Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)

[Vometra]

How can we leave religion out when they are pretty much in the forefront of the anti LGBT movement?

[Steve5380]

24 minutes ago, Vometra said:

How can we leave religion out when they are pretty much in the forefront of the anti LGBT movement?

 

Maybe we could leave religion out when they leave condemnation of LGBTs out ?

[Guest Christian LUUURVE]

Evangelist christians are always at the forefont of anti LGBT movements across the world. Whenever a country wants to decriminalise gay sex or legalise same sex marriage, they will be the ones threatening to boycott the imcumbant government, derail official discussions and interrupt court processes. Just look at Taiwan and South Korea, countries with politically active christian communities. The christians there would resort to charging into government offices, throwing smoke bombs at protests rallies and lying on roads to obstruct traffic, etc. Even kicking, punching up gays at their protest rallies. They are a real problem everywhere gays try to seek equal rights under the law, resorting to criminal force even just to block legal progresses, all the while claiming to love gay people but hate the gay sin. 

 

Like what Vometra said earlier, “the only thing more annoying than christian hate, is christian loveeeeeee”. LOL I just love this expression!

[Vometra]

2 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Maybe we could leave religion out when they leave condemnation of LGBTs out ?

 

That would mean that they have moved on to another victim, when it has become untenable to continue in their vitriol and the tide of civilization and progress have turned against them.

They did that many times throughout history, from women to "witches", to Jews to cats to Science to any voiceless racial and religious minorities.

As part of humanity, we must fight them whereever they are, even if they are no longer directly against us.

 

Watch Christopher Hitchens dismantled religion in 4 minutes with great flair and humor!

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Vometra

[LeanMature]

1 hour ago, Vometra said:

How can we leave religion out when they are pretty much in the forefront of the anti LGBT movement?

 

55 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Maybe we could leave religion out when they leave condemnation of LGBTs out ?

 

Singapore must remain secular, so the government jolly well leave religion out (read the Church) of discussion that involved the entire population of different faith.  To perhaps satisfy them, 377A can be tweak to only apply to people of their own faith. This is win win situation. 

 

[Vometra]

7 minutes ago, LeanMature said:

 

 

Singapore must remain secular, so the government jolly well leave religion out (read the Church) of discussion that involved the entire population of different faith.

 

 

Which is why I was bewildered when the statements from NCCS, the Catholic Church and Pergas were given prominence on the mass media.

Firstly, this flies in the face of a secular state.

Secondly, what about the views of Buddhists/Taoists, who are the real religious majority in Singapore?

 

8 minutes ago, LeanMature said:

 

To perhaps satisfy them, 377A can be tweak to only apply to people of their own faith. This is win win situation.  

 

 

I do not agree with this at all. We should never ever give them the idea that they can run a mini state within Singapore with their own laws and privileges.

Everyone here should be subjected to the same set of laws; no sharia, no xtian laws.

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Vometra

[Steve5380]

1 hour ago, Vometra said:

 

That would mean that they have moved on to another victim, when it has became untenable to continue in their vitriol and the tide of civilization and progress have turned against them.

They did that many times throughout history, from women to "witches", to Jews to cats to Science to any voiceless racial and religious minorities.

As part of humanity, we must fight them whereever they are, even if they are no longer directly against us.

 

Watch Christopher Hitchens dismantled religion in 4 minites with great flair and humor!

 

 

You are right, Vometra.  I made that post before thinking it through.  Even if we lose the attention of the religions because there are more vulnerable targets,  we cannot ignore their evil.  Christopher Hitchens dismantled Judeo/Christianity with much clarity.  Where was this adorable God between the time he created Adam and came to meet Moses?  And then more time had to pass before Jesus came with his "redemption"?  Over 97,000 years of humans deprived of "salvation".  Why should WE have access to "salvation" while others died without it?  The absurdity is so clear, so simple, and yet the deception is so universal!

[Guest Shine]

1 hour ago, Vometra said:

 

I do not agree with this at all. We should never ever give them the idea that they can run a mini state within Singapore with their own laws and privileges.

Everyone here should be subjected to the same set of laws; no sharia, no xtian laws.

 

 

There is already a Syrian Court in Singapore, in case you are not aware.

https://www.syariahcourt.gov.sg/Syariah/front-end/Default.aspx?pid=M02.05

 

[Vometra]

14 minutes ago, Guest Shine said:

 

There is already a Syrian Court in Singapore, in case you are not aware.

https://www.syariahcourt.gov.sg/Syariah/front-end/Default.aspx?pid=M02.05

 

 

Yup I became aware of this when I was looking at inheritance laws a while back ... I'm against it, but Malay/Muslims hold a special position in our constitution (Bumiputra), so .... 

[lean n mean]

Well argued/defended:

[Guest Putty Creamy]

5 minutes ago, lean n mean said:

Well argued/defended:

I don't buy straits Times, when was this published?

[Vometra]

27 minutes ago, lean n mean said:

Well argued/defended:

...

 

Yup very well argued, and caused a shit storm online ... enjoy the comments lol

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Vometra

[Guest chris]

5 hours ago, Vometra said:

 

That would mean that they have moved on to another victim, when it has become untenable to continue in their vitriol and the tide of civilization and progress have turned against them.

They did that many times throughout history, from women to "witches", to Jews to cats to Science to any voiceless racial and religious minorities.

As part of humanity, we must fight them whereever they are, even if they are no longer directly against us.

 

Watch Christopher Hitchens dismantled religion in 4 minutes with great flair and humor!

 

 

For those who dont know, Christopher Hitchens the vitriol atheist is dead, died many years ago. May his soul rest in peace , he was a heavy smoker and cigar munching anri religion crusader, what an oxymoron, 

 

in the end he suffered greatly from painful cancer.

 

those whi profess religion usually tremble in their loins when asked to debate him.

 

Too bad people who think like him and have his intellect are usually hammered down like iron nails sticking out.

 

He was especially unkind to abrahamic religions .

[Guest chris]

1 hour ago, Vometra said:

 

Yup very well argued, and caused a shit storm online ... enjoy the comments lol

 

 

After Prof. Tommy Koh made this pronouncement, it made all religious and the establishment laow khwee 漏气 。 

 

Ain't it  unpatriotic to make the hands that  used to  feed you , red faced?

[Guest They deserved condemnation]

6 minutes ago, Guest chris said:

He was especially unkind to abrahamic religions .

Abrahamic regions are unkind to humanity as a whole, especially marginalised communities, by perpetuating their marginalised conditions, diametrically opposed to the stance of the god they so professedly worshipped, period.

 

[Guest PM-to-be]

2 hours ago, Guest chris said:

 

After Prof. Tommy Koh made this pronouncement, it made all religious and the establishment laow khwee 漏气 。 

 

Ain't it  unpatriotic to make the hands that  used to  feed you , red faced?

Frankly speaking, it is Singapore PM who should be very "Lao Kwee" for not being able to think through his head. The 4.2million salary paid to PM is a waste of public money.   Lawrence Kong was jealous that his classmate can become a PM, so he also wanted to act "BIG" by preaching hate in order to gain public attention to support him. Their action is  very damaging to Christianity.

[Guest chris]

On 9/9/2018 at 10:14 PM, Guest Now said:

you do realise that in singapore.. all these petitions dont work...

 

Brother,   ai piah cia eh yia

 

 

[heliumduck]

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSewP1OK7TVFEF5cFDWVrgHu9U3NMR8lsAVJvvVPDBb6W7wP8A/viewform

 

https://www.facebook.com/InterUniLGBTNetwork/photos/a.516450061846496/1147139532110876/?type=3&theater

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by heliumduck

[Guest AntiHypocrite]

20 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

If you are a Christian, you should value as the highest in your religion the worlds of Jesus quoted in the four gospels. Even if those four writers could have been somewhat subjective (but then if Christianity is truth the Holy Spirit would not have allowed any mistake or omission in the gospels.)

 

With the practice of homosexuality being such a big deal in the eyes of society and allegedly also in the eyes of god,  HOW YOU EXPLAIN that there is not a single word by Jesus giving judgment or guidance about it?  Would he not have condemned it himself if condemnation is warranted?

 

 

This sounds awfully close to the false directive that religion should have a special status: It should deserve a privileged RESPECT and not be treated and discussed like hundreds of other topics that we have the freedom of expression to argue about.  How you explain this privilege if it is not a shield to protect religious dogmas from well deserved controversies?  

First of all I would like to emphasize that even though I believe it to be immoral I don't put an emphasis on it like many other Christians do so I am not coming at this from a condescending perspective. The bible is very clear on it being a wrong even in the new testament; but even if you could somehow dispute that it can be logically deduced from biblical reasoning why it is wrong:

Sex outside of marriage is considered immoral because sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy meant by God to create life, within the confines of marriage which is a sacred vow of faithfulness; that is sex and marriage between man and wife are indivisible concepts. Therefore sex because of the sacredness of marriage is sacred itself.

Now take a look at homosexual sex and ask the question, is there a marriage to guard the faithfulness of the partners involved? From a christian perspective the answer is no because such a  sacred vow was never ordained for same sex relations. You can call union between man and man marriage if you want, but that does not change the original definition and purpose of marriage which is a sacred vow of faithfulness between a male and a female meant to create life.

Because such a sacred vow and moral framework does not exist for sex to take place, homosexual couples are free from the moral obligation to be faithful to their life partners, and that freedom from morality is precisely the definition of sin. 

BUT having said all that, there is a difference between what is a sin and what should be criminalized; and I believe the standards of criminalization  should be equally applied to everyone just as morality is equally applied to everyone. If Christians wants to criminalize homosexuality, they should be ready to answer why they don't criminalize abortion, adultery, sex before marriage, prostitution etc. They should be ready to prosecute members of their own church who once committed these acts. Why is there zero emphasis on those areas and so much attention on this one?  

Since your mentioned freedom of expression and by extension the right to an opinion without being legally coerced into perspectives by others, let me ask you, are Christians entitled to their perspective on morals or would you attempt to force your own beliefs on them?

One of the legitimate arguments that Christians have is that one day, it would be illegal even to express that homosexuality is wrong and the gay community has given no assurances whatsoever that they would not attempt to make that happen.

 

[Guest Steve 5080]

1 hour ago, Guest AntiHypocrite said:

(Hmmm...something is keeping me from quoting)

 

You are a believer in Christianity but you have no explanation of why Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality if it deserves to be condemned.  

[Guest Steve 5080]

2 hours ago, Guest AntiHypocrite said:

Sex outside of marriage is considered immoral because sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy meant by God to create life, within the confines of marriage which is a sacred vow of faithfulness; that is sex and marriage between man and wife are indivisible concepts. Therefore sex because of the sacredness of marriage is sacred itself.

 

Without doubt, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction.  This applies to us as members of the animal kingdom.

Without doubt, the primary purpose of eating and having a digestive system is to provide nutrients for our body.

 

But it is not immoral to eat for the pleasure of eating (even if it can make us fat)

Similarly, it is not immoral to have sex for the pleasure of sex.  This will not risk the survival of our species, because there is enough sex that results in reproduction.  Like in all the animal and vegetable kingdoms there is a superabundance of reproductive means "just in case".

 

Sex and marriage are not indivisible concepts.  They have never been.  Since immemorial times people have had sex without being married, without natural impediments.  And in society today sex is not a requisite for marriage.  Totally sterile men and women can marry without any problem.

 

And outside of organized religions, marriage is not sacred.  It is simply the personal decision of a couple to become husband and wife, and modern governments get involved for practical reasons in the marriages, without any sacred, divine elements in it.

 

Modern governments do not consider marriage indivisible.  It is accepted that marriage, like any other human contract, can be ended, terminated, and they merely regulate the ways in which it ends.  Religions are now slowly coming to reason accepting divorce, and it seems from the principles of Pope Francis that Catholicism will soon accept it too.

[fab]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/230855

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/royal-family-gay-marriage-lord-ivar-mountbatten-james-coyle-8552081?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1537787743

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by fab

[Guest nida goodwood]

1 hour ago, Nightingale said:

Rebuttal  to  Tommy Koh’s  Skewed  Arguments

Reasons  to  Retain  S377A

https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/rebuttal-to-tommy-kohs-skewed-arguments-reasons-to-retain-s377a

 

Do you have a defence or rebuttal to writer of singapore affairs?

 

Are you preparing one tonight after work ?

 

Well,  i have thougt of a few replies n rebuttal to that writer and his majority approved moral argument. 

 

Gonna discuss with like minded friends first . before publishing.

 

[Vometra]

2 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Rebuttal  to  Tommy Koh’s  Skewed  Arguments

Reasons  to  Retain  S377A

https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/rebuttal-to-tommy-kohs-skewed-arguments-reasons-to-retain-s377a

 

 

Aiyoh the rebuttals are like ... non rebuttals like that ... basically a rehash of the usual religious arguments + more wishful thinking and lies ... let me give an example

 

"All the three great Abrahamic religions are crystal clear that homosexuality is always a choice that can be rejected.

Society is replete with anecdotal evidence from both secular and religious people, who have “turned their backs on the lifestyle.”

The weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that it is not innate or congenital, like skin colour, but rather an aspect of our freewill.

The “gay gene” theory has been overwhelmingly debunked!"

 

So please save your time and effort to try to rebut the "rebuttals" ... no point lah ...

 

"Singapore Affairs" should just revert to its real moniker - "Xtians Obsessed About LGBTs But Pretending To Be Patriotic".

Edited September 26, 2018 by Vometra

[mlyfunp]

it is funny that my posts are always removed here?

 

Have the Moderators something to hide?

 

My point for blocking certain offensive, abusive IP addresses of Guests who repeatedly annoy others was a serious recommendation to blowing wind.

At least you (Blowing Wind Moderators) could have the courtesy to respond to me, even if it is by a message.

 

I m not the troubleshooter here, but this guy who creates 1000 of Guest Profiles and even talks to his own posts.

 

Thank you,

[mlyfunp]

On 9/25/2018 at 1:50 PM, Vometra said:

 

Yup very well argued, and caused a shit storm online ... enjoy the comments lol

 

 

We can't see the shit storm, because it is marked as Premium content, therefore can't access the comments to this article.

[LeanMature]

4 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Rebuttal  to  Tommy Koh’s  Skewed  Arguments

Reasons  to  Retain  S377A

https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/rebuttal-to-tommy-kohs-skewed-arguments-reasons-to-retain-s377a

 

Don't waste time reading it. 

[Vometra]

49 minutes ago, mlyfunp said:

 

We can't see the shit storm, because it is marked as Premium content, therefore can't access the comments to this article.

 

Ermmm ... just click on the facebook icon on the top right ... you can read the comments.

[Guest Glyph]

2 hours ago, mlyfunp said:

it is funny that my posts are always removed here?

 

Have the Moderators something to hide?

 

My point for blocking certain offensive, abusive IP addresses of Guests who repeatedly annoy others was a serious recommendation to blowing wind.

At least you (Blowing Wind Moderators) could have the courtesy to respond to me, even if it is by a message.

 

I m not the troubleshooter here, but this guy who creates 1000 of Guest Profiles and even talks to his own posts.

 

Thank you,

 

It's not funny, and the only thing the mods have to hide are off-topic posts in this thread. xx

 

Your point is taken, we can and do ban IP addresses. But IP addresses aren't conclusive of one's identity, and banwalking is a breeze with the advent of VPNs where more and more users are aware of online security. So even if we do ban guests, like we do for members, they will just keep coming back.

 

Nobody is saying you're the troublemaker but you're clearly fueling the fire. Stop.

 

This ends my digression. All off-topic posts will henceforth be removed without notice.

[mlyfunp]

My deep admiration goes to the straight families in Singapore who posted that youtube on the support to remove 377A

 

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/singapore/watch-heterosexual-families-speak-out-in-support-for-the-local-lgbtq-community/ar-AAABNfJ?li=BBr8Cnr

[Sh3rlock]

 

From one archbishop to another....

[Guest big nose]

10 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

Well, it may or may not be a waste of time.  It may be because there is nothing new.  It may not be because it simply shows how bankrupt our detractors' arguments are.  But by crystallising our understanding of their fallacious thoughts, we can be better prepared to rebut them.

 

I came across this article written half year ago, bringing a silver lining behind the dark clouds:

SMU Chairman  Ho Kwon Ping  Calls  S377A  ‘Anachronistic’,

Blames  It  on  ‘Anti-Gay  Hate  Groups’

https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/smu-chairman-ho-kwon-ping-calls-s377a-anachronistic-blames-it-on-anti-gay-hate-groups

 

 

Why cant that person who wrote those Singapore affairs anti S377A article give a name and identify him / herself. 

 

From the style of writing it is quite close to that female lawyer law professor with the big nose.

 

Thio........

 

what do you all think?

[Guest goddess]

is singapore a christian country? no right?

[Guest goddess]

u all humans make law also must ask god ah? walao weh we creators damn busy okay. 

[Guest Big nose.]

If only the issues are as simple as you say it is, 

 

APPARENTLY, it is not.

 

There are many stakeholders in this issue, so called .

 

BUT the ones most affected are not even invitef to speak up for themselves at first, itbwas like , hey S377A offenders , we are gonna decide for you  so make yourselvrs scarce. 

 

Just disappear into the shadows and woodwork crevice, wherr you all originally belonged anyway.

 

THEN , they get that ' brilliant ' constitutional lawyer /PHD doctorate to say that shoving straws up your nose to drink liquid is how it should describe that act. 

 

 How can she speak when she dont have the plumbing to try out yhat act.

[LeanMature]

17 hours ago, Guest big nose said:

 

Why cant that person who wrote those Singapore affairs anti S377A article give a name and identify him / herself. 

 

From the style of writing it is quite close to that female lawyer law professor with the big nose.

 

Thio........

 

what do you all think?

 

She is smarter now.  She received death threat and nuisance calls in 2007.

[Vometra]

Thio Li-ann: " At best, “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right."

 

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/level-international-law-there-no-established-human-right-sexual-orientation

 

I write to clarify some statements reportedly made by a local group which are incorrect as a matter of law (“Repealing Section 377A will ensure a ‘secular common space’, says local human rights group Maruah”; Sept 24).

First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.

Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.

At best, “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right.

Invoking “human rights” language is a strategy to evade debate over the substantive issues underlying the 377A debate.

In other countries, sexual orientation rights claims have clashed with other human rights, like religious freedom, free speech and parental rights to determine the kind of (sex) education their children receive.

Second, to invoke “rightful equal status” begs the question. What should rightfully be equated with what?

An issue cannot be resolved just by declaring something is equal/unequal.

The criteria for whether X is equal to Y must come from an independent philosophy which supplies the basis for drawing distinctions.

Are durians equal to mangosteens? Yes, if your criteria is “fruits” and no, if the criteria is “colour”.

There are no uncontroversial philosophies regarding questions of public sexual morality.

To invoke “equality” as a rhetorical slogan does little to elucidate the substantive issues.

Third, there is no necessary relationship between a “common secular space” and repealing Section 377A.

It begs the question of what “secular”, a protean term, means. There are many forms of secularism — agnostic or anti-religious. Some types of liberal, militant secularism seek to exclude all religiously influenced views from law and public policy debate.

This is undemocratic and undermines viewpoint diversity. Viewpoints should be assessed not on their intellectual origins but their cogency and merits.

The question is: Does the law serve a legitimate purpose and the common good? To merely invoke the “secular” argument does not provide any answers unless what is being done is to espouse a secular humanist ideology, which is not a politically neutral stance.

Religious groups have the right under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to articulate their views and instruct members of their faith community.

In a multi-religious society, it is important feedback to understand the varied perspectives held on public issues.

All citizens, whether influenced by “religious” or non-religious perspectives, have an equal right to participate in public debate.

Indeed, no clear line exists between “religious” and “secular humanist” views (like Maruah’s).

Both religious and humanist views may be articulated as exercises of free speech, and all views are subject to critical evaluation, as part of the democratic process.

The alternative is censorship of disliked perspectives.

 

ABOUT THE WRITER

Dr Thio Li-ann is a law professor with the National University of Singapore

[Guest Walao]

1 hour ago, Vometra said:

Thio Li-ann: " At best, “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right."

 

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/level-international-law-there-no-established-human-right-sexual-orientation

 

I write to clarify some statements reportedly made by a local group which are incorrect as a matter of law (“Repealing Section 377A will ensure a ‘secular common space’, says local human rights group Maruah”; Sept 24).

First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.

Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.

At best, “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right.

Invoking “human rights” language is a strategy to evade debate over the substantive issues underlying the 377A debate.

In other countries, sexual orientation rights claims have clashed with other human rights, like religious freedom, free speech and parental rights to determine the kind of (sex) education their children receive.

Second, to invoke “rightful equal status” begs the question. What should rightfully be equated with what?

An issue cannot be resolved just by declaring something is equal/unequal.

The criteria for whether X is equal to Y must come from an independent philosophy which supplies the basis for drawing distinctions.

Are durians equal to mangosteens? Yes, if your criteria is “fruits” and no, if the criteria is “colour”.

There are no uncontroversial philosophies regarding questions of public sexual morality.

To invoke “equality” as a rhetorical slogan does little to elucidate the substantive issues.

Third, there is no necessary relationship between a “common secular space” and repealing Section 377A.

It begs the question of what “secular”, a protean term, means. There are many forms of secularism — agnostic or anti-religious. Some types of liberal, militant secularism seek to exclude all religiously influenced views from law and public policy debate.

This is undemocratic and undermines viewpoint diversity. Viewpoints should be assessed not on their intellectual origins but their cogency and merits.

The question is: Does the law serve a legitimate purpose and the common good? To merely invoke the “secular” argument does not provide any answers unless what is being done is to espouse a secular humanist ideology, which is not a politically neutral stance.

Religious groups have the right under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to articulate their views and instruct members of their faith community.

In a multi-religious society, it is important feedback to understand the varied perspectives held on public issues.

All citizens, whether influenced by “religious” or non-religious perspectives, have an equal right to participate in public debate.

Indeed, no clear line exists between “religious” and “secular humanist” views (like Maruah’s).

Both religious and humanist views may be articulated as exercises of free speech, and all views are subject to critical evaluation, as part of the democratic process.

The alternative is censorship of disliked perspectives.

 

ABOUT THE WRITER

Dr Thio Li-ann is a law professor with the National University of Singapore

She is splitting hairs on the language of the debate again. Arguing about the language of the discussion is her go-to strategy whenever her baseless claims and assumptions are debunked.

 

The no-life spinster cannot refrain from falling back on her cold, heartless and clinical approach by going deep into theorical concepts of semantics and semiotics and forcibly applying them on wide categories of living, breathing humans.

 

Not all theories can be applied in real life. Some of them remains as just clinical, theoretical concepts.

 

Can someone SHOW her what is love BY ACCEPTING HER AND LOVING HER AS A FLAWED HUMAN?

 

 

[Guest opinionated]

Dear Ms Thio Li-ann

Please return to law school and learn about the consequences of opinionated biased reasoning in law....

Unfortunately, and most relevant you missed out the the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

 

 

Here an overview:

 

International and regional human rights conventions protect all persons regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays out this key principle of modern human rights, declaring, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948), UNGA Res. 217 A(III) (UDHR) art.1

 

As a general rule, discrimination occurs when a person is treated differently than someone else in a similar situation, and this treatment causes that person harm or prevents his or her enjoyment of one or more human rights.

 

Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on sexual orientation or gender identity which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality before the law or the equal protection of the law, or the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

 

Typically, courts and other human rights bodies will find different treatment of individuals in similar situations to be discriminatory unless the State provides a “reasonable and objective” justification. See CESCR, General Comment No. 20, Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, 10 June 2009. To meet this standard, States must show that the treatment pursues a legitimate aim and the means are proportional to the aim. If the difference in treatment does not meet this standard, then it is arbitrary and violates the human rights of the affected parties. See, e.g., ECtHR, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX, Judgment of 24 July 2003, para. 37. See also I/A Court HR, Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 99 et seq.

 

As indicated above, several human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Commission and the European Court, have found that sexual orientation is protected by non-discrimination provisions in human rights instruments even though it is not explicitly listed as a protected category. Therefore, when sexual orientation is at issue in a case, both bodies have held that States must provide particularly convincing and “weighty reasons” for a difference in treatment. See I/A Court HR, Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Judgment of February 24, 2012. para. 124; Karner v. Austria, Judgment of 24 July 2003, para. 37; ECtHR, E. B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, Judgment of 22 January 2008, para. 91. In recent decisions, the European Court of Human Rights has also rejected “the protection of morals” as sufficient justification for discrimination in law or practice. See, e.g., ECtHR, A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35765/97, ECHR 2000-IX, Judgment of 31 July 2000.

 

In order to fulfill their obligations under international human rights treaties, States must take appropriate steps to ensure that LGBTI persons can enjoy their human rights free from discrimination. Each international and regional human rights treaty requires States to adopt or change laws and policies as necessary to implement the treaty’s provisions at the domestic level. For example, Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights places the following obligation on State parties:

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966 entered into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), art. 2(2). Should States fail to take the necessary steps, individuals may bring claims to the appropriate court or oversight mechanism. See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Views of 31 March 1994 (finding that Tasmanian laws criminalizing homosexuality were inconsistent with the State’s obligations under Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to respect the applicant’s private life.)

 

A number of cases, the majority before the European Court of Human Rights, have been brought alleging that this practice violates one or more human rights. There are two separate categories of cases. These include challenges to the laws criminalizing homosexuality and challenges to discriminatory laws concerning the age of consent.

 

Both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have ruled that laws prohibiting homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults constitute a violation of the right to privacy. See ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Series A no. 45, Judgment of 22 October 1981; Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Views of 31 March 1994.

The European Court has repeatedly found that laws criminalizing sexual relationships between consenting adults of the same sex violate the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. See, e.g., ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981; ECtHR, Norris v. Ireland, ECtHR, Series A no. 142, Judgment of 26 October 1988. In evaluating whether a law criminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex violates an individual’s right to privacy, the European Court considers whether or not the State’s actions were in accordance with the law, had a legitimate aim, and were necessary in a democratic society. ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981, para.

 

In Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, the ECtHR determined that laws criminalizing homosexuality violated the applicant’s right to privacy as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court rejected assertions by the State that the laws were necessary for the protection of “public morals” and “the rights and freedoms of others,” finding that these reasons were disproportionate to the harmful affect that the legislation has on the private life of a homosexual person. Id. at paras. 60-01.

 

The European Court has also made clear that the mere existence of a law criminalizing homosexuality may violate the right to privacy even if the State does not actively enforce the prohibition. See ECtHR, Modinos v. Cyprus, Series A no. 259, Judgment of 22 April 1993.

[Guest pooh pooh me pls]

I thought you all would have figured out by now that the constitutional law expert namely Miss Piggy , has sort of turned her middle finger at all the human rights type or humanitarian, or we are all equal except when it comes to LGBT , sexual orientation arguments, even genetics argument.

 

I am convince by her, namely because no other constituitional lawyer expert have been able to out argue her arguments, right.

 

So if no one can produce a shred of argument anywhere in the world to counter miss porcine 's argument , she has literally won the day. Isn't it ?

 

No one has, and no one has so far, rebutted her point by point , in a formal setting, in a forum of peers who are experts in law. right.

 

 

All the arguments so far has been , lets have some compassion for these poor people, they are bullied, they are suicidal, they are prone to depression, they are marginalised.

 

I am living proof that I am not bullied in school, I was not suicidal for these reasons, I am not depression , I am not marginalised.

 

I am welll adjusted, I am happy . So it sorts debunks all those pro help the poor fairys, dykes, trannys, AC/DC switchable, and Bruce Jenner/ Caitlyn Jenner switcheroo.

 

No one of her peers of lawyers and constitutional experts have rebutted her law arguments point by point, she really has won the day. 

 

What say you all?

 

Unless , someone can point to a particular law constitutional expert, that have a out argued her , I am not convinced by all the arm chair critics who have said things about her arguments.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Midplayer]

8 hours ago, Guest opinionated said:

Dear Ms Thio Li-ann

Please return to law school and learn about the consequences of opinionated biased reasoning in law....

Unfortunately, and most relevant you missed out the the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

 

 

Here an overview:

 

International and regional human rights conventions protect all persons regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays out this key principle of modern human rights, declaring, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” See The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948), UNGA Res. 217 A(III) (UDHR) art.1

 

As a general rule, discrimination occurs when a person is treated differently than someone else in a similar situation, and this treatment causes that person harm or prevents his or her enjoyment of one or more human rights.

 

Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on sexual orientation or gender identity which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing equality before the law or the equal protection of the law, or the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

 

Typically, courts and other human rights bodies will find different treatment of individuals in similar situations to be discriminatory unless the State provides a “reasonable and objective” justification. See CESCR, General Comment No. 20, Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, 10 June 2009. To meet this standard, States must show that the treatment pursues a legitimate aim and the means are proportional to the aim. If the difference in treatment does not meet this standard, then it is arbitrary and violates the human rights of the affected parties. See, e.g., ECtHR, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-IX, Judgment of 24 July 2003, para. 37. See also I/A Court HR, Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 99 et seq.

 

As indicated above, several human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Commission and the European Court, have found that sexual orientation is protected by non-discrimination provisions in human rights instruments even though it is not explicitly listed as a protected category. Therefore, when sexual orientation is at issue in a case, both bodies have held that States must provide particularly convincing and “weighty reasons” for a difference in treatment. See I/A Court HR, Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Judgment of February 24, 2012. para. 124; Karner v. Austria, Judgment of 24 July 2003, para. 37; ECtHR, E. B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, Judgment of 22 January 2008, para. 91. In recent decisions, the European Court of Human Rights has also rejected “the protection of morals” as sufficient justification for discrimination in law or practice. See, e.g., ECtHR, A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35765/97, ECHR 2000-IX, Judgment of 31 July 2000.

 

In order to fulfill their obligations under international human rights treaties, States must take appropriate steps to ensure that LGBTI persons can enjoy their human rights free from discrimination. Each international and regional human rights treaty requires States to adopt or change laws and policies as necessary to implement the treaty’s provisions at the domestic level. For example, Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights places the following obligation on State parties:

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966 entered into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), art. 2(2). Should States fail to take the necessary steps, individuals may bring claims to the appropriate court or oversight mechanism. See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Views of 31 March 1994 (finding that Tasmanian laws criminalizing homosexuality were inconsistent with the State’s obligations under Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to respect the applicant’s private life.)

 

A number of cases, the majority before the European Court of Human Rights, have been brought alleging that this practice violates one or more human rights. There are two separate categories of cases. These include challenges to the laws criminalizing homosexuality and challenges to discriminatory laws concerning the age of consent.

 

Both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have ruled that laws prohibiting homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults constitute a violation of the right to privacy. See ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Series A no. 45, Judgment of 22 October 1981; Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia, Views of 31 March 1994.

The European Court has repeatedly found that laws criminalizing sexual relationships between consenting adults of the same sex violate the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. See, e.g., ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981; ECtHR, Norris v. Ireland, ECtHR, Series A no. 142, Judgment of 26 October 1988. In evaluating whether a law criminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex violates an individual’s right to privacy, the European Court considers whether or not the State’s actions were in accordance with the law, had a legitimate aim, and were necessary in a democratic society. ECtHR, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 October 1981, para.

 

In Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, the ECtHR determined that laws criminalizing homosexuality violated the applicant’s right to privacy as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court rejected assertions by the State that the laws were necessary for the protection of “public morals” and “the rights and freedoms of others,” finding that these reasons were disproportionate to the harmful affect that the legislation has on the private life of a homosexual person. Id. at paras. 60-01.

 

The European Court has also made clear that the mere existence of a law criminalizing homosexuality may violate the right to privacy even if the State does not actively enforce the prohibition. See ECtHR, Modinos v. Cyprus, Series A no. 259, Judgment of 22 April 1993.

 

Do we want to plant this EU interpretation in Singapore partially or wholesale ?  If partially, why ?  If wholesale, it would be problematic because it includes Gender Identity.  This means anyone who claims they are of any GI they think they are or even invent on the fly, we have to protect. 

 

I'm not convinced that people can change their Gender Identity.  May be when they are young, they are still discovering.  But by 20, they still not sure ?  Still can change at their whims and fancies ?  Not convinced.  Ok, give you 30yo, still change ?

 

This is the slippery slope which I think if we want to help eradicate S377A, we have to address or at least provide some level of assurance to them and to me/us here.  This is not a slippery slope that only they are worried about.  Even people over here.  I think most of us also don't agree with the extreme liberal attitude of the west.  I also don't want all the problems happening there to happen here. 

[Guest guest]

So all the essay-writing keyboard generals, any of you actually post your opinions in public forum, eg ST Forum page?

 

If not, then what are you really ranting about.

[Guest law]

1 hour ago, Guest Midplayer said:

 

Do we want to plant this EU interpretation in Singapore partially or wholesale ?  If partially, why ?  If wholesale, it would be problematic because it includes Gender Identity.  This means anyone who claims they are of any GI they think they are or even invent on the fly, we have to protect. 

 

I'm not convinced that people can change their Gender Identity.  May be when they are young, they are still discovering.  But by 20, they still not sure ?  Still can change at their whims and fancies ?  Not convinced.  Ok, give you 30yo, still change ?

 

This is the slippery slope which I think if we want to help eradicate S377A, we have to address or at least provide some level of assurance to them and to me/us here.  This is not a slippery slope that only they are worried about.  Even people over here.  I think most of us also don't agree with the extreme liberal attitude of the west.  I also don't want all the problems happening there to happen here. 

 

What liberal attitude of the West are you talking about? The rights referred are Human Rights enshrined in the Constitution of the countries and the European Convention of Human rights.

What problems in the West? Please explain!

[Guest pop stars]

13 hours ago, Guest pooh pooh me pls said:

I thought you all would have figured out by now that the constitutional law expert namely Miss Piggy , has sort of turned her middle finger at all the human rights type or humanitarian, or we are all equal except when it comes to LGBT , sexual orientation arguments, even genetics argument.

 

I am convince by her, namely because no other constituitional lawyer expert have been able to out argue her arguments, right.

 

So if no one can produce a shred of argument anywhere in the world to counter miss porcine 's argument , she has literally won the day. Isn't it ?

 

No one has, and no one has so far, rebutted her point by point , in a formal setting, in a forum of peers who are experts in law. right.

 

 

All the arguments so far has been , lets have some compassion for these poor people, they are bullied, they are suicidal, they are prone to depression, they are marginalised.

 

I am living proof that I am not bullied in school, I was not suicidal for these reasons, I am not depression , I am not marginalised.

 

I am welll adjusted, I am happy . So it sorts debunks all those pro help the poor fairys, dykes, trannys, AC/DC switchable, and Bruce Jenner/ Caitlyn Jenner switcheroo.

 

No one of her peers of lawyers and constitutional experts have rebutted her law arguments point by point, she really has won the day. 

 

What say you all?

 

Unless , someone can point to a particular law constitutional expert, that have a out argued her , I am not convinced by all the arm chair critics who have said things about her arguments.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

You sound too cocksure.  Has it occurred to you that not every lawyer wants to be associated with gay sympathisers as they don't want to be seen in 'bad' light?  I am sure there are gay lawyers but they are too afraid to speak up and want to remain closeted.  I am sure the MPs in the Parliament today still hear Piggy's echoes a decade ago on her comparison to shoving a straw up one's nose to drink.

Furthermore, not every lawyer is updated by every post on the internet.  If not for Vometra, I wouldn't get to know about Piggy's post.  So don't be surprised that you hear silence.

You said you are convinced by her arguments.  Then pray translate her mumbo jumbo to us in plain intelligible English without the law jargon.  Not all of us are law experts or have majored in Philosophy or English Literature.

 

 

Not everyone will get his article into the mainstream newspapers. Haven't you noted that she surprisingly always gets her articles into the newspapers (even if she writes nonsense)?

And the argument that nobody professional rebuts her articles and then taking the assumption it must be right what she says is plain not reflected or logic. At a certain time the academic sector will keep quiet because, why rebut something that is not based on valid legal grounds but simply on her (religiously driven?) mission and anti XX agenda.

Third as the matter is constitutional: It is difficult for legal academics, lawyers to speak out on this in Singapore, as it would rest on the Supreme Court to take a decision. When even Ex Attorney-Generals receive a warning that what they say might impact "Contempt of Court" how would the non VIP legal fraternity and academic act...?

Most lawyers wouldn't have the time to get into this due to their busy time schedules anyway... Maybe there would be someone coming out on a pro bono work to enlighten on the matter.

She (Thio-Li Ann) might convince some laymen with her "punch in the face style" of writing on legal matters, but for sure she doesn't make any impact on the legal fraternity... too biased, too opinionated, too narrow-minded and not even reflecting the common status of the discussion.

It just takes some google clicks and you will find good overview on the topic in International Law on this subject, which a law professor from a reknown University in Singapore just plainly decided to ignore... And why?

I think you know the response yourself already.

 

It is always better to let other talk for something:

Statement from Dean Richard L. Revesz of the New York University School of Law

JULY 22, 2009

Continue reading the main story Share This Page

The following is a statement to the press from the dean of New York University's law school, Richard L. Revesz.

I am writing to let you know that Professor Li-ann Thio informed me today that she is canceling her Fall visit to NYU Law School as a Global Visiting Professor as a result of the controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights. She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes. The Law School will therefore cancel the course on Human Rights in Asia and the seminar on Constitutionalism in Asia, which she had been scheduled to teach.

....

Whatever their areas of expertise or views, the appointments of global visiting professors are decided on their record of distinguished scholarship and teaching and their ability to contribute to intellectual exchange within our community. So, while many in our community, including me, sharply disagree with, or are offended by, Professor Thio's 2007 remarks to the Singaporean Parliament, it is important to bear in mind that she was appointed as a visiting professor based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator.

We are also proud that NYU and the School of Law extended partner benefits to gay couples long before New York law mandated such benefits, that in 1978 NYU Law School became the first law school in the United States to deny access to its career services to employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that in 1990 the Association of American Law Schools required accredited law schools in the U.S. to follow our practice. We also were leaders in the suit by the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) to challenge the Solomon Amendment.

.....

Should the nature of the arguments in her speech to the Singaporean Parliament have led to the revocation of her offer?

Once the faculty extends an offer to a professor, whether a visiting offer, a tenure-track offer, or a tenured offer, it does not continue to evaluate the strength of the individual's work to determine whether subsequent work suggests that the offer be withdrawn. So, even if the faculty had met to evaluate the strength of Professor Thio's arguments in support of her statement to the Singapore Parliament (which it did not do), and even if it had decided that the manner in which she defended her position called into question the committee's earlier conclusion regarding her strength as a scholar (which it also did not do), the offer should not have been rescinded. (Of course, such an evaluation would have been relevant to whether a subsequent offer should be extended.)

...

Under what circumstances would the Law School determine that a faculty member's views give rise to an atmosphere that is inimical to classroom learning?

In the last few weeks, a number of members of our community wrote to Professor Thio indicating their objection to her appointment as a visiting professor. She considers some of these messages to be offensive. In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful. These exchanges have been circulated on various blogs. Members of our community have questioned whether Professor Thio's statements create an unwelcoming atmosphere, one in which students in her classes would have been unable to participate effectively in the learning experience. Determination of where that point is on the continuum of free speech is a difficult, case-by-case judgment based upon context, history of the relationship, and many other factors. But it would be an extraordinary measure, almost never taken by universities in the United States, to cancel a course on the basis of e-mail exchanges between a faculty member and members of the student body. To do so would eviscerate the concept of academic freedom and chill student-faculty debate.

 

 

[Guest johnny]

NYU revocation is based on an emotional response.

 

No one in America wants to be seen as even remotely 'supporting or neutral stance ' on homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, mexican immigrationophobia  , once you are labelled as such, 

 

angry mobs will hound you, until the day you die. 

 

Like I said no one of her peers have been able to take down miss porgy, because her arguments on constitutional laws are impeccable , altho her religious views are not cu rrently American center left street cred mainstream.

 

She is impeccable in her arguments on constitutionality. 

 

She withdrew herself becos she sees the students may be hostile to her personal views .

 

 So far the score , 

 

miss porgy full marks,

 

contrarian views zero marks.

[Guest pop stars continued]

 

Johnny:

Looks like you are a vocal supporter of her.

Are you actually in favour or against abolishing Section 377A?

 

If you are not a constitutionalist and expert in this legal field, then I would wonder how you can know whether she is right or an outstanding (impeccable) Legal Professor?

 

Brian Leiter, University of Chicago Law School

The most striking thing about the video is its embarrassingly low intellectual level--she mostly just regurgitates Lord Devlin's side of the Hart/Devlin debate, which Hart won, both intellectually and as a matter of English law.   There isn't even the pretense of a response to the obvious Hartian and Millian objections to her Devlinesque position.

 

If she withdrew because she feared the hostility of the NYU then she doesn't know how to fight her case intellectually and this would be something that makes a good lawyer. But maybe she knew that she was battling a lost case, because there is no legal basis for her views. Her ignorance towards European Court of Human Rights judgments and labeling them down as "treaty based interpretations" as if they were not jurisprudence (since 1993 by the way) is appalling.

But is she a good lawyer if she can't fight her case???

 

All in all in my personal opinion Thio Li-ann doesn't know what the notion of Human Rights is. It is very easy to argue on Human Rights in Singapore considering the very well protected area of Free Speech and what other societies define as Human Rights.

She can say or teach what she wants, she discredited herself so many times. You just need to read her response on the NYU thing.

 

Why waste more words about some word twisters and people who follow a sort of Agenda on their own.

[Guest makiyo nakamura]

What Miss Piggy wants , Miss piggy insists and gets it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other side, 

 

 

Most of these student protestors in America have a huge student load to pay and they don't even have a job in Today's America and they want to waste time protesting, and demo-ing ?

 

 

 

Social Justice Warriors look dissheveled, and gets zero marks for not being  able to rebut with relevancy.

[Guest johnny]

3 hours ago, Nightingale said:

.  We don't hear angry mobs hounding Islamophobes over there.  So does your claim hold water?

 

She's impeccable?  Then why were the students hostile to her views?  Aren't you contradicting yourself?

 

 

You don't know what you are talking about on that underlined topic, there are lots of people who publish books that argues for freedom of speech and then they get heckled and called names and then get heckled by mobs of students when authors  are invited to speak at universities now in America. Case in point , is when Ben Affleck was invited by Bill Maher to reply to Sam Harris book, 

Ben Affleck did a show of getting worked up about Sam Harris ( a distinguished academic) about that troublesome topic , the " I " word ,  which is available on Youtube.

 

American Universities students unions are being taken over by leftist and soft headed idealism .......SJW types.

 

May I also suggest you read also   https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/education/23nyu.html as to why the students protested on that constitutional expert to teach at the NYU. 

 

Read for yourself. The reason gives is that same fluffy type, " I am against her type of views , " so now there is no more freedom of conscience already, so the students contradict themselves. Not me , mind you .

[Guest pop star continued1]

 

32 minutes ago, Guest johnny said:

 

You don't know what you are talking about on that underlined topic, there are lots of people who publish books that argues for freedom of speech and then they get heckled and called names and then get heckled by mobs of students when authors  are invited to speak at universities now in America. Case in point , is when Ben Affleck was invited by Bill Maher to reply to Sam Harris book, 

Ben Affleck did a show of getting worked up about Sam Harris ( a distinguished academic) about that troublesome topic , the " I " word ,  which is available on Youtube.

 

American Universities students unions are being taken over by leftist and soft headed idealism .......SJW types.

 

May I also suggest you read also   https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/education/23nyu.html as to why the students protested on that constitutional expert to teach at the NYU. 

 

Read for yourself. The reason gives is that same fluffy type, " I am against her type of views , " so now there is no more freedom of conscience already, so the students contradict themselves. Not me , mind you .

 

Shall we understand that you support the reasoning of Ms Thio Li-ann ???

 

As far as I read, the students were not coming from Student unions.

[Guest 好侣不跟蓝斗]

好女不跟男斗。