Posts Tagged ‘LGBT’

LGBT rights campaigner happy that gays suffer UK court defeat

In Uncategorized on 31/10/2018 at 9:56 am

In the UK, Peter Tatchell is a LGBT rights campaigner that has campaigned for yrs and yrs for LBGT rights, but recently he upset many gays when he welcomed a court decision that many gays and their opponents took as a defeat for the cause.

In Gays versus Taliban Christians etc I wrote

[W]e have Pink Dot and friends who are calling for boycott of IKEA here ( for being gay “unfriendly”. And the u/m shows gay overreach in the UK where gay marriages are legal:

“Gay prejudicing,” is the Sun’s headline to the story about a Christian-run bakery being found guilty of discrimination after refusing to decorate a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage”.

For the Express, it’s “hardly a victory for common sense or for live-and-let-live… Since when is it a crime for a private company to turn down work?”

The Mail says that Belfast Judge Isobel Brownlie might have been applying the letter of the law but argues it raises questions about the balance between gay and religious rights. “Indeed, it highlights the argument for a conscience clause, protecting believers from being forced to go against the teachings of their faith,” it says.

Given that the bakers had not refused to serve the customer because he was gay but because its owners disagreed with the slogan, the Daily Telegraph asks whether the bakery’s stance was “discrimination against gays or an assertion of the right to free speech?”

It adds: “Imagine if a Muslim printer was forced to produce a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.”

Well recently, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Christian-owned bakery in Northern Ireland that refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage, which remains illegal in the province. Peter Tatchell said it was “a victory for common sense” upsetting many gays.

I like the judges reasoning. The judges found that the bakers

— had not refused to serve the customer who ordered the cake on the basis of his sexuality; and

— so were justified on free-speech grounds in not baking the message he wanted displayed on it.

The militant gays were saying that the refusal to make a cake with the ordered slogan was the same as putting out a landlord putting out a sign saying

No blacks or Irish need apply

This is illegal in the UK, though not here.

The judges put paid to that line of reasoning by saying that the bakers had not discriminated against customer who ordered the cake on the basis of his sexuality, and so were entitled to refuse to bake a cake with the slogan the hay wanted.

S377A: Ex-ST tua kee thinks Christians won’t harm him?

In Media on 29/09/2018 at 10:09 am

But Muslims might attack him?

This ex-ST tua kee is picking on Christians and Christianity (despite his name), or is ignorant on the views of Muslims on being gay (it’s haram); or has no balls because he’s afraid of a Jihadist attack if he talks about Muslims opposing the repeal of S377A: most likely the last methinks given the way ST behaves towards the bullies. Remember what George Yeo once infamously said, “Christians are less likely to riot”?

Alan John

In 2009 I was a senior editor at The Straits Times when I asked one of the best reporters in the newsroom to find out what happened at Aware, because the respected women’s association had been taken over at its AGM by a mysterious group of new members. I remain proud of that story, because it uncovered how self-righteous people in our midst will take it upon themselves to force their beliefs and values on everyone else, and they will use all means possible.

The Straits Times broke the story that came to be dubbed The Aware Saga, and it was not easy. The paper was criticised for having “a homosexual agenda”. The writer who broke the story was attacked viciously for being gay. There were powerful people in and outside of Singapore Press Holdings who asked senior editors what the paper was up to in its unrelenting coverage and for exposing the Christians who took over Aware in that stealth operation. A senior government official called our coverage “breathless” and that seemed like a big hint that perhaps we had better pull back or stop.

Thankfully, I worked to a good editor, Han Fook Kwang, who was not Christian but was deeply offended that a group of people would use their religion to impose their values on a non-religious organisation operating in Singapore’s common secular space. He let me do my best with the story, and our reporters – straight, gay, Christian and non-Christian – pursued the story as best we could. Fook Kwang gave it the space and prominence it deserved and took some heat for that.

The original leadership of Aware eventually ousted the Christian usurpers in an extraordinary general meeting that was nothing short of historic for civil society in Singapore. And still, as the editor who assigned the story and for many of my colleagues, we did not know if we would end up being criticised for “going overboard”. Nobody came out to thump us on our backs or say Well Done. For some reason we remained a little fearful, and felt we had to keep our heads down. We had to be mindful that although we helped Aware return to its rightful leadership, we ought not risk offending the losing side because they were influential, well-organised, articulate and capable of giving even the powerful a fright.

For a long time afterwards, ST continued to be accused of having that “gay agenda”. If the paper ran stories about LGBT issues – or once, for saying in a story that Elton John had arrived with his husband and child – a letter would come, accusing ST of trying to “normalise” gay marriage and destroy the institution of marriage. Online there were people who tracked examples of the paper’s “gay agenda” to expose its motivations.

Nine years have passed since the Aware Saga. The current debate over 377A bears all the hallmarks of what happened in 2009. There is a loud and powerful call to keep this law. Because he spoke up for the wrong side, Tommy Koh has been called gay or “must have gay grandchildren”. Someone called me an asshole for criticising the Catholic Archbishop for the Church’s position on 377A. The Christians speak up most authoritatively, convinced of the need to safeguard family values and avoid “the slippery slope.” Some of the same people who figured in the stealthy takeover of Aware appear to be invested in current efforts to retain this bad law. They learnt nothing in 2009, they remain as steadfast, maybe even more so, in their desire to protect all of Singapore from sin and sinfulness as defined in their holy book.

I read ST’s editorial today and it appears to hope that Singapore’s courts will do the right thing in 2018 and remind us all, once again and clearly, that this is not a Christian country. This country provides religious people of all faiths so much freedom to promote their religions, explain their beliefs, woo new believers and speak up as strongly as they like against sin in their houses of worship. I am proud of that freedom in this country, which many of us take for granted. But today, as in 2009, this is not a Christian country and 377A is simply a wrong law to keep. Doing away with it will disappoint one side, but this gay sex debate will end. Keeping it means we remain on opposite sides and this “war” goes on.

FB post


Winning hearts and minds for s377A repeal

In Uncategorized on 12/09/2018 at 10:42 am

The LGBT community and allies have wasted no time in starting to campaign for the repeal of s377A.

I hope they listen to what a Mr Shahani, author of the 2008 book Gay Bombay: Globalisation, Love and (Be)longing in Contemporary India, says about winning “hearts and minds” of the public.

“I don’t think India is homophobic as much as it’s ignorant and we are also fixated on the idea of heterosexual marriage. It’s about widening people’s minds to the idea of love in all its forms.”

Those of us who are boh chap on the issue are joking that we’ll be labeled homophobic for juz being boh chap.

Will PAP allow HSBC to introduce Mx here?

In Banks on 04/04/2017 at 4:56 am

If HSBC introduces Mx here, it’ll be the bank of choice for LGBTs. The Guardian reports from the UK, where HSBC, like in HK, is a tua kee retail bank 56that also owns First Direct, an internet only bank with 1.35m customers.

HSBC is to offer its transgender community a choice of 10 new gender-neutral titles as part of its plan to improve the banking experience for customers.

The banks says its account holders will no longer have to use conventional titles such as Mr, Mrs and Ms, but instead be able to choose from a long list that includes Mx, Ind, M, Mre, and Misc. HSBC said titles chosen would be applied across customers’ accounts, including on their bank cards and all correspondence.

HSBC’s new honorifics are:

Ind (abbreviation of individual)
Mx (pronounced “mix” or “mux”)
Misc (for miscellaneous)
Mre (for mystery)
Msr (a mix of miss/sir)
Pr (prounced “per”, for person)
Sai (pronounced “sigh”)
Ser (pronounced “sair”).

As intolerant as M’sian Talibanites? Uniquely S’porean solution

In Uncategorized on 01/12/2015 at 5:15 am

S’pore’s Moral Minority is getting as ridiculous as their M’sia counterparts. Here it’s the X’ian Ultras (“Christ was ctucified: why not LGBTs?” is my understanding of what they want) and some Muslim allies doing the intolerance, not the Muslim Talibanites, UMNO opportunists and Malay Ultras.

At least here, bigotry and intolerance cannot identified with any one religion or race or any combination thereof: thaz Harry’s multi-culturalism and multi-racism at work. Ok, OK, Harry had a side-kick named Thamby who penned “We the citizens of S’pore”.

(If time challenged, skip to the end for the serious bit, beginning with “Seriously …” about the implications of the Moral Minority calling for Adam Lambert’s removal from a really boring show).

Praise the Lord God that the much maligned (by me not least) ang moh tua kees are organising a fight-back against the growing intolerance of the X’ian Ultras. But let’s be fair. If the LGBTs and theit ang moh tua kee champions had been willing to do the buggery etc in the dark of the night, the X’ian Ultras and allies would have been cluelessly quiet. But no, the buggers insisted and their allies insisted on their right to sodomise etc in the light, not the dark: which thinking about it is rheir moral right.

A growing controversy over a Singapore concert starring openly gay US singer Adam Lambert has highlighted a widening cultural divide in the strait-laced city-state.

Lambert will be the headline act of a lavish New Year’s Eve show organised and televised live nationally by state-owned broadcaster MediaCorp.

Over the course of the week, thousands of Singaporeans have flocked online to sign two duelling petitions.

One, started on Wednesday, calls on MediaCorp and the government to drop Lambert, on account of his support for gay rights and reputation for risque performances, which it called “contrary to mainstream Singaporean values”.

Comments on the petition called Lambert’s performances “disgusting”, “disturbing” and “lewd”. “Please give more wholesome role models to our youths,” said one petitioner Elaine Lui.

A counter petition was started on Thursday night and quickly gathered steam, calling on organisers to keep Lambert as a demonstration that Singapore “shuns discrimination and promotes diverse inclusive points of view”.

“In no way whatsoever does his sexual orientation have any relation to his role as an entertainer and singer. Asking for him to be banned on TV is ludicrous and is akin to asking retailers to stop selling iPhones because [Apple has a] gay CEO,” said commenter Ivan Lin.

As of Friday evening, both petitions were neck-to-neck with thousands of signatures each …

Uniquely S’porean solution

MediaCorp has not dropped him – but has promised that the show will conform to strict broadcast regulations and be made “suitable for family audiences”.

I.e. Boring as usual.


Seriously, what I found disturbing is that the loonies want Lambert to be removed not because his act was lewd, promoting a LGBT life-style etc but because he was gay.  As BBC reported. Lambert previously performed in Singapore in 2013 to few complaints. 

The logic of their view would mean that the National Library has to take out of circulation books penned by Somerset Maugham, EM Foster and Oscar Wilde. They were dood writers, who just happened to be gay.

Waz really annoying is that these bigots are silent about the other big issue of their US masters godfathers; abortion. They know that if they kick up a fuss about abortion here, there’ll be serious consequences for them personally. Govt is pro-choice and when the Act was passed in the 70s, the churches were told in no uncertain terms to sit down and shut up. Something they have done ever since: even that polo-playing pastor who comes across as wanting to use his mallet to smash LGBTs’ like the Cossacks using sabres to cut off serfs heads. Btw, the Mongols played an early form of polo using the skulls of their opponents as balls.

But on the gay issue, the local moral minority  are really brave because govt is trying to have its cale and eat it on the gat and relared issues. Not that I blame govt.

The debate over Lambert this time stems from a cultural divide in Singapore that has widened recently.

A modern and open city-state with a thriving gay scene and liberal minority, much of its society also remains deeply conservative. A religious right, supported by some Christians and Muslims, has grown in tandem with a burgeoning gay rights movement.


What connects “Free My CPF”, PM’s suit & NLB, LGBT row?

In Humour, Public Administration on 18/07/2014 at 4:36 am

The ideas behind this TRE post had crossed my mind: that the NLB row was manufactured by the govmin to detract the sheep S’poreans from more impt issues. In other words, it was a cunning PAP plot that the anti-PAP cyber warriors fell for:

One uncle pointed out that there is a hideous hidden agenda which was ordered down from the top to divert the focus of citizenry from CPF issue which Roy seemed to garner a lot of sympathy from both Singaporeans and foreigners in that it is a rather despicable joke that a PM in a democratic country sued a citizen over defamation just because he used the available information to arrive at his conclusion and that even the 71 year old vandalised and jailed by the court got sympathy over his frustration of the Govt is not returning his hard earned CPF.

He continued to say that many horse f**t devils in many ministries were thinking hard what to create. NLB came up with the idea of destroying children books that are tainted with favouring a gay issue based on the gay problem which recently showed a majority of Singaporeans are rather uncomfortable with. NLB was right. It took the heat from CPF. NLB could continued to grip the attention of the citizenry on the gay and other even if it is distantly related to the social taboo.

If true, Yaacob and NLB’s CEO are not blundering fools: they are gd black ops’ operatives..

Seriously, a look at SgDaily since the NLB story broke will show that the NLB action has dominated this cowboy town. Not only are the usual suspects (LGBT activists, anti-PAP cyber warriors, though Goh Meng Seng and Gilbert Goh, are quiet), but “moderate” apolitical bloggers are not happy with NLB.

On Facebook too, there is a lot of unhappiness with NLB’s decisions.

Heck even a PAP MP expressed reservations on FB, as ST reports:

Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair became the first member of the ruling party to speak out against the National Library Board’s (NLB) decision to pulp three children’s books for their homosexual content.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday night, Mr Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said he did not think that “destroying books is akin to censorship, and that all censorship is bad”, but said that “the real question is whether homosexuality falls in that category which should be excluded”.

“I do not believe homosexuality falls in the category of issues which should be excluded,” he wrote. “In fact, neither does the NLB. It says it carries such books in the Adult section….Excluding such books, or worse, destroying them, sends an altogether different and confusing message about the role of the NLB.”

He proposed a solution of placing the books in a separate section, “which children can only access with an adult present – much like a ‘PG’ movie”.

Makes gd sense.

Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair became the first member of the ruling party to speak out against the National Library Board’s (NLB) decision to pulp three children’s books for their homosexual content.

In a Facebook post on Wednesday night, Mr Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said he did not think that “destroying books is akin to censorship, and that all censorship is bad”, but said that “the real question is whether homosexuality falls in that category which should be excluded”.

“I do not believe homosexuality falls in the category of issues which should be excluded,” he wrote. “In fact, neither does the NLB. It says it carries such books in the Adult section….Excluding such books, or worse, destroying them, sends an altogether different and confusing message about the role of the NLB.”

He proposed a solution of placing the books in a separate section, “which children can only access with an adult present – much like a ‘PG’ movie”.

– See more at:

Coming back to the conspiracy theory, even if there isn’t a PAP plot, the PAP is surely be happy that the LGBT and ang moh tua kee* activists are helping the PAP alat the CPF and bullying issues. I’m sure the cheques for thirty pieces of silver and invitations to an Istana function are in the post.

But I’ll end with two Voices that puts to shame not only the anti-LGBT gang and the book banners but the LGBT gang and friends. The views of the former are to be expected, but I had expected more from people who call themselves “liberal” and “tolerant”. Based on their comments on blogs and FB, too much of their tots are of the “If you are not with us, you are against us” George Bush, Taliban, Isis variety.

Tolerating a lifestyle doesn’t mean agreeing with it

Yong Kai Chang
Published: 4:04 AM, July 17, 2014
I disagree with the writer’s views in the letter “Many parents happy with NLB decision” (July 15). We each have the right to educate our children in our preferred manner in the privacy of our respective spaces.

I believe in not sheltering my children but raising them as well-informed young adults familiar with the practical social realities of our complex world. Others believe their children are impressionable and must be protected from practices they deem deviant.

It is fine to disagree because I have no more right to decide how other children should be educated than other parents have to decide for mine.

If, however, we allow our children to step out of our respective spaces and interact with others in this shared space called society, we must accept that they will have to face and deal with views that differ from ours.

Accordingly, in this public space, no single group has the right to dictate what material should be made unavailable for our children’s collective education in our national library, which is funded with our money.

If any of us are uncomfortable with this, we can mutually agree on separate guidelines for, say, supervised or restricted access to items deemed sensitive. We do not get to ban or destroy one another’s books in this common space.

To tolerate is to disagree but to allow. For example, one may disagree with my definition of family but one allows the book And Tango Makes Three to be in our library.

I may disagree with the Bible, but I would allow a Noah’s Ark children’s book in our library. I would be just as upset if the latter were removed.

One need not support the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement to allow an LGBT-themed book in our library; one need only tolerate it.

[Emphasis mine]

I am puzzled as to whether the writer, by supporting a ban on an LGBT-themed book in our library, understands truly what tolerance means.

An earlier Voice (before the NLB story broke) Png Eng Keat on 23 June pointed out

Don’t conflate disapproval with discrimination

I refer to the letter “Morality should be shaped by all in Singapore” (June 21).

Firstly, as a Protestant, I am heartened to know that the Humanist Society (Singapore) (HSS) shares some of the same emphases as my religion: Reason and compassion. Without reason and compassion, there can be no common dialogue in a civilised society.

However, I take issue with how the writers conflate the two distinct ideas of disapproval and discrimination. Deeming another’s act unacceptable need not involve any discrimination, nor would it necessarily lead to any discrimination.

People can disapprove of acts such as sex between adults of the same sex, and sex with someone other than their marriage partner (“Religious identity stronger in Muslims, Protestants”, June 18), but that does not preclude them from “loving thy neighbour”.

Like the writers, I believe that no one group in society should have the sole right to shape morality since we live in a pluralistic secular society.

Everyone should be allowed to converse at the table with love and reason. The danger is when any one group tries to hijack the discussion, assert its superiority and push the rest out of the ship.

This has happened in the West with militant secularism squeezing religion out of the public sphere. May this never happen here in Singapore.

Admittedly, disapproval often crosses over to discrimination, but it needn’t and the distinction should be borne in mind. The failure of the LGBTs and friends to recognise this distinction is the thing that annoys me most about them.


*Strangely, FT lovers wannabe NMP for FTs, Kirsten Han and Maruah are silent. They like GMS and GG all got sore throats? Bit unfair on GG and GMS. They most probably realise that the NLB actions are meant to distract S’poreans from matters that matter.