Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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)
-
▼
August
(22)
- The Good News Times strikes again
- Religious affiliation of MPs
- Teacher's termination still unaccounted for
- CPF and its creaky assumptions
- Cinema: Jesus camp
- Singapore second last in Asia democracy index
- Race, religion and Negarakuku
- 2 by 6
- Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
- Time travel via our roads
- Spirits from our past
- Pity the heliconias
- Death by numbers, part 2
- Death by numbers
- Picking on a picnic
- Public transport model needs a rethink
- Bark and crumble
- Letter to the people of Singapore
- My kissing project, part 4
- Lee Low Tar
- Where to draw the line on marriage?
- My kissing project, part 3
-
▼
August
(22)
Posts
17 comments:
sickening paranoia
Holy smoke!! This incident reminded me of certain events during some major banking events. Again, that policeman cannot answer a simple question. And we are world class all over again.
I wondered if words from our wisest statesman are ever trusted.
I'm glad this policeman identified himself. They should all do that.
And they should wear their uniforms. If we document who they are, these police officers can in the future be charged with crimes against humanity for their actions now, just like the Khmer Rouge. At least, their names can be recorded and remembered in history as oppressors and instruments of terror. That's really what it is. The police in Singapore are terrorizing gay people.
How sad. How can you people put up with such nonsense. You're prisoners of thought and expression in your own country.
Hearing about this just really made me angry. What do you think would have happened if, instead of telling the police officer that he would cancel the run, he had said "No, I'm not going to cancel it. You'll have to arrest us."?
I am quite curious if the police would have arrested a group of gay joggers. That would have made a big international headline splash. Section 377A not enforced...but gays still arrested. This shows that S377A is not the only issue. They have lots of other repressive laws at their disposal to harass us even if S377A is gone.
Why did you gays have to call it pink whatever? I'm sure when you call it the Arrse lovers and the tofu run, the police would have asked for an application form.....LOL...
Wow, now they are terrorizing gay runners?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!
What are the charges drummed up this time?
DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!! What next? jail?
Section 377A not enforced...but gays still arrested
-------------
that's the whole point: for the "establishment", homosexuality is not in itself the problem; an organized but unauthorized assembly is; a group of friends going for a jog is fine, but a group with an unsanctioned social agenda is quite another thing; the "system" gives a very unambiguous message
sgsociety.com
what i'd like to know if this was initiated by the PAP/ex-PAP/NMP people? or was it 'self-censorship' by the police?
i agree with mr. wang, talk about a waste of tax-payers money. but then again what is new? tax-payers money was wasted during the IMF/world bank conference too, nope not on security of suntech city but the deployment of 30+ officers to 'block' dr. chee soon juan from protesting. if they can do that for 5+ people......
It should be made illegal to use a law that was written in mind for a different application to advance the interests of restricting the freedom of the people.
Oh please, homosexuals have no rights...
If you want the majority to change our mindset about you? why don't you gays change your sexual orientation? It's easier for just a handful of you to accept opposite sex than the majority to accept homsexuals.....Don't be a bigot to oppose my opinion.....
>It's easier for just a handful of you to accept opposite sex than the majority to accept homsexuals
how do you know which is easier? dont think you have tried both yourself, have you? I think you meant "smaller in number so should go along with the larger number" - very democratic attitude...
in any case, what is "accept"? the gays are not prosecuted for homosexuality itself, so we already "accept"; the question is whether they can hold this pink shirt jog
"how do you know which is easier? dont think you have tried both yourself, have you? I think you meant "smaller in number so should go along with the larger number" - very democratic attitude..."
Fortunately, I haven't tried it myself, and something's better be left out....like killing....What I meant with easier is for a small percentage of queers (you don't call them queers for nothing)to change compared to the majority of straights..Got it? I believe so.
"in any case, what is "accept"? the gays are not prosecuted for homosexuality itself, so we already "accept"; the question is whether they can hold this pink shirt jog"
Since they are not procecuted, shouldn't they just shut up and move on? What's there to argue about? Do you see straights walking around with labels saying they're straights? C'mon....If you wanna be accepted, stop advertising your sexual orientation, and live a "normal" life.
do you feel the same way about left handed people?
(BTW - I am neither gay nor left handed)
next time this happens, call the police. tell them that you have observed a group of off-duty policemen filming gay activities, and that you suspect them of being sex-perverts because they don't have a warrant or any official reason to be in civilian clothing after office hours filming gay people. in fact, call 999 and tell them you've caught some dirty cops making gay movies! i'm sure that's against the law.
i mean, if a bunch of gay joggers is an illegal gathering, surely a bunch of men dressed in civilian clothing filming them without a warrant or legal order is also (by definition)an illegal gathering.
i normally never post on these forums, but this one tickled me with the irony of it all.
the undercover cops have police permission for their group presence; the gays did not; this is not a joking matter; your advice could easily land someone in trouble
the issue is whether state power ought to be used to manage such activities, and what are the consequences on a society when such management exists
Post a Comment