Rilek1Corner

Tag: lesbian

  • Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Ireland – a largely Catholic country which only decriminalised homosexuality in 1993 and divorce in 1995 – voted resoundingly to amend their constitution and approve same-sex marriage last weekend. They have become the first country in the world to approve gay marriage by popular vote, and at a count of 62 per cent to 38 per cent, no less.

    This piece of news stood in stark contrast to another development circulating on social media in Singapore: that the Media Development Authority (MDA) had apparently banned from radio and TV a song and music video by Jolin Tsai, presumably because its pro-gay message would encourage a push for same-sex marriage here.

    It feels a bit as if the MDA has jumped the gun; there *is* no push for same-sex marriage in Singapore, mostly because everyone is still wondering how to shift the supposedly-not-enforced-but-somehow-still-important-to-keep Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men. On top of that, many in the LGBT community find themselves struggling against the fact that some Singaporeans don’t even recognise that discrimination exists.

    That conservatives exist in every country is beyond doubt; I’m sure there were some fundies praying for the Lord to chuck rain down on gay people in Ireland too.

    But while we’re riding high on the inspiration generated by Ireland’s stellar example, it’s time to think of how our own country could be so much better for everyone living in it. To not just dwell on hate and fear, but on love.

    The repeal of 377A would have little to impact on the lives of heterosexual – or even religious – people. It would, however, mean a lot for LGBT people in Singapore, all of whom have parents, siblings, relatives and friends who would in turn be affected. It would be a strong signal that Singapore’s government will no longer be in the vanguard of discrimination against LGBT people, that it will no longer support the symbolic legislation that validates countless forms of bullying, dehumanising language and prejudice.

    It would be a step towards telling young LGBT persons that they *are* accepted in Singaporean society; that they don’t have to be ashamed of who they are and that they can have a future without stigma and fear in Singapore. It would tell the parents of these LGBT persons that they are not alone, that they don’t have to worry about their children being branded as deviants and criminals. Conservatives aren’t the only ones who care about family; gay people have families too. Love, even familial love, is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

    The court has rejected the constitutional challenge to 377A, essentially pushing the responsibility back to the legislators. Yet legislators have often pointed to Singapore’s conservatism as a reason for maintaining the status quo. As we see from the MDA’s move, the state is not only unwilling to change, but actively restricting the conversation.

    Ireland has done something wonderful and historic in this past weekend. Let us Singaporeans not be caught on the wrong side of history; let us not wait for court cases or politicians to bring us the equality that we should have.

    Make it to Hong Lim Park for Pink Dot. Write to your MP about LGBT rights and the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Talk to your friends about acceptance and diversity. Reach out to LGBT people around you who might need support. Do what you can to create a safe space for them to be who they are and say what they need to say.

    377A continues to loom over us all – a symbol of prejudice and discrimination. Yet we cannot simply wait for it to disappear; we as Singaporeans can do our part to start making Singapore a more inclusive place. Today.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Diana Abdul Rahim: Not A Case Of Secular Fundamentalism

    Diana Abdul Rahim: Not A Case Of Secular Fundamentalism

    I refer to Mr Walid Jumblatt’s letter, “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15), which was a reply to Mr Hairol Salim’s letter, “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13).

    Secular fundamentalism connotes scorn of religion and its adherents, and is usually accompanied by attempts to exclude and limit religious expressions in public. The burqa ban in France is an example.

    Secular fundamentalism seeks to trivialise the persecution faced by adherents of a certain religion who are confronted by structural disempowerment. This is, however, not the case in this debate.

    Mr Hairol’s point about “religious-driven emotions” was addressed to a particular group of “activists and individuals from certain religious communities”. It was not a sweeping statement against the legitimacy of religious voices.

    Indeed, he stated that “views of all faiths and belief systems should be given fair consideration”, which echoes Mr Walid’s sentiments.

    It is illogical to construe this willingness to provide fair consideration for all perspectives, religious or otherwise, as an expression of secular fundamentalism.

    If we are serious about being inclusive, then Mr Hairol’s appraisal of those who voice the concerns of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community should hold no controversy.

    Claims of respecting the democracy of dialogue have no legitimacy if we are unwilling to allow the people we disagree with the space to speak on their own terms.

    To me, there is much common ground between both writers. For dialogue to work in a reasonable, respectful and empathetic manner, however, interlocutors should be charitable and avoid misrepresenting the positions of their counterpart.

     

    *Article written by Diana Abdul Rahim was published in Voices, Today, on 22 May 2015

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi: Religion-based Ideas In Public Sphere Must Face Scrutiny

    Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi: Religion-based Ideas In Public Sphere Must Face Scrutiny

    The writer of “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15) makes a simplistic argument for the unqualified acceptance and veracity of ideas based on religious or moral convictions in the public domain.

    While we can accept that religious sentiments have a role to play in public discourse, this does not mean that all views based on religion or morality are therefore legitimate and deserving of consideration.

    First, to play a constructive role, religious claims must be transparent and not be hidden behind vague assertions of common good, public interest or family values. Second, religion-based views must be subjected to the same analytical rigour and scepticism we extend to non-religious claims.

    The writer seems to agree that any value, religious or otherwise, “must be open to scrutiny and critiques once they enter the public domain”. This is often difficult, however, since many of the proponents of religion-based views would allege offence against their faith when these views are criticised.

    Third, we should distinguish between making a religiously inspired contribution to public discourse and simply making a religious demand.

    For example, the former involves articulating support for certain policies in line with one’s religious convictions but simultaneously being cognisant enough to offer other public reasons in support of said policies.

    These public reasons are those that people from different faiths and backgrounds could endorse, whereas making a religious demand limits itself to translating religious dictates into public policy demands.

    Such demands are generally articulated in a non-negotiable manner and usually seek to confine the scope of freedom for others. This approach impedes further conversation and can potentially be divisive.

    The role of religion in the public sphere is indispensable. Many progressive causes in history, such as the abolitionist and civil rights movements, have been spurred by religion.

    We should also realise, however, that not all religious views are legitimate for public discourse, even if religion is dear to many people.

    It is thus simplistic to rail against “secular fundamentalism” when the greater danger comes from those trying to narrow public space and conversation with their religious demands.

     

    This article written by Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi, was published in Voices, Today, dated 19 May 2015.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Bryan Kwa: Stop Stigmatising Sexual Minorities

    Bryan Kwa: Stop Stigmatising Sexual Minorities

    Last Friday’s letter (“Distinguish between helping gays and supporting an agenda” by Mr Leo Hee Khian) cautioned against affirming same-sex attraction.

    Mr Leo wrote that in Denmark, where there is same-sex marriage, “married homosexuals have been found to die at an age about 20 years younger than their heterosexual counterparts”.

    This statistic is disputed. It is drawn from a paper published by the Family Research Institute, a partisan organisation associated with the Christian right and branded as a hate group.

    Its founder Paul Cameron has been censured by numerous professional organisations. He was also dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for violating its ethics code.

    The American Journal of Public Health published a study of mortality among Danes in same-sex marriages, which concluded that “claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified”.

    In fact, supporting gay rights improves public health.

    The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial last month supporting same-sex marriage.

    The doctors highlighted that “a fundamental tenet of all medical care is the acceptance of patients as they are, for who they are, with respect and without prejudice or personal agendas” and posited that “same-sex marriage should be accepted both as a matter of justice and as a measure that promotes health”.

    Make no mistake, this is not about ideological standpoints. This is a public health issue; homophobia kills.

    A study by Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, found that LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals who lived in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have a shorter life expectancy, compared with their peers in the least prejudiced communities. The same study also found that the rates of suicide, homicide/violence and cardiovascular diseases were all substantially elevated among sexual minorities living within high-prejudice communities.

    Considering such findings, how may the Government reconcile its heteronormative and heterosexist policies with the stated vision and mission of the Ministry of Health?

    The science is clear. It is imperative that we stop stigmatising sexual minorities and start upholding their rights.

    For all the moral grandstanding, surely we can agree that literally driving people to their death is unquestionably amoral.

    Bryan Kwa Jie Wen

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Counsellor: Distinguish Between Helping Gays And Supporting An Agenda

    Counsellor: Distinguish Between Helping Gays And Supporting An Agenda

    Some people, including some university student groups, have assumed that the solution to help youth with same-sex attraction is to push for the cause of affirming their alternative sexual identity at all costs.

    These groups include The G Spot (Yale-National University of Singapore College), tFreedom (Tembusu College, NUS), Gender Collective (University Scholars Programme, NUS), Kaleidoscope (an independent Nanyang Technological University group) and Out To Care (Singapore Management University).

    Yale-NUS College also organised an Ally Week in March to support the ideology that alternative sexual identities must be affirmed.

    As a counsellor with more than a decade of experience helping youth with same-sex attraction, I urge caution against such an assumption.

    Even in countries where same-sex marriage laws have been passed – for example, in Denmark – the quality of life of homosexual individuals has not improved.

    Rather, married homosexuals have been found to die at an age about 20 years younger than their heterosexual counterparts.

    This statistically significant difference cannot be ignored by anyone who truly cares for homosexuals.

    It makes all sense to ask: Why do homosexuals affirmed in their alternative sexual identities, and even those who are married, not enjoy the same quality of life as their heterosexual counterparts?

    This should eventually lead us back to question the starting assumption: Does helping an individual with same-sex attraction equate to pushing for the same-sex marriage agenda or affirming his alternative sexual identity at all costs?

    Many of my friends with same-sex attraction live healthier, more fulfilling lives today not because they have been affirmed of an alternative sexual identity, but because of loving support rendered that enabled them to work on their social-emotional difficulties and to accept themselves.

    Their specific sexual dispositions should play little role in their identity.

    They are not pushing the same-sex marriage agenda.

    This is especially important for society to understand, so that we do not confuse the goal of loving homosexuals with an agenda to change the moral laws of society.

    We should love homosexuals and ensure they are not bullied or discriminated against.

    But to link this to a need to push the same-sex marriage agenda would be a wrong conclusion.

    It is, hence, of grave concern to see the developments in our student campuses.

    Expertise in navigating through this sensitive issue holistically and factually is sorely missing.

    Leo Hee Khian

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com