atans1

“Hate speech”: MLC chair ignores judge’s comments

In Uncategorized on 02/12/2015 at 2:26 pm

(Ot “Provocation” is not freedom of speech”)

I was very disgusted by Dr Tan’s defence of Calvin Cheng a member of the Media Literacy Council of which Dr Tan chairs. His mealy-mouthy defence is here.  Calvin Cheng is white horse isit?

Here’s something my Facebook avatar  posted on Siow Kum Hong’s wall when Siow took the high moral ground that CC should not be given the AY treatment and which happens to explain my difference of opinion with prof Tan: If it waz gd enough for Mummy’s Boy Fantastic, it’s gd enough for Calvin Cheng. No double standards pls. Justice S’pore style must be done. Here’s what the high court judge said in Amos Yee’s case that applies to “Kill IS babies” MLC member Calvin Cheng: Justice Tay said: “This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like … throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel.”

There’s another relevant bit even if “Kill IS babies” Cheng doesn’t use vulgar words: “Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions … vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out,” he said, adding that the 16-year-old should “wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate”, which can “flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language”.

And I’ll add to the above this for Professor Tan’s further education even if he’s a legal academic:

The fact that it was Yee’s “dominant intention” to critique Mr Lee is irrelevant, said the prosecution, led by Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck. As long as Yee had a “deliberate intention”, it is enough to prove the charge, Mr Kwek said.

Prof Tan pls note. Whatever Calvin’s intention, they are irrelevant.

Yee’s “deliberate intention” was evident, said the prosecution, as Yee himself had admitted that he was “fully aware that his remarks were bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population”, said Mr Kwek.

Prof Tan pls note. “Killer” Cheng has made it clear that he wants to provoke controversy i.e. trouble and ill-will.

Justice Tay noted that Yee had an “unhappy experience” in the Catholic Church. In one of his police statements, Yee said that he was “kicked out of the altar boys” for uttering a profanity at an altar boys meeting. There was therefore a background when he made the offending comments. “They were not innocent words uttered without real thought”, Justice Tay said.

Well, based on his track record of comments, it can be reasonably argued that Calvin Cheng really wants to kill babies of ISIS fighters if he is given the opportunity.

Background

Amos (Mummyy’s Boy Fantastic) had an appeal against his conviction and jail sentence dismissed by the High Court on Oct 8. was found guilty of two charges in May, after a two-day trial. He was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.

Other interesting snippets_ from CNA about the appeal hearing:

The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke “critical discussion”. Said Mr Dodwell: “Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?”

— Justice Tay Yong Kwang said: “Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion.”

“Yee’s attitude of complete disregard for others … is not commonly seen. He did not respect anyone.” He had “openly defied” court orders and made sure his “bravado” was made known. Judge got this about right.

— Another of Yee’s lawyers, Mr Chong Jiahao, said that it “cannot be proven as fact” that Yee intended the comments to wound the religious feelings of Christians. “His purpose was to talk about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew”, Mr Chong said, adding that there was no “cogent evidence” otherwise produced in court.

— On the obscene imagery charge, Justice Tay said that the image Yee circulated “must be obscene by the standards of any right-thinking society”.

Yee’s third lawyer, Mr Ervin Tan argued that the image “does not depict any genitalia” and that the district judge had used the “wrong vantage point” in determining the image to be able to deprave and corrupt young minds.

The District Judge had put herself “in the shoes of right-thinking parents and teachers of our community” and concluded that they would not approve of their children or students viewing the image, said Mr Tan, adding his view that this test is wrong and has “no foundation in law”.

“A picture does not become obscene only when genitalia is explicitly shown”, Justice Tay said. “Depravity and corruption relate essentially to the mind”, said Justice Tay.

He then challenged Mr Tan: “Would a young man bring this picture to show to his girlfriend’s family and say ‘hey, look that this funny picture’? No. Why would he not do it? Something in you says, it’s not right.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: