21 October 2007

The loonies are marching

The anti-gay lobby has set up not one, not two, but 3 different websites calling for action over 377A. The third summons the faithful to a march. Full essay.


Anonymous said...

Someone should set up a website to support 377a in the name of the flying spaghetti monster, like what Bobby Henderson did in the Kansas Idiotic-design debate (http://www.venganza.org/).

i wonder what nonsense the police will come up with as excuse if they decide not to stop the march on sunday...the government has always claimed racial and religious issues are OB in singapore, due to our 'fragile' makeup and likely to cause riots. :p pls pls stop these christians from illegal gathering that will destroy the racial and religious fabric of singapore.

Anonymous said...

Megaphone - Israeli Government Propaganda Software

(stuffing online polls, how soon will gov.sg get this?)



The Megaphone Desktop Tool gives the user the option of going to a particular site with a poll, and if the user chooses to go to the site, the software then casts a vote automatically, when this is technically feasible. The vote is chosen by the distributors of Megaphone.

Giyus tries to save you the time and effort of locating the voting form inside the website, a seemingly simple task that may prove quite confusing at certain sites. Whenever we technically can we direct you straight to the voting action. If you have arrived at the poll results, it means that you were directed straight to the voting action and have already successfully voted. If for some reason you don't care to vote, you can always use the "No Thanks" link in the article alert popup.[1]

The user is offered the option to vote or not to vote (see screenshot above), but is not offered the option to choose their own vote.

The software license provides for remote updates: "You understand and agree that Giyus.Org may provide updates, patches and/or new versions of the Software from time to time, including automatic updates that will be installed on your computer, with notice to You, as needed to continue to use the Services, and You hereby authorize such installations." [2]

See also
Religion and the internet

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if the police does anything to stop them. If they can stop some people in pink shirts wanting to jog...

Robert L said...

Dear YB, it would be useful if someone who had recorded videos of this march could post the antics of these Christians on Youtube. Let us see how the rest of the world react to how Christianity is practiced in Singapore. Let them see that a group of Christians in Singapore are marching to call for the Singapore government to make gay love a criminal act liable for imprisonment.

While the Singapore population is largely prevented by the media to read any views on homosexuality that are balanced for both sides, Youtube will enable Singaporeans to see a wider range of opinions.

Raymond said...

Yawning Bread wrote: "But still, as you can see from this screenshot of the list of signatories, they managed to catch the attention of Jesus."

What, JC's back in town?! That's really priceless! Glad to see that you are keeping your sense of humour in spite of the maddening ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity of these homophobes masquerading as Christians. I think they will have more to worry about come judgement day than the repeal of section 377a.

"for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night". (1 Thessalonians 5:2)

Ng Yi-Sheng said...

I went there today and I didn't see anyone or anything - no protesters, no police, nothing. Very confusing.

Anonymous said...

>no protesters, no police, nothing

that's what you usually get when trying to mobilize for a cause; reporters asking questions (about say Burma) might get a few sound bites, and surveys might count answers saying yes/no, but people are apathetic; even something like the annuity scheme, which affects everyone's pocket, died down quickly once a committee was set up to consider the issue

the people running the government understand this very well


Anonymous said...

enshrine377a.com could be a parody website.

Alan Wong said...

Quote from the movie "Born Yesterday" :-

"History of the world has always been the fight between the selfish and the unselfish ones"

Robert L said...

Dear YB

It occurs to me that, over and above the divided opinions between the gay and non-gay community in Singapore, the two sides might even be debating over an entirely different issue altogether.

377A is actually about two things, and Singaporeans might have overlooked that, or maybe were led to overlook it. 377A is about gay sex in the privacy of gays' own home/bedroom. 377A is also about gay sex even in public - that means portrayal of gay sex in the movies and real live gay sex in public washrooms and back alleys.

To talk in abbreviation about repealing 377A means repealing both. This implies that the non-gay community has not yet expressed any opinion on legalising gay sex in a private bedroom.

Indeed, in over 90% of the rants against repealing 377A, I noted that their arguements eventually fall back on the preference of non-gays for gay activities to be hidden from their view.

I do not know how much of a compromise the gay community can accept for gay activity to be decriminised within the bedroom, but this is certainly not being debated by the anti-gay activists and by the dumb political leaders.

If the gay community is willing to accept this compromise, they should bring it to the attention of the Singapore public that it's about repealing only half of 377A - the part in the privacy of the bedroom and out of sight from the view of non-gays.

Yawning Bread Sampler said...

Robert L -
I addressed this question in an earlier essay
Why 377A is redundant

One of the pitfalls that heterosexual people often fall into when they try to think about this subject is to see homosex as a completely different thing from heterosex, which requires a completely separate set of laws to regulate it.

Modern jurisdictions see the issue as just sex.

In the scenario you posed, the question that needs to be asked to find a reply to your query is this:

If heterosex takes place in public, what law is there to cover it?

And you'll find Section 20 of the Misc Offences Act, which says, "any person.... indecent behaviour..." Max fine $1,000 and jail term 1 month.

This law applies to any kind of indecency, by male, female, straight or gay.

Hence, as I argued in the earlier essay, we don't need 377A of the Penal Code for public sex because we already have Sect.20 of the Misc Offence Act which is gender neutral and sexuality neutral. That's a good law, based on equality.

Anonymous said...

"The majority do not want homosexuality" is a nonsensical argument against repeal, since making something non-criminal hardly "imposes" it on the other citizens; "The majority are against homosexuality" is also invalid as a legal argument: e.g. the majority are probably against the proposed CPF annuity scheme, but are unlikely to want to make it criminal; further, what exactly is "against"? if they do not mind the non-enforcement of the law, how "against" are they?

"the majority disapprove of homosexuality" is a much more meaningful argument against repeal, but only if you accept a rather "asian" concept of law: a law expresses some kind of collective view - in this case, disapproval of homosexuality, without demanding its disappearance, while non-enforcement expresses a collective tolerance of minority behaviour. From this viewpoint, there is no contradiction or hypocracy.

In addition, this happens to be a "sensitive" moment because of concern about low birth rates; refusal to decriminize also expresses the collective approval of "family value" - often a hypocritical stand because many of the same people expressing pro-family views and giving sound bites during surveys may themselves be reluctant to settle down and produce children.


xizor2000 said...

I have friends who signed on keep377a knowing it's put up by Christians, while also having an immense dislike for evangelical / Bible-thumping Christians. The friends I talked to have their own concerns about repealing 377A and none of the homophobic views expressed by some.

Either way, once your detractors' religious beliefs are attacked, the door to detente and dialogue is now closed. I wonder if it would have garnered as much negative reaction as this, had the person been an atheist, or from another religion.

While I used to have a healthy respect of your articles, thank you very much for opening my eyes today to give me a whole new perspective of what this is all about today. It's probably of no loss to you at all, but I'll move on from here.

Robert L said...

Dear YB, thank you for your response. You're right, of course, you and I both know that, but this knowledge is not revealed to the general population during the debate.

By uncanny timing, the very day following my post above, TODAY (23 Oct 07 page 2) published a speech by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee. He said, "This does not mean that the section is purely symbolic … There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused, or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or a back lane."

While I used the word "washroom", he said "toilet". While I said "back alley", he said "back lane". Other than that, his arguements are exactly what I've pointed out.

So is Assoc Prof Ho ignorant that other laws are already in place to take up the slack if 377A is repealed? Or is he not so dumb, but is deliberately telling lies in support of his cause?

Linus said...

Reading your articles, i get the impression that you are an intelligent man. However, it is quite obvious to me that in some of the articles, you appear to be bending over backwards to argue against the pro-Sec 377A camp. Also you resort to name calling of some Christians, and have pictures on your website that cast them in a bad light. Any comment?

Anonymous said...

Looks like you just need to find someone to blame for the view of majority, and the Christians seem the convenient target. Please, let this be a societal issue, and not politicise this to become a religious one. If you have other agenda to cause social unrest, please leave and do it somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

If I may reply to Robert l.'s last post, and inderectly to Ho Peng Kee:

There is a tremendous amount of public sex by heterosexuals - in East Coast Parkway, Pierce Resoirvoir, etc.

Yes, and in tollets and back alleys as well when the opportunity is available.

Here, it is the police who turn a blind eye to this sex, but targets only gays for similar 'offences'.

pinkamania said...

Moral/religious grounds and debates aside, it is ridiculous to insist on keeping a law that will not be enforced. It is just a smoke screen for the government to hide behind, for them to sit on the wall, to evade responsibility. Let's clear out the smoke. I have a suggestion.
The police do not allow public demonstrations because it is against the law. So we can't take to the streets. Since it is the duty of every LAW-ABIDING citizen to help the police uphold the law, if you witness or know that a crime is being conducted, you should report it to the police. So let's give the police all our help ;p
What happens if "the majority" starts to complain about gays engaging in CRIMINAL sexual activity? Will the police act? Will they prosecute? Will they issue warnings to gays not to engage in sexual misconduct in the privacy of their own homes? Will they make the misbehaving gays promise not to misbehave again - abstain from sex?
I say we test the law. Know any gays engaging in sexual misconduct? Please lodge a formal complaint. Please let the police know. Insist that they investigate. They have to, since this is a criminal offense. And make sure they get an eyeful ;p

There is no better day to do this than on Christmas. Let see them bring in the pink parade for investigations! Let us brighten their Christmas! In fact, turn yourself in for having committed a crime! Let's have a jolly PINK Christmas!!!

Tuck Loong said...

Dear YB,

You strike me as an intelligent and articulate person. I have been following your articles for the last few months and although I may not subscribe to exactly the same views that you have professed to have, I respect your opinions for the sound logic and attractive prose of your words.

Your latest article however reeks heavily of stereotypes and its associated afflictions. I am not a Christian but I do know of the teachings and activities of the traditional Christian Churches.

The examples that you have mentioned are the exception rather than the norm of Christian behaviour. While it cannot be said that all Christians possess excellent discretion in light of peer pressure, the majority of those who I know personally are community and family-oriented.

The basis of homosexuality is not something that can be debated over and concluded on in a short span of time. It would be foolish for anyone to attempt to do that given that this issue has perplexed political, social and community leaders alike for many years. As such, I would not try to start that here.

Instead, I ask that you think about the repercussions of your stand and the defensive attitude that you have adopted in the issue of keep/repeal 377A. It seems that you have lost the ability to maintain a perspective that is above the involved and beyond the casual observer. The wisdom of your words in the articles prior to the latest one comes from the neutral and inpersonal view point that you have managed to maintain in the course of thought and expression. Sadly, this is lacking in your article "The loonies are marching".

Many question the reason why we are born into this world. The daily struggles of the man-in-the-street are tied to the basic human needs - shelter, food, sex. You are someone beyond all these. In fact, you are likely someone who has reached an extremely level of awareness based on your past reflection and contemplations.

Everything in this universe is connected. Events, entities, living and non-living - they are linked in time and space in such a way that one affects all others and is itself affected by everything else. In standing up for self, it is inevitable that the concern for others is hurt. Sadly, this is what society has become, one that focuses more on self than on others.

In the 377A debate, I see both sides fighting more for the self than for others, insidiously cloaked in the suggestion on both ends that the debate is to promote and protect the rights of family and friends. Fear and selfish desires lead one to reprisal and unhappiness.

I trust that when the dust settles, you will be able to see beyond the superficial, beyond what is projected in the media. I hope that you will be able to think objectively and act accordingly, for the good of humanity (yes, good and bad are subjective but that's a topic for discussion another day).

Take care.

Anonymous said...

This is precisely why you have lost the respect of the majority. You can't even show others basic respect and yet you expect people to show you any. You don't deserve to be gay! Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

I was going through the list of petitioners on repeal377A.com the other day and I found Ho Peng Kee's name on the list. His profession was described as 'MP'.
Since you mentioned about Jesus on the keep377A.com website, I think it's fair to point this out as well. I don't know if he made it to the final list of signatories though.

Anonymous said...

It just stumps me that perhaps there is no saving grace in some factions of Christianity that it has to stir up a "common" hatred to unite the congregation?
Will "non-believers" experience another Inquisition and be burn at the stakes? Since they will be burn forever in hell, why not burn them right here, for a starter!

aliene said...

The scary thing is....so many rich people are Christians....and material riches = political clout. i.e., their voice counts more than the rest of us.