Idiot definition of harrassment and obscenity.

[PainRack]

“This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.

I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?”

Prof Thio Lin Ann Parliamentary speech.

Actual email

Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
From: “Alfian Bin Sa’at”
Subject: a valentine
To: lawtla@nus.edu.sg
Sunday, Aug 12, 5.03am

Subject: a valentine

Dear Dr Thio,

This is a personal note to you.

I think you are absolutely fucked up.

As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.

With love,
Alfian.

Her response

IN THE article, ‘Police question poet over e-mail to NMP’ (ST, Oct 30), one Alfian Sa’at is identified as the writer of the hate mail directed to me on Aug 12. Before this, I had never heard of him.

I note his public apology as reported. His current rejection of using hate-mail tactics containing four-letter words and abusive language to intimidate people is welcomed; he also urged others to eschew his anger-fuelled ‘reckless example’.

While Mr Alfian says he was merely expressing his opinion, this was in fact harassment. A person identifying himself as a ‘gay Singaporean’ e-mailed me to apologise for Mr Alfian’s e-mail which he had read as he was ‘deeply embarrassed by such rude and uncivilised actions from a gay counterpart… I have no idea who this Alfian guy is but his actions cannot be reflective of the collective gay community’. I appreciated his kind message.

Mr Alfian later e-mailed me after the October parliamentary session to explain his ‘motivation’ for his hate e-mail: ‘I shot it off after hearing of how you had made a police report regarding the ‘Pink Run”. I understand this referred to a cancelled public event staged by gay activists. He reiterates this point on his public blog.

Mr Alfian evidently failed to verify his source. He apparently drew a direct link between the ‘Pink Run’ in August and my support for keeping Section 377A of the Penal Code, which I expressed this October in Parliament.

Accurate and fair reporting requires the clarification of one factual error. The assertion on Mr Alfian’s blog that I made a police report (or indeed any other complaint) against a Pink Run is a patent falsehood. The truth is that the only police report I have ever made related to the hate e-mail of one alfian_saat@yahoo.com.sg. The authorities can verify this. Perhaps Mr Alfian was over-impulsive in relying on a misleading and unreliable information source; however, he remains responsible for his abusive manner of communication.

His first e-mail to me was prefaced ‘This is a personal note to you.’ However, its reproduction in the public forum of his blog now raises the issue of defamation.

Politicians and public figures should be thicker-skinned, to serve robust, democratic debate.

Given his public apology, we should move on and aspire towards civilised, rational debate. To demonstrate his genuine remorse, Mr Alfian should remove any inaccurate or defamatory blog posts concerning this incident.

Professor Thio Li-ann

blog of poet who wrote the email insulting her

And she's a damn professor of law? A single email, clearly identified, no death threats, the only obscenity involved was peeing on her grave so as to celebrate the repeal of an absurd law inherited over from colonial times, which have never been used to punish willing homosexual sex in private(in public is a different story altogether.)
http://law.nus.edu.sg/faculty/staff/pro ... rID=lawtla

I rest my case. There's is no fucking way in hell NUS can even possibly claim to be the 22nd best university as surveyed in the Times annual supplement.

[PainRack]

Excerpts of her idiotic speech on gays being teh evilz....!!>!>!>!

Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice [..] Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels.

Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan ‘sexual minority’ ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don’t think through issues carefully [...] While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

My personal favourite

Two camps championing two distinct criminal law philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as sodomy.
The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?
These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties."

Oh no! In between having their manicures, facial and theatre lessons, they're out to turn all of us into ass fucking zombies!

"The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.
Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.
The welfare of future generations depends on basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt. "

From an online petition that didn't allow IP filtering, allowing multiple posting of signatures? No shit.
And dipshit, the reason why the government hasn't removed 377A is the exact same reason why we took 15 years to even add spousal rape to the penal code and 12 years for a female civil servant to use her medical benefits the exact same way a male can. Because fuckers like YOU are dominating the media and airwaves.
Shit. Why the fuck are you even in a university? Shouldn't you be in the kitchen cleaning and cooking?

[Dark Hellion]

This woman has obviously never had a good ass fucking. She wouldn't complain about 'misuse' of the body after she gets a deep vaginal orgasm from having a bit of anal.

Of course, I am sure there are people that explain the biology better, but I have never heard any women I know of who have had anal sex to complain that it was overly painful, or left any harm. My ex thought it was uncomfortable. I have heard the word weird used a lot as well, but most describe it as very fun, and very intense.

Of course, your body doesn't have pleasure senses for any reason, but the ass is designed for a very, very specific purpose, right?

I never get this mindset. Why do I spend less time thinking about assholes than the anti-gay crusaders? I'm a hedonistic 22 year old heterosexual male. Aren't we supposed to be obsessed with the T&A.

[PainRack]

This woman has obviously never had a good ass fucking. She wouldn't complain about 'misuse' of the body after she gets a deep vaginal orgasm from having a bit of anal.

Of course, I am sure there are people that explain the biology better, but I have never heard any women I know of who have had anal sex to complain that it was overly painful, or left any harm. My ex thought it was uncomfortable. I have heard the word weird used a lot as well, but most describe it as very fun, and very intense.

Of course, your body doesn't have pleasure senses for any reason, but the ass is designed for a very, very specific purpose, right?

I never get this mindset. Why do I spend less time thinking about assholes than the anti-gay crusaders? I'm a hedonistic 22 year old heterosexual male. Aren't we supposed to be obsessed with the T&A.

It gets even more frustrating than that.
Here's some background. Section 377a is the ancient code of law we inherited from the British with regards to unnatural sex. We have ALREADY adjusted the law so that you can't persecute against two consenting individuals in the privacy of their own home.

Supporters of repealing this ordinance argue against the inherent idiocy of the law, of which the sole practical use exists because we refuse to define rape as anything other than vaginal intercourse. In the debate over this a few months ago, the ordinance was retained in its adjusted form due to various conservative values, both in terms of religious and moral conservatism and the fact that our lawmakers move like snails when adjusting old laws. One of the idiotic arguments in favour of retaining it was that its an non enforcable law, in the sense that no one enforces it on consensual partners.

The Keep section 377a/repeal 377a campaign has been smeared by spam and derrogration on both sides. The webmasters of both sites had received hateful email, and leading proponents on both sides has received nuisance calls. A professor who commented that Section 377a should be retained had been targeted by people who spread her photo and email on blogs.
However, once you scratch the surface, its the homosexuals protesting against the unnatural sex law who has been targeted with anything remotely similar to hate speech, not the religious conservatives.


By any legal definition, Prof Thio speech in Parliament classify as hate speech. In our legal system, which restricts freedom of speech to deny hate speech, and is infamous for the use of defamation suits in both political and commercial circles, she also commits the crime of defamation.
Attempting to protray herself as a victim of "hate" speech in particular is utterly absurd, same for using the threat of defamation to claim damages. Whereas she received a single private email from a specific person once, she has waged a relatively constant campaign of hate and harrassment against homosexuals in public. Is her crime somehow negated because she targeted a group instead of individuals?

Our hate laws are so bombastic that even posting negative opinions about malays and etc are sufficient to be sentenced to corrective rehabialiation in the courts. Ditto for defamation, where unlike a private email, Thio has released a speech in an extremely public arena. She has virtually no legal leg to stand upon other than the fact that she's rich enough to afford a fucking lawyer and her target isn't.