Group intending to disrupt Pink Dot 15 thwarted

[Guest Roy Tan]

The group that intended to disrupt Pink Dot this year was not a bunch of homophobes but most probably supporters of transwoman Harvey Chettiar lobbying for her justice and safety, as well as agitating against racism within the LGBT community. They held a similar sub-protest during last year's Pink Dot.

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Harvey_Chettiar_saga

Harvey Chettiar saga

Vickreman Harvey Chettiar is a psychiatrised, autistic, non-operative transwoman, who filed a civil suit against the National Healthcare Group (NHG), alleging she was raped in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in 2016. Her case was first brought to the public's attention by We Who Witness, a non-governmental organisation, in a Facebook post on 14 March 2021[6]. Harvey had her suit dismissed because the NHG's lawyers argued that Harvey did not have the 'mental fitness' to sustain the case in her own name and invoked Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalised sex between men, against her.

Harvey filed the suit against the NHG because it owned the Institute of Mental Health. To argue her case entailed an Order of Costs, which required her to pay up to $597,000 in legal costs that the National Healthcare Group accumulated, bankrupting her and which meant she would no longer have access to hormones. She was also not be able to have some of her access needs met.

Detained even before she was found guilty and for charges that she was later acquitted of or discharged from, she had still received no justice seven years on for the rape and assault that happened to her while she was discriminatorily detained in a male forensic psychiatric ward.

Section 377A was invoked to strike out her civil suit, and she was once again denied her right to equal recognition under the law due to her being psychiatrised, with a diagnosis of 'gender identity disorder'. Justice was repeatedly denied to Harvey due to the intersectional oppression she faced.

In an Instagram post she shared with queer.sg in 2020, Harvey wrote: “In 2014, I was arrested for alleged terrorism-related offences. Normally people are released on bail but as I have Asperger's Syndrome, I was remanded in IMH for 11 days awaiting a psychiatric report. I was detained together with male prisoners because I was assigned male at birth, despite being anatomically intersex and female presenting. That was when I was sexually assaulted by an inmate named Syafik.

‘”He has escaped justice for more than 6 years now. 6 whole years. Things had gotten so bad that I spent $5000 on a private investigation to get some closure.”

She then sought a pro bono lawyer to take on her case and argue against the Order of Costs, which would require her to pay up to $597,000 in legal costs that the NHG accumulated. This sum would leave her bankrupt and lacking access to hormones and other needs.

Timeline of events
2014

    Discriminatory disability-based detention to assess 'soundness of mind' to make her own defence.
    Harvey is remanded to the institute of Mental Health for psychiatric evaluation on the basis of her having autism spectrum disorder.
    The State does not recognise Harvey as a trans woman; IMH places her in a male forensic ward.
    She is placed there alongside people accused of sexual and other violent offences.
    Harvey is raped and then repeatedly molested during the detention in the psychiatric ward.
    Harvey is severely traumatised and is later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
    Harvey is acquitted of original charge, discharged from three additional charges.
    Harvey lodges a police report about sexual assault.

2016

    Harvey's police report is closed without investigation.
    As other avenues closed, Harvey files a civil suit against the National Healthcare Croup, which owns IMH, for negligence and vicarious liability. This was her only route to any kind of justice, as the assailant himself could not legally be identified and she could neither pursue a criminal case nor file a magistrate's complaint against the assailant. Harvey is not the only paychiatrised person to have been advised to go the negligence route as the solo route to justice.

2021

    Civil suit struck out: denial of right to legal capacity, invocation of Section 377A

Amongst other things, the decision was informed by NHC's lawyers arguing that she was unfit to represent herself due to an 'abnormality of mind' (naming 'Gender Identity Disorder'). Her right to legal capacity was denied because she is a psychiatrised person.

NHC's lawyers also invoked that the existence of S377A, meaning that Harvey cannot get any claims for damages from a civil suit since she was 'engaging' in a criminal act, even if it was really sexual assault. The court ordered that her case cannot be reinstated while S377A exists.

Harvey, who was acquitted of her original charge in 2016, decided to lodge a police report about the sexual assault. However, the police report closed without investigation, and Harvey could only file a civil suit against the National Healthcare Group (NHG) for negligence and vicarious liability.

NHG's lawyers argued that Harvey was unfit to represent herself because of “an abnormality of mind,” citing, in particular, her gender identity “disorder”. Subsequently, NHG’s lawyers also invoked Section 377A, which means that although she alleged she was raped, she was accused of “engaging” in a criminal act.
2022

Photo:  During Pink Dot 14 held at Hong Lim Park on Saturday, 4 May 2022, a sub-group of brown and Tamil queers staged their own protest to demand justice for Harvey.

After the Pink Dot countdown at dusk, they chanted slogans to protest racism within the LGBT community. The following video clip of the protest was uploaded by transwoman Lune Loh to her Facebook on 19 June 2022:

 

2023

    A Safety4Harvey Instagram account was set up on 5 May 2023.
    Three protests were held at various locations to lobby for Harvey's safety.

The first protest was held outside the State Courts on 5 May 2023.

The second protest was held on 18 May 2023 on the ground floor of the building housing the Attorney-General's Chambers at 1 Pickering Street[4].

The third protest was held outside IMH on 12 June 2023.

    An intended disruption of Pink Dot 15 on 24 June 2023 was aborted due to detection by security officers stationed at the event.

The following posters were uploaded to Pink Dot's Facebook page on Tuesday, 27 June 2023, four days after the event to inform the public about the security incident:

Editable text of the posters:

KEEPING PINK DOT SAFE FOR ALL

1. We are saddened by a series of troubling accounts regarding a security incident at Pink Dot 15, despite our best efforts to keep Pink Dot welcoming and safe for all. We wish to clarify the situation, and share what happened that day.

2. Prior to our 24 June event, Pink Dot was alerted by members of the community to the organisation of an unregistered protest within the park and a potential disruption to the event. In a 3-page document, a group of individuals outlined plans to recruit “~12 people in the core team, and -50 people in the general team” to organise a demonstration at Pink Dot 15 with illuminated banners, and that these plans had to be kept “strictly confidential”, so as to have an “element of surprise”. The document also mentioned a bag containing “operational materials” that a group member needed to “physically safeguard”, and an unknown number of “zero-visibility” personnel attending the event.

3. These organisers claimed within this document that their plan was legal. This is categorically untrue. Any protest or demonstration in Speakers’ Corner must be registered and approved by the authorities, and failing to do so will constitute a contravention of Singapore law. Pink Dot committee members have been held liable in the past for participants’ contraventions of park rules. We run the event at great personal risk, and are ourselves subject to police investigations for any incidents.

4. There was also a real risk of disruption to the safe and smooth participation of Pink Dot attendees, and to our programming. The safety of all attendees is our top priority, and we have to take necessary precautions to ensure their well-being. Given that some of the organisers had previously disrupted Pink Dot in 2022 with unlawful demonstrations (and had been warned not to do so again), we were concerned they might attempt this once more.

5. With this knowledge, we did not lodge a police report or turn the organisers away from the park, as we respected their right to be there as citizens and members of our community, and did not wish to cause undue stress to vulnerable LGBTQ+ people. Nevertheless, we decided to keep an eye out for potential disruptions and try to resolve this as amicably as possible.

6. On event day, the Pink Dot team saw members of the group (Persons A, B and C) enter the park separately. At least one of them, Person B, was a known participant of unlawful demonstrations that disrupted the Pink Dot programme in 2022. Despite giving them the benefit of doubt, the actions of Persons A, B and C throughout the day gave us reasonable cause to suspect that they were indeed planning to stage an unlawful and potentially disruptive demonstration.

a. As part of security checks that all participants have to undergo to enter the park, we found three large plastic jerry cans within Person A’s bag, which were completely empty and marked with duct tape. Security Officers (“SO”), hired to ensure safety and protect attendees from harm, found the objects to be suspicious and requested that they be left behind at the security checkpoint, which Person A agreed to.

b. Persons A, B and C then positioned a large ground sheet in the middle of the formation area, similar to the tactic used by the unlawful demonstrators in 2022. When asked to move their mats to avoid the formation pegs, they refused.

c. We then found long poles with Persons B and C that had bypassed our security checks, smuggled in with other equipment needed by community groups at the community tents.

d. We requested a second round of bag checks within the park, away from the crowd, to ensure that no other potentially disruptive items had bypassed security checks. SOs then discovered a concealed item wrapped in black and sealed with masking tape, within the same large bag brought in by Person A with the plastic jerry cans.

    i. Persons B and C both reacted defensively when the concealed item was discovered, raising their voices at the SOs and becoming uncooperative.
    ii. The SOs explained that they needed to verify the contents of the concealed item and determine its safety for other participants, but Persons B and C refused further checks.
    iii. As SOs were managing this situation, Person B became increasingly agitated and advanced towards the unarmed SOs. When one of them placed his hand on her arm to stop her advance, she made strikes at them with the pointed end of a trekking stick.
    iv. Person B then sat on the bag to prevent further access to the unidentified item, while SOs stood close by to monitor and prevent further escalation.
    v. For the remainder of the time in the park, Persons A, B and C were given every opportunity to allow SOs to identify this item and resume participation in the dot, but this was consistently rejected.

e. Persons A and C subsequently dispersed. After some time, Person B left the park with the bag and the still-unidentified item.

7. We are responsible for creating a safe and respectful space for all participants and volunteers, and will always take carefully considered actions to prevent hijacks to the event, regardless of the underlying cause being championed. The actions undertaken by these individuals before, during and after the event have not been in good faith. While we did not lodge police reports for last year’s disruptions or this year’s attempt, authorities may choose to conduct their own investigations. We urge the community not to spread any misinformation.

8. Pink Dot SG is dismayed that we have to address this issue, instead of focusing on those for whom we fight to hold this space every year: the thousands of queer people and their allies who showed up to make a stand for a more inclusive Singapore.

9. That said, this is a valuable opportunity to reflect on the ways that the LGBTQ+ community has evolved, and will continue to evolve over time. As the space for advocacy in Singapore becomes increasingly more complex and nuanced, let us always treat each other with humanity and decency, and to conduct conversations civilly, truthfully, and in good faith.
 

[Guest Guest]

This type got people rape meh....