Rilek1Corner

Tag: LGBT

  • Pink Dot Disappointed By New Ruling, Google Pledges Continued Support

    Pink Dot Disappointed By New Ruling, Google Pledges Continued Support

    In light of new rules that could curb foreign funding and involvement in events held at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park, organisers of Pink Dot said they hope more Singaporeans and local companies will step forward to support them in 2017.

    Pink Dot, an annual non-profit event, organised in support of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, also said in a statement on Friday (Oct 21) that while it respects and understands the Ministry of Home Affairs’ position, it is “disappointed” by the latest clarifications from the ministry.

    “Pink Dot has always been a local movement dedicated to bringing LGBT Singaporeans closer to their friends and families and closer to Singapore society as a whole – a universal aspiration that we do not consider to be controversial or political,” said spokesman Paerin Choa.

    “We remain committed to organising and holding Pink Dot as we have done for the past eight years and we want to work closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other Government agencies to ensure that we remain within legal boundaries and keep the event safe for all participants, as we begin planning for next year’s Pink Dot event,” said Mr Choa.

    “As our society continues to evolve, we hope that this will be the start of an ongoing dialogue and we look forward to continue engaging with the various Government agencies to better foster understanding between the Government and the LGBT community in the long term.”

    The 2016 edition of Pink Dot had 18 corporate sponsors, including Facebook, Google, Barclays, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, Bloomberg, and Twitter.

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated that foreign entities will have to apply for a permit to organise or assist in the organising of events held at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park. This covers sponsoring, publicly promoting, or organising members or employees to participate in the event.

    Meanwhile, Singapore entities, such as local companies and non-governmental organisations, can organise or assist in the organising of an event, without the need for a permit. This is meant to “reinforce the key principle” that the Speakers’ Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans, MHA stated.

    MHA also clarified that Singapore entities refer to those which are incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore citizens. This means many of Pink Dot’s foreign sponsors, which are registered and incorporated in Singapore, would not qualify as a Singapore entity, and would need to apply for a permit.

    GOOGLE BACKS PINK DOT

    At least one sponsor has committed to taking the extra step of applying for a permit in order to continue supporting Pink Dot.

    When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, a Google spokesman said: “We’ve been proud supporters of Pink Dot since 2011 and we will continue to show our commitment to diversity and inclusion. So we will apply for a permit to support Pink Dot in 2017 if required by this new regulation. We hope that these new rules will not limit public discussion on important issues.”

    Another past sponsor, JP Morgan said via a spokesman that the company is “committed to promoting equality in our workplace and encourage a supportive and inclusive culture”. Channel NewsAsia has reached out to six other past sponsors of Pink, including BP, which said it had no comment.

    Other entities which have organised events at Hong Lim Park include the YMCA, but its head of corporate affairs Samuel Ng told Channel NewsAsia that he believes the YMCA “won’t be affected” by the new rules, as its past Proms @ the Park events were held at the main lawn ‎of Hong Lim Park, not at the Speaker’s Corner.

    “The administration and all is quite different,” said Mr Ng, referring to whether an entity applies to hold an event at the Speaker’s Corner or at the park. “(Our events) would be under the community shelter that manages the park.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • MHA: Foreign Companies Need Permit To Sponsor, Promote Or Participate In Speakers’ Corner Events

    MHA: Foreign Companies Need Permit To Sponsor, Promote Or Participate In Speakers’ Corner Events

    Foreign companies will need a permit to sponsor, publicly promote or get its employees to participate in events at the Speakers’ Corner, stated the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday afternoon (Oct 21).

    For the first time, the ministry made clear what a Singapore entity was: those incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore citizens.

    The entity’s directors must be mostly Singaporean, and the majority of its ownership must be held by Singaporeans or one or more Singapore companies.

    Meanwhile, the ministry is loosening rules for local entities organising events at the Speakers’ Corner. From next month, Singapore companies or non-government organisations no longer need permits to hold events at the Speakers’ Corner. Now, only Singapore citizens are exempted.

    In its news release on the amendments to the rules, the ministry reiterated that the Speakers’ Corner was set up in 2000 for Singaporeans to express their views on issues that concern them.

    “The Government’s position has always been that foreign entities should not interfere in our domestic issues, especially those of a political or controversial nature,” said the MHA. “The amendments reinforce the key principle that the Speakers’ Corner was set up primarily for Singaporeans.”

    MHA is also extending the rules to those who participate at Speakers’ Corner events through remote means. So foreign entities will also need a permit if they speak through teleconferecing or pre-recorded messages at the Speakers’ Corner.

    These changes come on the back of reviews to Speakers’ Corner rules which the MHA started in June. The ministry had wanted to “make it clear that foreign entities should not fund, support or influence” events held at Speakers’ Corner, such as June 4’s Pink Dot – the annual lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rally.

    This year’s Pink Dot – the eighth such – attracted 18 sponsors including multinational companies such as Google, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Visa and General Electric.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Championing LGBT Equality Does Not Necessarily Mean Being Pro-LGBT

    Championing LGBT Equality Does Not Necessarily Mean Being Pro-LGBT

    I refer to the report “Chan Chun Sing urges youth to go beyond relying on good grades for jobs” (Sept 24).

    Offering his personal views on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing said: ““I’m not going to discriminate … I’m not a sex policeman.”

    When we have a law like Section 377A, however, which criminalises male gay sex but not female gay sex, then it is effectively a “sex policeman” and discriminates against gay males. Mr Chan’s comments seem incongruous with the current situation.

    Also, people supportive of LGBT equality are not “pro-LGBT” per se, not in the way that it would be seen as elevating LGBT people above others nor be seen as morally equivalent to those who are “anti-LGBT”.

    For example, if some people are racist against blacks, and there are laws or social programmes that promote general racial equality, then it would be inaccurate to claim that equality legislation is pro-black.

    Likewise, it is incorrect to portray equality for all, including LGBT people, as being pro-LGBT.

    LGBT activists tend to speak out against bullying of LGBT people and also bullying in general because they tend to see or experience the harm of bullying first-hand and are inclined to try to stop it.

    Let us not confuse this with being pro-LGBT per se. People who speak out against bullying of blacks or racist bullying in general are not generally seen as being pro-such-and-such a race.

    I also see support for things like proper relationship and marriage equality not so much as pro-LGBT but as pro-marriage.

    Decades ago in the United States, some areas outlawed mixed-race marriage, but when that was overturned, it helped to improve the relationships of those couples. And this has a positive knock-on effect on society.

    As a married heterosexual Singaporean, my marriage would not be affected if same-sex marriage were ever allowed. It is not as if mine would suddenly crumble because some other same-sex couple could marry.

    There is no rational basis for claiming harm to marriage where same-sex marriage is allowed.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • 52 Year Old Family Friend Sexually Abuses 3 Young Teenaged Brothers

    52 Year Old Family Friend Sexually Abuses 3 Young Teenaged Brothers

    They fully trusted him with their three sons as he was then working in the boys’ school.

    Instead of paying back their trust, the family friend abused the boys, destroying their lives by robbing them of their innocence and dignity.

    The man, now 52, was working as a school operations support assistant in a primary school in the western part of Singapore when he sexually abused all three youngsters between 2009 and February 2013.

    On one occasion, he even performed obscene acts on the two younger boys while they were in the same room.

    Yesterday, the man, who started out in the primary school as a security guard, pleaded guilty in court to three counts of committing indecent acts on the boys and two counts of sexual penetration.

    Twenty-nine other charges for similar offences and two offences under the Films Act involving an uncertified film and five obscene ones will be taken into consideration during sentencing.

    He cannot be named to protect his victims’ identities.

    We will instead refer to the oldest boy as Ben, the middle one as Carl and the youngest brother as Dennis.

    Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Winston Man said Ben was just 11 when the man befriended him in 2009. The boy trusted him as he was a staff member at his school.

    At first, the man would accompany him home from school.

    After that, he started to take him to the zoo and to various shopping centres.

    The man later got close to the boy’s family and befriended his younger brothers.

    DPP Man said he even bought his victims gifts such as shoes and clothes.

    The man focused most of his attention on Carl as he thought the boy’s parents neglected him. He also felt that Carl was more compliant than his brothers.

    GRATEFUL

    DPP Man said: “The victims’ parents entrusted their children to the accused on the many occasions he took them for outings and meals as they thought that he was genuinely concerned for their welfare.”

    He added that before the offences came to light, the boys’ parents were grateful for the man’s help in caring for their children as they worked very long hours.

    The man, who is represented by lawyer S. K. Kumar, showed his true colours in late 2009 when he took Ben to a staircase landing at Block 406, Bukit Batok West Avenue 4, and performed an indecent act on him.

    Later that year, he took Ben to a second-storey staircase landing in the same block of flats.

    By then, the boy knew he was about to be sexually abused, but he followed him out of fear.

    While there, the man performed oral sex on him.

    The court heard that he took Carl on an outing to Hong Kah North Community Club on December 2012.

    He asked Carl to accompany him to a male toilet and forced the boy to perform oral sex on him.

    About two months later, the man took Carl, who was 13, and Dennis, then 12, to his flat in the western part of Singapore.

    He lured the boys into a bedroom before performing indecent acts on them on a bed.

    The man’s perversions only came to light after he sent the children’s mother a text message on March 16, 2013, asking if Carl could join him at Boon Lay Community Centre.

    He told her he wanted to take the boy out shopping for school shoes.

    Carl kept quiet when she showed him the message.

    Dennis, who was nearby, urged his brother to tell their mother about his ordeal.

    The two boys told their shocked mother about what the man had done to them.

    Ben told her about his own experiences when he came home later that day.

    The boys’ parents made a police report four days later and officers arrested the man on March 22, 2013.

    The case has been adjourned to Oct 4.

    For each count of committing an indecent act on a boy, the man could be jailed up to five years and fined up to $10,000.

    For forcing a boy to perform oral sex on him, he could be jailed up to 20 years and fined. The man cannot be caned as he is above 50 years old.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • Is My Intolerance Of Your Intolerance, Intolerant?

    Is My Intolerance Of Your Intolerance, Intolerant?

    Imagine the scene: a small group of opinion writers from major newspapers in the United States sit in a meeting room in Riyadh with robed and keffiyeh-wearing officials from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education. The subject is intolerance. As a syndicated columnist and editorial writer, I am among those journalists. Our questions focus on textbooks used to educate millions of Saudi children in public schools.

    Why, we ask, are the books so full of intolerance toward people of other faiths? They reek of degrading and insulting descriptions of Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the Saudis’ strict brand of Islam. The textbooks condone—nay encourage—violence against people of other faiths, claiming it is necessary to protect the integrity of Wahhabism. We ask: Aren’t you planting seeds of hate and setting up the conditions for young people to be more easily recruited by terrorist organizations?

    Relevant questions. The year was 2002.

    We’d heard a lot of Orwellian thinking during that trip to the King­dom of the House of Saud. Veiling women is a form of freedom. Mossad was behind the events of September 11, 2001. Islam is a religion of peace. But what we heard at the education ministry was right up there on the delusion-meter.

    We were the intolerant ones, they said. Our impertinent questions were proof. How dare we question their cultural and religious traditions? Any suggestion that their textbooks smacked of bigotry was an affront to their sovereignty and a form of religious intolerance.

    We were being intolerant of their intolerance.

    You can see how this distorted view can happen in a theocratic monarchy such as Saudi Arabia’s. The Saudis have a lot riding on trying to convince the West to keep quiet about the ugly attitudes and backward rules that shape their country—a system built around religious pronouncements that women are less than men in law, commerce, and the domestic sphere and that anyone non-Muslim is worthy of persecution and, in many cases, death.

    You would think that the best Saudi Arabia could hope for would be to keep its head down while asking the West to ignore its peculiar institutions. But that’s not Saudi Arabia’s MO. With preachy sanctimony, the Saudis proclaim that any criticism of their system violates international norms of human rights.

    Last year, at an international summit in France, Saudi Arabia lashed out at the media and countries that value free speech for allowing religious criticism, according to the Saudi Gazette. “We have made it clear that freedom of expression without limits or restrictions would lead to violation and abuse of religious and ideological rights,” said Abdulmajeed Al-Omari, director for external relations at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. “This requires everyone to intensify efforts to criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols, and places of worship.”

    This from a country that doesn’t allow Christmas trees, teaches the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and in 2005 sentenced a schoolteacher to 750 lashes and three and a half years in prison for praising Jews and discussing the Gospels. (The teacher was pardoned after protests.)

    In Saudi Arabia today, atheism is legally designated as terrorism. Earlier this year, a man who tweeted on atheism was sentenced to ten years in prison and two thousand lashes. The Center for Inquiry (CFI) has been advocating on behalf of Saudi poet Ashraf Fayadh, who was sentenced to death in 2015 for apostasy, then resentenced on appeal earlier this year to eight years in prison and eight hundred lashes. CFI sent a letter to President Barack Obama to urge him to push for Fayadh’s release during his visit to Saudi Arabia in April. And CFI has been drawing international attention to the case of imprisoned Saudi human rights activist Raif Badawi, sentenced to ten years and one thousand lashes for insulting Islam. The charges stemmed from articles Badawi wrote criticizing religious figures on his website devoted to free expression of ideas.

    When, in 2014, CFI representative Josephine Macintosh spoke before the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, drawing attention to the desert kingdom’s brutal and repressive treatment of religious dissenters in general and of Badawi in particular, the representative from Saudi Arabia interrupted Macintosh three times. This attempt to shut down Macintosh’s critique was unsuccessful after other member states, including the United States, Ireland, Canada, and France, expressed their support for the right of Macintosh, CFI, and other nongovernmental organizations to speak.

    And the Saudis claim we are the human rights violators.

    This pity party would be a party of one were it not for a borderline-pathological alliance some on the political Left have made with this way of thinking. Bizarrely, a subset of progressives has bought into the idea that any criticism of the tenets of Islam is an attack on Muslim people. The two are not the same, of course. Discriminatory ideas found in the Qur’an and practiced as part of Sharia law—such as that women’s testimony is worth only half that of men’s—should be open to criticism. And the critic is not a bigot for saying so.

    Perhaps the most famous example of this conflation was the attack on Sam Harris by actor Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s HBO show Real Time. Affleck’s apoplectic reaction to Harris’s criticisms of Islam as “gross and racist” reinforced the point of the conversation, which was that the Left cares about women’s equality and homo­sexual rights except when Islamists are the ones oppressing women and gays—then the oppression is excused out of hyper-cultural sensitivity.

    Consider what happened last De­cem­ber to the courageous feminist crusader and Islamic critic Maryam Namazie. During Namazie’s talk on blasphemy and apostasy at Goldsmiths University in the United Kingdom, a group of young men from the school’s Islamic Society entered the room with the intention of making it impossible for her to continue. They laughed, heckled, and generally disrupted the talk, at one point turning off her projector when a slide depicting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad was shown.

    Rather than defend Namazie, the Goldsmiths Feminist Society issued a statement standing “in solidarity” with the Islamic Society and condemning the student group of atheists, secularists, and humanists who invited Namazie to their campus. “Hosting known islamophobes [sic] at our university creates a climate of hatred,” the statement read.

    I’d like to take these Goldsmiths feminists on a tour of Saudi Arabia to see what they are fighting for. The gleaming office towers of that country don’t have ladies’ rooms. There’s no need, since women are not permitted to work alongside men.

    Blasphemy laws are the legal extension of this Goldsmiths no-one-should-ever-be-offended attitude. Used as tools of repression to keep the faithful in line, minority faiths small and quiet, and nonbelievers in the closet, blasphemy laws are a menace to enlightenment values. CFI is helping to lead the international effort to vanquish them.

    Defenders of Islam’s untenable dictates on women, gays, atheists, and members of other faiths have only one arrow in their quiver, which is to try and silence their critics because they have no valid responses to them. As much as they would like to convince us that our intolerance of their intolerance is a form of cultural hegemony, we’re not buying it.

     

    Robyn E. Blumner is the CEO of the Center for Inquiry and the CEO and president of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science. She was a nationally syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) for sixteen years.

     

    Source: www.secularhumanism.org