698 Singapore Court ruling a major setback for Gay Rights - HRW

Singapore Court ruling a major setback for Gay Rights - HRW

Newsletter published on 3 November 2014

(1) Singapore Court Ruling a Major Setback for Gay Rights - HRW
(2) Gay rights in Singapore - The Economist
(3) Gays should abandon "same-sex marriage" campaign - Derek Byrne
(4) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushes Gay Marriage -
Brother Nathanael
(5) Jewish leaders push Gay Marriage - Brother Nathanael

(1) Singapore Court Ruling a Major Setback for Gay Rights - HRW

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/29/singapore-court-ruling-major-setback-gay-rights

Singapore: Court Ruling a Major Setback for Gay Rights

Repeal Retrograde Law Banning Consensual Sex Relations Between Adult Men

OCTOBER 29, 2014

(c) 2014 Reuters

(Berlin) – A Singapore Supreme Court ruling on October 29, 2014 to
uphold the country’s ban on same-sex relations between consenting adult
men is a major setback for equal rights in Singapore, Human Rights Watch
said today. The court decision sends a message that gay men may lawfully
be subject to discrimination.

The Supreme Court held that section 377A of Singapore’ penal code, which
criminalizes sexual intimacy between men, does not violate articles 9
and 12 of the country’s constitution. These articles guarantee the right
to life and personal liberty, and provide that all people are entitled
to equal protection before the law.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is a terrible setback for homosexual
people in Singapore who want to live their lives like everyone else,
without government interference,” said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director
of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights program at
Human Rights Watch. “The ruling tramples upon basic rights to privacy,
equality, and non-discrimination.”

In July, the Supreme Court heard a joint appeal by three Singaporean
citizens contesting section 377A . Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee had been
involved in a romantic relationship for 16 years.  They were joined in
their appeal by Tan Eng Hong, who had been arrested in 2010 for
allegedly engaging in a sexual encounter with another man. After both
cases were dismissed by the Singapore High Court in April 2013, the
Supreme Court decided to hear the case in 2014.

Section 377A of the Penal Code states: “Any male who, in public or
private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to
procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency
with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 2 years.”

“Singapore likes to advertise itself as a modern Asian country and
business destination,” Dittrich said. “But this discriminatory anti-LGBT
law is wholly out of step with international rights standards that
guarantee protections, including for sexual orientation and gender
identity.”

Penal code section 377A, introduced in 1938, is a relic of British
colonial rule. In 2007, the Singaporean government conducted a review of
the penal code and decriminalized consensual acts of sodomy between
heterosexual adults, while maintaining the provisions regulating “gross
indecency” between men. However, the government rejected arguments to
eliminate the discriminatory law.

Singapore’s law against homosexual conduct is contrary to the rights to
non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom of expression recognized by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose provisions are considered
reflective of customary international law. Singapore has a poor record,
especially among members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), of ratifying international human rights instruments.

In 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled in the case of
Toonen v. Australia that laws criminalizing consensual homosexual
conduct between adults violate the rights to non-discrimination and
privacy. Consensual same-sex conduct between adults is currently
criminalized in at least 76 countries.

Singapore should join countries such as Australia and New Zealand that
have already abolished the British colonial-era sodomy laws that they
also inherited, and take the lead on ending such discrimination, Human
Rights Watch said.

“Singapore should recognize that its arbitrary restrictions on human
sexuality affect not only Singaporeans, but everyone wanting to visit,
work or study in Singapore,” Dittrich said. “Perpetuating discrimination
based on sexual orientation should worry foreign companies and
educational institutions—and make them ask hard questions about whether
they can operate freely in a Singapore with such retrograde laws on the
books.”

(2) Gay rights in Singapore - The Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/gay-rights-singapore

Gay rights in Singapore

On permanent parole Oct 30th 2014, 3:41 BY J.F. | SINGAPORE

A FOUR-YEAR battle ended yesterday, when Singapore's highest court
upheld the constitutionality of Section 377(a) of the country's penal
code, which renders any man convicted of committing "or abet[ting] the
commission of...any act of gross indecency" with another man liable to
two years in prison. Tan Eng Hong first challenged the law in September
2010, after he was charged under 377(a) for having oral sex with another
man in a public-toilet stall. Two years later a second challenge was
raised by Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, a gay couple who have been together
for 17 years. They argued that the law contravened two articles in
Singapore's constitution: Article 9, which guarantees that "no person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance
with the law", and Article 12, the first section of which states, "All
persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of
the law."

The result was not entirely surprising. Singapore's government tends to
do well before Singaporean courts: it has, for instance, never lost a
defamation suit. The court itself, both in oral arguments last summer
and in this ruling, repeatedly expresses unwillingness to consider
"extra-legal" and "emotional" arguments, which have their place in the
legislative rather than the judicial process. The court's role, the
ruling said, was to be "independent, neutral and objective", though in
the early, throat-clearing section of this ruling, the court noted that
it grants the government a "presumption of constitutionality", because
"our legislature is presumed not to enact legislation which is
inconsistent with the Singapore Constitution." In other words, the court
will neutrally and objectively weigh the arguments presented by each
side, though one side (the government's) enters with the wind at its back.

Attorneys for Messrs Lim and Chee argued that inherent to Article 9's
guarantees of life and liberty are "a limited right to privacy and
personal autonomy allowing a person to express affection and love toward
another human being." The court swiftly shot down that argument: in
Singaporean jurisprudence, Article 9 only guards against unlawful
detention. Mr Tan's attorney argued that 377(a) criminalises a group of
people for an innate attribute; the court concluced here that "there is,
at present, no definitive conclusion" on the "supposed immutability" of
homosexuality (Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's prime minister, takes a
different view). M. Ravi, a human-rights lawyer representing the
challengers, had argued that Section 377(a) arbitrarily distinguished
between gay men and women, leaving the former open to incarceration and
the latter untouched, but his argument also held no weight for the
court. It cited an earlier ruling that validated that distinction
because female homosexual acts "were either less prevalent or perceived
to be less repugnant than male homosexual conduct". As for appeals to
Article 12(1), the court pointed to the article immediately following,
which states, "Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution,
there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the
ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth," but does not
mention sex, gender or sexual orientation.

It reviewed historical documents on Section 377(a)'s adoption, which
precedes Singapore's independence, and held that the legislature has the
right to pass laws that express and enforce popular morality. As for
fears that this permits a tyranny of the majority, the court warns
against a "tyranny of the minority", and says that in this case the
appellants have failed to provide a "legal basis for claiming that their
rights should trump those of the majority." As for the rather sensible
argument that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home
neither harms anybody nor impinges on anyone else's rights to disapprove
of what they do (only to have that disapproval codified into law), the
court held that it was a question for the legislature.

The question now, of course, is whether Singapore's legislature will
take up the debate. The last time it did so was 2007, when laws
criminalising heterosexual anal and oral sex were removed. On a daily
level, Singapore is hardly hostile to gay people: Pink Dot, its
gay-pride event (pictured), drew a record crowd of 26,000 this year.
Singapore told a United Nations anti-discrimination committee that
"homosexuals are free to lead their lives and pursue their social
activities. Gay groups have held public discussions and published
websites, and there are films and plays on gay themes and gay bars and
clubs in Singapore."

But if every sexually active gay man who attends one of those plays or
bars or clubs has the threat of imprisonment hanging over his head,
simply for who he chooses to love in the privacy of his own home, that
tolerance is conditional. Between 2007 and 2013, nine people were
convicted under 377(a), according to a spokesman for Singapore's State
Courts.

And leaving aside arguments over whether the government has any place in
the bedroom (this newspaper has long believed it does not), Singapore's
laws make it an outlier, particularly in the developed world. Gay sex is
now legal in 113 countries; gay marriage or civil unions in dozens more.
Singapore is rightfully proud of its ability to attract talent from all
over the world. Yet how long will that ability last? Section 377(a)
turns men who are legally married in countries around the world into
unindicted criminals in Singapore; why would they come here if they
could go anywhere else?

Readers' comments

guest-ojsasnm Nov 2nd 2014 8:06 GMT

The relevant provision is Section 377A of the Penal Code, not 377(a).

John Smith737 Oct 31st 2014 11:10 GMT

As a "foreign talent" living in Singapore I'm deeply disturbed by the
storm of hate and bigotry launched in singaporean social media. I wasn't
aware of such a latent widespread hate. They are comparing homosexuality
with population decimation, zoophilia and pedophilia. At best, we gays
are simply perverts who should "conceal our repugnant behavior to the
privacy of our homes". There is also a lot of paranoia and conspiracy
about the "west" and gay agenda,the majority of people are cheerful and
celebrating the court's decision. Although I've met very nice people in
Singapore, I'm deeply disappointed. I wish young people stand up against
this conservative morals. But they won't, I've never seen a lowest level
of political activity in my life. And foreign people won't stop coming
to Singapore. Money rules

guest-ojlnaen in reply to John Smith737 Nov 2nd 2014 1:58 GMT

I am a Singaporean. Your statements are mostly untrue.

The correct part: homosexuals should confine your sex acts to the
privacy of your homes. And you would be a nice person to do that.

Morals, whether conservative or not, are still morals. You are confused
if you think that morals can become outdated. And if you are from the
west, please stop sprouting the values of pre-marital sex, sex on first
dates, taking and showing off photos of your sex acts, AND homosexual
pride parades.

(3) Gays should abandon "same-sex marriage" campaign - Derek Byrne

From: Tim OSullivan <timos2003z@hotmail.com>
Subject: Same Sex Marriage Article
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 02:06:44 +0000

Opinion: What we need are laws that celebrate our differences, not laws
that make everyone the same

Derek Byrne

THE IRISH TIMES

Oct 9 2014

When I first became active in the gay liberation movement almost 30
years ago in 1985, I believed I was at the heart of something
groundbreaking that would, ultimately, change the face of Irish society
forever.

There can be no doubt that the achievements of the gay liberation
movement in the past 30 years, the decriminalisation in 1993 and the
Civil Partnership Bill of 2010, have affected the social fabric of life
in Ireland for the better.

However, the campaign for same-sex marriage is a move too far, in my
opinion, from the principles of equality and is discriminatory in its
very nature as it does not value the counter-culture responsibilities of
the gay community.

To be homosexual is to be part of a subculture within society. We are,
quite simply, different from the norm.

Of course, gay people should have equality under the law. Equality
legislation is what sets the standard in a civilised world, but what we
need are laws that celebrate our differences and provide for them, not
laws that make everyone the same.

This is where, I believe, the campaign for same-sex marriage falls down.
It is based on assimilation rather than equality, the belief we can only
be equal if we are allowed to live the same way.

The concept of marriage under the Constitution is derived from the
Christian notion of partnership and is confined to persons of the
opposite sex. In Irish law marriage is grounded in the monogamous union
of a man and a woman.

Heterosexual construct

Put simply, marriage, as we understand it in Ireland is a heterosexual
construct that has catered for the needs of a paternalistic society and
the subjugation of women; so why the gay liberation movement believes it
is a fit model for gay people’s lifestyles and values is beyond my
comprehension.

I know of many same-sex couples who have been joined in civil
partnership and I can say with certainty only one of these is grounded
in monogamy. This is not a judgment; it is a fact and an accepted way of
life for many gay couples, civilly partnered or not.

One other flaw in the same-sex marriage debate has been how to include
for the provision of children. Under the Constitution, the State
promises to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on
which the family is founded. However, the family, in this context, is
defined only in terms of consisting of parents and children, and it is
my belief that until this definition is changed there will never be a
same-sex marriage.

Variety of models

Modern Ireland has a variety of family models ranging from the promoted
norm, to single parent, same-sex parent and no-children families. In the
2011 census, married couples accounted for 69.5 per cent of all family
units. With a 500 per cent increase in broken marriages since 1986 and a
106 per cent rise in the number of single-parent families in that
period, there is obviously already a change of narrative on marriage in
Ireland, which the gay community seems to ignoring.

In my opinion, the gay liberation movement needs to reconnect with its
roots and have an unbiased and inclusive debate on same-sex marriage
before a referendum. There has been little or no discussion within gay
ranks on the issue and nobody seems to be considering what might happen
if a referendum were to fail.

The achievements of the past 30 years have created a sense of arrogance
within what I call the “gay establishment”,who, with the best of
intentions are campaigning for a progressive society, while driving us
blindly down a road to conformity.

This desire for some gay people to be assimilated into mainstream Irish
society is, in my view, based on a prevailing small town, village
mentality founded on Catholic guilt and a desire for Irish gay men and
women to fit into the norm so that they don’t upset their mammies.

While I applaud those who march and speak with passion on injustice and
inequality, it is all too easy to get caught up in the euphoria brought
on by speaking through a microphone to an adoring and accepting public.
It is the silent majority that must be won over if the referendum next
spring is to bear fruit.

No consultation

But without consultation there is no consideration for gay men and
women, who like me, are not wholly behind the campaign for same-sex
marriage as it currently stands. Indeed, many gay people have been
silent on the subject for fear of being cast out by their peers, or,
dare I say, being branded as homophobic.

We desperately need a change of narrative from the Irish gay liberation
movement on the subject of same-sex unions and an honest acceptance of
the cultural values and norms of gay men and women in this country if
true equality, either constitutionally, legally or culturally is ever to
be achieved. Vive la difference! Derek Byrne is an academic and journalist

(4) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushes Gay Marriage -
Brother Nathanael

    Brother Nathanael<bn@realjewnews.com> 21 September 2014 19:50

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=966

How Ginsburg Pushes Gay Marriage

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

September 21, 2014

IF JEWS ARE OUR MISFORTUNE, then Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg is Jewry’s chief architect of America’s woes.

In a clear violation of judicial protocol, Ginsburg told an audience at
the University of Minnesota Law School that if the Sixth District Court
of Appeals rules in favor of same-sex marriage, there will be “no need
for us to rush” on a decision on the definition of marriage.

“If however,” Ginsburg added, the Court that covers Kentucky, Michigan,
Ohio, and Tennessee “upholds” the centuries-old, natural definition of
marriage as one man and one woman, “there will be some urgency” to “step
in sooner.”

Liberty Counsel contends that Ginsburg violated the Judicial Code of
Conduct since judges are not to make public comments on pending cases
especially saying which way they would vote before hearing the merits of
the matter. Thus Ginsburg should recuse herself from all cases that
involve homosexual and lesbian marriages.

Mat Staver, head of Liberty Counsel, added that since Ginsburg has
officiated same-sex marriage ceremonies she consequently brings her own
personal experience to the bar which would compromise objective
adjudication.

Staver cites Canons 2 and 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct which
explains that judges are not to allow outside influence to impact their
judgment nor to make public comment on the merits of a pending or
impending action.

“A judge should comply with the law and in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, the code reads,” says
Staver. “A judge should not allow social and political relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment.”

But what Staver doesn’t get, (Liberty Counsel is a Zionist-christian,
Jew-loving legal lobby), is that Ginsburg is part of a “social and
political” alliance—JEWRY—that agitates for the destruction of the White
Christian family via homosexuality.

While Staver censures Jew judge Richard Posner of the 7th US Court of
Appeals for ruling that marriage between a man and a woman derives from
“a tradition of hate,” Staver fails to see that Posner—AS A JEW—assaults
the Biblical definition of marriage.

THE ONGOING ASSAULT on God’s creational design for the perpetuity of the
human race is a key component of Jewry’s dismantling of a White
Christian power bloc that would oppose the Jew’s role in forming
domestic policy and shaping our nation’s culture.

In a nation of sissies, fags, dykes, and queers, the Jew takes the upper
arm of control.

And while Jews like Ginsburg and Posner wreak more destruction on our
Jew-ruined nation….Zionist-christian dupes like Staver continue to
worship the Jewish beast.

(5) Jewish leaders push Gay Marriage - Brother Nathanael

Why Jews Push Gay Marriage

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

April 1, 2013 @ 8:49 pm

The push is on.

With the Supreme Court Hearings last week on homosexual unions—and
Obama’s own endorsement—Jews are at the forefront in promoting ‘gay’
marriage.

Jewish leaders like billionaire’s Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg,
and Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee, have all come out in
favor of what has traditionally been looked upon as sexual depravity.

Even Elena Kagan at the Supreme Court, yes, Jewish, an alleged lesbian
at that, is reportedly known for “queerifying Harvard” when Dean of the
Law School by introducing “transgender law courses”

Two Jewish groups in particular: The Anti-Defamation League, together
with the American Federation of Teachers, have been promoting the
homosexual agenda in our public schools.

Books like Daddy’s New Roommate, (Ken), Daddy’s Wedding, (Daddy marries
Ken), King and King, are part of the ADL’s Early Learning Program,
molding the minds of impressionable little children to accept and
embrace deviant sexual acts.

But Jews prefer sending their kids to private schools. It gives their
children better standing for admittance to Ivy-League colleges and
shields them from homosexual propaganda.

Believe me, for I grew up as a Jew, for a Jewish son or daughter to
announce to their parents that they are ‘gay’ is one of the worst things
that could ever happen.

You see, Jews look upon marriage for their own as sacrosanct, as
paramount for the perpetuity of the Jewish race.

[Clip: “I’m going to tell you the most important thing you have to
remember, about all that I learned in the world this is it, no matter
what happens you marry a Jewish girl.” [audience laughs] “That’s right,
your mother was right. You marry a Jewish boy. There’s nothing more
important in the whole than this. And there’s another reason you better
marry a Jewish girl. So you mother doesn’t break both your legs.”]

Indeed according to my own Jewish upbringing, there’s nothing ‘gay’
about two men having sex in each other’s rectums and two women using
dildos to imitate the act of procreation.

And we heard during the Sabbath Torah Readings the passage from
Leviticus, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an
abomination, saith the Lord.”

Why then are Jews pushing gay marriage? It’s for the Goys, that’s why.

I’ll never forget the day that a ‘gay’ movie came to Brookline Mass.
with homosexual images plastered all over the marquee.

As I stood across the street in disgust, a Hasidic rabbi came walking by.

I pointed to the movie and said, “Isn’t it horrid that we’re assaulted
with these lewd images and titles?”

The rabbi laughed and scorned and said, “It’s for the Goys! Who cares!”

You see, Jews have no special love for queens, transvestites, and
cross-dressers. They look upon them as “dreck”…as repulsive.

But to dismantle a Christian culture in America that opposes Jewry,
that’s what the Jews are after.

Homosexuality is for the Goys! But the Regime is for the Jews.