated female supplier, now attracts a sexual orientation label that some may think a little queer. Zoo keepers at Polar Land have already advanced the cause of penguins without spouses; their newly won parenting rights, in Polar Land at least, will be uncomplicated by the rigours of traditional penguin relationships. It is only a matter of time before inheritance rights for superannuation etc are granted by Polar land. Will the validity of same-sex penguin Polar Land unions ensure fairness for all?