By now, the news about Alfian's "abusive" email to Thio Li-Ann is known by practically everyone who reads the English papers. Contrary to what some people assume, that email was written months before the repeal 377a campaign was even initiated. And from what I read, it may be rude but I won't consider it harassment. After all, "fucked up" is a general term that has been used by all and sundry to describe someone (either in the first or third person) as dysfunctional or messed up in the head.

To play it out further, she has taken on the role of the aggrieved victim who is above such things. However instead of ending it there, she wrote and had her letter published on the Straits Times with Alfian's e-mail address, obviously intending to make him the target for her lobby group.

Considering the impolite and slanderous terms and accusations she levelled at all gay men, it is rather artful of her to demand civility in the debate when she was the one who launched the first salvo.

To quote Alex Au:

        "When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more."

And if one can't take the heat, then one should get the hell out of the kitchen. One shouldn't launch attacks on others and then cry foul when a return volley comes your way.

Anyway, what's the big deal about someone pissing on your grave? When they bury you after you are well and truly dead, it is usually with earth that has been mixed with manure (as fertiliser). And as we all know, manure is generally made from cow faeces. I would think urine is the lesser of the "evil". And furthermore, you can consider it a favour as it will help the surrounding vegetation grow better so as to beautify your final resting place.

Interestingly enough, Thio had the audacity to bring up the spectre of a defamation suit against Alfian. In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation (as quoted from Wikipedia). I think she brought more disrepute on herself without the assistance of Alfian. "Hatemongering" and "vicious crusades against sexual minorities"? Guilty as charged. No need Alfian's email to tell us that.

I did a trawl through the blogosphere today, and I noted with great interest that all post which mentioned her by name is nothing but negative. And mind you, a lot of them are written by straight people and some are... how shall I say it... not nice at all. Not only was her speech in parliament criticised, but her views and her actions thus far.

One post that caught my eye is by a Mollymeek who sees the hypocrisy of Thio's hope that the "House joins" her "in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom". (underscore is mine)

Anyway, true to form, Talkingcock has come up with a hilariously interesting and productive way to put piss on her grave to a better and more environmentally friendly use. Click on the picture below for the full story. FUNNY!



On the same topic, a "La nausée" has written a post that shows up the ridiculousness of her sensitivity to such emails. But more important than that, he has highlighted something that has escaped almost everyone's attention: the clear and present danger of Thio's assertion "that religion should not be excluded from public policy debates, and that to do so would be undemocratic".

Now why is it dangerous?

Along with the penal code overhaul, section 298 (which makes it a crime to speak ill of any religion) was beefed up.

Of course the intent of this (as stated by Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee on 22^nd October 2007) is to "criminalize the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion".

So is there any other implication?

Yes. To put it simply, the playing field is not level. While religious groups can hide behind this act and use their perceived religious righteousness to attack secular beliefs, ideals, or policies. No one can attack their views because to do so is an offence which might see you in jail.

Let's use the campaign to repeal section 377a as an example. They can assert publicly that all homosexuals are the same as paedophiles, necrophiles, zoophiles, etc. But that law prevents us from attacking their religious views that's fundamental to these fallacious beliefs. They may rant and rave in parliament that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that all homosexuals can change "with the grace of god". But if we were to say that their views are erroneous and most homosexual did not choose to be one, they can very well claim we are "wounding" their religious views and thus guilty according to that section.

So if we are not allowed to criticise them or their religious views, then it is only fair that they are not allowed to publicly air those same views and criticisms of government policies and other people's "lifestyle" be they straight or gay. Because if things go the way Thio wants it, then she and her cabal can very well attempt to hijack public policy debates and no one can say anything in dissent.

Now this is the real slippery slope if you ask me. But it will be interesting to see how our government manages this, especially when there are a few competing religious lobby groups trying to influence public policies.

Before I end this post, I would like to bring your attention to yet another straight person (a female) writing on the 377a issue. Though I disagree with her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (probably heard it too many times from the likes of Thio that she thinks it is), I do like the line of reasoning she took on the "we are not ready" excuse. Hers is the first I've read on this issue. Check it out on "absolute-ly missy".

Labels: lgbt, politics, singapore