Walter Woon’s Stand on Human Rights

I have argued before that Walter Woon was referring to the global context, when he levelled the word “fanatics” on some human rights activists.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/06/human-rights-walter-woon-is-commenting.html

There is another report on Woon’s views on Human Rights, as reported in the Straits Times dated, 4 July 2008.

Here are some excerpts of the article. Note that he has taken examples from BOTH the global and local perspective.

Woon on S377A and allegations that it is used to discriminate

People break the law all the time. Take jaywalking. I've seen people who do it right in front of the old Supreme Court. If we spend our time prosecuting such cases, we will do nothing but that. So there is always a public-interest element when we decide whether or not to prosecute.

In the case of 377A, for example, we are prosecuting some cases, such as where you have older men preying on young, underage boys.

If it's two consenting adults, technically it's an offence but, if nobody complains, the police aren't going to beat the bushes in the parks to spy on you. If somebody does complain, then the question is: Do we want to prosecute or do we just warn? Very often, we warn rather than prosecute.


On contempt of court

You can take, for example, contempt of court. The court has to decide when your right to freedom of expression clashes with somebody else's right to reputation, which is a very long-established right in all Common Law jurisdictions.

In the court system, there's always one disappointed party. Are you going to allow the disappointed party to go round criticising and undermining the courts?

I didn't become Attorney-General to stand idly by while people undermine the courts and insult the judges.

Now, you have people like Gopalan Nair, for example. He says the judge h.as prostituted herself. He says: 'I'm here, what do you propose to do about it?'

We charged him. He will stand trial. He is claiming his human rights have been breached. Reporters without Frontiers claims his human rights have been breached. Did they even check the facts? I doubt it. They're talking about rights without talking about responsibilities.


On the death penalty

You take the argument about the death penalty. It's phrased entirely in human rights terms in the West. But you have to remember that in 1947, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated, the West had just held the Nuremburg war crimes trials, the Tokyo war crimes trials and the war crimes trials in Singapore. The war criminals were hanged.

There was no question at that time that the death penalty was not against human rights.


On freedom of speech

In many European countries, you cannot question the Holocaust. And any suggestion of anti-Semitism is immediately whacked, even with jail sentences.

But you can use extremely vulgar terms to describe Muslims, which is what Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, did. That, apparently, was freedom of expression. You can insult the Prophet Muhammad. That's freedom of expression.


I feel that Woon's points on the Death Penalty and Holocaust hit the nail on the head, about the inconsistency of the West, as far as Human Rights is concerned.