Lawrence Wee & M. Ravi Seek Equal Protection For Gays Under Article 12 Of Constitution + Campaign For Constitutional Protection Of Lgbt Workers In S'pore Launched (compiled)

[groyn88]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/560817_10152129912157678_1904643356_n.jpg

 

M. Ravi is taking the fight for LGBT equality to the next level, even beyond that of repealing Section 377A.

Workplace discrimination against LGBT people may still persist even if 377A is repealed.

What is needed is to establish a precedent whereby Article 12 of the Constitution which guarantees equal treatment of all Singaporeans is specifically cited to prohibit any form of discrimination and unfair dismissal of LGBT people.

Lawrence Wee is obviously proud to be gay to mount such a high-profile challenge and angry enough at his dismissal to take on the legal system.

Watch out for his upcoming campaign.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/gay-man-applies-constitutional-protection-against-workplace-discrimina

Gay man applies for constitutional protection against workplace discrimination
Published on Aug 23, 2013
 
Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, an ex-senior manager of Robinson, claims that he was harassed to leave his job because he is gay. He filed an application at the High Court for constitutional protection against workplace discrimination of homosexual men. -- TNP FILE PHOTO: JEREMY LONG 

By Walter Sim
A former Robinsons employee on Friday filed an application at the High Court for constitutional protection against the workplace discrimination of homosexual men.

Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, 40, had previously brought a suit against his former employer in December 2012, claiming to have been harassed into resigning because he is gay. The suit has been dismissed on purely contractual grounds.

In filing the application, Mr Wee cited Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution, which states that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". He sought the Court to declare that this is so regardless of sexual orientation.

His lawyer M Ravi, said that there is a lack of guarantee by the courts for equal treatment under the Constitution for homosexual men, because Singapore has no legislation that prohibits employment discrimination against gays.

Edited August 24, 2013 by groyn88

[kinkikids]

Well this guy again? if he professional enough he should not be so openly disclose his sexuality. what kind of rights he want? so long MIW is in if not tell him wait long long only got himself to be blamed.

[azimuth]

I guess even if they do not get what they want in court, at least with all the media coverage, everyone can be made known of such discrimination in the work place.

[abang]

Regardless of the truth of Wee's dismissal, I salute him for having the balls to "come out" to fight against such discrimination.

There is always 101 reasons to "fire" someone but please don't let sexual orientation be THE reason.

[glowingember]

Well this guy again? if he professional enough he should not be so openly disclose his sexuality. what kind of rights he want? so long MIW is in if not tell him wait long long only got himself to be blamed.

Why is it not professional enough?

[Guest david]

Being professional has nothing to do with being gay. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is UNPROFESSIONAL!! get it kiddo??

[Guest Passingthru]

Anyway, the person he had trouble with has also left.  http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jim-mccallum/8/a3b/277

[Guest guest]

wat will happen when lawrence wee meet Tan eng hong .Birds of a feather flock together.

[gstc82]

Well this guy again? if he professional enough he should not be so openly disclose his sexuality. what kind of rights he want? so long MIW is in if not tell him wait long long only got himself to be blamed.

why can't he be out of the closet? What had this got to gone MIW?

I m not sure robinsons discriminates against gays. Retail n fashion usually has lots of gays working for them.... N saw his pay increase from like 5 k to over 12k.

[ChiSquare]

Hahaha. He's quite a looker actually. 

[Guest Guest]

Hes quite ya ya in person, but try to act like nice guy, damn disgusting

[Guest Guest]

Hes quite ya ya in person, but try to act like nice guy, damn disgusting

u referring to who? gstc or the ang mo or lawrence wee?

[Guest Guest]

u referring to who? gstc or the ang mo or lawrence wee?

Lawrence wee lah. Who else? He likes to moan loudly when getting fucked!

[azimuth]

Lol. We seem to be drifting away from the topic.

 

Anyway, kudos to this guy for his courage to challenge the status quo. :-)

[rotikawin]

Really admire his bold efforts.

I read somewhere (now I can't find the article anymore) that he alleged his employer once commented that because Wee is gay, he is "already wrong as a person".

If this allegation is true, its a matter of fundamental principle, and I support his fight till the end.

[Guest Guest]

Lol. We seem to be drifting away from the topic.

Anyway, kudos to this guy for his courage to challenge the status quo. :-)

LOL you wont kudos if you know this guy.

[azimuth]

LOL you wont kudos if you know this guy.

 

Maybe. But I am all kudos for his action. I can't say for character or what else as I am unsure.

[gstc82]

What will happen to mr wee if he loses in high court? Will he be made to bear the cost? It's very very expensive if he lost.1 it may cost him hundreds of thousands!

[Guest wee wee]

What will happen to mr wee if he loses in high court? Will he be made to bear the cost? It's very very expensive if he lost.1 it may cost him hundreds of thousands!

 

why u worry? he used to earn 16K a month based on not his some efforts.

[Guest Guest]

whats the outcome of his previous case? quite weird cos he said his boss discriminate him but seems like his boss like him and gave him salary increases very frequently.

[groyn88]

This is the conclusion of Lawrence Wee's signed affidavit presented to the High Court, drafted by M. Ravi:

 

"This lack of guarantee affects all gay men. Hence, as a gay man, I am directly affected by the lack of guarantee of equal treatment and protection and humbly seek the assistance of this Court to clarify that all male homosexuals have equal rights in employment and that the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

 

Therefore, I trust that the Honourable Court will uphold the principles of fairness, equality, and justice that our society is founded upon and humbly pray for the Court's declaration that Art 12 of the Constitution applies to provide all citizens with equal protection of the law, regardless of sexual orientation."

 

As you can see, they are fighting against employment discrimination on behalf of all gay, lesbian and bisexual Singaporeans.

 

The entire affidavit has been archived here:

 

http://sporelgbtpedia.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Archive_of_Lawrence_Wee%27s_affidavit_to_seek_equal_protection_for_gay_Singaporeans_under_Article_12_of_Constitution,_22_Aug_13

[rotikawin]

There it is in the affidavit:

"That's because it's from Lawrence, and anything from Lawrence cannot be right as to begin with, Lawrence is wrong already as a person"

Go for it Lawrence! I support you!

WE ARE NOT "WRONG"

[alien]

Lawrence wee lah. Who else? He likes to moan loudly when getting fucked!

Haha, who doesn't moan loudly when getting fucked?!

Anyway, dun know wht will be the outcome for his case?

[snowbeef]

Lawrence wee lah. Who else? He likes to moan loudly when getting fucked!

Lol how do u know?

[Guest Guest]

met him before in one of the clubs and at DYMK, the way he carry himself....seems like an attention seeker.

[Guest peekabooo]

I wonder If Robinson's now being owned and managed by a middle eastern investment AL Futain group has anything to do with disapproval with slinky swishy sashaying assistant managers who like to wear tight pants, and the end results are the middle eastern men who loves hairless smooth skiined east asian chinese men may tempt them from their gargantuan melon breasted middle eastern wives.

[Guest Guest]

I wonder If Robinson's now being owned and managed by a middle eastern investment AL Futain group has anything to do with disapproval with slinky swishy sashaying assistant managers who like to wear tight pants, and the end results are the middle eastern men who loves hairless smooth skiined east asian chinese men may tempt them from their gargantuan melon breasted middle eastern wives.

 

hmm can u simplify ur sentences?

[groyn88]

When Pastor Lawrence Khong sacked his female employee for committing adultery, the Ministry of Manpower ordered him to pay her compensation. However, if an employer were to sack any of his staff for being gay, lesbian or transgender, nobody is going to say anything.

 

Please support the campaign to redress this deficiency in our legal system and promote equality in the workplace for everyone:

 

http://www.trevvy.com/scoops/article/132-court-asked-to-declare-on-employment-equality/

Court Asked to Declare on Employment Equality

As equality laws are being revised worldwide, the Singapore courts have been petitioned to declare that Constitutional equality should apply in the workplace.

Lawrence Wee Kim San was recently dismissed by Robinsons, the iconic department store, on the grounds of sexual orientation.

In a historic application, Wee, a former senior management executive, is applying to the High Court here to declare that Article 12 should apply to all forms of discrimination at work.

The city state, heavily dependent on high-skilled labour, has sought to make Singapore attractive to professionals. In recent years, the economy has stepped up efforts to stem the outflow of Singaporean and foreign professionals, attracted by rapid development in neighbouring countries.

In May 2011, at the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Review, the Singapore government declared, “The principle of equality of all persons before the law is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Wee’s application, widely regarded as a test case, is expected to declare the law in respect of workplace discrimination. Having significant implications for labour relations, it will be watched closely when it is heard in November.

A group of concerned citizens, calling themselves Article 12 Non-discrimination @ Workplace Committee, have come together to support the application. Dr Roy Tan, a spokesperson for the committee said, “Our name makes reference to the Constitutional provision that entitles everybody to equal protection of the law.”

Wee’s lawyers noted, “With the challenge before the Court, Mr Wee, on behalf of all Singaporeans, is seeking a declaration that Article 12 should be interpreted to confirm the government’s position that all persons, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, are indeed and in fact protected by Singapore’s employment laws.”

Dr Tan added, “In the coming days, the Article 12 Non-discrimination @ Workplace Committee will release further information on the campaign and opportunities for like-minded individuals to show their support.”

For further information, please contact Article 12 Non-discrimination @ Workplace Committee at:

 

article12campaign@gmail.com

Edited October 4, 2013 by groyn88

[gstc82]

In sg, I don't think they can sack anyone outright from being gay, the employment acts is clear even though it does not say explicitly. You can sack a person for seriously lapse of judgement, but employers can't simply just terminate anyone just because they feel like it

The employer can basically make your life a misery and make you quit on your own.

[groyn88]

http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/08/23/12408.singapore-gay-man-seeks-court-declaration-that-gays-are-equally-protected-under-the-constitution?n=sea&nm=Lawrence

Singapore: Gay man seeks court declaration that gays are equally protected under the constitution
by Sylvia Tan

A gay man, who had brought a suit against his former employer last year claiming that he was harassed to leave his job because he is gay, has today filed an application at the High Court for constitutional protection against workplace discrimination of gay men.

A senior executive, who had previously brought a suit against his former employer in 2012, has filed a new case seeking a court declaration that Article 12 of the Constitution which guarantees all persons equal protection of the law will also apply to gay men. Article 12(2) currently states that “…there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law…”
Lawrence Wee

Last year, Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard brought a suit against his former employer Robinsons, a well-known chain store in Singapore, alleging he was harassed into leaving his job because he is gay and discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

Today, Wee, who is represented by human rights lawyer M Ravi, made an application to the High Court for a declaration that the Constitution of Singapore prohibits discrimination against homosexual men on account of their sexual orientation in the course of employment.

In the application, the 40-year-old described the biased and prejudiced treatment he faced at the workplace – until he left in August 2012 – as a result of his sexual orientation and stated that his only wish was to be “allowed to prove my worth at work, without fear that an immutable characteristic of mine becomes a millstone around my neck”.

In the affidavit, Wee said that he had worked for the company since 2006 had no issues when he was working primarily with the General Manager of Administration and Finance Shia Yew Peck, and Chief Executive John Cheston at the time until a new Acting CEO Jim McCallum was appointed in April 2011.

In March 2012, Wee recalled his former boss Shia asking him whether he had ever considered "turning straight" as it would be “more acceptable at work and makes life easier.” Wee however replied that he is “comfortable with his sexuality” and sees “no reason to change and pretend to be someone else.”

In May, Shia told Wee that the Acting CEO’s biasness against him seemed "deep-rooted" and hasn’t changed, and advised him to keep an eye out for a new employment opportunities. A month later, Shia told Wee that his efforts to correct the their boss’s prejudice was unsuccessful and added that there would be no future for him at the Robinsons Group as long as the Acting CEO’s is around “as he wanted (Wee) to leave.”

From the time Wee joined Robinsons in 2006 as a senior manager of its cards department to when he left in 2012, his monthly salary had more than doubled from S$7,200 to more than S$16,000. In the affidavit, Wee said that the company had recognised his good preformance and he played a key role in increasing the store's corporate sales from $20 million in revenue a year to over $32 million a year due to "key strategic accounts" that he had brought on board. In November 2011, Wee was credited for helping the company avert a $200,000 shopping voucher scam and his involvement was mentioned in a Straits Times report.

Wee said his attitude and work ethic had served him well throughout his life since he had to take up various odd jobs since he was 9 to support his family however the prejudice and discrimination he faced while working at Robinsons left him feeling "very aggrieved" and "flew in the face of everything (he) believed in about Singapore being a fair and meritocratic society".

Due to the lack of any legislation prohibiting employment discrimination against gay men, he was not able to seek any form of recourse from his employer despite believing that he was been arbitrarily treated on account of his sexual orientation.

Robinsons has denied all of Wee’s claims as reported by Asiaone in February 2012. The company denied Wee's claims that he was unfairly harassed by his boss Jim McCallum or that Wee's had increased corporate sales for Robinsons from S$20 million to over S$32 million a year. It also denied that Wee had "performed well" in his job, and had received increments and bonuses as "an acknowledgement of (his) excellent service".

When contacted by Fridae, M Ravi confirmed that this is the first case of its kind, on the grounds of sexual orientation, in Singapore although he knows of several other similar cases involving gay men who have face workplace discrimination.

“A number of gay men have approached me recently on such cases of discrimination in employment but they are afraid to come out publicly to fight for their rights and hence suffer in silence.” He added: “With this case my client is seeking to take a significant step to secure equal rights for all homosexual men. Even if the Court of Appeal strikes down section 377A, it does not guarantee equal protection for gay men who face discrimination in employment. This constitutional challenge seeks to achieve equality and dignity for gay men."

"Singapore’s employment legislation provides recourse for employees who feel they have been unfairly dismissed, including on the grounds of their sexual orientation and gender identity": Singapore government to the UN

In May 2011, when asked about what the state is doing to address "prevalent and systematic discrimination against women based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the social, cultural, political and economic spheres" ahead of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) review,  the Singapore government told the United Nations: “The principle of equality of all persons before the law is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The government went on to say: "Besides the adoption of fair employment practices promoted by TAFEP [Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices], Singapore’s employment legislation provides recourse for employees who feel they have been unfairly dismissed, including on the grounds of their sexual orientation and gender identity and they have recourse to appeal to the Minister for Manpower for reinstatement to their former employment."
- See more at: http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/08/23/12408.singapore-gay-man-seeks-court-declaration-that-gays-are-equally-protected-under-the-constitution?n=sea&nm=Lawrence#sthash.ABPCjcdJ.dpuf

[abang]

Yes it may not be The reason to terminate one's employment but deep down, you know it is definitely job performance, right?

Homophobia is still very prevalent in most workplaces..adopt a DONT ASK, WONT TELL policy..

 

Unless your fellow workers are so liberal... those aunties in my office ..  

NEVER tell them... they think it is the WORST crime of the century ..social stigma..

[gstc82]

Wee's mentality that he "single handedl. Increased sells for Robinson"s by 12million is wrong, he was certainly part of a group, of cos it'. Different if he was The one who.convinced a corporation to spent 12million. I read somewhere.his.salary was increased by several.thousands a month. If you perform well and bring in the.money, most.bosses.don't care as long as you bring in the money.

Wee's mentality that he "single handedl. Increased sells for Robinson"s by 12million is wrong, he was certainly part of a group, of cos it'. Different if he was The one who.convinced a corporation to spent 12million. I read somewhere.his.salary was increased by several.thousands a month. If you perform well and bring in the.money, most.bosses.don't care as long as you bring in the money.

[groyn88]

The international LGBT media have reported on the upcoming campaign.

 

Now, it will gain more awareness in the worldwide human rights community.

 

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/singapore-courts-decide-lgbt-workplace-discrimination071013

 

Singapore courts to decide on LGBT workplace discrimination

 

Singapore’s High Court will hear a test case in November on whether LGBTs are protected from discrimination in employment after an executive at a department store was fired after his bosses discovered he was gay

07 October 2013 | By Andrew Potts

Photo by Terence Ong

The Singapore High Court will hear a test case on whether LGBTs have protection from discrimination in the workplace after a senior executive at the Robinsons department store was sacked over his sexual orientation.

Lawrence Wee Kim San was recently dismissed by Robinsons and is now applying to the High Court here to declare that Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution should apply to all forms of discrimination at work.

Currently Article 12 mentions only race, religion, descent and place of birth as protected categories but also states, ‘all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.’

In May of 2011 at the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Review, the Singapore Government declared, 'The principle of equality of all persons before the law is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity,' and Wee's lawyers hope to test that commitment.

A group of concerned citizens, calling themselves the ‘Article 12 Non-discrimination @ Workplace Committee,’ have come together to support Wee’s application.

Dr Roy Tan, a spokesperson for the committee said, ‘Our name makes reference to the Constitutional provision that entitles everybody to equal protection of the law.’

‘In the coming days, the Article 12 Non-discrimination @ Workplace Committee will release further information on the campaign and opportunities for like-minded individuals to show their support.’

Wee’s lawyers say they are hopeful of clarifying Article 12 through the court action.

‘With the challenge before the Court, Mr Wee, on behalf of all Singaporeans, is seeking a declaration that Article 12 should be interpreted to confirm the government’s position that all persons, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, are indeed and in fact protected by Singapore’s employment laws,’ the lawyers said in a statement.

Homosexuality remains illegal in Singapore but the law is rarely enforced.

A Singapore court rejected a challenge to Singapore’s 377A sodomy law for the second time this year just days ago.

Edited October 10, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

This is the logo for the upcoming Article 12 campaign for LGBT workplace equality.

 

Please share the logo and support the campaign which aims to legislate your constitutional right to equality in the workplace.

 

The campaign video will be released soon.

 

Thank you.

 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1410959_626445977393571_267662885_o.jpg

Edited November 1, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

I don't know why the image above doesn't display, so I've uploaded it to Photobucket:

 

[groyn88]

These are alternative logos for the upcoming Article 12 campaign which seeks to legislate equality in the workplace for LGBT Singaporeans. The briefcase is just plain black and not rainbow-coloured

 

Please share them and support the campaign.

 

The campaign video will be released soon.

 

Thanks!

 

Edited November 4, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/gay-man-applies-constitutional-protection-against-workplace-discrimina
Gay man applies for constitutional protection against workplace discrimination
Published on Aug 23, 2013
Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, an ex-senior manager of Robinson, claims that he was harassed to leave his job because he is gay. He filed an application at the High Court for constitutional protection against workplace discrimination of homosexual men. -- TNP FILE PHOTO: JEREMY LONG
By Walter Sim
A former Robinsons employee on Friday filed an application at the High Court for constitutional protection against the workplace discrimination of homosexual men.
Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, 40, had previously brought a suit against his former employer in December 2012, claiming to have been harassed into resigning because he is gay. The suit has been dismissed on purely contractual grounds.
In filing the application, Mr Wee cited Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution, which states that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". He sought the Court to declare that this is so regardless of sexual orientation.
His lawyer M Ravi, said that there is a lack of guarantee by the courts for equal treatment under the Constitution for homosexual men, because Singapore has no legislation that prohibits employment discrimination against gays.

[groyn88]

The launch event of the campaign to get Article 12 of the Constitution to extend protection to all Singaporean workers regardless of sexual orientation will be held this coming Friday, 15 November 2013 at 7pm at an exclusive location.

It aims to safeguard you against discrimination in hiring, bullying at work, prevention from coming out, glass ceilings and arbitrary dismissal.

If you wish to attend the event, which will include the unveiling of the campaign video, please message me privately and I shall inform you of the address.

Thank you!

Edited November 9, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

The is the campaign video of the campaign which seeks to get Article 12 of the Constitution to extend protection to all Singaporean workers regardless of sexual orientation (and gender identity).  

This is the video of the interviews with the community leaders who support the campaign:

https://vimeo.com/79288982

This is the link to the Indiegogo campaign page.

Please donate to the campaign to cover the cost of legal fees.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/article-12-campaign-for-lgbt-workplace-equality/x/5329636?show_todos=true

The campaign does not benefit any particular individual but the entire LGBT community.

Thank you.

Edited November 15, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

Yahoo! News reported on the Article 12 LGBT workplace equality campaign launch:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/gay-man-launches-singapore-campaign-for-workplace-discrimination-protection-034440654.html
Gay man launches Singapore campaign for workplace discrimination protection
By Nurul Azliah Aripin | Yahoo Newsroom – 1 hour 54 minutes ago
A former Robinsons employee seeking constitutional protection against workplace discrimination of homosexual men has launched a campaign to create awareness about the issue and raise funds for legal costs.
Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, together with seven other people, launched the campaign “Stop hurting, quit labeling” on Friday evening at the home of film and theatre director Glenn Goei. About 50 people turned up at the event to show their support, including local actors Lim Yu Beng and Neo Swee Lin, and former Singapore Democratic Party member Vincent Wijeysingha.
In his application filed with the High Court in August, Wee is seeking a declaration that protection against discrimination under Article 12 of the Constitution should include within its ambit all Singaporeans regardless of race, religion, place of origin, gender and sexual orientation.
Wee said in an interview at the launch that the campaign was meant to create awareness within the larger community on the lack of protection for homosexuals when it came to workplace discrimination.
“We are here to honour this very important constitutional challenge to respect equality and non-discrimination in employment for gay men, lesbians, basically the LGBT community in Singapore. A constitutional challenge of this magnitude is public interest litigation because it affects a significant section of the population in Singapore. So this is not restricted to Lawrence Wee,” said human rights lawyer M Ravi at the event. Ravi is also involved in a separate constitutional challenge of section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men.
The campaign is aiming to raise a total of S$30,000, said Wee, who had filed a civil suit against his former employer in December 2012 for allegedly harassing him and forcing him to resign because of his homosexuality. The suit was dismissed on contractual grounds.
An account on crowd funding site Indiegogo where people can go to donate to the campaign has been set up.
 

[groyn88]

This speech was delivered by creative director Glen Goei at the launch of the Article 12 LGBT workplace equality campaign on Friday, 15 November 2013 at 8pm.

Please donate to the campaign here:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/article-12-campaign-for-lgbt-workplace-equality/x/5329636

[groyn88]

Fridae has also written an article about the Article 12 LGBT workplace equality campaign:

http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/11/18/12500.campaign-launched-to-fight-lgbt-workplace-discrimination-in-singapore?n=sec

 

Please donate to the campaign here:

 

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/article-12-campaign-for-lgbt-workplace-equality

 

To date, almost US$6,000 has been raised but it is still far short of the target of $30,000 to cover legal fees.

[groyn88]

This is the media release from human rights lawyer, M. Ravi's office regarding this morning's Article 12 LGBT workplace equality challenge.

It is only temporary setback, akin to the course of events in the Tan Eng Hong case.

Lawrence Wee and Ravi intend to appeal:

Dear Members of the Press,

SINGAPORE, 25 November 2013. Today in Singapore's High Court, a hearing to strike out the application by the plaintiff in the matter of Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard & Attorney General was held. At this juncture, the AG has managed to strike out Mr Wee's application, as the Assistant Registrar concurred with their argument that Mr Wee lacks* locus standi*, or* standing* to be heard by the Court on this matter. In today's decision, the Assistant Registrar of the Court determined that Mr Wee had failed to show where the government had violated his Constitutional rights in its failure to clarify the position that homosexual males are protected from discrimination under Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

For the Attorney-General's Chambers, Ms Aurill Kam Su Cheun argued that the current Tripartite Guidelines for employers created with cooperation from the Ministry of Manpower strongly discourage discrimination in the workplace in Singapore.

However, counsel for Mr Wee, Mr M Ravi, strenuously argued for the necessity of a declaration from the Court on the issue of discrimination against homosexuals in relation to Article 12. Mr Ravi contended that the Tripartite Guidelines and even the commitment made through the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which Singapore is a signatory, are non-binding and provide no legal remedy for homosexual men or women who have been discriminated against in the workplace, as has been the case for Mr Wee. Mr Ravi also highlighted that while the government had made statements to clarify its position on the prohibition of discrimination against women based on sexual orientation in its statements on CEDAW, there has been no equivalent statement by the government on prohibition of discrimination against homosexual men based on sexual orientation. This is compounded by the existence of statue 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes male homosexuality in Singapore.

Mr Ravi stated that the absence of the Court's declaration on Constitutional protection would be a tremendous setback for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in Singapore as well as for women as the Constitutional protection from discrimination needs to be clarified by the Court when it comes to cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

Today's decision can be appealed by Mr Wee, as was the case in the *Tan Eng Hong Standing* decision by the Court of Appeal. Mr Tan's case had also originally been struck out by the Assistant Registrar at the High Court.
However, Mr Tan proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which issued a definitive judgement in favor of Mr Tan's *standing* to be heard.

Mr Ravi's Written Submissions are attached.
=================================
This Real Singapore report draws largely from the media release above:

http://therealsingapore.com/content/court-dismisses-employee-seeking-protection-against-homosexual-discrimination

COURT DISMISSES EMPLOYEE SEEKING PROTECTION AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

Post date:
25 Nov 2013 - 5:12pm

PRESS RELEASE:

Today in Singapore's High Court, a hearing to strike out the application by the plaintiff in the matter of Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard & Attorney General was held. At this juncture, the AG has managed to strike out Mr Wee's application, as the Assistant Registrar concurred with their argument that Mr Wee lacks locus standi, or standing to be heard by the Court on this matter. In today's decision, the Assistant Registrar of the Court determined that Mr Wee had failed to show where the government had violated his Constitutional rights in its failure to clarify the position that homosexual males are protected from discrimination under Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

For the Attorney-General's Chambers, Ms Aurill Kam Su Cheun argued that the current Tripartite Guidelines for employers created with cooperation from the Ministry of Manpower strongly discourage discrimination in the workplace in Singapore.

However, counsel for Mr Wee, Mr M Ravi, strenuously argued for the necessity of a declaration from the Court on the issue of discrimination against homosexuals in relation to Article 12. Mr Ravi contended that the Tripartite Guidelines and even the commitment made through the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which Singapore is a signatory, are non-binding and provide no legal remedy for homosexual men or women who have been discriminated against in the workplace, as has been the case for Mr Wee. Mr Ravi also highlighted that while the government had made statements to clarify its position on the prohibition of discrimination against women based on sexual orientation in its statements on CEDAW, there has been no equivalent statement by the government on prohibition of discrimination against homosexual men based on sexual orientation. This is compounded by the existence of statue 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes male homosexuality in Singapore.

Mr Ravi stated that the absence of the Court's declaration on Constitutional protection would be a tremendous set-back for the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in Singapore as well as for women as the Constitutional protection from discrimination needs to be clarified by the Court when it comes to cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

Today's decision can be appealed by Mr Wee, as was the case in the Tan Eng Hong Standing decision by the Court of Appeal. Mr Tan's case had also originally been struck out by the Assistant Registrar at the High Court. However, Mr Tan proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which issued a definitive judgement in favor of Mr Tan's standing to be heard.  
 

[groyn88]

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/high-court-rejects-anti-discrimination-bid-gay-man-20131126

High Court rejects anti-discrimination bid by gay man
Published on Nov 26, 2013
9:16 PM
 
The High Court has struck out an application by former Robinsons employee Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San to have discrimination against gay men declared unconstitutional. -- TNP FILE PHOTO: JEREMY LONG
The High Court has struck out an application by a former Robinsons employee to have discrimination against gay men declared unconstitutional.

The Court, which heard the case in chambers, also ordered Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, 40, to pay the costs of his case in the decision issued on Monday.

Mr Wee, a former assistant general manager for cards and corporate sales at Robinsons, had claimed that he was harassed into resigning in August last year due to his homosexuality.

He filed an affidavit in August this year asking the court to declare that Article 12 of the Constitution applies, regardless of sexual orientation. Article 12 states that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law".

[groyn88]

Human rights lawyer, M. Ravi, is filing an appeal tomorrow against the registrar's dismissal of Lawrence Wee's application to get constitutional protection for LGBT workers.

Please watch and share this video of the speech made by heterosexual, happily married, celebrity actor, Lim Yu Beng, at the launch of the campaign:

and encourage your friends to make a donation to cover the legal costs of the appeal and subsequent stages of the campaign.

Thank you!
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/article-12-campaign-for-lgbt-workplace-equality

[groyn88]

Looking back at 2013, 27 November was one of the darkest days for LGBT equality in Singapore:

This is the OCRed text of the article:

Gay man’s case struck out
By MELODY ZACCHEUS and WALTER SIM
AN APPLICATION by a former Robinsons employee to have discrimination against gay men declared unconstitutional has been struck out by the High Court.
Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, 40, was also ordered to pay the costs for the case.
A former assistant general manager for cards and corporate sales at Robinsons, Mr Wee had claimed that he was harassed into resigning in August last year because he was a homosexual.
So, he first sued the retailer in December last year.
After he lost the case, he decided to launch an appeal.
He also filed an affidavit in August this year asking the court to declare that Article 12 of the Constitution applies to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Article 12 states that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”.
Following queries from The Straits Times, the Attorney-Gen-eral’s Chambers (AGC) released a statement yesterday explaining why it had applied to strike out the case.
It said the attorney-general (AG) argued that Mr Wee had failed to show a case that the Government had violated his Article 12 rights - a point which the High Court agreed with when coming to its decision to strike out the case on Monday.
“Mr Wee had therefore failed to show that he even had standing to seek the declaration,” said the AGC statement, adding that his claim was rejected on the basis that “it is not sustainable in law, is frivolous and vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the court process”.
In its application to the High Court, the AGC argued that Mr Wee’s “real grievance of alleged discrimination is against his former employer, and not the Government”.
The AG also labelled Mr Wee’s bid an abuse of process because “it was taken to gain a collateral advantage” in his suit against his former employer, which is currently on appeal.
It added that Tripartite Guidelines discouraging discrimination in the workplace are already in place for employers.
Mr Wee’s lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, had argued, however, that such a declaration was necessary here.
This was because the guidelines, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, to which Singapore is a signatory, are “non-binding and provide no legal remedy for homosexual men or women who have been discriminated against in the workplace”.
He also highlighted that the Government has so far made no statement on whether there is a ban on discrimination against homosexual men because of their sexual orientation.
Meanwhile, comments made by sociopolitical blogger Alex Au Wai Pang last month on Mr Wee’s cases, among others, have seen him accused of contempt of court.
The AGC is currently trying to seek permission from the High Court to launch a contempt case against the blogger.
melodyz@sph.com.sg
waltsim@sph.com.sg

=======================

Please donate to ensure the continuation of the campaign to secure Constitutional equality for LGBT Singaporeans in the workplace. Human rights lawyer, M. Ravi, has appealed against the High Court judgment:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/article-12-campaign-for-lgbt-workplace-equality

Thank you.

Edited December 29, 2013 by groyn88

[groyn88]

Latest update:

3 individuals - a bisexual man, a male-to-female cross-dresser and an androgynous teenager have intervened in the Article 12 Constitutional challenge to fight for equality for LGBT Singaporeans in the workplace.

This new strategy was initiated by human rights lawyer, M. Ravi, and CEO of We Exist Pte Ltd, Lawrence Wee, who was himself discriminated against and sacked by his former employer.
A press conference was held at 10:30am this morning.
http://sporelgbtpedia.shoutwiki.com/wiki/%22Voices_of_the_Unseen%22_file_summons_to_intervene_in_High_Court_in_matter_of_Article_12_Constitutional_challenge

[groyn88]

Press Release
6 March 2014
From the desk of Lawrence Wee, CEO of We Exist Pte Ltd
Today in The High Court of Singapore, three interested parties comprising a bisexual man, a male-to-female transvestite and an androgynous teenager have collectively decided to intervene in Lawrence Wee’s Article 12 Constitution suit (Case No. OS 763/2013).
Brief background on the interested parties
Mok Zong Wei Ryan (Ryan), 17 years old
Ryan, a young bisexual, who struggles with the fact that society judges him for his sexuality and appearance; having personally experienced rejection from his ex-girlfriend, not because she didn’t love him, but reason being that she was afraid of how others would view her for being together with a bisexual man. Ryan felt that he needs to stand up and make a difference, to open the minds of society so that they stop judging others on their sexuality or appearance.
Guneres s/o Simon (Margaret), 57 years old
Having suffered discrimination and abuse for almost half a century, Margaret, a male-to-female transvestite, feels she’s never too old to make a difference as she has seen her fellow transgender friends suffer and even commit suicide over the fact that society has treated them with such discrimination and cruelty.
Kenneth-John Cheong Tuck Meng (DollFace), 19 years old
After being a victim of discrimination, mistreatment and sexual harassment, ‘DollFace’, a young androgynous teenager feels the need to stand up for its (and everybody else’s) right to be treated fairly without discrimination. After having lost its mother in late 2012 to cancer, on its mother’s death bed, she told it that society should learn to accept it for who it is. If its own mother can accept its identity, why should it be discriminated against by society?
    Note: Dollface does not identify as male or female and prefers to be referred to by the pronoun "it".
Author
    Lawrence Wee, CEO of We Exist Pte Ltd
The man who initiated the Article 12 Constitutional challenge in August 2013 after experiencing discrimination by his previous employer (see notes 1 and 2 below).
    WeExist Pte Ltd
..... because you matter
address: 101 Upper Cross Street, #05-13 People’s Park Centre, Singapore 058357
tel: 65337433
Press Conference Details
Date: 7 March 2014, Friday
Time: 10.30am
Venue: Level 10, 55 Market Street (Raffles Place MRT Station), Singapore 048941
For any further queries, please contact:
Gary Tan, 97700564
Notes:
    1. Straits Times, August 24,2013, "Gay Man launches anti-discrimination bid"
    2. http://business.asiaone.com/career/out-office/persecuted-work-because-hes-gay
Quotes from Apellants
‘Dollface’, androgynous, 19 years old
“Raceless, genderless, ageless, We are all just souls blessed with an embodiment of decaying flesh. Humans are all the same, so why do we segregate our own race by discriminating against one another?” - Dollface.
‘Ryan’, bisexual, 17 years old
“All men should be equal and no one should be judged for their sexual orientation and their appearance.” - Ryan.
‘Margaret’, transvestite, 57 years old
“Too many innocent lives have been lost; Inclusivity has to be made to embrace everyone including transvestites.” - Margaret.

Edited March 7, 2014 by groyn88

[fab]

Any idea which area of sales was Lawrence wee in charge of? eg. retail or corporate sales? I am quite shocked a retail company can pay a sales manager $16k a mth.

[groyn88]

Any idea which area of sales was Lawrence wee in charge of? eg. retail or corporate sales? I am quite shocked a retail company can pay a sales manager $16k a mth.

Lawrence Wee saved Robinsons millions of dollars by streamlining the company's operations so his $15K salary is a pittance compared to the revenue raked in due to his efforts.

Edited March 10, 2014 by groyn88