Tag: 377A

  • Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Singapore Voted Against UN’s Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity (SOGI) Mandate Safeguard

    Eight Latin American Countries (LAC 8) countered an African Group’s hostile resolution on the United Nations Human Rights Council Annual Report (specifically targeted at the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Independent (SOGI) Expert Mandate) and submitted an amendment in supporting and preserving the mandate.

    84 countries voted in favour of the LAC 8 amendment leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. 77 countries voted against the amendment and Singapore is one of them.
    1

    The following is a press release on the topic by Outright Action International.


    21 November 2016 (New York) — The United Nations mandate of the Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) has been safeguarded despite hostile contestation at the 71st Session of the 3rd Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City.

    LGBTIQ activists and organizations around the world quickly mobilized to voice their concerns on the implications of the hostile resolution to national governments as well as at the United Nations headquarters in New York. A joint statement endorsed by 850 organizations from 157 countries around the world, highlighted the need for states to respect the authority of the Human Rights Council and to vote in favour of upholding the SOGI Independent Expert mandate.

    ‘A lot can be accomplished when forces join hands. We are encouraged by this voting result and in the confirmation that States believe in the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. It is vital that the integrity of the Human Rights Council remains intact and is not further undermined in the Third Committee,’ stated Jessica Stern, Executive Director, OutRight Action International, the only US based LGBTIQ organization with consultative status at the United Nations.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert position on the ‘Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity (SOGI),’ was mandated by the passing of a historic resolution A/HRC/RES/32/2 on June 30 of this year, and is held by Vitit Muntarbhorn, a human rights expert from Thailand. A campaign of 628 nongovernmental organizations from 151 countries advocated for the adoption of the resolution and for the establishment of the position.

    In early November, Botswana, on behalf of the African Group, presented a hostile resolution on the Human Rights Council Annual Report, specifically targeting the SOGI Independent Expert Mandate. The resolution contested the legality of the creation of the mandate, essentially arguing that SOGI are not universally recognized as human rights and are not codified in international law. The resolution called for an indefinite postponement of the mandate until consensus could be reached on the definition of SOGI and the legal basis to which the mandate was created, the African Group statement read,

    ‘We are alarmed that the Council is delving into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States counter to the commitment in the United Nations Charter to respect the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention. More importantly, it arises owing to the ominous usage of the two notions: sexual orientation and gender identity. We wish to state that those two notions are not and should not be linked to existing international human rights instruments.’

    In response to the African Group resolution, submitted by Botswana, Monica Tabengwa, Botswana human rights activist and director of Pan Africa ILGA commented,

    ‘We are deeply disappointed that Botswana led this fallacious move by the Africa Group to remove gains at the HRC to include SOGI protections within the existing human rights framework. Let us remind everyone that the SOGI mandate is about real people and their right to secure lives, to be free of violence and discrimination and that these lives can’t be postponed or deferred indefinitely. We deserve more from our governments.’

    The SOGI Independent Expert was created after adoption of a resolution in the Human Rights Council in June 2016, initiated by seven Latin American countries, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay. They, plus El Salvador (LAC 8), countered the African Group’s attempt to postpone the mandate by introducing an amendment to the resolution deleting the hostile paragraph.

    An explanatory note provided by the eight Latin American countries on their submitted amendment in support of preserving the SOGI mandate and the integrity of the HRC reads,

    ‘The seriousness of the consequences (…) lies in the fact that never before has a country or group of countries attempted to challenge a special procedures mandate by the Human Rights Council with an appointed and fully functioning mandate holder. (…) If the General Assembly reopens the Council’s annual report and use a selective approach to which resolution it seeks to block or defer indefinitely it would fundamentally undermine the authority granted to the Council by the General Assembly, thus having far reaching implications well beyond the specific resolution under consideration.’

    While all 193 countries in the UN General Assembly had the right to vote, only 178 exercised their vote, resulting in the passing of the LAC 8 amendment, leading to the failure of the hostile resolution and dissipation of the immediate threat against the establishment of the SOGI Independent Expert. In total, 84 countries voted in favor of the LAC 8 amendment, 77 voted against the amendment, and 17 countries abstained from voting.

    LGBTIQ civil society in the Asia and the Pacific region have vocalized their support for the SOGI Independent Expert, hoping that a representative from the region would help progress protections for people of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity. In response to the voting, Ryan Silverio, Regional Coordinator for the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus said,

    ‘Today we are reminded of the fundamental mission of the Council, and the UN’s commitment to promote human rights and equality for all. We are encouraged by the open dialogue with ASEAN member states in the lead up of the vote, and are particularly thankful to Thailand for showing leadership to protecting this mandate,’

    The failure of the proposed hostile resolution is significant not only because it reinstates the authority of the Human Rights Council, but it also allows forward movement on the work of the SOGI Independent Expert- a crucial stride in the UN’s commitment towards protecting the universality of human rights, especially for vulnerable communities. It reinforces the notion that people cannot be left behind and states must protect all people from discrimination and violence without exception.

    ‘The SOGI Independent Expert position is vital in bringing to light the horrific acts of violence and discrimination many people face because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. These abuses happen everywhere; no region or country is immune to them. Having concrete documentation showing the consequences of homophobia and transphobia on the lives of people and recommendations on how to address these challenges from an HRC Special Procedure mandate holder will help states take responsibility to protect LGBTIQ persons. It will be much harder to ignore the facts,’ commented Micah Grzywnowicz, trans activist and international advocacy advisor at RFSL, the Swedish Federation for LGBTIQ Rights.’

    While the hostile resolution did not pass today, civil society has warned that future attempts to stop the progress of the SOGI Independent Expert are not out of the question.

    The Expert will be tasked with assessing implementation of existing international human rights law, identifying best practices and gaps, raising awareness of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, engaging in dialogue and consultation with States and other stakeholders, and facilitating provision of advisory services, technical assistance, capacity-building and cooperation to help address violence and discrimination on these grounds.

    ‘As always, the fight continues to ensure that States don’t cherry pick which human rights to protect. We must continue to be vigilant and to mobilize to ensure that universality and non-discrimination triumphs at all levels. We must also ensure that we are working together to create change which will benefit all LGBTIQ people. Safeguarding human rights principles remains prime to peace and security for all people everywhere, anytime,’ said Steve Letsike, Director of Access Chapter 2, a South African LGBTIQ human rights organization.’

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

  • Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.

    When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.

    Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.

    Why?

    Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.

    Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.

    Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.

    Why?

    Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.

    Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.

    Why?

    Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.

    How come?

    Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.

    So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.

    And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.

    Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.

    So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.

    And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.

    And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?

    Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.

     

    Mohd Khair

    Source: We Are Against Pink Dot

  • Come Aboard The Gay Love Boat In Singapore

    Come Aboard The Gay Love Boat In Singapore

    Dear TRS,

    I don’t want to be homophobic or anything but I wish highlight a major hypocrisy in our system.

    I read that there is a Gay Cruise which will berth at Marina Bay Cruise Centre in April:

    Gay Cruise from Singapore to HK​, coming Singapore April 2015​

    http://atlantisevents.com/Singapore-to-Hong-Kong-Cruise/40#overview

    March 29 – April 9, 2015
    Singapore to Hong Kong Cruise
    Celebrity Millennium

    This is outrageous, Singapore welcomes World largest Gay Cruise to Marina Bay Centre Cruises.

    The Penal Code 377A is against man to man sex, anal etc, yet we allow such a gay cruiseship to be berth in Singapore, and welcome 2000+ gays to visit and transit in Singapore.

    The government has repeatedly explained that they are not ready to repeal s377A despite a lot of support and a growing Pink Dot community.

    However, when commercial benefits are involved, such as in this cruise, they openly welcome thousands of people into Singapore even though they are likely to be breaking the law that the government refuses to repeal.

    If the government is saying that there are cultural issues and Singapore is conservative, that’s why we need 377A, how can we welcome such a huge group of people to come here who may conflict with that culture?

    Is it just for monetary gains, the govt allows such cruise chip to come via Marina Bay Cruise Centre.

    This isn’t really a debate about s377A but the hypocrisy is outstanding.

    TH

    TRS Contributor

     

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

  • Being a Singaporean Is NOT Easy!

    Being a Singaporean Is NOT Easy!

    It ain’t easy being Singaporean.

    Your life is run by a series of acronyms like ERP, COE, CPF, PSLE, NS, PMS; you have to endure the relentless tropical heat; you have nothing to read butThe Straits Times; your national culture consists of shopping and whining (I’m nothing if not patriotic); and it’s still considered a crime to strangle Gurmit Singh. You get called names like ‘little red dot’, ‘useless piece of snot’ and even Jacky Chan craps all over you. Let’s face it, when a man who made his living jumping around like a monkey says you have “no self-respect”, well, it ain’t been a good week.

    But still, you try. The great Romantic poet John Keats once wrote:

    It matters not what the crowd bays

    Or what the angry gods may say

    For all that matters is the heart

    And the values you cling hard

    What beautiful lines. It means that regardless of what people may say or think about you, what matters is what you believe in. Words deserving of colourful embroidery indeed. Ok, I completely made the lines up. Keats never said that. I could have looked him up but I really can’t be bothered. Laziness is one of my many charms. But don’t let that take anything from the message. It’s still pertinent.

    And so I try, as a citizen, to narrow the gulf between our national values and what we do as a country. After all, if morality means practicing what you preach, then being a great country means practicing what you teach. Under George Bush, America tore up their Constitution, practiced torture, invaded the wrong country and became the pariah of the international community. Under Barack Obama, America is heeding the call of its ideals and founding principles and, in the process, is becoming great again.

    I think a little red dot can be great too. I think greatness is not limited to the measure of size and might, but the loftiness of one’s ideals and one’s faithfulness to them. By this definition, Singapore can be great.

    And so I turn my eyes towards our ‘Shared values’. Phrases like “Nation before community and society above self” ring so sweet. They stir up a sense of pride deep inside. They make me want to do something. Oh shut up, it’s true. They really do make me want to give of myself.

    But then I see our ministers’ legendary salaries and their need to “facilitate the recruitment and retention of the quality of talent we need for the government and public sector.” My enthusiasm becomes more flaccid than an 80 year old man in a cold shower.

    What about Shared value #3 -“Community support and respect for the individual”? Pretty uncontroversial, we can’t go wrong here. 377A, AWARE new exco, Thio Su Mien – enuff said.

    What about Asian values and Confucian ethics ? I think to myself, well, perhaps cynicism aside, the clarion call to be moral, ethical and righteous, regardless of their political intent, is worth heeding. My cynicism is about to slip away when I also recall our on-going manufacture of landmines, their sale to war-torn countries, our economic dealings with the Myanmar junta, our medical offerings to Robert Mugabe, and most recently, our welcome of North Korean President Kim Yong Nam. Ah well, you know what they say, we’re just a little red dot and must look out for our national interests.

    Pragmatism is a wonderful device. It allows you to do anything you want, however you want, and then blame it on reality. It’s an excuse for abandoning higher morals and ethics without looking like a dick. It makes you a man because you’re seen to be ‘realistic’ and ‘grounded’. It’s the ultimate backstage pass, allowing you to bypass everyone to get straight to the goodies. And being pragmatic also means that you have to pretend to have values, whether shared or of the Asian variety because there are idealistic saps out there who, believe it or not, romanticise principles. It’s just pragmatic to be an ethical Confucianist.

    It’s hard being Singaporean. It’s damn hard. Screw it. I’m going shopping.

     

    Article first appeared on groundnotes.wordpress.com

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

     

     

  • Response to the Supreme Court Ruling on 377A

    Response to the Supreme Court Ruling on 377A

    Statement from Gary and Kenneth.

    “We are deeply disappointed with the judgement of the Court and though it has ruled that it is beyond its judiciary function to help the lgbt community, we are thankful that the justices have taken the time to consider this appeal in detail. We hope that parliament will be able to do so as well.

    While the legal road for us has ended, we believe and hope that this case has inspired Singaporeans – straight, gay, bisexual and transgender – not to keep silent in the face of prejudice and inequality.

    We have been in a loving relationship for over 17 years and this past year has been an incredible milestone for us. We decided to embark on this journey because we felt that the LGBT community deserves to be recognized as equal to the rest of society in the eyes of the law and have been witness to the discrimination and unfair treatment of the LGBT community on the basis of S377A of the Penal Code.

    Being a part of this historical campaign provided us the opportunity to show young LGBT people that there are gay and lesbi​an couples in Singapore who have weathered the discriminatory nature of our society and though we have to strive harder than heterosexual couples to be together, it can be done. We hope that we and the many other LGBT couples who are increasingly telling their stories will help others, and we hope that Singaporeans will see this as a minor setback for equality and fairness, and that we can as a country recognise the value of LGBT people.

    We would like to thank the many people who have supported us on this fight. From the many who have donated funds to the legal case, to those who have contributed their knowledge and expertise. We also thank our lawyers Deborah Barker and Peter Low both of whom have been immensely supportive during the 2 phases of our legal challenge.

    This particular journey may have ended for us but it continues for the rest of the community.

    Thank you”

    Source: www.indiegogo.com/projects/fundraising-for-s377a-constitutional-challenge