I am fast becoming a big fan of J Michael Kirby, judge of the High Court of Australia. In his long article about religious freedom related to the Lina Joy issue [in Malaysia], he makes a passing comment about Ms Thio’s remarks in parliament related to the 377A issue. [I am not posting the relevant except here, go read it yourself. Here's a clue, Ctrl-F "Dr Thio"]
Actually it is more than passing – he quotes her speech quite a bit, and makes a remark so acid that I have to wonder whether there isn’t a hole burned into the paper.
*bows to His Honour* Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I don’t condone uncivilised behaviour with regards to Thio Li-Ann. If you think she is wrong, then rebut her. Point out her fallacies (it is not that hard, they are glaringly obvious). Don’t send her hate-mail or death threats. That just makes us look very very bad.
And for the record, for those calling for her resignation because of her views, I don’t agree with that either. She has the full right to believe what she wants, and make her views known. As do we all. Unless she is proven to routinely discriminate against queer students or those holding views contrary to her own, and unless she is proven to impose her homophobia into her teaching, her views, extreme as they are, are irrelevant to her profession. I do believe in academic freedom, and the same freedom extended to those like Michael Hor and Victor Ramraj in articulating their views for the repeal, should be extended to her.
Having said that, I do think she owes a courtesy to articulate her views in a respectful manner. And come clean as to her judeo-christian influence, and not hide it behind the veneer of legal philosophy.
Seriously, I do. Right now, I want to have his kids because I want them to inherit his wits and brains [and my good looks... okay, okay, you can stop throwing the rotten tomatoes now].
My father, of all people, pointed out an article he wrote in Insight in today’s Straits Times. He presents a far better rebuttal of Thio than anything I or the other bloggers have written, and way funnier. I don’t agree with him on the gun bit, but the rest of the article is pure gold, in my opinion.
Please send him love-mail.
And guys, I know Thio Li-Ann is everyone’s favourite strawman… er…. strawwoman, but please don’t send her hate-mail. She’s not worth it. It is rather funny, though, how everything Thio does kinda backfires on her, or doesn’t quite have the effect she is hoping for. She complained about the banned pink picnic, and just to spite her, 150 people turned up for the non-existent picnic which would otherwise be attended by a measly 20-30 people. Her hysterical anti-gay stand in parliament, while gaining support among the die-hard conservatives, is alienating the moderate middle [which is the real majority, despite her assertions to the contrary].
I am actually kind of happy she made that speech. Long Live Thio! Please continue doing what you do.
600 plus hits in one day, without even being tomorrowed, thanks to Ms Thio. I had expected maybe a slightly bigger pool than usual, due to the controversial nature. But not this.
The internet surprises me, once in a while.
By the way, there are many other commentaries on this issue out there:
Guys, go ahead and tear Ms Thio’s argument into pieces all you want, or even those of other MPs. But do so in a respectful manner – if you are to resort to name-calling and ad hominem, we are simply affirming what she says.
Dear Ms Thio
I am not as learned as you in law. I am but a first-year law student. A law student who happens to identify as queer, and has spent the last two years working in the queer activism scene, who now loves a woman, who now wishes to rid this country of the blight known as section 377A.
Ms Thio, I am sure you know this section very well… in fact, you dedicated an entire speech to the impassioned defence of it, not even touching on things like marital rape immunity. I am surprised… I thought an educated, feminist woman like yourself would have some feelings on this section which effectively takes away the right of married women to their bodies…. but I digress. You expounded in detail upon the merits of retaining this law. You showed us all how much you hate us gay people – like we couldn’t tell from the letters to ST. When I read your speech, my first impulse was to laugh. Then as I read on, cringing at the leaps of logic, and wincing at the palpable hatred pouring out of the paper.
I will now proceed to rebutt you: point by point.
Read more »