This Forum Letter looks like another Family Busting Attempt

Ever since the Aware Saga where it was exposed that homos and their gang attempted to teach young girls how to have sex, I have been on the lookout for anything that looks sinisterly threatening the the Family Unit. You may call me overzealous or even obsessed. But I rather say let's be safe than sorry.

In today's ST Forum, there appears to be another (well disguised?) letter that soft sells why we should adopt some changes in the law to address the problem of family violence. When the Family Violence Bill was first mooted many years ago, many (me included) did not think too much about it. However, since the Aware saga, we have to be on our toes at all times.

Incidentally the term "Family Violence Bill" itself has a sinister connotation. It didn't look sinister then, but it does now. A better term would be "Domestic Violence Bill". The former term appears to be yet another attempt to programme society to think that somehow, families are the cause of many domestic and societal problems.

Here is the forum letter. Bolded fonts are edited by me.


S'pore must do more

I AM encouraged to learn how female victims of violence and their children have received better protection from 'high-risk' abusers because of recent initiatives to fight domestic violence. Identifying the 'high-risk' people, planning a strategy to protect second-time victims, and seeking help from agencies such as the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) Child Protection Service, the police and prisons are elements of this critical 'safety net' to help victims, and these efforts should be applauded.

In Singapore, concerted efforts to deal with domestic violence started in the 1980s. The groundwork for reform through campaigns was spurred by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), which culminated in the Family Violence Bill.

Note the soft introduction to give credit to AWARE.

Regrettably, the Bill was defeated in Parliament, but there were some positive results. In March 1995, a specialist Family Court was established. An infrastructure was also set up to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to tackling the problem. Some provisions of the Family Violence Bill were incorporated into the amended Women's Charter 1996.

But the amended charter has its shortfalls. While it protects spouse, former spouse, child, stepchild, adopted child, parents, parents-in-law and any other relative or incapacitated individual who is regarded by the court as a member of the family, couples who live together are excluded.

If the Family Violence Bill was in place, courts would have protected even de facto or common law 'marriages' and not ignore them altogether.

Couples living together? Cohabitation? Cohabitation to be included in a law meant for the married and/or family?

Isn't this soft selling the point that cohabitation (comes with free casual sex, sex, sex of course) is to be part of society, even to be called "family"?

Now why should we include a non-married couple to be part of the institution of "family"?

Isn't this another deconstruction of the family unit by the Family Busters?

Note - "de facto" marriages as what the above letter implies, means any couple living together. Hence, it could also mean same-sex couples. If this bill is passed as such, wouldn't by default, the Family Violence Bill include same sex couples?

A sneaky, backdoor way to get Singaporeans to recognize gay marriage?

Yellow Flag?

The Women's Charter has another defect. Only the victim can apply for a protection order. In reality, the victim often believes she cannot help herself and, as a result, fails to take any action to end the abusive relationship.

An advantage of the Family Violence Bill would have been that anyone who had reason to believe that family violence (including spousal violence) was being committed could apply for a protection order for the victim.

Now that's a Red Flag! Anyone at all? A neighbour? Perhap's a "friend" whom the "abused" spouse has been chatting up with?

Shouldn't family matters be matters for the family to resolve? Why the trigger-happy action to get others involved - and that too, by way of the law and not through counselling?

The Women's Charter is flawed in another way. The amended charter makes it mandatory not only for the abuser but also the victim to undergo counselling. In contrast, the Family Violence Bill would have reserved mandatory counselling for the abuser only.

Clearly, family violence should be fought on many fronts, as is currently done. But legal reform is also critical to eradicate this social problem. The legal reforms in place to fight family violence are a step forward, but more can be done to ensure gender egalitarianism.

Dr Theresa Devasahayam
Coordinator, Gender Studies Programme
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

Note the typical signature of the Family Buster. Getting the law to be amended or introduced to tackle what can be resolved through counselling. Just like notorape. Just like trying to decriminalize minor sex.

Get the law to be involved, sit back and relax. The erosion of the family unit will come soon enough. It has happened in the West - tested and proven - and it is now being introduced here, by the Family Busters.

I would love to see my analysis as being overzealous. But then again, better safe than sorry. No one would have believed that Aware is anti-family if not for the Aware saga. But now we know.

Take NOTHING for granted.

Sovereign Palestine? Why not?

Palestinians seek UN nod for statehood
(You need to subscribe to ST online to access the above link)

For those who do not subscribe, here is a link to a reproduced text.

The Palestinians are seeking statehood. There are reservations from some parties in particular Israel, US and very possibly many European countries. Various reasons are given for the reservation. However, failing to give the Palestinians will give rise to some very serious implications. Here are some facts to consider.

1. UN Resolution 181 (29 Nov 1947) divided Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian sectors. It was from this resolution that Israel derived its "right" to declare independence in 1948, the day after the British mandate to rule Palestine ended. If Israel insists it has a right to exist, which actually is dependent on this very resolution, why should Palestinians be denied their right to exist, based on the very same resolution?

2. The partition was sanctioned and supported by US and its European allies. Denying Palestinians a right to statehood, while upholding Israel right to statehood is double-talk and hypocrisy.

3. Israel has for decades occupied lands partitioned meant for Palestinians. This is illegal. The non-action of US and the Europeans, who have supported Israel based on Resolution 181, yet does nothing to rectify the illegal actions committed by Israel, shows that the double-talk and hypocrisy is already in existence.

4. Israel claims to defend its territories. Little said is that the territories Israel fights on is actually in the lands meant for Palestinians.

5. Jerusalem, the Holy City of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, was set aside as an "International City" under Resolution 181. Israel's claim and control over Jerusalem is hence illegal. Again US and the European nations that supported Resolution 181 does nothing to rectify the situation.


Israel is now worried that a Palestinian State would be created -
Israel Worried As Support for Unilateral Declaration of Palestinian State Grows

As usual, Israel will seek help from US, to "sort things out" -
PM heads to U.S. under threat of Palestinian statehood declaration

And US, will in all probability, abide -
US Senators Act to Force Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital
(Remember that Jerusalem is an International City, so endorsing Jerusalem as Israel's capital would make US complicit in an illegal move. Making Jerusalem as its capital would stall and sidetrack Palestinians' attempt to statehood because this would be yet another explosive issue.)

Never mind that Impotent UN Council only barks and has no bite -
General Assembly chief: UN must adopt 1947 resolution on partition of Palestine


I know this is a sensitive and explosive issue. I have discussed such issues in many forums and with many different people from different backgrounds. Here are some points I would want to make from a "pre-emptive stance".

- The Six Day War which Israel fought with its Arab neighbours is a non-issue. The Palestinians should not pay for what Israel and its other neighbours did to each other. Let's stick to the point that if Israel has a right to declare independence because of Resolution 181, so has the Palestinians that right.

- Israel has a right to defend itself. So has the Palestinians. Israel's right to defend itself does not mean it has the right to usurp the lands of Palestinians. It has no right to build settlements on lands which was partitioned for Palestinians under Resolution 181. Hence, arguments that Israel has a right to defend itself should not be used to justify why Palestinians are killed and maimed IN THEIR OWN lands.

- Palestinians should negotiate. Yes, they did and they had a good deal signed. It was The Oslo Agreement. That agreement spelt out the terms for a transfer of power to the Palestinians. After the assassination of the then PM of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, the transfer of power was stalled. That Agreement is still valid.

- Hamas. Mainstream media and Western powers argue that Hamas is a terror group hiding behind Palestinian lines. The fact is that Hamas is the LEGALLY ELECTED party of the Palestinians. Abbas, the current leader backed by US, is NOT the elected leader, but seen as a dummy figure slotted in by the US.


So why not an Independent Palestinian State? After all, it has been long overdue - since 1948 when the Brits pulled out from Palestine. If Israel claims a right to exist on the validity of Resolution 181, why can't the Palestinians?

By denying Palestinians statehood, it would give rise to some serious implications. The most obvious one is the double talk by the US and its European allies that Israel has a right to exist. Another serious implication is that the UN is just a dud. Yet another is that the authority of the UN would be eroded because in future if a "rogue" country does not "obey" any UN Resolution, all that "rogue" country has to do is to cite the double standards in the application of Resolution 181.

TOC, the "PAP of the New Media"

One of The Online Citizen's (TOC) biggest cry against the PAP is that PAP dominates to such an extent, it rules the (local) media. Hence, censorship is one of TOC's biggest tirade against the PAP. Nothing wrong with that argument. Actually, few would disagree with TOC's point on that.

But then, of late, TOC is behaving in the very same way it chastises the control and censorship of the media. I guess TOC is getting to be big-headed and hence now feels that it has the right, the power, the influence and the might to tell others what should be discussed and what should not be.

There have been many cases where opposing views against TOC has been moderated, or totally deleted from public view - especially if it does not pander to the gay agenda. TOC's argument is that it moderates because those comments are "not relevant" or they are "personal attacks". But then again, that's the kind of argument PAP uses to stifle free speech, no? Yes, be vague in your explanation, so that it can be applied at any time to your convenience!

So is not TOC now behaving the very same way PAP does?

Here is a case example:
The Church (not the Bible) discriminates against gays, says pastor

Scroll down to the comments Section

Donaldson on November 15th, 2009 12.12 pm
Hi everyone,

If you don’t want your comment to be moderated, please comment sensibly – no denigration of the author, the interviewee, fellow commentators and anyone in general. Also, please refrain from actually posting religious texts.

Cheers
Donald
Current Affairs Editor

Now exactly what is "comment sensibly"? Very vague and open to interpretation. Hey, isn't this very, very grouse of the likes of TOC makes that govt is very vague in its policies, such that about anything can get censored?

So has not TOC now become the very Tyrannical Anti Free Speech Monster it accuses the PAP of?

In that thread above which I linked, I have had some discussion with other forummers. It went on well until of course Mr Scissors snipped it off. Now to make it worse, TOC actually deactivated my email notification WITHOUT informing me! So actually, unknown to me, I was cut off and posts were made without my knowledge.

Now, isn't this again the very action TOC is against the govt's practice of non-information? Imagine if PAP's arm (read as MSM) did that to them!

Let's all be clear now. If TOC is sincere about freedom of expression and against censorship, it should practise what it preaches. "Comment sensibly" is very, very vague. No different from PAP or any govt institution telling others why it does not approve your application, say for a permit to speak to the public.

In short, TOC is behaving like the very PAP it tries to oppose. We don't need to have a tyrannical PAP being replaced with another tyrannical PAP. I'd rather just stay with the original PAP if that's the case.

As to the point that posters refrain from making reference to scriptural texts, that has to be the bummer of the year.

So on one hand, the gays at TOC are given a free hand to slam religion (especially Christianity and to some extent Islam). On the other hand, when Christians and Muslims quote their texts in defence, the TOC Admin moderates them because "posters should refrain from scriptural texts"!

Well, TOC moderators, if you don't want scriptural texts, then it is very simple. Get your gay fans off the bloody topic off religion! Don't allow your gay fans to bash religion! Why do you allow your gay fans to bash religion, but disallow the followers of religion the right to reply?

Are you not censoring free speech?

Oh, since we're at it, here is an article by TOC, which hypocritically points out that the ST heavily censors free speech.

Letter on ethnic stereotyping gets heavily edited by Straits Times

What bloody crap from TOC.

(I mean TOC's hypocrisy that it is against censorship - not Ms Chow's letter.)

Ms Chow of course, has a valid point.

TOC's Juvenile-like Rebel Without a Cause

Like during the Woodstock Era of the 1960s through the early 1970s, today, we have a new generation of juveniles and adolescents who rebel against society - just for the sake of rebelling.

The Hippie Lifestyle of the Woodstock Era promoted free sex, cohabitation, loafing, drugs and yes, rebel against authority. Any authority. Against the school, parents, any government institution - including the law. The more vociferous and the more rebellious, the better.

It was only when those adolescents (then) grew up into mature adults in the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, that they saw the need to dump their Hippie ways. Bankers, lawyers, doctors, corporate men and women, all gave up their loafing, rebellious and drug taking ways to pave the way for the great rise of the global economy.

The only place where the Hippies did well was in Rock Music. And that too, we saw many of these stars fell from grace, either due to their drug addiction, or due to Aids because of their liberal sexual lifestyle, including gay sex. Now don't anyone dare say these rock stars know nothing about condoms because they did not have proper CSEs. Ha ha. (Actually it is no laughing matter.)

So why are today's adolescents and juveniles trying to mimic a lifestyle that has shown to have disastrous consequences? Here is a screenshot of TOC's (The Online Citizen) Facebook, taken on 13 Nov 2009.



The text by TOC reads: "I hope we have grown up to become much more disobedient because life on this world of ours may well be terminated because of too many acts of obedience."

The message above is referring to an article from The Guardian, found in this link -
The Seattle activists' coming of age in Cophenhagen will be very disobedient

Note that the article is specifically referring to an identifiable issue. The message by TOC however, appears to be saying that we rebel for the sake of rebelling - piggyback riding on an article from The Guardian that contains the word "disobedient".

Now if TOC wants citizens to question PAP's policies, let's just do it. There is no need to bring in articles from foreign lands, which has NOTHING to do with Singapore.

TOC appears to jump on anything (and I really mean anything!) that gives the slightest hint of any rebel or disobedience towards the government.

That includes hyping up gay lifestyle, taking the side of foreign parties who criticize Singapore and about anything under the sun - as long it can be used to "disobey the government".

I thought adolescent-like rebel went the way of the dinosaurs after the extinction of the Hippie lifestyle. Looks like a new generation of kids are now back to rebelling - just for the sake of rebelling.

TOC appears to lead the way for the new generation of juvenile and adolescent disobedience against authority.

"Rebel without a Cause", or "Rebel for the sake of rebelling", is making a comeback. No thanks to TOC who thinks the recession means we can look at doing things unproductive.

Upside Down World - Bastardizing marriages, celebrating sex between minors

What an upside down, inside out, inverted world we are now living in.

We have seen how the notorapers go all out to bastardize the institution of marriage.
Say NO to bastardizing marriage

Now we have another call from the wild, that we decriminalize "consensual" sex between minors. From the Straits Times Forum.
Decriminalise consensual underage sex

I REFER to the report, 'When teens have consensual sex...' (Nov 1).

In highlighting some of the difficulties faced when prosecuting underage sex, Attorney-General Walter Woon identified one particularly problematic category of cases - when both participants are under age and have consensual sex.

The penalties for underage consensual sex are stiff: Under Section 376A of the Penal Code, sex with a minor under 16 or 14 is punishable with lengthy jail terms and fines. The Attorney-General's current approach of looking at the circumstances of each case and warning offenders, instead of proactively enforcing the law, appreciates the complexities involved in such cases. It recognises that punitive action is counter-productive, traumatising all parties involved without providing redress.

However, the Attorney-General's position of compromise - not actively prosecuting underage consensual sex, even though it remains a criminal conduct - is inherently uncertain and undermines the integrity of the Penal Code.

Instead of repealing Section 376A altogether, because it serves a valuable purpose in protecting minors against abuse from sexual predators, perhaps a better solution is to introduce a legal exception for consensual sex between underage participants, with the issue of 'consent' between the minors to be proved as a question of fact.

Some members of society perceive underage consensual sex as morally wrong. However, political theorist John Stuart Mill opines that society may not enforce its moral perceptions unless its violation causes objectively perceptible harm to others. Even under a generous reading of Mill's 'harm principle', it is difficult to pinpoint the injury to be prevented in criminalising consensual sex between minors, especially when their safety, which is adequately protected by other provisions in the Penal Code, has not been compromised.

Instead of branding these young people as criminals, so tainting their future with a criminal record, they should be given better guidance, care and support by parents, schools and social workers.

Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy

Point to note - Isn't it is because it is assumed minors cannot consent, that we have the stat rape statute, which makes it illegal to have sex with girls who are minor in the first place?

Now the author argues that if the sex between two minors is "consensual", we should not press charges?

So? Can a 13 year old girl consent or not?

What an upside down world we live today.

Sex in marriage is to be bastardized. Sex between minors is to be celebrated. Man marries man. Woman marries woman. Family is bad. Free open sexual relations is good.

Day is night. War is peace. Moral living is wrong. Aids spreading is good.

Welcome to the "Civilized" 21st Century.

Media more Islamophobic than Homophobic

For all the cries that the media portrays homos in negative light, I feel that the real phobia it promotes (since 911) is Islamophobia. The latest slew of news that implicates Islam/Muslims is the shooting incident at Fort Hood.

The media (and some bloggers around the world) cannot help capitalize the fact that the main suspect is a Muslim - and of Arab descent.

Fort Hood shooter used as excuse to scapegoat Muslims, Arabs

Excerpts:

As soon as the name of the shooter at Fort Hood who killed 13 people and wounded 38—Nidal Malik Hasan—was known, reporters and bloggers began jumping to conclusions about his heritage and his motive.....

.....Lest you think that given Hasan’s name and religion, the backlash against Arabs and Muslims is only natural, recall that when Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in 1995, no one raised alarms about his Catholic upbringing or his Irish heritage. And when it was discovered that Seung-hui Cho had compared himself to Jesus Christ before killing 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech in 2007, no one called for a “war" on either Christians or Korean-Americans.

As a comparison, there was a similar shooting in a US base by another soldier earlier this year. The shooter was a white and non-Muslim. Of course, the media did not play it up, because it could not wave the Islamophobic card.

Army IDs Sgt. John M. Russell as the shooter who killed 5 fellow soldiers at Iraq base

Military officials Tuesday identified the soldier accused of killing five of his comrades at a U.S. base in Iraq.

Sgt. John Russell, 44, of Sherman, Texas, is in custody at Camp Liberty in Baghdad. He is accused of opening fire at a combat stress clinic Monday, killing five U.S. soldiers.

There was yet another mass shooting incident, this time by Seung-Hui Cho, university student, who killed 32 people. Watch his self-made video below, taken just before he massacred his victims. Also take special note of his mention of Jesus Christ. Yet again, the media did not use Christianity to taint the religion - unlike atrocities allegedly committed by Muslims and/or Arabs.




Here is an article about the the university shooting incident - High school classmates say gunman was bullied


Back to Fort Hood. The story as portrayed by the media (and the US govt) is quite fishy. It looks like there were at least 3 shooters in total.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Gives Remarks on Fort Hood Shooting Tragedy -- FOX News



So if there were at least two other shooters, who are they? Why the media blackout (till now) on that?

It appears like other incidents, where the govt and/or media tries to paint an Islamophobic scenario, many parts of the jigsaw puzzle cannot fit.


So what has this all got to do with homophobia? Nothing really, except the homos should really take a lesson or two from the Muslims and/or Arabs, that they have been facing intense global discrimination since Sep 2001 - yet they don't howl as loud as the gays.

SDP playing to the Gay Gallery (Part 2)

Last week, we saw SDP interviewed Alex Au, a prominent gay rights activist.
SDP playing to the Gay Gallery (Part 1)

This week, we see SDP with Constance Singam, another pro-gay activist.



SDP's (covert) manifesto for next General Elections appears to be the push for gay rights.