Jump to content
Male HQ

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


groyn88

Recommended Posts

Guest Don't bother
8 minutes ago, Guest premium said:

can someone paste the full article? It's Premium content and can't be accessed for non subscribers...

It is nothing but full of shit from a lonely spinster, who also prefer to be single and than blame gay people for wanting a partner.  She lives in her own world jealous of Gay people and she will not hesitate to stop LGBT''s dream from coming true.  An old hag, a fundamentalist and an outcast, with all these combined what good can come out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nightingale said:

 

While celebrating the 2569th birthday of Confucius, Singapore Confucian Association President, Kek Boon Leong states his stand regarding abolishing the provisions of Section 377A of the Criminal Code.  He believes that sexual intercourse between the same sex is a violation of nature, a violation of heaven and a violation of humanity, and therefore opposes the abolition. 

 

 

Violation of humanity has existed since the beginning of our race, and it is mostly the violation of vulnerable women by  horny men.

But...  a "violation of heaven" is new to me.  Is heaven SO VULNERABLE?

Or does he mean us agnostics who don't care about heaven, and therefore think "fuck heaven" when someone tries to sell it to us?

 

 

13 hours ago, Nightingale said:

 

Kek Boon Leong expresses concern, believing that removing 377A will open the door to the possibility of legalising same-sex marriage, and therefore urges everyone to be vigilant.  He says: "The crisis of modern society is to amplify the demands of freedom and human rights and under the banner of freedom and human rights, to become egotistic and willful to indulge in whatever that fancy and not bound by any laws and ethics.  This is an abuse of freedom and human rights.  His objections are based on viewing sexual behavior between the same sex as “abnormal, indecent, and not in accordance with social order and moral ethics, which will lead to ruin of propriety and decorum.”  He believes that the procreation is natural for all life on earth, having a sacred mission and instinctive for species and is the law of the nature of the universe.

 

 

Does this Kek Boon Leong live in a parallel universe?  Because if we look around,  the societies that offer the most freedom and human rights are NOT in crisis, but they create crisis to those who are totalitarian, abusive, exploiters. 

 

 

13 hours ago, Nightingale said:

 

However, Kek Boon Leong also said that for those who have homosexual tendencies due to physical and psychological factors, people should give due sympathy and tolerance, and should not give them too much pressure.  He stresses: "When people guard the traditional culture, the society will be stable and harmonious.  When people negate and abandon the traditional culture, the society will be collapse and become turbulent."

 

Here Kek Boon Leong has some truth.  The worst, the strongest dictatorships keep their people stable and harmonious.  North Korea with its strong tradition of totalitarianism has such a population, because anyone who is not stable and "harmonious" is promptly exterminated.  

In other countries where tradition is not strong but are progressive, there is a "turbulence" of society in the process of improving freedom and human rights. But they don't collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Guys, do not get overly upset by fossils who are not sufficiently knowledgeable about sexual orientations.  They are coloured by their limited exposure and only know how to think within their familiar box instead of out of their box.  There will always be people ignorant (even though they may be PhD holders) spouting their unfounded fears and unease.  Just let them do so.  Then we'll know what kind of "justifications" they have.

 

Whatever that fossil spoke cannot be representative of the whole association.  Remember gays can be anywhere

(including within that association).  Just that they're closeted.  As for those wives who speak vehemently against homosexuality, who knows?  Maybe some of their husbands are gay too but living double lives.  We should always look forward to a brighter future.

 

But I assume that we can still get upset over the idiocy, retardation due to brain washing, that causes some otherwise decent people to give credence to these fossils who are so dishonest that they preach to others that  what they don't have themselves any assurance to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Question
5 hours ago, Guest Question for GOD said:

So it is the gay problem?   These blind  Christians are now blaming gays for heterosexual adultery,  gambling addiction, and Singapore high cost of livings for all the reasons stated above?

 

GOD!!! Do you love those LGBT who have sex while thinking of you OR those pastors who go to church while thinking of SEX all the time?

 

What do you think will be the answer from God?

I was told they did not mention gays or 377a, but I could be told wrongly. It could be at the back of their minds, not vocalized that's all. It would be useful if someone here went and could tell us, as it involved many of the methodist churches in singapore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thio Li-Ann Profiled

All 7 traits of a modern sociopath/psychopath elucidated by this latest article released on psychologytoday.com Sunday 7 Oct - same day as her article unleashed on Sunday Times - fitted her squarely and rightly in the middle, perfectly profiling her.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201810/7-traits-the-modern-sociopath-and-psychopath?amp

 

""https:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thio Li-Ann Profiled
2 hours ago, Guest Thio Li-Ann Profiled said:

All 7 traits of a modern sociopath/psychopath elucidated by this latest article released on psychologytoday.com Sunday 7 Oct - same day as her article unleashed on Sunday Times - fitted her squarely and rightly in the middle, perfectly profiling her.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201810/7-traits-the-modern-sociopath-and-psychopath?amp

 

 

7 Traits of the Modern Sociopath and Psychopath

7 signs of the ruthless and the heartless. 

Posted Oct 07, 2018 

 
 
freeimagesdotcom
 
Source: freeimagesdotcom

“Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others.”

— Paramahansa Yogananda

“Our society is moving in the direction of permitting, reinforcing, and in some cases actually valuing some of the traits listed in the Psychopathy Checklist.”

— Robert Hare

Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes identified interchangeably as sociopathy or psychopathy, is defined by the Mayo Clinic as: “A mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior.”

article continues after advertisement
 

Research suggests that 4% of the population are sociopathic*, and 5 to 15% are “almost psychopathic”**. Cultural elements such as materialism, social intolerance, and desensitization to violence may influence a society to nurture, facilitate, and embolden sociopathic/psychopathic behavior. About 75 percent of sociopaths are men, and 25 percent are women.*** The sociopathic/psychopathic pathology is often intertwined with other traits, including and not limited to bullying, narcissism, gaslighting, bigotry, and misogyny.

In the modern age, sociopaths/psychopaths are usually not the mass murderers that are sometimes portrayed in popular media (with exceptions). Instead, contemporary sociopaths/psychopaths may outwardly appear functional and successful. They instigate abuse and harm through more indirect and insidious means.

In personal relationships, sociopaths/psychopaths often initially entice with their superficial charisma and calculated charm, before revealing their cruel and uncaring nature over time (i.e. after a committed relationship is established, or an important agreement is made). They deceive, manipulate, and abuse relationships without remorse, leaving their victims wounded and traumatized by their utter lack of decency and empathy.

In professional career, higher functioning sociopaths/psychopaths are nakedly ambitious, shrewdly exploitative, and ruthlessly aggressive. They often maneuver their way to positions of power and status in business, finance, politics, media, or other prominent fields. They attain success at the unethical expense of using and abusing others. Examples may include the business executive who cuts employees’ living wage and healthcare for higher profit, the financial advisor who defrauds clients’ life savings for unscrupulous investment, the politician who scapegoats and demonizes “undesirable” groups to incite his following, and the media talking head who shocks and offends to gain notoriety and exposure. Sociopaths/psychopaths achieve their objectives through the relentless, immoral pursuit of power and personal gain, leaving a trail of human suffering and societal damage in their wake.

article continues after advertisement
 

Below are seven characteristics of the modern sociopath/psychopath. While not everyone who possess this disorder may have all of the traits listed, a clinically diagnosed sociopath/psychopath will likely exhibit many of the following signs on a regular basis, especially when personal gain, relational control, and social domination are at stake.

1. Pathological Lying & Manipulation

“If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as the truth.”

― Famous quotation, attributed to various sources

In their desire for ever more power (over relationships, organizations, or society at large), many sociopaths/psychopaths will literally make-up and say anything in order to achieve their aims. Blatant lies, distortions, deceptions, broken promises, and blaming the victim are just some of the common devices used to enable the sociopath/psychopath to advance his or her aggressive and unscrupulous schemes. Instead of making factual statements based on reality, sociopaths/psychopaths repeat lies incessantly to distort. Solid evidence is ignored and dismissed with contempt.

2. Lack of Morality & Rule Breaking

“Rules are meant to be broken – that’s how you WIN.”

― Anonymous

Most people have a basic sense of right and wrong. In general, we may agree that kindness is right, and cruelty is wrong; healthy relationships are right, and toxic relationships are wrong; honest hard work is right, and stealing and cheating are wrong. Sociopaths/psychopaths, however, have little or no sense of morality. They are more inclined than the general population to violate human rights or have brushes with the law. They believe that “might is right” and “rules are meant to be broken”. Human and ethical considerations are abhorred and viewed as weaknesses. In short, they have little or no conscience.

article continues after advertisement
 

On occasions when sociopaths/psychopaths do mention morality or “fairness”, it is done either for the sake of appearance, or to conveniently forward their own self-serving agenda. Fake morality is used as a manipulative device, rather than genuine value. 

3. Lack of Empathy & Cold-Heartedness  

“Sociopathy is, at its very essence, ice-cold.”

— Martha Stout

Research by neuroscientist Adrian Raine reveals that people with antisocial personality disorder have fewer cells in their prefrontal cortex ― considered the most evolved region of the brain. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for, among many functions, the capacity to understand other people’s feelings (empathy), the capacity to make sound, principled judgement (ethics), and the capacity to learn from life experience (reflection).

As sociopaths/psychopaths lack empathy, ethics, and reflection, they also tend to be unfeeling and cold-hearted toward the pain and suffering they cause others. This lack of humanity has several dangerous implications:

A.  It compels the sociopath/psychopath to commit trespasses with little or no moral conflict.

B.  Knowing the suffering of their victims does not bring about ethical pause. Just the opposite ― it may encourage the sociopath/psychopath to do more harm (for they feel like they’re “winning”).

C.  Abuses are committed without regret or remorse.

D.  Little or no lessons are learned from the negative consequences of their actions. Sociopaths/psychopaths often blame their victims for causing their own victimization.

Many sociopaths/psychopaths become “serial offenders” in their transgressions against others, until consequential intervention takes place (i.e. strong action by a coalition of people) to halt their misconduct and destruction.

4. Narcissism & False Superiority Complex

“Narcissism is, in a metaphorical sense, one half of what sociopathy is.”

― Martha Stout

Not all narcissists are sociopathic (many narcissists are emotive, many sociopaths are non-emotive, or primitively emotive), but most sociopaths/psychopaths possess certain narcissistic traits such as calculated charm, manipulativeness, self-absorption, entitlement, conceit, and false superiority complex. In the mindset of many sociopaths/psychopaths, being “better” than others provides them with twisted justification to exploit and mistreat people at will. Those who are “inferior” deserve their downtrodden fate, and should only be regarded with contempt.

5. Gaslighting & Psychological Bullying

“When someone constantly puts you down, leaves you feeling like you can't do anything right, or makes you feel worthless and bad about yourself in general… it's emotional abuse.”

― Source Unknown

Gaslighting is a form of persistent brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and ultimately lose one’s own sense of perception, identity, and self-worth. At its worst, pathological gaslighting constitutes a severe form of mind-control and psychological bullying. Gaslighting can occur in personal relationships, at the workplace, or over an entire society.

For many sociopaths/psychopaths, gaslighting is used as a specialized form of lying and manipulation, where the gaslighter incessantly repeats falsehoods about the undesirability, inadequacy, and/or detestableness of the gaslightee. It degrades an individual or a group’s identity, and stigmatizes and marginalizes their value and acceptability. Gaslighting is psychological violence.

6. Lack of Contrition & Self-Serving Victimhood

When caught in the act with their unscrupulous behavior, most sociopaths/psychopaths will not show signs of contrition or remorse (unless it is strategically advantageous for them to do so). On the contrary, they are more likely to double or triple down on their aggressive tendencies, increase hostility, deny responsibility, accuse and blame others, and maintain a facade arrogance and conceit. Interestingly, many sociopaths will invent a victimhood story for themselves: The romantic partner charged with domestic battery claims he was “set-up”, the investment advisor caught defrauding clients thinks he was betrayed, the politician whose policies harmed entire populations insists he’s scapegoated, the business executive accused of setting up sweatshops overseas laments being singled out, and the media talking head penalized for spewing vile and hateful remarks believes she’s persecuted. Casting themselves as victims help sociopaths/psychopaths defend their immortal conduct.

7. The “Situational” Sociopath / Psychopath

Perhaps one of the most insidious forms of anti-social personality disorder is what may be termed “situational sociopathy/psychopathy”, where an individual extends cordiality, respect, and regard towards some, but exhibits inhumanity, harshness, and cruelty towards others. Targets of situational sociopathy/psychopathy are usually individuals or groups considered to be “other”, “lesser”, or “weaker”, and may be based on factors such as gender, class, race, sexual orientation, social standing, societal afflictions, etc. This “sociopathic splitting” views some people as fully human, and others as objects, commodities, and less human. Situational sociopathy/psychopathy contributes to many unjust conditions such as misogyny, class bigotry, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, extreme poverty, and structural violence in society.

© 2018 by Preston C. Ni. All rights reserved worldwide. Copyright violation may subject the violator to legal prosecution.

Disclaimer: Communication Success blog posts are for general educational purpose only. They may or may not be relevant to an individual's specific circumstance.

*Based on research in the United States (Stout).

**Based on research in the United States and Sweden (Schouten).

***The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV-TR.

References

Amen, Daniel. Change Your Brain, Change Your Life (DVD). Mindworks Press. (2004)

Amen, Daniel. Change Your Brain, Change Your Life. Three Rivers Press. (1998)

Babiak, P. & Hare, R. Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. HarperBusiness. (2007)

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association. (2000)

Mayo Clinic. Definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder. mayoclinic.org

Ni, Preston. How to Successfully Handle Narcissists. PNCC. (2014)

Raine, A.; Lencz, T.; et al. Reduced Prefrontal Gray Matter Volume and Reduced Autonomic Activity in Antisocial Personality Disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. (2000)

Schouten, R. & Silver, J. Almost a Psychopath. Harvard Health Publication. (2012)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest legal perspective
20 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Section 377A –  A  Contemporary,  Important  Law

Thio Li-ann

7 Oct 2018

Sunday Times

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/section-377a-a-contemporary-important-law

The law criminalising sex between men draws a clear line that homosexual acts are not on a par with heterosexual ones.  Remove that, and traditional marriage and family norms – and one day, even freedom of religion to object to homosexuality – will come under threat.

 

Former attorney-general V. K. Rajah's article Section 377A: An Impotent Anachronism (Sept 30, The Sunday Times) contains some contestable statements, while raising interesting constitutional issues about the separation of powers and the court's role in addressing politicised, morally controversial questions.  My argument here is that section 377A of the Penal Code prohibiting sex between men is a law of contemporary relevance and substantive importance.  It goes beyond mere symbolism or placating religious views.  The policy that section 377A will not be proactively enforced departs from the prior policy of pro-actively raiding gay groups.  It falls within the executive's discretion to determine what resources to commit to enforcing various offences.

 

Mr Rajah argues that the state should not criminalise consensual sexual conduct between adults and asserts that homosexuality is an innate trait, not chosen behaviour.  But “consent” cannot be the final basis for governing the private sexual activity of 2 or more consenting adults; if it were taken to its logical conclusion, other laws such as section 376G Penal Code, which prohibits consensual adult incest, should be repealed.  This has happened in Spain and France there are calls in Denmark and Germany to decriminalise incest on the basis of “the fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination”.  I doubt Singapore wants to move down that path.  “Consent” while important is not an absolute value e.g. you cannot consent to sell your kidneys or your vote.  Another philosophical rationale is needed to determine the scope and limits of permissible “consent” arguments.

 

Whether homosexuality is genetically innate, chosen behaviour, or a mix, is a highly complex matter.  The science here is not cold and hard but hotly politicised e.g. the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) not on the basis of hard scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation but due to political pressure exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA, as recounted in Ronald Bayer’s book entitled Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1987) published by Princeton University Press.  Gay activists decided that if APA policy could be changed, all other mental health organisations would follow.  They used intimidating strategies like violent protests, disruption of meetings and interrupting speeches to force a review on whether homosexuality should be a disorder.

 

Mr Rajah argues that laws criminalising innate traits are not justifiable, but as the science behind the innateness or otherwise of homosexuality is politicised and contested, are courts the right venue to lead social reform from the bench, contrary to case precedent and representative democracy?  In any case, whether homosexuality is innate or not, it certainly does not follow that the law should not regulate innate or genetically determined behaviours or traits e.g. addictive or murderous tendencies.  Further, it should be clear that S377A does not criminalise human beings, but human behaviour.  Some might fault this reasoning, while others consider it reductionist to assume “we are what we do”.  While all human beings have intrinsic worth, not all human conduct is equally worthy.

 

The Role of Judges

While the India decision declaring its equivalent Section 377 to be unconstitutional has attracted attention worldwide, Singapore courts do not follow the activist proclivities the Indian Supreme Court has demonstrated.  Indian courts have expansively construed the right to “life” to include the right to livelihood, education and a certain standard of living.  While these are good things, in the absence of express, judicially enforceable constitutional right to these goods, it is for Parliament and the executive to attend matters like housing and public education, not the courts, in respecting the separation of powers.

 

Many consider it illegitimate for unelected judges invoking their subjective moral preferences to “create” un-enumerated rights.  This sustains the suspicion that “make it up as you go along” type of non-legal reasoning is being deployed.  To assert by judicial fiat that there is a “fundamental right” which the Constitution does not expressly recognise in its text begs the question: Which rights are fundamental, who decides this, using what criteria?  How might an alleged “fundamental right” undermine competing rights and interests?  To assert that something is a putative right because one thinks it is valuable is not an argument, but an asserted preference.  More compelling reasoning is required.

 

One key aspect of the rule of law is that judges should not engage with political questions, as this degrades the rule of law to “rule by judges”.  This phenomenon, called “juristocracy”, where judges are seen to be acting as a super-legislature by illegitimately interfering with politicised issues, undermines the constitutional separation of powers principle.  Singapore Courts have consistently affirmed they will not make law from the bench and refrain from usurping Parliament’s job “under the guise of constitutional interpretation”.  This accepts that Parliament is best positioned to holistically examine the depth and breadth of morally contentious issues with far-reaching social consequences, such as the debate whether to repeal or keep 377A.

 

To assert that the values underlying a law are inconsistent with a “multi-religious secular society” wrongly assumes that the law’s sole purpose is to entrench dogmatic religious views.  The courts have found through examining the historical record, that 377A, where it was enacted in 1938, served a clear purpose: It protected societal morality.  It complemented section 23, Minor Offences Ordinance and section 377, 1936 Penal Code, by extending the criminalisation of public indecent behaviour between males to private acts and broadening the range of behaviour caught by section 377 beyond anal-penetrative sex to include less serious grossly indecent acts between males.  The law clearly identified its target (male homosexual conduct) which was rationally related to and advanced ts clear purpose (to criminalise this conduct).  Thus, the Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of 377A, which satisfied the “reasonable classification” test.

 

The Role of Religion in the Debate

It is a red herring to invoke the apparently religious origins of a law to divert attention from the real issue: Whether the law serves the common good of society as a whole today, and secures the liberties of others.  In countries where sodomy has been decriminalised and same-sex marriage elevated to a constitutional right of equality (which accepts the ideology that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent), arguments based on this model of “equality” have been used to trump freedom of religion.  Opinions disapproving of the homosexual lifestyle or same-sex marriage (but which do not incite physical harm) are demonised as “hate speech”, chilling free speech and viewpoint diversity.  In a secular democracy, laws which serve solely to entrench religious dogma are problematic, as laws must serve the general good.  But a secular state does not preclude its religious citizens from participating in democratic processes.  To exclude religiously influence views from public debate is a form of militant secularism which is unfair and anti-democratic, serving to privilege secular humanist values by getting rid of competing views.  “Religious” and “secular” values may overlap, such as condemning murder and rape.  All citizens have equal rights to participate in public debate, whatever the source of their values, articulating views according to their reason and conscience.  It is prudent in a plural society to communicate views persuasively, in a manner all may understand so that the merits of each view and how it relates to the common good may be critically evaluated.

 

Why 377A Cannot Be Considered in Isolation

Some argue that pointing to the negative consequences that have taken place in other jurisdictions decriminalising sodomy is a “slippery slope” argument and that one should just consider the narrow, discrete issue of whether 377A is just or unjust in prohibiting homosexual sex.  This is a red herring in seeking to obscure or diminish the consequences of repeal; these consequences of are reasonably foreseeable and not speculative, both in terms of empirically observing developments in other jurisdictions and in terms of legal principle as there is a straight line between decriminalising sodomy and down the line, legitimating same-sex marriage:  Both rest on the same premise that homosexuality should be seen to be on a par with heterosexuality in terms of public sexual morality norms.

 

Further, gay activists in Singapore have publicly listed their demands which go way beyond repealing 377A; these include having registered societies to promote the homosexual agenda and ensuring children receive homosexuality-affirming “accurate sex education”.  It is pivotal to their cause to repeal 377A as a first step to advance a broader agenda to normalise same-sex relationships, which demonstrates that 377A is not merely symbolic but substantive.  Homosexual activists have pointed out societies cannot promote criminal activity and thus 377A inhibits the promotion of their ideological agenda and demands that society conform to their vision of sexuality.  377A stands in the way of demands to positively portray, even celebrate same-sex relationship through vehicles such as free-to-air media programming and in school curricula, to fuel agitation to legalise same-sex marriage and child adoption by same-sex couples.  The consequences of repeal are intertwined with the call for repeal and demand strict scrutiny, rather than being tactically ignored, minimised or misrepresented.

 

The consequences of repeal are not something which should be addressed “after” repeal, but in conjunction with the question of retention/repeal, to which they are inextricably linked.  The radical social changes that accompanied repeal of equivalent laws elsewhere is something to be considered seriously rather than waved away as a “slippery slope”.  Indeed, we put up signs to warn people about the real dangers of slippery slopes, lest they injure themselves.  This is not done lightly or without reason.

 

The experience of other jurisdictions shows that decriminalising sodomy does often lead to subsequent activism for policy and legal changes towards the progressive normalisation of same-sex relationships in the name of “equality” and non-discrimination, coercively mandating the equation of homosexuality and heterosexuality.  In Canada, the refusal of a religious tertiary institute to support a non-traditional definition of marriage became grounds for legal action in the name of “marriage equality”.  Christian bakers whose conscience shaped their refusal to bake cakes with pro-gay messages, regardless of who the customer is, have been sued on the basis of anti-discrimination legislation.  In the UK, persons who do not believe homosexuality is normative are not permitted to be foster parents.  Many more examples of how the homosexual rights agenda erodes the freedoms of others exist.  This is the end game that the current debate must consider.

 

This is why it is important for Section 377A to stand and be upheld explicitly.  Laws criminalising sodomy convey the message that society does not view homosexual acts on a par with heterosexual ones, drawing a distinction between both.  If this distinction is erased, there is little basis to continue depriving this category of individuals the right to “marriage”, as redefined.  This entails departing from the conjugal view of marriage as a committed union of a man and woman which is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.  This views sex as both unitive and procreative in nature and sees the family as the basic unit of society for child-bearing and rearing.  Proponents seeking the repeal of 377A in substance propose a different vision of sexual couplehood, family and society.

 

To point to the colonial origins of a law is a misleading distraction; it says nothing about whether the law is good or bad.  While 377A was brought into the colony of Singapore in 1938, it was retained as Singapore law after independence in 1965; it was thoroughly debated and ratified by Parliament in 2007 in an exercise of self-determination in contouring a sovereign nation’s political, economic and social system.  In a sense, it adopted 377A afresh.

 

There are numerous types of sexual orientations – however, are all equally deserving of social approval?  This is an important policy question.  For now, incest is clearly disapproved, but if traditional marriage framework is abandoned, where do we draw the line?  It may be helpful if the individual component parts of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex (LGBTQI) political alliance could clarify what each part is seeking, so that their specific demands can be better understood and evaluated.

 

Those lobbying for the repeal of 377A advance a political agenda, which like all political projects, seek to seize political power, displace their competitors who resist repeal and bring about legal change, with radical, deleterious social consequences.  To be fully informed, concerned citizens and responsible parliamentarians must ask: What consequences will any legal change engender?

 

Dr Thio Li-ann is a Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore.  She was a Nominated Member of Parliament (2007-2009)

 

First my thanks to Nightingale for retyping the article to be read by all.

In fact, it is good that the Straits Times set it as a Premium Content, because only few people will be able to read it.

 

Italics and orange = are citations from her article:

 

1.

One key aspect of the rule of law is that judges should not engage with political questions, as this degrades the rule of law to “rule by judges”.  This phenomenon, called “juristocracy”, where judges are seen to be acting as a super-legislature by illegitimately interfering with politicised issues, undermines the constitutional separation of powers principle.  Singapore Courts have consistently affirmed they will not make law from the bench and refrain from usurping Parliament’s job “under the guise of constitutional interpretation”.  This accepts that Parliament is best positioned to holistically examine the depth and breadth of morally contentious issues with far-reaching social consequences, such as the debate whether to repeal or keep 377A.

 

Unfortunately, most of the Common Law countries (following the English law) have taken the stance that all law must be decided in parliament, forgetting that the Common Law was initially created by Courts and judges, therefore the basic rules have been built up by judges. It should not be forgotten that England (and the United Kingdom) never spelt out any written Constitution. There has never been any established separate jurisdiction taking charge of administrative and Constitutional Law. This to explain the situation: Judges on Civil matters in most Common Law countries decide on constitutional matters.

However, if judges are not permitted to interpret the constitution and to decide whether something is constitutional or whether a public law is unconstitutional and all is left to parliament, then why did judges in Singapore decide on constitutional matters? Isn't this a failed reasoning then by Thio?

With deciding on constitutional questions, the Supreme Court judges have in fact created law.

 

2.

Mr Rajah argues that the state should not criminalise consensual sexual conduct between adults and asserts that homosexuality is an innate trait, not chosen behaviour.  But “consent” cannot be the final basis for governing the private sexual activity of 2 or more consenting adults; if it were taken to its logical conclusion, other laws such as section 376G Penal Code, which prohibits consensual adult incest, should be repealed.  This has happened in Spain and France there are calls in Denmark and Germany to decriminalise incest on the basis of “the fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination”.  I doubt Singapore wants to move down that path.  “Consent” while important is not an absolute value e.g. you cannot consent to sell your kidneys or your vote.  Another philosophical rationale is needed to determine the scope and limits of permissible “consent” arguments.

 

I don't think Mr Rajah intended to place much stress on the word consensual/ consent, he just intended to point out that forms of non consensual sex between males should still be punishable (rape from one man to another man unwanted sexual harassment by a male to another man.)

This word twisting does not lead to anything.

Nobody said that everything should be decriminalised where there is consent.

 

3.

Whether homosexuality is genetically innate, chosen behaviour, or a mix, is a highly complex matter.  The science here is not cold and hard but hotly politicised e.g. the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) not on the basis of hard scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation but due to political pressure exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA, as recounted in Ronald Bayer’s book entitled Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1987) published by Princeton University Press.

 

1973? Ms Thio forgot that the science on genetics was not that advanced in that time. Now, we are on a different scientific level. To refer to this decision of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 is ignoring scientific advancement and recent research. The genetic basis was only decoded recently.

Does she want to continue to say that homosexuality is a Psychiatric Disorder?

 

4.

 

Some argue that pointing to the negative consequences that have taken place in other jurisdictions decriminalising sodomy is a “slippery slope” argument and that one should just consider the narrow, discrete issue of whether 377A is just or unjust in prohibiting homosexual sex.  This is a red herring in seeking to obscure or diminish the consequences of repeal; these consequences of are reasonably foreseeable and not speculative, both in terms of empirically observing developments in other jurisdictions and in terms of legal principle as there is a straight line between decriminalising sodomy and down the line, legitimating same-sex marriage:  Both rest on the same premise that homosexuality should be seen to be on a par with heterosexuality in terms of public sexual morality norms.

 

The only question here is whether 377A discriminates male people under the constitution. If it has been a fundamental principle based on public sexual morality, why is this law enacted in the Penal Code and not directly in the constitution of Singapore which would have had a provision to see homosexuality as morally unlawful? Further, why is it only criminal for male persons and not for females? Isn't it difficult to understand, why this differentiation has been made?

Why doesn't Thio argue that female homosexuality should be criminalised as well???

This differentiation is already from the starting point discriminatory to male Singaporeans, isn't it?

 

5.

Further, gay activists in Singapore have publicly listed their demands which go way beyond repealing 377A; these include having registered societies to promote the homosexual agenda ...

 

This homosexual agenda thing is like the reasoning "Oh, if you open the floodgates, then the whole world will tumble down reasoning..."

 

But in that stance you cannot change any existing laws or provisions of the Criminal laws, because they will always have an influence on society and moral values.
 

All in all you just ignore the equality issue involved in decriminalising homosexuality because for you homosexuality is outright wrong. But you close yourself down in seeing the main issue on why this law is discriminatory.

 

Lastly, thank you Ms Thio for using the word "sodomy" because this clearly depicts where your point is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest premium

After reading the full article, I have to admit that Ms Thio Li Ann is following the legal trait of the Positivism in law compared to the legal realism. This are two main legal philosophies.

The positivism sees the enacted Acts and legislation as the main basis of law. 

 

According to this appreciation, only the positively set norms are regarded as basis of law. There is no law except that law that has been enacted by the state or (or other) state departments.

 

As a German I have to admit that this is a very slippery path because historians admit that the Nazi extremism had not been possible without the strict following of the enacted laws in the critical years of the Nazi empire in Germany by the citizens and state.

Therefore the legal Positivism is regarded as a very limited and narrow minded philosophical view of the law.

 

The article and main viewpoint on the legal philosophy by Ms Thio Li An exactly reflects that position of "positivism" in the legal perspective.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Guest Thio Li-Ann Profiled said:

All 7 traits of a modern sociopath/psychopath elucidated by this latest article released on psychologytoday.com Sunday 7 Oct - same day as her article unleashed on Sunday Times - fitted her squarely and rightly in the middle, perfectly profiling her.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201810/7-traits-the-modern-sociopath-and-psychopath?amp

 

 

 

Thank you "Guest Thio Li-Ann Profiled" by bringing to our attention a good explanation of her nature.

It is clear that Theo Li-ann is a sociopath, psychopat. 
Now... this is a disease, a disorder, isn't it?  
And it seems to be inborn, like homosexuality.

 

Modern medicine, psychiatry has widen the understanding of society.
In the past, disease was attributed to sin, and so it was justice to stone those with leprosy.
And today, psychiatry shows every time more that sickness is behind evil human actions
to the point that evil can be attributed to, can be a consequence of disease, disorder, sickness.

 

With today's standard Theo Li-ann does not deserve punishment for her sociopathy, psychopathy.
Maybe life is punishing her enough by her being such a shrew, and we can call this karma.
Thus it is sufficient to disarm her with logic, with facts, like it is done here,
and contribute to her bad name so that she will never again be a member of parliament.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Guest premium said:

After reading the full article, I have to admit that Ms Thio Li Ann is following the legal trait of the Positivism in law compared to the legal realism. This are two main legal philosophies.

The positivism sees the enacted Acts and legislation as the main basis of law. 

 

According to this appreciation, only the positively set norms are regarded as basis of law. There is no law except that law that has been enacted by the state or (or other) state departments.

 

As a German I have to admit that this is a very slippery path because historians admit that the Nazi extremism had not been possible without the strict following of the enacted laws in the critical years of the Nazi empire in Germany by the citizens and state.

Therefore the legal Positivism is regarded as a very limited and narrow minded philosophical view of the law.

 

The article and main viewpoint on the legal philosophy by Ms Thio Li An exactly reflects that position of "positivism" in the legal perspective.

 

 

 

Good example of legal positivism with the Third Reich.  And here is another one:

 

Donald Trump and his cronies defines the immigrants from across the southern border of the US who have no papers as ILLEGALS

and their fanatics go a step further by calling them CRIMINALS.  Yes, "criminals" because they violated an immigration law that someone has written.

They are criminals because... they lack some papers.  And being "criminals", they deserve any punishment, like:

 

More than 450  migrant parents may have been deported without their children, and they may never see their children again.

This is the result of Trump's "zero tolerance" policy.  There is some similarity with Hitler's policy of rounding up Jews

and separating their families into man, wife and children.  Maybe to make it easier for the extermination camps? 

Hitler died in April 1945, while Donald Trump was born in June 1946.  So it is possible

that Trump is Hitler reincarnated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nightingale said:

 

Paragraph 3:

Whether homosexuality is genetically innate, chosen behaviour, or a mix, is a highly complex matter.  The science here is not cold and hard but hotly politicised e.g. the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) not on the basis of hard scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation but due to political pressure exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA, as recounted in Ronald Bayer’s book entitled Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1987) published by Princeton University Press.  Gay activists decided that if APA policy could be changed, all other mental health organisations would follow.  They used intimidating strategies like violent protests, disruption of meetings and interrupting speeches to force a review on whether homosexuality should be a disorder.

 

Me:

a) Even if there’s no hard scientific evidence for genetic or neurological basis for homosexuality, how does one explain the feelings within us?  For example, from as early as in my pre-kindergarten days, I did not like girls sexually.  I could only treat them as play mates in our innocent childhood games of hide-and-seeking, hop-scotch and police-and-thief etc.  Is she telling us that our feelings are imagined or hallucinations?

 

b)  Religion also has no hard scientific evidence to back up.  Is there God / gods / goddesses / heaven / hell?  Then why are there billions of people allowed to believe their deities?

 

c)  Intimidating strategies remind us of Operation Cold Store, one that Lee Kuan Yew had resorted to in order to remove the so-called communist threat.  Did Lee Kuan Yew regret his intimidating strategies of locking up all his opponents?

 

d)  So was American Psychiatric Association wrong to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders?  Is she implying that the American Psychiatric Association is so powerful as to influence the majority of the world’s governments into repealing homosexuality?  Or is she implying that homosexuality should still be considered a form of mental illness?

 

 

Well answered.

 

How does she dare to state that the American Psychiatric Association acted in response to pressure from activists and not based on scientific evidence?  SHE MADE THIS UP, there is no proof of her statement.

 

If there was pressure, one can argue that it was the pressure from conservative religious that forced the APA to declare homosexuality a mental disorder in 1952.  Subsequently this was challenged by the National Institute of Mental Health, whose research failed to identify anything other than natural, normal sexual orientation. In 1990 the World Health Assembly removed homosexuality from its lists of disorders.

 

Where else is a "disease", "disorder" being attacked by those holding such disease, disorder, resulting in its removal by the professionals and being kept eliminated for nearly 30 years? Instead, people who have diseases push for a CURE for their disease, not for having it removed as "disease".

 

Can this Le-Ann explain why the most authorized communities of psychiatrists maintain now for nearly 30 years that homosexuality IS NOT a disorder, disease?  Are they so afraid of activists?  This is her purely invented nonsense, invented to bash gays.  She is a typical sociopath, deceiver, liar, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest High functioning sociopath
5 hours ago, Steve Temp said:

 

Well answered.

 

How does she dare to state that the American Psychiatric Association acted in response to pressure from activists and not based on scientific evidence?  SHE MADE THIS UP, there is no proof of her statement.

 

If there was pressure, one can argue that it was the pressure from conservative religious that forced the APA to declare homosexuality a mental disorder in 1952.  Subsequently this was challenged by the National Institute of Mental Health, whose research failed to identify anything other than natural, normal sexual orientation. In 1990 the World Health Assembly removed homosexuality from its lists of disorders.

 

Where else is a "disease", "disorder" being attacked by those holding such disease, disorder, resulting in its removal by the professionals and being kept eliminated for nearly 30 years? Instead, people who have diseases push for a CURE for their disease, not for having it removed as "disease".

 

Can this Le-Ann explain why the most authorized communities of psychiatrists maintain now for nearly 30 years that homosexuality IS NOT a disorder, disease?  Are they so afraid of activists?  This is her purely invented nonsense, invented to bash gays.  She is a typical sociopath, deceiver, liar, etc. 

Hi Steve, can you please direct APA to respond to her accusation, and shut her up once and for all?

Let APA know that a deceiver amongst the ranks of a NUS professor with harvard and oxbridge credentials is tarnishing their good works in Singapore’s national media.

 

Let APA personally set the record straight once and for all, TO SHUT THIS BARKING BITCH UP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Thio Li-ann is lesbian
40 minutes ago, Guest High functioning sociopath said:

 Hi Steve, can you please direct APA to respond to her accusation, and shut her up once and for all?

 Let APA know that a deceiver amongst the ranks of a NUS professor with harvard and oxbridge credentials is tarnishing their good works in Singapore’s national media.

 

 Let APA personally set the record straight once and for all, TO SHUT THIS BARKING BITCH UP.

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lesbos against eros
22 minutes ago, Guest Thio Li-ann is lesbian said:

 

LOL

Not only that, she has no one to butter her buns, and is jealous of her gay colleagues who, unlike her, are non-religious fundamentalist.

The gang from COOS who grabbed AWARE by her pussy, are sociopathic lesbians too like her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lesbian souls

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/dr-li-ann-thio-all-about-her-mother/?rf=1

 

 

“Ex-Gays and Conversion Therapy
—————-
Professor Thio references several “ex-gay” friends of hers who suffer backlash from the LGBT community when they speak out. She states that they have a right to change their sexual orientation and defends the “ex-gay” concept as scientifically “unsettled” and indeed “controversial”.
Her beliefs, however, have long been debunked and discredited, labeled as nothing more than pseudo-science at best, and a license to pursue harsh and inhumane legal penalties at worst.
The worldwide scientific and medical consensus concluded years ago that “ex-gay” conversion therapy never did work, does not work, never will work, and is in fact harmful and detrimental to the mental health of LGBT individuals.
The American Psychiatric Association put out a statement in 1998 which reads:
“The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the priori assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
The American Psychological Association put out a statement in 2006 reiterating this scientific consensus viewpoint. It reads:
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’s espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by science. There is simply no sufficient scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
Professor Thio’s past and present reliance upon “ex-gay” fringe theology, for lack of a better word, is neither scholarly nor rigorous in light of this scientific consensus.
If she truly believed in the core principles of Academic Freedom, rather than using it as a convenient shield when it suits her, she would expunge this outmoded and nonfactual rhetoric and instead embrace scientific truth.
Because she has not done so, her beliefs do not meet the criteria for protection under Academic Freedom and reflect poorly upon her credentials as a legal professional on the subject of Human Rights as it pertains to the LGBT community and individuals.”

 

 

Dr. Li-Ann Thio: All About Her Mother

We sometimes like to think of the figures we write about in these pages as characters in a novel. Viewed in this way, Dr. Li-ann Thio, the visiting NYU law professor who apparently isn’t a fan of gay rights, is one of the most compelling we’ve come across recently. We have a weakness for strong, […]

By DAVID LAT

Jul 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM
 

Thio Su Mien Dr Su Mien Thio Li Ann Thio mother.jpgWe sometimes like to think of the figures we write about in these pages as characters in a novel. Viewed in this way, Dr. Li-ann Thio, the visiting NYU law professor who apparently isn’t a fan of gay rights, is one of the most compelling we’ve come across recently.
We have a weakness for strong, outspoken Asian women — hi Mom! — and this description fits Dr. Thio to a T. Our only disappointment: Dr. Thio was whiny when attacked. (We agree with Professor Brian Leiter — playing the victim card was weak, Dr. Thio.)
Now, meet an even more compelling character — one who wouldn’t have responded to a random IT guy by playing victim, but by treating him like Obama treated that fly. She’s the original Dr. Thio: Li-ann Thio’s mother, Dr. Su Mien Thio (pictured), who taught Thio the Younger everything she knows (e.g., that gay sex is evil).
From a tipster:

It looks like Dr. Thio’s mother — a former judge who inspired Li-ann Thio’s own rise in politics — was involved in some serious anti-gay drama this year, after battling what she saw as a conspiracy to generate a “generation of lesbians.”

It all started with unrest over a screening of Spider Lilies, a lusty Taiwanese movie about an Internet cam girl [Ed. note: A cam girl? Like SexyLexus?] falling in love with another girl. The elder Dr. Thio, filled with the same heroic indignation as her daughter, filled with the same heroic indignation as her daughter, ended up locked out of a building after a failed takeover of a feminist organization.

And the trailer for the movie is totally hot!

Update: Not surprisingly, given her staunch opposition to homosexuality, Dr. Thio Su Mien is also against abortion. A headline from Roll on Friday: “Leading Singaporean lawyer blames abortion for SARS.”
More about the Spider Lilies controversy and Dr. Su Mien Thio’s impressive résumé, after the jump.

 


First, a bit more about Dr. Su Mien Thio, a former judge and law school dean with credentials as dazzling as her daughter’s. From Dr. Thio Su Mien’s law firm bio:

Dr Thio has a distinguished professional history, having been the Dean of the Law Faculty at the University of Singapore, a senior partner in a large firm in Singapore, and holding Judgeships in the administrative tribunals of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank for various terms.

Very much a grand dame of the corporate legal scene (her looks, as you can see, belie her experience), she counts many of the country’s judges and high-ranking officials among her ex-students.

“[H]er looks, as you can see, belie her experience.” Has she had some plastic surgery, or is it just those Asian genes? (For a less flattering photo, click here; for a more flattering photo, taken back when she was dean, click here.)
Law firm bios are often full of puffery, but S.M. Thio is the real deal. According to Chambers & Partners, publishers of authoritative guides to lawyers worldwide, Thio Mère is one of Singapore’s leading banking and finance lawyers, “highly renowned and a firmly established name in the legal community.”
Second, as for Spider Lilies, an award-winning Taiwanese lesbian drama film, the trouble began when the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) hosted a screening of the movie. This, combined with statements in AWARE literature to the effect that “homosexuality is neutral” and “anal sex can be healthy,” did not go over well with Thio Su Mien.
So Su Mien Thio orchestrated a coup, recruiting like-minded woman to join the group in droves. Her well-orchestrated, stealthy efforts resulted in new leaders being installed at AWARE. And even though Su Mien Thio was not one of the new leaders, it was clear to everyone that she was the power behind the throne:

At a press conference hastily called by some members of the new executive committee (exco) of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) [back in April], the most prominent person at the head table was not even a member of the exco.

Thio Su Mien (right) had evidently decided she could no longer rely on the hachet-women she had put into AWARE’s exco to hold their own in the face of media publicity. They had done a risible job ever since the controversy broke.

Thio, who is the mother of Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann — yes, the same one known for her tirade against gay sex in Parliament in October 2007 — was introduced to the media as the “feminist mentor” of the exco leaders. Asked about what role she had played, she effectively conceded to the media that she was the mastermind behind the putsch.

But Dr. S.M. Thio’s victory was short-lived. As reported by the Singapore Straits-Times, her minions were eventually thrown out of the leadership of AWARE. At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the organization, Dr. Thio tried to speak, but “was booed by the large crowd at the EGM, and shouted down when she tried to explain that she was a Singapore woman pioneer.”
It sounds like she needs a break from Singapore. Maybe she should spend the fall in New York, where she can crash at her daughter’s digs by NYU. It sounds like a great sitcom pitch: two homophobic female lawyers from Singapore spend a year living in Greenwich Village, where they learn to love the gays.
Alas, converting the Doctors Thio into card-carrying members of PFLAG won’t be easy. Their opposition to homosexuality is longstanding. Back in 2003, S.M. Thio wrote a letter to the Singapore Straits-Times (scroll down to “No to homosexuality”) asserting that “[h]omosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a mental disorder:” Although the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), it did so, according to Dr. Thio’s letter, as “a result of pressure tactics of homosexual activists, rather than scientific data.”
Some might disagree. Malik Graves-Pryor — the impudent IT guy at NYU, whose angry letter to Dean Richard Revesz prompted an 18-point responsefrom Dr. Li-ann Thio — hasissued a rebuttal to Dr. Thio (the younger). He discusses how various groups of psychiatrists and psychologists have changed their views of homosexuality over the years. You can read his full letter below.
MALIK GRAVES-PRYOR — OPEN LETTER TO DEAN REVESZ, MEMBERS OF HAUSER GLOBAL, AND DR. LI-ANN THIO
Greetings Dean Revesz, members of Hauser Global,
cc: Professor Li-Ann Thio
Professor Thio presented several interesting arguments regarding the nature of freedom of speech, differing legal and moral viewpoints, tolerance for those differences, and finally the concept of Academic Freedom.
And while I felt the strong urge to discuss these individual topics as a student and as a person directly affected by the views she shares with the anti-gay bloc here in the United States, I realize that at a fundamental level, Professor Thio’s reply has shed light on her lack of qualification to teach “Human Rights Law in Asia.”
Academic Freedom is a concept that has been hard fought for and won through the years due to persecution by society and governments for ideas that go against the popular; the acceptable; the status quo. To be a member of the avant-garde in any field brings with it risks that academia decided long ago to negate as much as possible, hence the creation of Academic Freedom.
It is the freedom to engage in rigorous scholarship, that which may be exploratory and/or even controversial. However, after reviewing Professor Thio’s arguments against basic LGBT recognition and equality, her legal, scholarly, and intellectual opinions on this subject fail as neither rigorous nor scholarly.
Her arguments are in fact nothing more than logical fallacies and/or debunked and discredited pseudo-science, relying on debating techniques which serve as nothing more than pure deflection from the fact that her prejudices, biases, and outright hostilities towards LGBT individuals have no redeeming academic value, and no place within the walls of the NYU School of Law.
Below are three items that are among the most egregious:
—————-
ITEM #1 – Ex-Gays and Conversion Therapy
—————-
Professor Thio references several “ex-gay” friends of hers who suffer backlash from the LGBT community when they speak out. She states that they have a right to change their sexual orientation and defends the “ex-gay” concept as scientifically “unsettled” and indeed “controversial”.
Her beliefs, however, have long been debunked and discredited, labeled as nothing more than pseudo-science at best, and a license to pursue harsh and inhumane legal penalties at worst.
The worldwide scientific and medical consensus concluded years ago that “ex-gay” conversion therapy never did work, does not work, never will work, and is in fact harmful and detrimental to the mental health of LGBT individuals.
The American Psychiatric Association put out a statement in 1998 which reads:
“The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the priori assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
The American Psychological Association put out a statement in 2006 reiterating this scientific consensus viewpoint. It reads:
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’s espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy as that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
Professor Thio’s past and present reliance upon “ex-gay” fringe theology, for lack of a better word, is neither scholarly nor rigorous in light of this scientific consensus.
If she truly believed in the core principles of Academic Freedom, rather than using it as a convenient shield when it suits her, she would expunge this outmoded and nonfactual rhetoric and instead embrace scientific truth.
Because she has not done so, her beliefs do not meet the criteria for protection under Academic Freedom and reflect poorly upon her credentials as a legal professional on the subject of Human Rights as it pertains to the LGBT community and individuals.
—————-
ITEM #2 – Respect
—————-
Professor Thio states that she has first-hand experience as a minority (a person of color, an Asian) and takes offense. The implication, of course, is that she would not discriminate against other minorities. Similarly, she mentions that she has gay friends and students who know that she “respects them” despite their differences.
This is clearly a logical fallacy. The word “Respect” has multiple meanings and derivations, all of which point to being held in honor and esteem, refraining from intruding upon or interfering with another individual, and to welcome and/or greet said individual.
None of the meanings of the word “Respect” apply to one who has sought for the continued defamation and criminalization of another class of human being. And as we have seen in the black community in terms of its general disrespect and disregard for the LGBT community and individuals, minority status does not automatically preclude one from holding prejudices, biases, and even outright hatreds for other minorities.
Proposition 8 is a stark reminder of this reality, where a disproportionate number of blacks, 70%+, voted for it whereas other racial/ethnic groups were in the 40-55% range in support.
In other words, Professor Thio can no more use her status as an Asian woman or use her so-called “Respect” for her LGBT colleagues and students as a shield while simultaneously having worked for and spoken vociferously for their continued relegation as second class citizens, subject to criminal prosecution and societal scorn.
—————-
ITEM #3 – “Affluent and Literate Gays”
—————-
Professor Thio mentioned that real estate developers cater their high quality dwellings for the consumption of “homosexuals in Singapore [who] are by and large affluent and literate”. She argues that due to their wealth they are able “to lead quiet lives which most of us want,” and that “they are basically left alone in practice.”
First, many sociological studies have shown that gays and lesbians cover the same socio-economic strata as every other population group. Unfortunately, Professor Thio has chosen to rely upon the debunked pseudo-science of the “rich gay” myth.
She should take the opportunity to read, for example, the peer-reviewed and oft-cited “Income Inflation: The myth of affluence among gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans”, a 1998 joint study released by the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. The primary writer was Lee Badgett, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Since this and other peer-reviewed and accepted research has been readily available for a decade, I hope that Professor Thio will avail herself of this information now that she has undeniably been exposed to it as of today.
Second, the reason why it may appear that all gays in Singapore are wealthy is due to the fact that economic stability is one of the primary ways in which LGBT individuals are attacked in society.
Whether it is the teenager who is kicked out of their home before they are ready and finding themselves on the street with no economic recourse for no other reason than their sexuality, or the person who is fired from their job for no other reason than their sexuality, socio-economic terrorism has long been one of the primary ways to keep LGBT individuals “in the closet”.
Individuals who feel no economic threat are thus more inclined to come out in repressive societies.
Third, Singaporean law, Section 377A states:
“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”
While she states that members of the LGBT community are “basically left alone in practice,” the sheer fact that the law of the land codifies discrimination, persecution, and fear presents an untenably hostile situation for said members of the LGBT community. This much has been proven by numerous studies on the effects of legal restrictions and penalizations against women, blacks, and other minorities here in the United States.
Nothing about the human condition changes when it is repressed, even if the repression is selectively enforced. It holds deleterious social, economic, mental, and emotional effects on those who are the subject of said repression, and it is deplorable that a member of parliament and a legal scholar would choose io ignore these well-established facts.
Additionally, due to the fact that sex between same-sex individuals is criminally prohibited in Singapore, the dissemination of safer-sex materials (pamphlets, condoms, videos, seminars, etc) for same-sex individuals for the purpose of same-sex sexual interactions is also prohibited. This has naturally led to a significant roadblock in the attempts to slow and ultimately cease the spread of HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases, a roadblock which clearly moves into the sphere of life and death.
In other words, Professor Thio allows her biases to cloud her judgment and clarity on issues pertaining to the LGBT community when there is established scientific consensus and legal precedent that clearly invalidate her beliefs.
—————-
Dean Revesz, members of Hauser Global,
Is this the kind of representative that the NYU School of Law desires? One who parrots logical fallacies and spouts debunked and discredited theories only supported by right-wing fundamentalist theology held by some fringe religious groups and churches? Do you desire this individual who so lacks in scholarly rigor in the issue of Human Rights as they pertain to the LGBT community and then hides behind Academic Freedom as a way to mask her deeply ingrained prejudice and malice toward said LGBT community?
Thankfully she cannot simply ignore LGBT rights in this fall’s course, particularly given recent events in India. To ignore the issue would pose a grave academic disservice to her students. Therefore, she must cover an issue that is identical to what provoked her abhorrent speech–the repeal of a law that was a vestige of British colonial powers. Because she was unable to discuss this topic in Parliament without using what amounts to unfounded, unscholarly, and debunked ideas regarding sexuality, and reiterated her strong and unchanging positions in email just days ago, she should be precluded from being given another opportunity to spread her discredited beliefs while passing them off as rigorous, contemplative, and unassailable academic thought.
Above all else, I certainly hope that this is not the kind of representative the NYU School of Law, and NYU as the larger entity, desire as an avatar to the world.
If not, you have only one choice: full and immediate revocation of her position as visiting faculty member for the purpose of teaching “Human Rights Law in Asia”. As has been shown, she does not bring an unbiased scholarly rigor to this subject and is thus wholly unqualified to serve in this capacity.
That said, Professor Thio,
You mentioned being “tired of this obsessive and narcissistic obsession with ONE of the speeches [you] made during [your] 2.5 years tenure in Parliament.”
If you truly feel this way, I have an appropriate balm for your wound.
Go before Parliament again and not only rebuke and disassociate yourself from your prior statements on the LGBT community and individuals, but bring forward a bill for the full decriminalization of LGBT sexual interactions and the instatement of full equal rights for LGBT citizens of Singapore as well.
Only then will you find the peace you so desire on this issue.
In closing, I’d like to leave you and everyone else with a final thought. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
You may not realize it, but people who place bigotry, prejudice, and bias above equality, human decency, and justice have already lost. Even 10-20 years ago, i.e., within my lifetime, the anti-gay bloc here in the United States led by such luminaries as Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, and Anita Bryant felt triumphant in their successes. And yet, look at the state of their movement today.
And while there is a long way to go before full and equal rights are had by all LGBT individuals in these United States, we have indeed come a long way. The fact that I can marry my in-all-things-save-federal-recognition husband of nearly 9 years in Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine, and have that marriage recognized here in New York State is a far change from the position of the psychiatric community 40 years ago which would have surely put us behind bars and subjected us to all kinds of medieval “reparative” therapy.
In other words, even if it may take a lifetime, we know that when the light of science is shone and the collective weight of human empathy bears down, these views will be relegated to the abyss of the unimportant periphery.
If you are truly concerned with the bedrock principle of Academic Freedom, you will realize this and modify your thinking. If you choose not to, it will only further the impression your 2007 speech to Parliament and your Saturday email reply fomented.
With that, I thank all of you for allowing me to participate in this discussion as a free-speaking member of the NYU community. One of the things I value as a member of this community is the respect you place on freedom of speech and the spirited and robust intellectual debate founded upon scientifically proven fact. This is a privilege not found in many places of employment, and even in some places of academia, so for that, I am truly grateful.
That said, I hope that it has been as invigorating and illuminating for you as it has certainly been for me.
Sincerely,
Malik Graves-Pryor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nightingale said:

I have just sent a message to APA but if more of you guys send similar messages to it, the better it will be.

https://www.psychiatry.org//about-apa/contact-us/thank-you

 

"Allow me to bring your attention to a lecturer from the Law Faculty of the University of Singapore, Professor Thio Li-ann, who has cast critique on your Association in the most popular English newspaper in Singapore called the Straits Times.  Log onto

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/section-377a-a-contemporary-important-law

 

However, due to its premium subscription in order to view it, I now type out the relevant excerpt of hers:

"Whether homosexuality is genetically innate, chosen behaviour, or a mix, is a highly complex matter.  The science here is not cold and hard but hotly politicised e.g. the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) not on the basis of hard scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation but due to political pressure exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA, as recounted in Ronald Bayer’s book entitled Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (1987) published by Princeton University Press.  Gay activists decided that if APA policy could be changed, all other mental health organisations would follow.  They used intimidating strategies like violent protests, disruption of meetings and interrupting speeches to force a review on whether homosexuality should be a disorder."

 

Is the above statement true or false?  If it is fake news, I hope to see your Association reply her through the Straits Times so that the citizens of Singapore know the truth.  If there is no reply through the same mass medium, it means that her assertion is deemed as unchallenged and holds true.  Thank you."

 

Saw someone on reddit who have read Bayer's book calling her disingenuous a few days ago.

 

Quote
30 points · 2 days ago · edited 2 days ago

Bayer's book literally begins by saying that it is a political analysis of the DSM alteration, and she actually turns around and says he proves that the DSM alteration was politically motivated and not rooted in medicine.

What in the actual name of

And the craziest part is that this happens in the conclusion of the book:

"...To assert, however, that the decision of December 1973 represented nothing more than a capitulation in the face of force involves a great distortion. Though it is difficult to determine the precise proportion of psychiatrists who have adopted the nonpathological view, it is clear that the numbers are substantial...

"...But more important than this willingness to tolerate the discomfort produced by being the target of protest was the almost visceral recognition by the part of many psychiatrists that the list of gay grievances had substantive merit. Psychiatrists responded with great concern to the charge that their diagnostic standpoint had become a major prop for social repression; that the stigmatization brought on by psychiatric classification was especially virulent; that, rather than a source of melioration, psychiatry had been the source of a great pain and suffering. Perhaps more than any other group, homosexuals were the victims of what many academic sociologists had claimed was the inevitable consequence of "labeling" deviant behavior. In the social climate of the early 1970s, it would have been difficult for liberal psychiatrists to ignore the parallels between the discontent of racial minorities, the poor, opponents of the war in Vietnam, and the Gay Liberation movement, which had been linked by its leaders to the other movements of protest... the capacity of the orthodox psychiatric perspective on homosexuality to command allegiance began to wane."

I can't keep quoting because of copyright, but the book goes on to talk about the issue of criteria - that the theoretical definition of psychological disorder was uncertain enough that "it was possible for "extra-professional" values to assume greater salience than otherwise might have been the case." It talks about the struggle between empiricism and the orthodox "psychoanalysts" of Freudian bent, the latter of who argued that discrimination was actually good for homosexuals because that represented the "true interests" of them, and all the pain that was felt from discrimination was actually "intrapsychic".

Here's the kicker:

"In removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the Psychiatric Association symbolically deprived American society of its most important justification for refusing to grant legitimization to homosexuality. As the need for such a justification resurfaces in the current period, pressure will mount on psychiatrists to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder. Lacking a coherent theoretical orientation with which to protect itself from such pressure, psychiatry may find it exceedingly difficult to resist those demands. No more than in 1973, however, will the response of official psychiatry represent a mere capitulation to power. Rather, psychiatrists may well begin to see things differently. If necessary, the psychiatric and scientific justification for once again declaring homosexuality as an illness will be found.

As America enters a period of social conservatism, fueled by concerns over dwindling resources, an unstable economy, and declining international prestige and power, the possibility of such a reversal cannot be dismissed. To diminish the likelihood of such an outcome will take powerful resistance on the part of a well-organized gay community and its psychiatric allies."

I don't know what the scarier part is: the possibility that Prof Thio read the first part of the book where it said that the justification for the pathologization of homosexuality came from the Bible and said 'this is a good book because it agrees with my priors', or that she read and digested the whole thing and thought 'this is a call to arms: we must persuade the profession to once again regard homosexuality as a mental disorder'.

The point of the book is to say that in the 70s, psychiatric diagnosis was involved in a struggle between Freudian orthodoxy and empiricism (the vilification of Kinsey being one of the most poignant episodes). Because of the field's struggle to solve the problem of criteria, it was successfully pushed into removing homosexuality from DSM2. Some things resulted:

  1. It opened up the question of whether psychoanalysis formed a reliable basis for the consideration of illnesses: spoiler alert, psychiatry has grown beyond Freud;

  2. Psychiatry was forced to consider the fact that its definitions were embroiled in politics: that its diagnoses was a result of sociopolitical pressure, and that its diagnoses were at the same time used to justify social discrimination;

  3. and that, in the wake of the DSM change, many people in the popular media laughed at psychiatry's "scientific pretensions".

  4. It is therefore important that the psychiatric profession seek empirical criterion for its work to prevent homosexuality from once again becoming criminalized because of politics, a view that was echoed by Michael Lavin in his review in the Philosophy of Social Sciences.

In light of the full story of this book, her statement that homosexuality was removed "not on the basis of hard scientific evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual orientation but due to political pressure exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA" is true but misleading. It is because it was in the DSM without the basis of evidence in the first place, but because of historical baggage (read the rest of the book). That is why it was able to be successfully removed because of pressure. It is not that the science was politicized; the issue was wholly political and not scientific. It's a fine difference but important, and I expected a law professor to be less disingenuous in her presentation of her issue.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/9m1spj/premium_section_377a_a_contemporary_important_law/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest put correct
8 hours ago, Guest Lesbos against eros said:

Not only that, she has no one to butter her buns, and is jealous of her gay colleagues who, unlike her, are non-religious fundamentalist.

The gang from COOS who grabbed AWARE by her pussy, are sociopathic lesbians too like her.

 

I thought it was her mother who took that AWARE Battle on and not the daughter who is the law professor. Please no fake news here. LOL

 

To Steve Temp: She (Thio Li Ann) was never any elected Member of Parliament in Singapore. Due to the reason that on certain times Singapore had only 1 or 2 opposition politicians in Parliament (out of 99), the government created the Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) to have some different voices heard in the Singapore parliament. Probably, the elected Members of Parliament always fell to sleep and then decided to get some life into the parliament... The term of those Nominated Members is 2 1/2 years only.

Therefore, Ms Thio Li Ann was never elected in any parliamentary election but nominated by the President after proposal of the Speaker of the Parliament. 

For sure she reflected some very wide range of a non partisan view....

 

 

 

From Wiki:

A Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) is a Member of the Parliament of Singapore who is appointed by the President. They are not affiliated to any political party and do not represent any constituency. There are currently nine NMPs in Parliament. The introduction of NMPs in September 1990, effected to bring more independent voices into Parliament, was an important modification of the traditional Westminster parliamentary system that Singapore had.

NMPs are appointed for a term of two and a half years on the recommendation of a Special Select Committee chaired by the Speaker of Parliament. The Committee may nominate persons who have rendered distinguished public service or who have brought honour to Singapore, and also invites proposals of candidates from community groups in the fields of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service, and the labour movement. In 2009, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong proposed in Parliament that the Committee should also invite nominations from the civil society such as candidates from the environmental movement, young activists, new citizens, and community and grassroots leaders. In addition, the Committee must have regard to the need for NMPs to reflect as wide a range of independent and nonpartisan views as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Darius  vs  Daryl

The above results from Professor Thio Li-Ann’s mumbo-jumbo writing.

 

Daryl’s rebuttal of Thio’s work:

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/matter-time-human-rights-pertaining-sexual-orientation-become-codified-law

Concept  of  ‘Sexual  Orientation’  Vague  &  Subjective

8 Oct 2018

Darius Lee

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/concept-sexual-orientation-vague-and-subjective

Together with the writer of the letter, “A matter of time before human rights pertaining to ‘sexual orientation’ become codified as law” (Oct 4), I affirm Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  However, I do not share his perspectives on the issue of sexual orientation.  “Sexual orientation” is a concept that emerged in the 19th century, which still remains vague and subjective today.  It can refer to one’s self-understanding, temporary or lasting inclinations, or certain forms of sexual lifestyles or partnerships.  This creates serious conceptual and legal difficulties because many people cannot be accurately characterised across all these dimensions.

------ 

 

How is the concept of sexual orientation vague and subjective?

Does the author or this article claim that this is what the concept IS,  or that this (clear) concept is used in a vague and subjective way?

 

As defined in the dictionary and other places, it is CLEAR that sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction and it is an identity of the person.  Not one's "self-understanding" nor "certain forms of sexual lifestyles or partnerships".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Guest put correct said:

 

To Steve Temp: She (Thio Li Ann) was never any elected Member of Parliament in Singapore. Due to the reason that on certain times Singapore had only 1 or 2 opposition politicians in Parliament (out of 99), the government created the Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) to have some different voices heard in the Singapore parliament. Probably, the elected Members of Parliament always fell to sleep and then decided to get some life into the parliament... The term of those Nominated Members is 2 1/2 years only.

Therefore, Ms Thio Li Ann was never elected in any parliamentary election but nominated by the President after proposal of the Speaker of the Parliament. 

For sure she reflected some very wide range of a non partisan view....

 

 

I stand corrected.  Probably the President was drunk on something when he thought that Thio Li-Ann was non partisan ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest psychological
7 hours ago, LeanMature said:

Why is she meddling with 377A ? No logic.  Or was it because the law doesn't apply to lesbian ?

 

You have to get into the psyche of such a person. She got into a deep hatred of gays. Actually male gays. I never heard here say anything about female homosexuals. But I don;t think she is lesbian.

 

Why did she start hating gays so much?

 

My personal assumption is as follows:

She fell deeply into love with a guy in her late 18s to 20s. The guy responded to her advances, they went for dinners, weekend trips, leisure things. She admired him, he had everything she was always longing for. He was manly, always friendly with a nice heart. He was the guy to father her kids. She was waiting for him to ask her to marry her after knowing him for 5 years. He was perfect, he listened to her stories, emotional state and seemed to have responded to her all times. He was always there for her. She brought him home and presented him to her mother. he was the perfect son in law, even her mother nearly fell in love with him. After having been there for her, it started that he had less time for her. Somehow he was less responsive, but still they met more than regular.

One day on a Monday at the start of the week, she asked him to meet up for a dinner on a Saturday. He was hesitant to agree. On Thursday, he had put up all his courage to tell her that he can't make it on that Saturday. She was disappointed. What could he be doing on a Saturday evening not having time for her?

She went to his place, stayed nearby watching his block from far. At 7pm, he left his house walked to the busstop, she quickly followed, luckily the bus was crowded so he couldn't see her standing in the front. The bus 174 went to Orchard, he alighted at the Thai embassy and walked to... Shaw Centre.

he took the escalators up to the cinema at Shaw, where he was greeted by another guy, handsome in his mid 20s, his smile to him was extreme, both smiled heavily after meeting each other. She saw how he gave the other a little touch on his arm.

Noting that they went into the movie "The Piano", she quickly bought a ticket and was lucky to sit just 2 rows behind him. She sweated during the whole move which she did not watch but only watched him and his friend. Why did she did not know him? Why did he never present him to her or ask his friend to join them on their weekend outings? She saw how during the movie they both sat very close to each other, during a dark part of the move, it seemed that he had given him a fast kiss. She exploded emotionally. She immediately left the cinema. She felt betrayed. She hated him from that day. She went home and cried the whole night.

Two days later, she paged him to meet her for lunch during her law study lunch break. When he appraoched her, she slapped his face and shouted at him: "Never see me again, I hate you, you pervert..."

From that day, her hatred grew every day. She went to Boarders and roamed the shelves to find anything about this perversion, she ordered books from the US on homosexuality and got so disgusted by reading it that on one occasion at a Coffee shop the straw on her Frappucino glass nearly entered her nose.

From that they on, she started a battle. She was sure, one day will come for her big revenge for what she innocently had suffered by him.

She was so obsessed with her hatred that every other man she dated afterwards, deserted her quickly leaving her in her desperate loneliness. Her loneliness left her with a deep depression. She blamed all gays for her mistress. She started developing into a frenzy. To relief her sorrows and mood swings after the advice of her mother she started reading the bible which helped her to get through her distress. At the church she was welcomed at the community and build up her spirit. But one thing she promised herself that she would never forgive any gay pervert for what she had suffered and gone through.

 

And the ending of the story:

In most cases either childhood experiences or some personal trauma or shock experiences result in extreme hatred or reactions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

He seems to imply the following:

1.  that the term "sexual orientation" is a recent concept which is not crystallised and therefore not well understood by gays and straights alike.

2.  that gays' self-understanding of their own orientation is fuzzy and they are easily persuaded by other gays that they are really gays.

3.  that the gay orientation can be subject to changes ("temporary or lasting inclinations").  This implies that homosexuality is a choice and a disorder that can be cured and that gays can be converted to straight.

 

Thank you for the answer.  "He" needs to think a little harder.

1. the term "cholesterol" is a recent concept, yet it is well understood even if not all is known about how cholesterol "crystallizes" in our blood vessels

2. we gays may doubt  WHICH IS our own orientation, but we surely don't doubt what "sexual orientation" means.

3. the definition of sexual orientation is not weakened by it being inborn or temporary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Guest psychological said:

 

You have to get into the psyche of such a person. She got into a deep hatred of gays. Actually male gays. I never heard here say anything about female homosexuals. But I don;t think she is lesbian.

 

Why did she start hating gays so much?

 

 

Your story makes sense.  Poor thing this disenchanted woman!

The writings of Theo Li Ann about psychology of homosexuality could be a good material for a psychology student to write a dissertation about the psychology of Theo Li Ann...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest overly interpreted
28 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

He seems to imply the following:

1.  that the term "sexual orientation" is a recent concept ("in the 19th century") which has not crystallised and therefore not well understood by gays and straights alike.

 

2.  that gays' self-understanding of their own orientation is fuzzy ("vague & subjective") and they are easily persuaded by other gays into believing that they are really gays.

 

3.  that the gay orientation can be subject to changes ("temporary or lasting inclinations").  This implies that homosexuality is a choice and a disorder that can be cured and that gays can be converted to straight.

 

I don't think that the author of:

Concept of ‘sexual orientation’ vague and subjective

By Darius Lee
 
wanted to say this. he just sees that there is no International Law in force (applicable to all members of the United Nations) that spells out that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted and that it is still up to the individual country to provide for any anti-discrimination law/Act .
This is correct on the international level as there is no United Nations law to prescribe to all nations to put into force any anti discriminatory law on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, the United Nations Bodies give clear guidance that such discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity should be abolished. But this is a guideline and there is currently no International Authority to implement such laws or to review any countries legislation on this matter. The second part is that he find's the term sexual orientation as subjective, therefore difficult to find any definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Theo Li Ann's perfect example that a person who is mediocre at best can have impressive academic credentials.

There is another example here in the US:

Former president George W. Bush has a degree from Yale University and a MBA degree from Harvard Business School,

yet we all remember what a weak character and poor intellect he has.

Rich parents with powerful positions of much influence can make up for the lack of brains of their descendants.

 

It seems that poor Theo Li Ann was a victim of such influential mother, who also passed an extreme homophobia to her daughter. :(

.

Edited by Steve Temp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Guest overly interpreted said:

 

I don't think that the author of:

Concept of ‘sexual orientation’ vague and subjective

By Darius Lee
 
wanted to say this. he just sees that there is no International Law in force (applicable to all members of the United Nations) that spells out that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted and that it is still up to the individual country to provide for any anti-discrimination law/Act .
This is correct on the international level as there is no United Nations law to prescribe to all nations to put into force any anti discriminatory law on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, the United Nations Bodies give clear guidance that such discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity should be abolished. But this is a guideline and there is currently no International Authority to implement such laws or to review any countries legislation on this matter. The second part is that he find's the term sexual orientation as subjective, therefore difficult to find any definition.

 

Then he should have called his letter "No United Nations law protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation",

instead of  "Concept of 'sexual orientation' vague and subjective'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nightingale said:

Darius  vs  Daryl

The above results from Professor Thio Li-Ann’s mumbo-jumbo writing.

 

Daryl’s rebuttal of Thio’s work:

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/matter-time-human-rights-pertaining-sexual-orientation-become-codified-law

Concept  of  ‘Sexual  Orientation’  Vague  &  Subjective

8 Oct 2018

Darius Lee

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/concept-sexual-orientation-vague-and-subjective

Together with the writer of the letter, “A matter of time before human rights pertaining to ‘sexual orientation’ become codified as law” (Oct 4), I affirm Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  However, I do not share his perspectives on the issue of sexual orientation.  “Sexual orientation” is a concept that emerged in the 19th century, which still remains vague and subjective today.  It can refer to one’s self-understanding, temporary or lasting inclinations, or certain forms of sexual lifestyles or partnerships.  This creates serious conceptual and legal difficulties because many people cannot be accurately characterised across all these dimensions.

 

Its shifting meaning, when unthinkingly coupled with the principle of non-discrimination, would potentially upend inherently gendered institutions like marriage and family — the basic building block of society and stable framework for children's upbringing.  It may also have censorious effects upon the freedom of speech and conscience of individuals and groups who uphold these values.  Although various councils and committees under the United Nations (UN) have endorsed sexual orientation and gender identity as categories of non-discrimination, these organs of the UN are not sources of international law.  Such questions remain matters to be decided by individual sovereign states.

 

The writer has made the mistaken assumption that history is inevitably headed in a particular direction towards the acceptance of sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights under international law.  History does not necessarily evolve in one way or another.  It is ultimately an impersonal and contingent sequence of events, which depend on human deliberation, choice, and action.  All human beings have inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights.

 

Yet, at the heart of these political and legal debates lie deeper questions which confront each of us. These include questions such as what it means to be human, the place of sexuality in the meaning of life, and whether it is appropriate to characterise individuals on the basis of their sexual desires or feelings.  No one can gainsay that the answers to such questions have far-reaching implications on our individual lives, families, societies and the political order.

 

Both articles omit the clear judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. yes, this jurisdiction is based on the European Convention of Human Rights, which are applicable to 47 countries in Europe. 

It is correct that it cannot be fully considered as "International Law". However, the Convention of Human Rights has set the common principles of Human rights and had lead to many other jurisdictions outside Europe to consider the judgments and interpretations and in that sense has set precedents. The article on the Convention of Human Rights on LGBT rights  is very basic but on an early stage the judges have considered discrimination of homosexuals as violating the right to privacy.

There is not exspress clause stating non discrimation of homosexuals however, it has been a clear understanding that these rights are covered by the privacy article of the Convention.

 

The Convention of Human Rights covers the essential basics of Human Rights innate to all people.

Many constitutions in the world have modeled their Human Rights according to this document.

 

The Convention charges the Court with ensuring the observance of the engagement undertaken by the contracting states in relation to the Convention and its protocols, that is ensuring the enforcement and implementation of the European Convention in the member states.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR is a supranational or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols.

An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals, or one or more of the other contracting states. Aside from judgments, the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention.

 

Judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term. The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47.

Therefore it can be seen that the majority of judges from different countries have come to the same conclusions on rights of homosexuals.

 

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Cases involving LGBT rights

The following cases deal with the applicability of Article 8 to issues related to LGBT people including the recognition of laws prohibiting sodomy, and access to health services for transgender people.

 

Yes, the Court is not any authoritative institution applicable for Singapore. However, as the United Kingdom (with England) is a member to the Convention, therefore, the (English) common law on Human Rights have to be interpreted by consideration to the Convention.

An overview what the Convention on Human Rights covers can be seen at the link here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

 

 

Conclusion:

The judgments of this court give precedents and guidance on vast issues of Human Rights. International Law on Human Rights would follow these principles as they form a general understanding on the basic protection of Human Rights of individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sorry at start
18 minutes ago, Steve Temp said:

I like Theo Li Ann's perfect example that a person who is mediocre at best can have impressive academic credentials.

There is another example here in the US:

Former president George W. Bush has a degree from Yale University and a MBA degree from Harvard Business School,

yet we all remember what a weak character and poor intellect he has.

Rich parents with powerful positions of much influence can make up for the lack of brains of their descendants.

 

It seems that poor Theo Li Ann was a victim of such influential mother, who also passed an extreme homophobia to her daughter. :(

.

 

Sorry to say, and I know you might be offended Steve, but the United States is run by money. If you donour vast contributions to a university in the US you might get your son receiving a honourable degree from a US university.

Therefore, for sons and daughters of rich people, the degree does not say much...

 

Which university would have had little Georgy failed after father Bush donated so much to the University fund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Guest sorry at start said:

 

Sorry to say, and I know you might be offended Steve, but the United States is run by money. If you donour vast contributions to a university in the US you might get your son receiving a honourable degree from a US university.

Therefore, for sons and daughters of rich people, the degree does not say much...

 

Which university would have had little Georgy failed after father Bush donated so much to the University fund?

 

Agree 100% !  And I'm not offended, since this is a universal situation throughout nearly the entire world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest don't forget
2 minutes ago, Steve Temp said:

 

Agree 100% !  And I'm not offended, since this is a universal situation throughout nearly the entire world...

 

Sorry but not in Western Europe, we don't have this "donation" policy as universities are state operated and not private institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest don't forget

compared to some other dumb presidents of the US, George Bush at least listened to his secretary of state and other secretaries or advisers, resulting in some halfway smart policy.

George Bush for sure was not reluctant to his administration advice and at least had his wife Laura as a last resort to advice him.

"Honey, can you just put your book you are reading to rest for a moment... what do you think, should I send my soldiers to Irak?"

 

The recent dumb president knows everything and would never ask his wife for any last resort advice, he would only ask his daughter who he thinks is smart...

"Honey, can you put your fashion magazine just to a short rest, your my sweet sweet darling. thanks. I just wanted to tell you that your tits look magnificent tonight... oh,. hm." (thinking: but they can't beat wild Stormy's).

 

That's the big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest don't forget said:

 

Sorry but not in Western Europe, we don't have this "donation" policy as universities are state operated and not private institutions.

 

I was responding to Guest sorry at start who had stated that the United States is run by money.

Aren't some  Western Europe countries run by money too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Don't forget

No Western European countries bulk up more and more debts (like the US) in that sense they are maybe run by money.

I meant the donating to universities. Maybe in the UK or Malta the universities are receiving the majority of funds by monies from donations, but most other countries the universities are like government institutions and do not rely so much on donations from the business or individuals. Though the Western European universities increased the moneys received from the industry for research projects or to pay for a research professor. but most funds for universities to operate are derived from the government budget.

that is why taxes are higher in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Don't forget

No Western European countries bulk up more and more debts (like the US) in that sense they are maybe run by money.

I meant the donating to universities. Maybe in the UK or Malta the universities are receiving the majority of funds by monies from donations, but most other countries the universities are like government institutions and do not rely so much on donations from the business or individuals. Though the Western European universities increased the monies received from the industry for research projects or to pay for a research professor. but most funds for universities to operate are derived from the government budget.

that is why taxes are higher in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible for one to be confucianist and christian? Cos Kek Boon Leong sure speakss like one with his "homosexual behaviour violates nature, heaven’s way and humanity".

Confucius got talk about heaven one meh?

 

Edit: ahhhh it seems heaven's way is 天理 , not exactly heaven per se ...

Edited by Vometra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Confused man
10 minutes ago, Vometra said:

Is it possible for one to be confucianist and christian? Cos Kek Boon Leong sure speakss like one with his "homosexual behaviour violates nature, heaven’s way and humanity".

Confucius got talk about heaven one meh?

 

Edit: ahhhh it seems heaven's way is 天理 , not exactly heaven per se ...

He is leader in CONFUSIONism, indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The baker won

https://bbc.in/2CB8zx1

 

making it the most expensive cake in history esp when so many of u commented abt it too

 

“But the bakery has always insisted its objection was to the message on the cake, not the customer.(he was their regular)”

  

 

Bakers r happy they won cos many of their supporters believe in freedom eg freedom of speech and beliefs

having an own prefce doesnt mean i discriminate against certain race/colour or...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -Ignored- said:

The baker won

https://bbc.in/2CB8zx1

 

making it the most expensive cake in history esp when so many of u commented abt it too

 

“But the bakery has always insisted its objection was to the message on the cake, not the customer.(he was their regular)”

  

 

Bakers r happy they won cos many of their supporters believe in freedom eg freedom of speech and beliefs

having an own prefce doesnt mean i discriminate against certain race/colour or...

 

good sense prevailed. 

 

respect goes both ways. 

 

you respect my freedim of speech . i respect your freedom of speech.

 

these hard up gay  SJW  cant they just buy a cake and decorate it anyway they want.

 

Better yet open a shop, rainbow friendly then buy a 3d printer or ccolor  cake printet and print any fucking greetings or vulgar message any customer ask for.

 

open your own rainbow bus iness yar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Strange

Mindboggling. Does that mean when i ask a baker to write “happy birthday tom” on a cake, the bakers are wishing tom a happy birthday on a personal basis? 

 

Why does it become that personal and compartmentalisation not work when it comes to baking a cake with the “support gay marriage” message?

 

Cake baking is not even a high art of self expression. Why even complicate a simple business transaction of a bakery baking cakes?

 

Other businesses like nail art, tattoo artists can also reject requests for creating equality messages in that sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Not hatred freedom meh
3 hours ago, Guest guest said:

are you all questioning the reasoning and judgement made by a highly learned and qualifued judge that studies the interest of all stake holders.

 

 

The christian bakers lost and appealed thrice before winning, spending close to 50k quids paid for by a christian organisation.

 

Isn't that a mountain made out of a moldhill?

 

I cannot help but wonder if the bakers were hiding their personal distaste for gay marriage behind religion.

 

Will christian bakers be allowed to refuse baking cake for the celebration of buddha's birthday too?

 

There is no end to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Not hatred freedom meh
Just now, Guest Not hatred freedom meh said:

The christian bakers lost and appealed thrice before winning, spending close to 50k quids paid for by a christian organisation.

 

Isn't that a mountain made out of a moldhill?

 

I cannot help but wonder if the bakers were hiding their personal distaste for gay marriage behind religion.

 

Will christian bakers be allowed to refuse baking cake for the celebration of buddha's birthday too?

 

There is no end to this.

Correction: long legal battle wasted close to 500k quids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest as simple as that
3 hours ago, Guest guest said:

are you all questioning the reasoning and judgement made by a highly learned and qualifued judge that studies the interest of all stake holders.

 

 

 

The case will probably go to the European Court of Human Rights. I can predict the outcome already.

 

Why do bakers need to bother what customers want to put on their cake? Some people will ask to put on a penis in the form of a banana, the baker owner who is a militant feminist will then refuse to do the order?

The Anglican bishop will ask for a "We love Jesus" drawing on the cake (in purple colour on yellow ground). The bakery assistant who is of Zarathustran belief will refuse to make the cake.

The job of a baker for celebrations cake is to prepare the cake according to the customer wishes.

It would have been better if he had refused on smarter grounds like "Sorry, we are full of orders until May 2019"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vometra said:

Is it possible for one to be confucianist and christian? Cos Kek Boon Leong sure speakss like one with his "homosexual behaviour violates nature, heaven’s way and humanity".

Confucius got talk about heaven one meh?

 

Edit: ahhhh it seems heaven's way is 天理 , not exactly heaven per se ...

 

I had the same reaction,  a HEAVEN in Confucianism?

But even the "violates nature" seems ill informed.  If a 5% of a species does not reproduce, this does not violate the need of the species to reproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...