Amid the noise made by the fundamentalist fringe, has anyone noticed that the heartlander Chinese majority don't seem to care very much whether the anti-gay law stays or goes?
Go to the main Yawning Bread site (www.yawningbread.org) to read the full essay. There seems to be something wrong with Google-blogger - I'm unable to put in a hyperlink from here.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Abstracts of essays; news; announcements; short takes.
About Me
- Yawning Bread Sampler
- This blog carries summary abstracts of Yawning Bread essays, with space for comments.
Here too are other tidbits that are too short for the main Yawning Bread site.
To email me, go to the main site.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(161)
-
▼
May
(16)
- Why Section 377A is redundant
- Heftier list of s.377A cases
- UNSW follows Warwick University out
- Harmless traits can be criminalised, says minister
- God, morality and Haidt
- Mediacorp's survey on decriminalisation
- From City Hall to the Gaza Strip and back
- Lost in a fog of fear
- Singing, voting and the unknowables
- Rebutting Yvonne Lee, part 3
- The battle of St James - rebutting Istyana
- Rebutting Yvonne Lee, part 2
- Rebutting Yvonne Lee, part 1
- New scare tactic: religious strife
- Queen to K6
- Fall of the BP chief, parts 1 and 2
-
▼
May
(16)
Posts
6 comments:
it maybe "indifference" rather than "fear", "what's in it for me?"; more interest in casino policy, first I might actually go there, second it might be good for the economy, third I know what it means, whereas most people probably dont appreciate the issue of decriminalizing at all "the law isnt being enforced, so what's the problem?" the average person has no interest in legal theory or social ideology
Your point on the onus of proof is informative. The burden should now be shifted to those arguing for continued criminalisation of gay sex to explain on the basis of morality and logic why this should continue to be so.
Actually, I find it a little unbelievable that Lianhe Zaobao did not even receive a single letter regarding MM Lee's speech.
I might be too cynical, but I was wondering whether zaobao forum chose not to publish any letter on this topic. There is only one way to find out, so I wrote a letter in today, calling for the full repeal of Section 377/377A. It might be a good time to do it, since the issue is boiling hot in ST forum.
If they don't publish it, it should be due to one of the following reasons:
1) I am a lousy writer
2) They are censoring all homosexuality related topics
3) The tone of my letter is too strong
Or perhaps all three.
The NUS lecturer strikes back!
ST today published her rebuttal to Brain Selby's letter...
She wrote: "If, to take a stand is to be prejudiced, then everyone is 'prejudiced" in favour of his or her own view. According to his reasoning, Mr Selby is himself prejudiced against the views expressed in the article. He is a bigot by his own yardstick.
His use of the term 'homophobia' is also provocative and aggressive. This is because the term 'phobia' suggests a disease and thus 'homophobia" is a disease which symptoms are a 'fear of homosexuals", implying that those who have not jumped aboard the pro-homosexual bandwagon are somehow ill.
Mr Selby's approach attempts to beat certain views into submission rather than to engage in reasoned debate. Indeed, his personal insults seek to undermine my professional credibility and, by association, my views. Such an uncivil response shows up the weakness underlying Mr Selby's own biases.
Second, Mr Selby in questioning my professional capacity as a law professor at NUS, dogmatically assumes his own views are the only right views. This resort to 'professional assassination' is unfair and does not even bother to engage the substance of the debate.
Third, Mr Selby makes several obtuse assertions. He misunderstands my observations concerning the broader homosexual agenda which has manifested in foreign countries, particularly in Europe and North America."
fireworks coming!
Thanks for pointing out that the Chinese MSM has neglected the issue. And to think that I have almost overlooked it! It is crucial to note that Dr Lee has spoken up for the Chinese community even when they never elected her to do so.
I am of the view that the Chinese Zaobao is more than capable of publishing relevant commentaries and letters if it deems its readers interested.
I gather this from the diversity and compelexity of views published on varied issues such as trans-fat, fallen Mandarin standards, and of course Taiwan Strait politics. A number of these issues are pathetically under-reported by ST for some unknown reasons not necessarily related to readers' apathy.
Homosexuality is also a common topic in taiwanese infortainment programs on Starhub. Thus, I do not think that there is any lack of awareness among the young mandarin-speaking Chinese.
Though the readers of Zaobao and the subscribers of Starhub may not overlap, I am sure that the Chinese community as a whole is well-informed and articulate enough to not need the service of Dr Lee.
I also look forward to the publication of irene's letter if it gets through the editors. Good luck :)
Sorry about a mistake on my part. I think I mixed up Dr Lee with LKY :b
Anyway, the same reasoning goes what makes hime think that the Chinese community should be dragged into this argument?
Post a Comment