377A outcome
I have heard that two of my friends who are gays will like to leave Singapore if they can. At least one of them is a very nice person and I hate that he might feel this way.,etc. These two gays friends could well be representative of how Singaporean gays in general feel (not sure about that). Some of those who like to leave will eventually do so. The inability to pursue one's version of happiness without being labeled a criminal is one thing, a stream and barrage of torrid and unwarranted abuse in the public arena is another. One is somewhat institutional - the other, deeply personal. IF the state does not want our smart, intelligent, creative, educated Singaporeans to have another good reason to leave the country...I think they probably need to do more than say "there is space." Getting insulted so badly is psychologically rather scarring, especially when the state seems to be siding with those doing the 'insulting'. Sadness.
Put it this way. People who oppose the repeal really have no where else to go to find such a law in place. Lets face it, there are few modern countries left in this world who have such a law. On the other hand, those who are gay have lots of 'first world' countries to go to.
Religion and Public Reason
I will like to know how does one "reason" that gays are immoral or perverse without resorting to religion. The word from nature is at best ambiguous and likely to show that there are lots of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom. It is also not considered a medical illness, and little evidence sexuality can be "changed". Have not heard any "public reason" save for appeal to authority (say Kant)
The NIL religion
Apparently lots of Singaporeans belong to the Nil Religion. Census 2000 actually puts this figure at 14.8 percent. This figure has probably has decreased since the NIL religion type since it is probably fertile grounds for conversion but it probably is still huge. In the year 2000, there were more people who were NIL religion than Christians, and just a little less than the number of Muslims (14.9 percent). Surely one should consider the feelings of such a group of people in any debate when religious voices grow too strong.
Warick University
I also just learn that one of the reasons why Warick University did not come to Singapore was because of legislation against gays. Well, as Molly Meek puts it, it just does not make sense to send students to be labeled as criminals. Well, no big deal. Just a few million dollars. What's that education hub thing again? Perhaps it is no big deal during the voting process of whether to bring Warick to Singapore but if you know liberals, I am sure the fact that legislation like 377/A represents real regression. Besides, how many gays voted during the process?
Buddhism and Singapore Buddhists
I will like to know why the Singaporean Buddhists I speak to don't seem to really understand what Buddhism is. Well, at least their version seem to depart quite a bit from what Wikipedia describe Buddhism to be. Do Buddhists believe in a Hell/God/a pantheon of deities? How does Buddhism actually 'spread' in Singapore?
Stomp: Singapore Seen
Random Singaporeans doing random acts like not giving up their seats in trains have their photos taken of all the time it seems. Then there are also the usual photos of Public Display of Affections of varying degrees. The above acts are not illegal. Who are these people who photograph other people doing legal acts which they find "uncomfortable"? I think that taking photos of people who are not in any official capacity "without their knowledge or permission" when they are not doing anything illegal (or for evidence in a trial) is far worse than not giving up seats. In that sense, I find every Stomper who took a photograph of an act which is not illegal without the knowledge of the people (who are not in some official capacity) far more disgusting than their victims. Those Stompers who do so clearly lack basic respect for other human beings. Perhaps its about time schools teach what underlies respect and not rules.
Sunshine Empire
Why do so many Singaporeans buy into Sunshine Empire? I have seen the terms, the plan, and in my opinion, it has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. I actually wrote about this company (and how shifty the terms offered were) about 1 year ago on another blog (already closed) and to my amazement it is growing in strength. Gone were the days of grainy presentation though. Now apparently, it is all Hi-Tech and in many countries. Still the same old idea though. The only difference it is now on MAS investor alert list. High time if you ask me.
Casual Sex and Love
I have always thought that the fact that Casual sex as is name suggest should be casual and no love should be involved. Recently learn (not through experience) that it is not as simple.
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Respect Differences: Some thoughts on the Keep "377A" movement
For many of us, sexual orientation is an important component of our personal identity. Hence, section 377A not only disregards but in effect, prohibits and demeans one’s key aspect of personal identity. It does so by criminalizing consenting acts in private on the basis of sexuality.
Today, this oppression continues because of majority disapproval. As the MHA Summary of the Key amendment to the Penal Code describes, “Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”
The PM had said similarly: “The tone of the society, the public, and society as a whole, should be really set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.” He added, "Our view, as a government, is we will go with society ... What people do in private is their own business; in public, certain norms apply."
The fallacy of such an approach to criminalization is apparent. These statements above do not even implicitly recognize that there is harm done (as some ultra-conservatives continuously allege) but resort to appeasement of what they consider an “emotional” and “strongly” expressed response. A criminal law ran by the emotions of people will be quite unpredictable and uncertain. No modern country has such a criminal law basis of feelings - do I need to say this, it is embarrassing. Besides, Section 377A does prohibit consenting acts in private. And if we agree with PM Lee that what people do in private is their own business, then section 337A should not criminalize “consenting acts in private.” Furthermore, the fact that it only applies to males makes obvious the inherent inequality of s 377A.
Many feel that the values they hold and cherish will be destroyed by the repeal of section 377A. I respectfully disagree. This has not been the case in the myriad countries, both Asian and Western. Family and communal values have continued to be freely expressed in those nations. Besides, the weight of mainstream scientific opinion is that homosexuals are born the way they are. [FN1] I am heartened that many who oppose the repeal say they are in fact “tolerant” of homosexuals and that they “love” them; but it is difficult for me to reconcile this goodwill with continued efforts to make criminals of the same people they say they are “tolerant” of.
The “attack” against gays during this period of debate has been horrific. I wish to express my dismay at how gays have been unjustly compared to pedophiles and those who commit incest or bestiality, during this debate. They have also been unfairly demonized as threats to families and the future of Singapore. I feel that there is little appreciation of that simple fact “Gays are human too” by the opponents of the repeal. While I respect their right to speech, I will like to say that those allegations are baseless and does not stand up to scrutiny. The criminal law clearly takes exception to pedophiles and incest due to the potential of harm. It has also not been demonstrated or shown how homosexuals by private consenting acts could harm families and our future as a nation. In contrast, many vibrant cities in the world are known for their acceptance of homosexuals. There are also many examples where in the most war torn, poor and repressive countries, where such oppressive legislation exists. One might easily make a case that continued repression of homosexuals is not good for our country.
We derive our identities from so many things we choose to do, from other people, from the society around us. And we could be so many things in this world. We could be mac users, introverts, like birds as pets, prefer not to read, enjoyed maths. We could have been the roundest child, the one with the funny hairdo.
We could have been the nerdy one, the one who danced alone to music without anyone knowing. We could have been the one who is under-dressed, over-dressed, the one that cannot play the popular sport at all. We could have been the odd ball, the crazy one. We could have liked uni-cycling. We could have been the one who preferred to stay at home, who did not want children. We could have been the one with the late pregnancy, the one with the shot-gun marriage.
We could have chosen to have taken art, took the path less traveled. We could have disliked traveling. We could have been the failure, the one that never made it; the one who tried but failed, who did not want it but succeeded all the same. We could have been many things. We could have been gay. In this huge world, we could have been different.
We are different. Sometimes, we do wrong things, sometimes we do noble things. Sometimes we trip up. We been there. We have been different. We have all been falsely accused before. We should know how that feels. We should know how gays feel. Respect differences.
[FN1] This is not true or simplistic. See comments.
Friday, October 19, 2007
A response to "a quiet contemplation"
a paragraph contemplated
The often-invoked Hobbesian basis why we protect race and religion from dangerous speech is that we as society will suffer terribly if we do not do so. There shall be riots, it is said. Society will be lost. It shall crumble. This can be seen, some in power say, in our historical account. Hobbes had said it simply enough. Without these laws there will be “Bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”. That is a proposition I grudgingly accept (recognizing its potential as censorship rather than ensuring peace). In the debate about gay rights, such similar arguments have been offered. The argument is that removing 377A somehow will hurt the family unit especially children. I started writing this post because of a reaction to FearfullyOpinionated's ("FO") Post “A Quiet Contemplation”.
"What is our approach towards homosexual issues? What is our own approach towards our opponents in the homosexuality debate? Do you really think Christian-bashing will further your cause or actually cause your opponent to harden their stance? Do you think that since none of us are engaging in any physical violence, any and everything we say, we type and we blog is fair game? Do you think this issue will be solved by arguments, or even online petitions? Do you think the intolerance of the intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance?”
Let us first examine the last line of this paragraph where "intolerant" appear 3 times.
Do you think the intolerance (1) of the intolerant (2) is in itself not guilty of intolerance? (3)”
The (2) intolerant in this context clearly refer to those who oppose the repeal of 377A. Let us look closely at this. How are they "intolerant"? A basis by which conservative groups have argued that gay activity ought to be prohibited has often been the Hobbesian one (above). Such an argument will only be considered intolerant (2) if one accepts that tolerance should encompass the more modern and liberal notion that we should tolerate private choices and practices (377A practices in this instance) and that they ought to be legal. This means (2) intolerant must be judged from a liberal standard for that question to be sensible at all.
And if that is the case then - the question understood in this light will be:
Do you think the intolerance of the (illiberal) intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance? This is a circular question but not objectionable per se. But the preceeding lines in FO's paragraph suggest that "Christian-bashing", "type", "blog", "arguments", "online petitions" might be part of this "intolerance". From a liberal standard however, ‘arguments’, ‘online petitions’ and “mere speech” promoting the repeal of 377A does not necessarily count as intolerance of the intolerant.
The refusal to define what standard of intolerance one has adopted and what counts for intolerant in FO's opinion makes it impossible to argue cogently about the accusations made of those who sign petitions and argue online. In other words, when it is asked "Is it intolerance to be intolerant about the intolerant"?" - the reply should simply for from a liberal perspective should be "it is intolerance. BUT one is not intolerant by making arguments and online petitions per se from this perspective.
When liberals say "I am going to be intolerant (A) about the intolerant (B)" - I think they usually mean (B) intolerant to be intolerant of those inciting violence (See Karl Popper for the chief proponent of this view) which if you ask the average dude like myself, is not "intolerance" but simply humanity. The intolerance for intolerance (B) is a very serious philosophical issue altogether but not specifically relevant in this regard. Is anyone askin' for violence in our context? Increasingly though, liberals are asking for more than this but thats a huge topic.
(Karl Popper argued, "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.")
If there was “Christian-bashing” however (and one notes FO's emotive choice of word “bashing”) then it might fail the liberal tolerance that we should tolerate other people’s private choices. However, I think that almost everyone puts up in Singapore with religion in our lives although it is full of flaws because we know it’s none of our business. In fact, most of us positively celebrate it. In fact, I think the pluralism in our nation should be more widely celebrated and not confined to the state boring divisions. Nobody I think is asking from the Repeal-Camp that private religious choices be interfered with...
Unlike FO, I don’t see that there is “Christian-bashing” per se unless it is his opinion that religion should be accorded such a place that truth cannot be said of it – a position which will far surpasses the liberal notion of tolerance. There is bashing of "anti-gay" positions if you like. That is equally objectionable in the liberal schema. In other words, private choices do not necessarily differentiate religion and opinions about sandwiches (while admitting that we do care more about religion than sandwich usually). If religion is inconsistent etc, what is wrong with pointing it out under the liberal perspective? That sandwich might taste good to you but it cannot be blue and green at the same time, ya? But sure, you are free to choose to say and believe it is blue and green. But if it is the Hobbesian notion of tolerance that is really being subscribed to in the first place, then it will be 'rich' to go through the question of the “tolerance” of the intolerant in the first place.
FO wrote in his comments to a (my) question to show evidence of "intolerance":
"I suspect you want me to discuss at depth what I consider to be "tolerance" and "intolerance". I am unfortunately not prepared to, nor inclined to, have such a discussion at this point in time. I think it matters little to the point I was trying to make. I am not interested (in this post at least) in the truth-value of propositions used in arguments for or against the repeal of 377a, but the emotive effects these propositions have on their opponents. "
If one choose only to focus on "the emotive effects" without regard to what types of "tolerance" we are talking about and truth value - as I discussed earlier, one is reverting to a Hobbesian discourse (above). My analysis is that FO is simply arguing a Hobbesian-variety 'tolerance' in the very first place which is not markedly different from the position of what he calls "opponents" adopts. I don't like this splitting of camps thing but if there is a splitting of camps, can it be said rightly that they are "opponents" from FO's perspective. Or does FO simply belong to what he calls "opponents" but attempts to adopt an "objective" perspective?
If one wishes to clinically observes the emotive effects these propositions have on the "ultra-conservatives", I can assure you that feelings of outmost revulsion have been involved. It really depends on how one sees the real question. If it is, "Should people be free to choose their own sexual lifestyle without interference from the state?" it is less bad. "Should gays be allowed to do what they want and corrupt our children and family?" then one can surmise the reactions. And for crying out loud, if anybody will harm members of my family and children, I will be rather quick to insist that they shall not be tolerated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other points which I wanted to talk about but will not fit properly in the article:
_______
For the argument about "hearts and mind" (See FO's article, link above), the usual argument is that the laws (377a) cannot change people's sexuality or the minds of people and that is why we should scrap it. (The argument used in FO's post comes from another angle)
I suggest that people read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” if they are interested in Tolerance. And because Locke is a Christian, and one of the greatest Christians of all time, those who think that because they are Christians and should therefore oppose efforts to repeal 377A should read his letter and think about it seriously.
Here are some other links for those who rather not read that excellent letter:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration
(Add: I realise I might be assumed to be a one who "accepts" what is said by Locke" or that I suggest that he is right. This is not the case because you should judge him for his merits. I suggest him because I think the letter clearly set out the one of the ideas of "tolerance" we have today. I will also like to think that Locke must be read as a person who wrote in the 17th century and we should forgive his flaws.)
------
In the interest of disclosure: I signed the online letter to the PM with my full name. I am embarrassed to say I did not sign the petition that is to be put to the Parliament. I had the occasion to. One gay friend said he will come to my house right away (and we do not stay that nearby) just so that I will sign his copy of the petition. But I told him, as I planned to, to go down to one of the locations to sign. Then I got lazy. I know there are those who "are disgusted" or "not impressed" that I signed the open letter online (yeah - i do know people like those) . I feel sorry for those who think like that - it is simply a belief I have that an archaic law that is hardly used that is unequal that is the constant battleground between liberals/conservatives should be abolished - and honestly, I know the petition won't work - but a lot of those people are upset because they think that gays are an aberration in the first place and desire that "morality" reign supreme and are shocked/displease that people actually come out and say they disagree. Please, we (and gays) do exist.
The retention of 377A is clearly a waste of time on everyone's part. The legislature if they were braver will have not attracted so much heat now. Now with another petition Keep 377A, it is becoming a political hot potato.
-------
I ask to be criticized not for my views, but for the reasons why I hold my views. And if those reasons are wrong and no longer support my view, then they naturally must change. But this is not the case for all. That is why I have not tried to change the views of those who oppose the repeal of 377A and I will not do it. Some of these opponents of the repeal treat with contempt discourse. That is not the fatal fault. Some will often rather you lose your liberty to speak. But even that is not their fatal fault. The fatal fault is that they will rather use propaganda and slogans, the power of the frown, the invocation of the "majority", loud-hailers and emotions, fear-mongering , appeal to emotions - rather than reason.
The often-invoked Hobbesian basis why we protect race and religion from dangerous speech is that we as society will suffer terribly if we do not do so. There shall be riots, it is said. Society will be lost. It shall crumble. This can be seen, some in power say, in our historical account. Hobbes had said it simply enough. Without these laws there will be “Bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”. That is a proposition I grudgingly accept (recognizing its potential as censorship rather than ensuring peace). In the debate about gay rights, such similar arguments have been offered. The argument is that removing 377A somehow will hurt the family unit especially children. I started writing this post because of a reaction to FearfullyOpinionated's ("FO") Post “A Quiet Contemplation”.
"What is our approach towards homosexual issues? What is our own approach towards our opponents in the homosexuality debate? Do you really think Christian-bashing will further your cause or actually cause your opponent to harden their stance? Do you think that since none of us are engaging in any physical violence, any and everything we say, we type and we blog is fair game? Do you think this issue will be solved by arguments, or even online petitions? Do you think the intolerance of the intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance?”
Let us first examine the last line of this paragraph where "intolerant" appear 3 times.
Do you think the intolerance (1) of the intolerant (2) is in itself not guilty of intolerance? (3)”
The (2) intolerant in this context clearly refer to those who oppose the repeal of 377A. Let us look closely at this. How are they "intolerant"? A basis by which conservative groups have argued that gay activity ought to be prohibited has often been the Hobbesian one (above). Such an argument will only be considered intolerant (2) if one accepts that tolerance should encompass the more modern and liberal notion that we should tolerate private choices and practices (377A practices in this instance) and that they ought to be legal. This means (2) intolerant must be judged from a liberal standard for that question to be sensible at all.
And if that is the case then - the question understood in this light will be:
Do you think the intolerance of the (illiberal) intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance? This is a circular question but not objectionable per se. But the preceeding lines in FO's paragraph suggest that "Christian-bashing", "type", "blog", "arguments", "online petitions" might be part of this "intolerance". From a liberal standard however, ‘arguments’, ‘online petitions’ and “mere speech” promoting the repeal of 377A does not necessarily count as intolerance of the intolerant.
The refusal to define what standard of intolerance one has adopted and what counts for intolerant in FO's opinion makes it impossible to argue cogently about the accusations made of those who sign petitions and argue online. In other words, when it is asked "Is it intolerance to be intolerant about the intolerant"?" - the reply should simply for from a liberal perspective should be "it is intolerance. BUT one is not intolerant by making arguments and online petitions per se from this perspective.
When liberals say "I am going to be intolerant (A) about the intolerant (B)" - I think they usually mean (B) intolerant to be intolerant of those inciting violence (See Karl Popper for the chief proponent of this view) which if you ask the average dude like myself, is not "intolerance" but simply humanity. The intolerance for intolerance (B) is a very serious philosophical issue altogether but not specifically relevant in this regard. Is anyone askin' for violence in our context? Increasingly though, liberals are asking for more than this but thats a huge topic.
(Karl Popper argued, "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.")
If there was “Christian-bashing” however (and one notes FO's emotive choice of word “bashing”) then it might fail the liberal tolerance that we should tolerate other people’s private choices. However, I think that almost everyone puts up in Singapore with religion in our lives although it is full of flaws because we know it’s none of our business. In fact, most of us positively celebrate it. In fact, I think the pluralism in our nation should be more widely celebrated and not confined to the state boring divisions. Nobody I think is asking from the Repeal-Camp that private religious choices be interfered with...
Unlike FO, I don’t see that there is “Christian-bashing” per se unless it is his opinion that religion should be accorded such a place that truth cannot be said of it – a position which will far surpasses the liberal notion of tolerance. There is bashing of "anti-gay" positions if you like. That is equally objectionable in the liberal schema. In other words, private choices do not necessarily differentiate religion and opinions about sandwiches (while admitting that we do care more about religion than sandwich usually). If religion is inconsistent etc, what is wrong with pointing it out under the liberal perspective? That sandwich might taste good to you but it cannot be blue and green at the same time, ya? But sure, you are free to choose to say and believe it is blue and green. But if it is the Hobbesian notion of tolerance that is really being subscribed to in the first place, then it will be 'rich' to go through the question of the “tolerance” of the intolerant in the first place.
FO wrote in his comments to a (my) question to show evidence of "intolerance":
"I suspect you want me to discuss at depth what I consider to be "tolerance" and "intolerance". I am unfortunately not prepared to, nor inclined to, have such a discussion at this point in time. I think it matters little to the point I was trying to make. I am not interested (in this post at least) in the truth-value of propositions used in arguments for or against the repeal of 377a, but the emotive effects these propositions have on their opponents. "
If one choose only to focus on "the emotive effects" without regard to what types of "tolerance" we are talking about and truth value - as I discussed earlier, one is reverting to a Hobbesian discourse (above). My analysis is that FO is simply arguing a Hobbesian-variety 'tolerance' in the very first place which is not markedly different from the position of what he calls "opponents" adopts. I don't like this splitting of camps thing but if there is a splitting of camps, can it be said rightly that they are "opponents" from FO's perspective. Or does FO simply belong to what he calls "opponents" but attempts to adopt an "objective" perspective?
If one wishes to clinically observes the emotive effects these propositions have on the "ultra-conservatives", I can assure you that feelings of outmost revulsion have been involved. It really depends on how one sees the real question. If it is, "Should people be free to choose their own sexual lifestyle without interference from the state?" it is less bad. "Should gays be allowed to do what they want and corrupt our children and family?" then one can surmise the reactions. And for crying out loud, if anybody will harm members of my family and children, I will be rather quick to insist that they shall not be tolerated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other points which I wanted to talk about but will not fit properly in the article:
_______
For the argument about "hearts and mind" (See FO's article, link above), the usual argument is that the laws (377a) cannot change people's sexuality or the minds of people and that is why we should scrap it. (The argument used in FO's post comes from another angle)
I suggest that people read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” if they are interested in Tolerance. And because Locke is a Christian, and one of the greatest Christians of all time, those who think that because they are Christians and should therefore oppose efforts to repeal 377A should read his letter and think about it seriously.
Here are some other links for those who rather not read that excellent letter:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration
(Add: I realise I might be assumed to be a one who "accepts" what is said by Locke" or that I suggest that he is right. This is not the case because you should judge him for his merits. I suggest him because I think the letter clearly set out the one of the ideas of "tolerance" we have today. I will also like to think that Locke must be read as a person who wrote in the 17th century and we should forgive his flaws.)
------
In the interest of disclosure: I signed the online letter to the PM with my full name. I am embarrassed to say I did not sign the petition that is to be put to the Parliament. I had the occasion to. One gay friend said he will come to my house right away (and we do not stay that nearby) just so that I will sign his copy of the petition. But I told him, as I planned to, to go down to one of the locations to sign. Then I got lazy. I know there are those who "are disgusted" or "not impressed" that I signed the open letter online (yeah - i do know people like those) . I feel sorry for those who think like that - it is simply a belief I have that an archaic law that is hardly used that is unequal that is the constant battleground between liberals/conservatives should be abolished - and honestly, I know the petition won't work - but a lot of those people are upset because they think that gays are an aberration in the first place and desire that "morality" reign supreme and are shocked/displease that people actually come out and say they disagree. Please, we (and gays) do exist.
The retention of 377A is clearly a waste of time on everyone's part. The legislature if they were braver will have not attracted so much heat now. Now with another petition Keep 377A, it is becoming a political hot potato.
-------
I ask to be criticized not for my views, but for the reasons why I hold my views. And if those reasons are wrong and no longer support my view, then they naturally must change. But this is not the case for all. That is why I have not tried to change the views of those who oppose the repeal of 377A and I will not do it. Some of these opponents of the repeal treat with contempt discourse. That is not the fatal fault. Some will often rather you lose your liberty to speak. But even that is not their fatal fault. The fatal fault is that they will rather use propaganda and slogans, the power of the frown, the invocation of the "majority", loud-hailers and emotions, fear-mongering , appeal to emotions - rather than reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
