Statement of concern on Thio Li-Ann as speaker at EU human rights seminar

90

HRD2014EUDel1The European Union Delegation to Singapore is organising a half-day seminar to mark and raise awareness of Human Rights Day (10 December) on 4 December. Former Nominated Member of Parliament Dr Thio Li-Ann has been listed as one of the speakers, with the topic "International Human Rights Law and National Courts in Asia". The following is a statement issued by various members of civil society expressing concern at Dr Thio's representation at the seminar.


We, the undersigned, write to express our disappointment at the choice of Prof Thio Li Ann as a speaker for the Human Rights Day seminar hosted by the EEAS European Union Delegation to Singapore.

It is a matter of public record that Prof Thio: -

  1. believes the LGBT community is not entitled to the protections of human rights with respect to issues of sexuality, even between consenting homosexual adults.

In 2007, Prof Thio argued, in the Parliament of Singapore, in favour of the continued criminalization of adult consensual same sex relations in Singapore. She asserted that:

“Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for ‘homosexual rights’ are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements….You cannot make a human wrong a human right.

  1. deliberately used graphic language to engender repugnance against homosexual adults in her 2007 speech:

Thio Li Ann“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.”

  1. characterizes attempts by LGBT activists and their allies to promote non-discrimination on grounds of gender and sexuality as a conspiratorial attempts to subvert law, order, community and public morality.

In the same parliamentary speech of 2007, she asserts that: -

“Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor.”

And again,

“Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a step­by­step approach to hide how radical the agenda is.”

  1. continues to speak of homosexuality as a “gender identity disorder” from which individuals can be “reoriented” and characterizes any scientific research which calls her perspective into question as “politicised pseudo science”.

The EEAS should note that she explicitly endorses a position which runs counter to the professional standards of internationally recognized mental health associations including the World Health Organisation, the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.

An invited speaker is a position of honour and prestige and conveys significant legitimacy to the speaker. With this in mind, we are concerned about the underlying principles and values being communicated to the public with the EEAS’s invitation to Prof Thio to speak at a Human Rights event, given her public statements against the LGBTQ community. Under these circumstances, some may construe this invitation as an implicit endorsement of the speaker and her views by the organizer.

Article 13 of the EC Treaty and the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Moreover, the Commissioner for Human Rights recommends that authorities in Council of Europe member states should:

  • Take a strong public position against violations of the human rights of LGBT persons and promote respect on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, for example through human rights education and awareness-raising campaigns.
  • Take steps to encourage factual, objective and professional reporting by the media on LGBT persons and issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The European External Action Service lists one of its key roles as “Human rights defender”.

We are profoundly disappointed and we urge the EU and the EEAS to explain how inviting Prof Thio as a speaker for a Human Rights Day seminar is consistent with its own stated role as a defender and advocate of human rights.

Adrian Heok

Alan Seah

Alex Au

Alex Serrenti

Alina Ng

Alison Kumar

Alvin Tan

Benjamin Xue

Bjorn Yeo

Brendon Fernandez

Celestine Alvina Sun

Celine Lim

Cheryl Leong

Christine Chia

Dana Lam

David Lee

Emily Heng

Eugene Tan

Faeza Sirajudin

Fikri Alkhatib

Gary Lim

Gillian Seetoh

Goh Li Sian

Gwyneth Teo

M. LEOW

Jaclyn Chan

 

Jacob Ma

Jayet Ng

Jean Chong

Jennifer Teo

Jeremy Tay

Jeremy Tiang

Joe Wong

Joel Tan

Jolene Tan

Jolovan Wham

Joshua Chiang

Kamal Ramdas

Karen T

Kate Tan

Kay Omar

Kenneth Chee

Kenneth Tan

Kirsten Han

Lee Xian Jie

Lim Jialiang

Lisa Li

Lynn Lee

Mathia Lee

Miak Siew

Ng Yisheng

Nigel Ng

 

Otto Fong

Ovidia Yu

Rachel Zeng

Raksha M

Sabrina Lee

Sangeetha Thanapal

Sayoni

Seelan Palay

Sharon Pereira

Shelley Thio

Song Jiyoung

Sun Koh

Tania De Rozario

Tanneke Zeeuw

Tara Tan

Teo Elaine Thanya Marie

Teo Soh Lung

Teo Youyenn

Teri Tan

Think Centre

Thomas Ng

Trevvy

Vanessa Victoria

Wong Pei Chi

Wu Ling

Yuyun Wahyuningrum - Indonesia

 


Parlimentary transcript NMP Prof Thio Li Ann Oct 2007

  • Andrew Leung

    An excellent speech by Professor Thio Li Ann. Singapore’s homosexuals must abide by the nations laws. The EU should not promote their homosexual views and agenda on Singapore.

    • Chris Low

      Impossible to regulate bedroom acts, those who do are insane

    • Chris Low

      Gay people would never abide by the laws that is degrading and abusive to their own basic rights!

    • Chris Low

      What kind of homosexual views and agenda are you referring to?

    • Samson

      Might as well carry out genocide and wipe out the homos since they are born so disgusting.

      • MaiKayPoh

        “When the Nazis came for the communists,
        I remained silent;
        I was not a communist.

        When they locked up the social democrats,
        I remained silent;
        I was not a social democrat.

        When they came for the trade unionists,
        I did not speak out;
        I was not a trade unionist.

        When they came for the Jews,
        I remained silent;
        I wasn’t a Jew.

        When they came for me,
        there was no one left to speak out.”

        — Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984

    • Trainer

      It’s rather ironic that you refer to a fundamentally Asian concept of homosexuality, which has coexisted peacefully in society for millenia before the British came, as something European! 377 is a British law, it is alien to our lands. YOU need to stop pushing your fundamentalist Christian/Islamic agenda on the rest of society. Society will evolve, sooner or later, to be accepting and inclusive. On who’s side would you want to be when that happens? The happy, inclusive society or the bigoted fundamentalists?

      • jessie

        There is nothing Christian or Islamic about
        condemnation. It comes from a demented mind.
        -Jessie

    • Elliott Soh

      People are still people and you all have rights. To marry one another of the opposite sex. It is just the basic requirement and foundation of a stable family unit. Being highly educated or gifted in the area of parenting or child education is beside the point. That is a selfish view as the children living in same sex households grow up following the same pattern as their foster parents. They are not cute creatures – they are human beings with a soul. What gay people do with one another is not the focus. However, once they push for an alternative and morally deficient agenda, it disrupts the natural order of family and all manner of adjustments have to be made in order to accommodate it, giving way to further conflicts and disagreements, which leads to a real discrimination so talked about by activists.

      If truly the agenda was about peace and harmony, why are there so many activists shooting back at the natural and conservatives as being hateful and bigots? This sounds too contradictory.

      I respect Prof Thio for her views, among other respectable and courageous men and women who stand up for what is truly right and orderly. She has a voice. Let her speak.

      • Going by countless examples, the many instances of gay people pressured into heterosexual marriages create anything but stable family units. Marriages between people who neither love nor are attracted to each other are inherently doomed to failure, and when it does fail, there is so much more pain – including for the children, if any – that could have been so easily averted.

        “They are not cute creatures – they are human beings with a soul.”

        As are gay people. That aside, when gay couples adopt children, many of those children might have otherwise never found a home. I’m sure you’d agree that children raised by loving parents – of any gender – are better off than children raised in orphanages. Yet instead you seem to be proposing that gay people get into false heterosexual relationships and produce children(?) whom will often end up suffering when the marriage fails, as it very often does.

        “If truly the agenda was about peace and harmony, why are there so many activists shooting back at the natural and conservatives as being hateful and bigots?”

        Because people are, sadly, human, regardless of their beliefs, and when someone is attacked, the natural response to is to defend yourself by attacking back. Sure, in an ideal world everyone would respond to hatred with love, but unfortunately we don’t seem to be living in that world.

      • Samson

        Your theory has been proven erroneous by the countless failed marriages/divorces and broken or dysfunctional families in opposite sex couples. I do not approve of same sex marriage but I do not agree to use the theory of ‘basic requirement and foundation of a stable family’ to argue for the legal discrimination, condemnation and persecution of gay people. This sort of (Sharia) law only serves to make society uncivil. Thought our Sg scholars go West to learn civil law!

        • Out of curiosity, why don’t you approve of same sex marriage? How would it affect your life in any way whatsoever if two gay people who love each other decide they want to officially commit themselves to living the rest of their life together?

          • PikuChoo

            The SAME question can be asked of LGBTs. WHY do they want to get “married”?

            Marriage is something that heterosexuals do, you know, like having sex with a different sex/gender partner.

            For LGBTs to on the one hand wanting to partner up with the SAME sex/gender and on the other hand to want to get “married” like the heterosexuals smacks of cherry picking.

            WHY not make their unmarried status as an equally “unique” defining characteristic of LGBT relationships?

          • “WHY do they want to get “married”?”

            For the same reason straight people do. It’s a public declaration of the couple’s commitment to each other in front of their family and friends.

          • PikuChoo

            You know, when a man takes a vow to become a monk or a priest, certain things are forbidden him from then on.

            In the same manner, certain things are “forbidden” when a person declares that they are LGBT.

            Basically, you can’t have your cake and eat it (whatever that means).

          • But what’s the cake in that comparison? There’s no cake. It’s not like LGBT people get stuff that non-LGBT people don’t; pretty much the opposite, actually.

            Sure, if someone takes a vow to be a priest or monk, they’re agreeing to abstain from certain things. But that’s something they actively choose. Where’s the choice for LGBT people?

          • Samson

            I need to clarify that what I do not approve or agree is marriage of homo couple in a bible believing church. As for making promises to each other, anyone can make anywhere and it won’t concern anybody.

          • jessie

            Why would you need a marriage? After all it is just an institution and is there to bring order to society.It can also be looked at as role playing.Today with everyone muti-tasking ,the roles have changed. Many couples who love each other commit to be together without the marriage cert. This is a true testimony of their love.
            -Jessie

          • For the same reason that some straight people need a marriage. The point here isn’t to debate the use of marriage. The point is that there is a double standard when some people can get married and others can’t, not to mention that getting married comes with certain rights – I’m not sure on the details, but one example is hospital visitation laws that only allow family members in to see a patient. Such that if a straight man is dying, his wife would be allowed in to be with him in his final moments. Whereas if he’s gay, his boyfriend wouldn’t be allowed the same, and wouldn’t be able to be there to provide that same comfort and support. Or when it comes to housing – a married straight couple would be able to get a subsidised HDB flat. A gay couple wouldn’t qualify, and wouldn’t be able to get their own place. And so on.

          • jessie

            If you are talking about rights of gay people towards each other as what you have raised, this affects all of us and is a common concern. A power of attorney
            should be able to address this issue. I think HDB allows any two adults reaching the age of 35years to apply for a flat. I am not absolutely sure on this
            though, you might want to check it up.
            -Jessie

          • Yeah, it’s 35 years. But if they’re married, there isn’t that same age barrier, hence the injustice. There are also a lot more legal and other benefits to marriage, and it seems like it’s making things unnecessarily complicated to try and get gay people those exact same rights *without* a marriage, when a marriage would settle it all in one go. If you’re going to get them all the rights of a marriage, why not *call* it a marriage?

            It’s also worth mentioning that the law isn’t upheld consistently – I know a few gay couples who got married overseas before coming back to Singapore, and their marriage is recognised in some areas (e.g. certain family insurance plans) but not others, leading to a lot of complications and sometimes contradictions. And it doesn’t make sense that on one hand the Singaporean government can officially declare homosexuality a criminal offence, and at the same time extend minimal legal recognition to overseas-married gay couples living in Singapore. The inconsistency is frustrating.

          • jessie

            In Singapore, it is not only the gays but also single parents who are not allowed
            the same benefits as others.
            -Jessie

          • Well yeah, and that’s unfair too. But it’s not the same thing – single parents are, well, single. If in future they get married, they’d get all the rights of married couples. Whereas those rights are forever unavailable to gay people unless they get ‘married’ to someone whom they’re not attracted to, which cheapens the whole idea of marriage by reducing it to just a legal arrangement that has nothing to do with love. And sure, that’s how marriage used to be. But by and large it no longer is, and most people agree that people get married because they love each other.

          • jessie

            And if they decide not to get married should they not have the right to all benefits that other citizens enjoy. Rules and regulations should be made the same for all regardless of marriage status .
            -Jessie

          • But those are rights specifically related to marriage, like the hospital visitation laws I mentioned, or where two married people are covered under the same insurance plan for a lower premium, than if they were to buy them separately, or where if someone is a citizen of a country their spouse can also get citizenship. If it’s a single parent, then… who are they trying to get those rights for?

            If it’s just a boyfriend or girlfriend, then the problem with having rights in that case is that there’s no legal commitment involved, and they might just break up. Or people could easily exploit the system by pretending to be dating, get those rights for a short period of time, and then break up. Whereas a marriage is something more permanent that cannot be dissolved so easily.

          • jessie

            I disagree with you that a marriage is more permanent. Divorce rates are going up all over the world showing that this institution is failing. I think rights of all
            citizens should be equal and fair.
            -Jessie

          • Did you actually read my post? Just to spell it out: WHAT RIGHTS of *two* married people are being denied a single person? The right to share a flat with their partner? Oh wait, they don’t have a partner. BECAUSE THEY’RE SINGLE.

            You’re suggesting we give SINGLE people the rights of TWO people. That makes no sense. I’m saying we should give gay COUPLES the same rights as straight COUPLES.

          • jessie

            And I am saying all citizens whether they are married or a couple should be given equal rights regardless of their status !
            -Jessie

    • ASE

      Apartheid laws were constitutional and legal in their time. Blacks should have abided by the nations laws too! The West should not have promoted their integrationist views and agenda on South Africa.

      • MaiKayPoh

        Upvoted for the sarcasm!

    • jessie

      How can you support a law that is unfair to some? Would you accept if in reverse the LGBT were in power and enacted laws against sexual intercourse between a Man and a Woman?
      -Jessie

      • PikuChoo

        It may appear “unfair”, but there are (social) reasons why it was enacted. Would you accept if in reverse the criminals were in power and enacted laws against punishment for lawless acts?

        The LGBT community has a blind spot and is in a state of self denial. They consider their condition to be “normal” when it most manifestly is not.

        I can understand their stand and even sympathise with them, but that doesn’t change the fact that what they consider normal and a “right” is actually a wrong.

        • jessie

          We may consider it as wrong but to them it is not. There is no absolute positions. It all varies in culture, time and place.
          -Jessie

          • PikuChoo

            I’m sure likewise, criminals think or would like to think the same (that their criminal acts are not wrong). Should we then allow them to carry on?

            By the way, how do you feel about incest Jessie? You know, sexual relations between parents and their children and between siblings. These are also acts between consensual adults. Should we accept these as well?

            Both you and I (and I daresay the LGBT community as well) know that there NEEDS to be a line drawn between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable acts to society with regards to relationships. WHERE do you think this line can and should be drawn?

          • jessie

            A parent is the guardian and custodian of a child so it cannot be accepted. Between siblings, relationships have to be explained to those involved. LGBT is
            different as it could be genetics for their sexual orientation . So it is nature that has made them that way.
            -Jessie

          • PikuChoo

            Incest need not necessarily be between a parent and a young child. It can also be between a LGBT parent and an LGBT child for that matter.

            There are no limits when it comes to depravity. Genetics is no excuse, only potentially a cause.

            There is only one place where that line (between what is acceptable and what is not) can be drawn and we ALL know where that is.

            The LGBT community wants to shift it in their favour for selfish interests. We well understand their motivations but do not need to support it.

          • jessie

            It may not be between a LGBT parent and an LGBT child so where do you draw a line? Anyone can be depraved.
            -Jessie

  • Samson

    Very clever, this distracts from the more severe case of violation of human rights found in the PM vs Roy lawsuit. That case if brought before the EU delegates will be very, very damning to the PM and his Govt. There is absolutely no justification for everything that LHL and his Govt has done to Roy Ngerng, including firing him from his health care job.

  • Samson

    There is a whole load of other very unhealthy activities, sexual or otherwise, engaged by the general, “normal” public. The Professor should speak up against BJ for eg and make it illegal as well, since this is also unnatural.

  • Samson

    Sounds like a speech by a Sharia law maker. This is seriously bad coming from an educated person, let alone a Professor!

    You can be personally against homo practices (like me) and it is your rights to disassociate with them or disapprove what they do, but you cannot use the law to suppress them. Doing so nothing but turning your prejudice into vindictiveness by persecuting them through the law.

  • ASE

    Recently, these types were out in full force defending the sexuality workshop the Hwa Chong girl complained about, writing into the press about “secularity” = “right of religion to say whatever they want”. While following the nonsense on the Forum, I realised that the documents (government White Papers) they were citing were only available on Thio Li Ann’s academia.edu profile! It was probably orchestrated by her, but with her minions being the front. They won’t be happy until the entire society abides by whatever narrowly defined version of morality they have.

  • Can Lah

    377A still exist after review by the government, PM Lee has spoken on it in 2007 and determined that leaving 377A as it is is the right thing to do. Why target an ex-MP? Why don’t you take on the whole government? Also, don’t religious people have their human rights as well?

    • Szabo

      Yes, religious people have their human rights but depriving others of THEIRS is not one of them.

    • I’m both gay and Christian, and I’m not sure what human rights you’re referring to that people are apparently trying to take away from religious people.

      Also, one person’s rights end where another person’s begins. You have the right to fling your arms about. You don’t have the right to do so when it would end up breaking someone else’s nose.

      • JT

        You are gay AND Christian? You must have changed the meaning of the Bible.

        • I didn’t know that my mere state of existing could be so powerful as to affect the meaning of the Bible. I’m attracted to the same sex, thus I’m gay. I believe in Jesus as my Lord and Saviour, hence I’m Christian. Which makes me gay and Christian by definition, and does nothing whatsoever to the Bible or its meaning. Or has the definition of ‘Christian’ since changed?

          • JT

            It is not the definition of the meaning “Christian” that is being discussed, but it is what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. The Biblical teaching on homosexuality is consistent throughout, and Christianity is based on the Bible. If you believe Christ, then you have to believe the Bible. Otherwise He is not Lord to you.

          • dazzleworth

            Then you must also obey the Bible when it ask you in Leviticus and Deuteronomy not to eat pork, shellfish and wear mixed fabric. No ifs and buts. NO such things as God made it clean.If a mushroom is inedible, are you going to say God made it non-poisonous so I going to eat it now?

          • Just a note – Leviticus and Deuteronomy were addressed specifically to the ancient Israelites as part of their Holiness Code. They were never meant to be applicable to non-Jewish Christians.

          • dazzleworth

            You can say Leviticus is Mossiac Law, but Deuteronomy addresses the health issue of pork by saying “it does not chew cud”. Recently scientific evidence has emerged to prove that Deut is right on schedule. Eating it may not kill you right away, but toxins in the meat destroys your body like smoking and STDs, slowly. But rest assured, many Jews also obey the teachings in the Torah on homosexuality, that is found in our Bible.

          • Deuteronomy is part of the Law rendered obsolete by the new covenant; meanwhile there’s Peter’s vision in the NT: let no one declare unclean what God has made clean, or Jesus talking about how it is not what goes into the body that makes it unclean, but what comes out of it. So scientifically, sure, but pretty much every kind of food is contaminated in some way these days. We’re all going to die at some point anyway.

          • jessie

            JT, If you believe in Christ, you must surely know that he has fulfilled the Law and does not allow any condemnation so why use the Bible to segregate society? Who gave anyone of you permission to do that?
            -Jessie

          • “The Biblical teaching on homosexuality is consistent throughout”

            It isn’t. Far from it. More to the point, there can’t be, given that the concept of sexual orientation only existed in the 19th century, which makes any word translated as ‘homosexuality’ already questionable. The Bible was not written in English.

            Here’s a good overview if you’re interested: http://www.matthewvines.com/transcript

            “If you believe Christ, then you have to believe and obey the Bible.”

            You mean I have to believe and obey Christ. Christ is revealed by the Bible. Christ is not the Bible. Meanwhile, there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who is attracted to the same sex cannot be a Christian. Last I checked, Christianity was open to all.

          • Samson

            The problem is people pick bits in the Bible to obey. No one obeys the ten commandments (Singaporeans work on Sundays/Sabbath day, don’t we) and yet those who quote the Bible want OTHERS to obey this.

    • Samson

      In effect, you are asking for the right to discriminate or persecute whatever you or the ‘norm’ don’t like. This is not on! and yes, the PM Lee and his Govt are acting like Commie leaders. At this rate, one day they will also make it illegal for leprosy people to be seen in public.

  • Guest

    • Chris Low

      A bunch of bollocks

  • Joe Wong

    Being a Singapore Citizen, Prof Thio Li-Ann has all the human rights to represent the traditional and conservative pro-family citizens here to speak up our concerns on human rights from our Asia multi-races and multi-culture perspective on the back of our constitution. If EEAS can’t accept Prof Thio’s speech, they are actually shooting their own feet and denying their purpose of existence as an international human rights body.

    Prof Thio must not only speak but also act if necessary so that the world may know that Singapore is exceptionally different.

    • I still don’t know why people think that LGBT people aren’t pro-family. I’m gay and I’m very pro family, and I’m extremely against the kind of teaching that ends up breaking families apart when parents disown or abuse their LGBT kids. Or do our families not matter?

    • Samson

      Nobody is saying Prof Thio cannot speak what she thinks but everybody who is against the speech does so because Prof Thio is calling for the legal discrimination, condemnation and persecution of abnormal people. That is NOT, I repeat NOT her right to do so (discriminate, condemn and persecute abnormal people by the law).

      • Is heterosexuality so fragile that someone needs to ‘champion’ opposite sex relationships in order for people to want to be straight, whereas homosexuality is apparently so appealing that it needs to be actively condemned in order to keep people from being gay?

        Sexual orientation is immutable. There’s at least one guy who starved to death because his parents refused to feed him until he stopped being gay; and there are countless LGBT people who killed themselves because they couldn’t make themselves ‘normal’. The largest international ‘ex-gay’ organisation, Exodus, recently shut down and issued an official apology admitting that of the thousands of gay people who went through their program, 99.9% of them showed no change in sexual orientation – and these are all people who tried very, very, very hard. Many ended up greatly psychologically damaged, as is expected from any program that tries to stop you from loving the people you love. Many killed themselves.

        Why do people still think this is a choice? Or even something that can be so easily influenced by something as trivial as a speaker talking about the greatness of heterosexuality? Do you have so little faith in how that exact message is ingrained into us from the moment we enter society, and that some of us still turn out gay, regardless?

        “condemn homo practices (not condemn the homos)”

        One’s experience of romantic love is an integral part of one’s being and identity. Condemning that is as good as condemning the person. I assume you’re a straight guy; would you honestly not feel condemned if someone were to speak at length about how it’s gross and disgusting and perverted and makes them want to vomit whenever you fall in love with a girl, or gaze romantically in her eyes, or cuddle up together, or kiss her, or – yes – have sex with her? For many people, our love, romantic or otherwise, is one of the best and most giving and sacrificial expressions of ourselves. To consider the best of what we are to be evil is little different from calling us evil outright.

        • Samson

          Absolutely! Silly as it is to condemn a disease, it is not evil or uncivil to do so compared to condemning the people with the disease.

          • The problem is that, unlike all other things considered sins, homosexuality is the only one that hurts nobody and whose denial means condemning people to an existence alone devoid of intimate romantic love. (If it is even a sin, which is highly disputed based on the original non-English texts of the Bible that don’t mention homosexuality at all.)

    • jessie

      If she is unable to include all when speaking on human rights she should decline to speak because she is prejudiced against a segment of our society.
      -Jessie

  • Joe Wong

    Being a Singapore Citizen, Prof Thio Li-Ann has all the human rights to represent the traditional and conservative pro-family citizens here to speak up our concerns on human rights from our Asian multi-races and multi-cultures perspective on the back of our constitution. If EEAS can’t accept Prof Thio’s speech, they are actually shooting their own feet and denying their purpose of existence as an international human rights body.

    Prof Thio must not only speak but also act if necessary so that the world may know that Singapore is exceptionally different.

    • ASE

      You do realise that Thio Li-Ann is exactly the last person in the world who is standing up for “multi-races” and “multi-culture”? Her world view is strictly sectarian and Christian. Where other people’s prejudices happen to align with hers, she pretends to be all-embracing, but if she gets her way, she will insist only her religion gets to be the final say in every last thing. Whether you dislike homosexuals or not, you better be careful about casting your lot with her type.

      • jessie

        Actually her position against the LGBT is not Christian. There is no condemnation of anyone in Christianity. She is practicing her
        religion which has nothing to do with Christianity as taught by Christ.
        -Jessie

        • ASE

          I don’t disagree with you, and that is why I qualified my description of her first with “sectarian”. But this is a big issue in religion, where everyone thinks they are doing their religion the correct way, and everyone else is wrong. If she calls herself and her practices and beliefs Christian, who can convince her otherwise?

          You are absolutely right in your comment later down that it is not religion per se that makes people like this (otherwise every single person professing religion would react that way), but religion can have this nasty tendency to make it acceptable to behave this way.

  • Mr Tan Jun Yi

    How is homosexuality right? It’s dangerous to allow something so unproven to enter into mainstream culture. moreover, it’s practice in some parts of western Europe has only proved to bring adverse consequences.

    • ASE

      If you don’t think they’re right, don’t be homosexual lar: nobody is forcing you to be homosexual. But you do realise that these people are forcing other people to not be homosexual, when it’s none of their business?

      And it’s not just about homosexuality. Again, I point out the nonsense about the Hwa Chong girl complaining about the workshop that was run by Focus on the Family. It’s such a naked attempt at imposing Christian values on all of society. One of the writers who denounced their attempts at making secularism the very exact opposite of what it means pointed out very accurately that for pre-marriage courses, people just choose whatever religious or non-religious organisation to attend these courses. It is downright deceitful to pretend Focus on the Family is not religious when even the texts they admit to using are from Bible “scholars”.

      • Mr Tan Jun Yi

        But dont you know homosexual behaviour harms others in society? If it was merely a lifestyle choice it would definitely be allowed. But too many people have suffered: STDs are being transmitted around by the homosexual community at an epidemic rate (see national STD statistics), homosexuals changing partners frequently cause the entire community to lose any hope of loyalty, spousal specialness, unconditional love and vital social skills of raising up the next generation of leaders in a home where the constant, unchanging love and care of biological parents is present.

        What we need is more government support for broken families, because that is where homosexual tendencies first develop. Counselors have reported that when people with homosexual inclinations open up to them, common sources of hurt include childhood abuse, molestation by a family member, friend or stranger, and emotional estrangement from either or both parents. Therefore, we should deal with this issue of poor parenting before it becomes epidemic. Look at Western countries which condone homosexuality. Their divorce rates are sky high, and they have no proper upbringing. Instead of receiving unconditional love from their biological parents, they are schooled by strangers who are their classroom teachers. Without being first given a sense of security, self-worth and significance in their childhood, how can they go on to be selfless and give that same love to the next generation? Where will they find the desire to bear their own children and shower love on them? They will find none, and choose to a hedonistic path, an example being homosexuality. They cannot be blamed for all of this though, because proper parenting was missing in their lives. When the nation focuses on the economy rather than its people, its foundations will be shaken. Very soon, it will have no aspiring, selfless and lively young people to continue its growth. That is why the Western European powers declined, and why US is on the decline today. No nation that has embraced sexual libertinism stood the test of time, because by the fifth generation or so, they would have lost all growth potential. Case in point, though there were many nations which embraced homosexuality in history, none of them are around today; instead only those which keep to the traditional family structure have flourished, such as the England of old, and the US of not-long-ago.

        People should not be discriminated for their homosexual behaviour, but ideas should be discriminated for their ill consequences.

        • ASE

          I’m confused. So because heterosexuals had lousy families, therefore people became gay and they are now the ones destroying heterosexual families?

          • REVENGE! And, um, creating more gays through lousy-fying those heterosexual families, turning them into new gay-creators.

            (p.s. don’t tell anyone I told you that. The gay agenda is supposed to be secret.)

          • ASE

            (it’s not so secret, all the Thio-Li-bAnns know already, apparently!)

        • 1) It’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’. It has nothing to do with lifestyle and is most assuredly not a choice.

          2) STDs happen when people with STDs have sex with each other. It proliferates when people are promiscuous and/or have unprotected sex. None fo this has anything to do with sexual orientation. If a straight guy went around having sex with lots of women, he’d get a lot of STDs as well. Whereas if two gay guys only ever had sex with each other, they wouldn’t get a single STD no matter how gay they are. Science!

          3) Meanwhile, your theories for how people ‘become’ gay have all been debunked. I grew up in a loving, stable Christian home with parents who care a lot about me. I was never abused or molested by anyone. Still gay. Same for a lot of other gay people I know. Likewise, I know lots of people who grew up in terrible broken homes with dysfunctional, abusive parents, and they’re straight.

          4) gah I give up. There is so much wrong in your post, so just a few extra points:

          – Currently, Sweden is considered the most liberal when it comes to LGBT rights. Their country seems to be doing great. Same with The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all of which are doing just fine, and which I believe will be around for a long time more. The US is screwed up for a whole lot of reasons unique to it that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

          I do, however, assure you that I am perfectly aspiring, selfless and lively, and against hedonism of all kinds other than the occasional video game. Never done drugs, never touchd a cigarette, never been drunk, never had sex. Still gay.

    • Not sure what you mean by ‘unproven’, considering that homosexuality has existed all over the world for thousands of years, both in humans as well as thousands of animal species. It seems pretty proven to me.

    • Samson

      If homosexuality is ‘wrong’, then when you see it next time, you want to report to the police?

  • Alan

    It’s a seminar about human right and she has every right to speak in it regardless her belief or advocating.

    Are you trying to deprive her of her rights just because she does not believe in your ideology or speaking against your kind?

    Don’t be a hypocrite of saying one and do the opposite please!

    • nelsonmandala

      Don’t be a hypocrite of saying one and do the opposite please!

      ……………………………..
      r u torkin bout the speaker herself? what a joker u r…

      • Alan

        Exactly what you people are doing! So make a guess who are the hypocrite?

        • GUSSIE91

          …….are also known as ‘Alan Seah’………?

  • Samson

    Myths and more myths in Sg. Did the professor really equate homosexuality to drug abuse? She didn’t bother quoting a study that proves homos like to use or abuse drugs did she? It would have made sense if she had said the persecution of homos cause them to turn to drug abuse.

  • Alan

    A debunk against this post that Howard produced.

    http://denoflambs.blogspot.sg/2014/12/the-attack-on-integrity-of-professor.html

    Fun read and a comparison everyone!

  • Jericho Loon

    We need to re-examine the concept of partnerships, but I would reserve the use of the word ‘marriage’ solely for heterosexual couples. For homosexuals, they can use the term ‘civil partnerships’, with the same rights and obligations as marriages. The steady Gramscian takeover, abuse, and perversion of language is something the left has become very good at over the years.

    I would leave it to homosexuals to have their freedom. It’s nothing new in history – the classical Greeks were famously bisexual, not to mention having legendary homosexual groups like the Theban Sacred Band.

    The problem is the pernicious link between homosexualism and pedophilia never seems to go away, with contradicting research on both sides. Interestingly, I would also note that pedophilia seems to be attributed usually to male homosexuals, but not lesbians.

    • “The problem is the pernicious link between homosexualism and pedophilia never seems to go away”

      The vast majority of pedophiles are straight men; I’m guessing you know that, though, and yeah, there is a slightly increased instance of pedophilia by proportion in gay men. However, one likely reason for this is that societal disapproval / active condemnation of relationships between gay adults means that many gay men repress their sexuality. But this isn’t always successful, and if they have a very strong sex drive with no opportunity for healthy release, it’s going to get out in unhealthy ways. Unfortunately, kids sometimes end up being a target – because unlike adults, they’re relatively powerless.

      It’s a similar principle with prison rape between otherwise straight men. Most of the time, they’re not gay. But with no women around, they end up settling for the closest outlet, as it is, and end up hurting people in the process.

      • Samson

        Yes, research is only useful or complete if one looks into the cause and effect and have recommendations for solution. In this case, the recommendation following the possibles causes as stated by you is definitely not more suppression.

  • Henry Nancy

    I have be married for nine years my husband and i where living happily and just two months ago my husband ment his ex girl friend whom he had in school days and all of a sudden he started dating her again and he never cared about his family again all he does is to stay late at night and when he come’s back he will just lie to me that he hard some fault with his car,there was this faithful day i caught the both of them in a shop,i walked to them and told the girl to stay of my husband girlfriend again,i have suffered too much in the hand of a cheating husband but and when he came home that evening he beat me up even despite the fact that i was pregnant he was just kicking and warning me to never point a finger on his affairs. thank to ancientokija whom i got from a blog site after a long search for a real spell caster i was so happy that he fufilled all what he said in just less than three days after the spell was casted they quareled and he broke up with the girl and his senses are fully back and he now care and love me like he have never done before and if you are their suffering from a broken marriage or your husband or ex cheats? you can email (LAVENDERLOVESPELL@YAHOO.COM) his spells are pure and very powerful without any doubt. or call him +2347053977842. he is the best caster that can help you with your problems.

  • Andrew Leung

    There were 4 silent protesters who hijacked the event to carry out an illegal protest and the Police did not investigate. This is an attempt to intimidate people or speakers who have an opposing view on sexuality laws. The event organizers should have asked them to stop the protest and to leave the room and protest at Hong Lim Park.

  • john

    Hello, my name is Miss faith, I’m from USA. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is genuine and real. I never really believed in any of these things but when I was losing Garvin, I needed help and somewhere to turn badly. I found consultant.odia spells and i ordered a LOVE SPELL. Several days later, my phone rang. Garvin was his old self again and wanted to come back to me! Not only come back, the spell caster opened him up to how much I loved and needed him. Spell Casting isn’t brainwashing, but they opened his eyes to how much we have to share together. I recommend anyone who is in my old situation to try it. It will bring you a wonderful surprises as well as your lover back to you. The way things were meant to be.” you can contact the spell caster on ogbonispelitemple@hotmail.com he’s very nice and great. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;.;;