Yale made a stand in support of anti-gay laws; SJWs slammed

[Rashiminos]

But why would they not simply make up things instead of going through the trouble of defending a law that discriminates against people just to have something to get political opponents with - something that would by itself once again cause public outrage in this case, wouldn't it? If Singapore's people are pro-homosexuality, then using a law that is against homosexuality against their political opponents seems to be a really bad, bad idea to me.

The trouble of defending the law is less than the backlash that just remaking the laws on the spot would cause. You can fool some people some of the time, and it would seem that homosexuality isn't popular enough in Singapore, so there are enough people willing to keep that law in place and countenance its use on occasion.

So no, I don't buy into the idea of this law being in place for this reason - it seems rather obvious to me that what is being named as the reason - "It's not enforced anyway and removing the law could cause trouble, so let's just leave things as they are." (Which, again, is a rather weak excuse, but whatever) - is the logical, direct answer, no conspiracy theories needed.

If it's not enforced, why keep it? (Reason: The law is convenient for fabricating criminality. Why selectively? To avoid punishing political friends under that same law).

And why would anyone risk making people care about the person the moment they're treated unfairly for being homosexual when they could simply avoid that risk by accusing him of being a rapist?

They have a better shot of sticking the accusation of homosexuality than rape, for instance? (or they could reverse it, if circumstances permit)

 

[Ryika]

The trouble of defending the law is less than the backlash that just remaking the laws on the spot would cause. You can fool some people some of the time, and it would seem that homosexuality isn't popular enough in Singapore, so there are enough people willing to keep that law in place and countenance its use on occasion.

Why the hell would they need to remake the law? Just accuse him of raping someone. If you've enough of a hold on the police + courts that you can convince them to enforce a law that prior to that case had specifically not been enforced, then you can surely make them prosecute a made-up rape case - and the public perception of that political enemy would also suffer a lot more.

If it's not enforced, why keep it?

Have you stopped reading after you marked the part of my quote? The reason that was named is literally right after that part.

They have a better shot of sticking the accusation of homosexuality than rape, for instance? (or they could reverse it, if circumstances permit)

Don't see how that would work.

Either way, I think it's a silly assumption and it literally doesn't change anything about the actual topic, so I don't see the benefit of continuing this discussion.

 

[Rashiminos]

Why the hell would they need to remake the law? Just accuse him of raping someone. If you've enough of a hold on the police + courts that you can convince them to enforce a law that prior to that case had specifically not been enforced, then you can surely make them prosecute a made-up rape case - and the public perception of that political enemy would also suffer a lot more.

The fake rape trick doesn't always work (nor does the 'homosexual deviant' trick, but there are more in the bag).

Have you stopped reading after you marked the part of my quote? The reason that was named is literally right after that part.

No. You called it an excuse, not a reason. The 'trouble' being complained about is the small amount of legislative bloat that would have to be excised to officially rescind the law. There's also the implicit comparison that punishing (or attempting to do so) a few homosexuals now and again is "less trouble" than getting rid of the law in question.

Either way, I think it's a silly assumption and it literally doesn't change anything about the actual topic, so I don't see the benefit of continuing this discussion.

The admission of selective enforcement tends to void more benign assumptions. At best they're being lazy.

Spoiler :

It's interesting that you chose to mention trumped up rape charges, is it not?

 

[BvBPL]

Not quite. She's not being asked to resign because she didn't speak out against the anti-gay law, but because she defended it. With her being a board member of a college that wants to be inclusive, that surely puts the college in an awkward position.

Exactly, she is under fire for doing her job which includes advocating for the policies of the government.

Yale-NUS can either have powerful allies from the government or it can have board members who are independent, not both in the same person. Although I suppose that since this is a national university the choice between the two is illusory.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So does everyone feel who isn't white yet here we are

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.

Let me address the broader question here: Would you be fine with a law that makes you a criminal for something which you cannot just choose as long as you hear promises that it will not be enforced? The law is in the books, so whether it is enforced or not is really up to law enforcement (hah) and the judiciary. You could, in theory, be arrested tomorrow for essentially living your life.

This isn't about the broader question though, this is about if it is reasonable to demand the removal of this person from the board of the college. This is about if there's any reason to suspect any conflict of interest in her two roles that will have any remotely significant impact, or if this is being blown out of proportion.

How I personally feel about the law in question (or some similar hypothetical law that effects me personally) is entirely irrelevant.

Was just mocking a common counter-argument from the 'right.'

For the record, I'm not right wing.

That reads like a law designed to be used arbitrarily when the targeted party commits some offense the authorities do not yet have an appropriately-contorted law for. Where's the "fun" in not being able to make someone a political prisoner based on an unrelated sexual orientation?

Hold on... if we remove the conspiracy theory hat for a second, don't we ALL have laws like that? Whether it be the non-enforcement of 20mph speed limit zones, or tolerating prostitution, or turning a blind eye to small amounts of marijuana for personal use, or various other things. Surely such practices are, for the majority of cases, simply an old law that doesn't gel with modern opinion to the point where it's not in the public interest to prosecute, rather than some sinister tool used by an oppressive regime to silence political dissidents.

 

[Flying Pig]

We do, but they're a bad idea, because what they actually become is a way of arresting people that the police/state don't like but don't actually have a legitimate reason to arrest, because the lack of enforcement means that these things become 'crimes' that you could pin on anybody, if you watched them for long enough. There's also the problem of weakening the general trust in the law - when there are clear and obvious examples of the law being stupid, people are more likely to see the law as a whole as similarly arbitrary, and so more likely to break it even when it's sensible.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But is that not more an exploitation of a loophole rather than a law "designed" for that purpose? And if we all have such laws which can all be exploited to that end... why is this a special case and particularly sinister?

 

[Flying Pig]

As Rashiminos pointed out, governments employ a great deal of people to find those loopholes, and it isn't difficult to get rid of them. If they're still there, it's because someone in government knows and is quite happy with that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

All seems a bit tin foil hat to me. Or at the very least it seems a bit selective to be singling out this particular law as something special.

 

[Senethro]

The rules are different in non-democracies. Tin foil hat thinking is useful in these places because in a sense the government really is out to get you.

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.

Yeah.

 

[warpus]

So what's up, is it legal yet to chew gum while gay in Singapore?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah.

Lettuce.

 

[Ryika]

As Rashiminos pointed out, governments employ a great deal of people to find those loopholes, and it isn't difficult to get rid of them. If they're still there, it's because someone in government knows and is quite happy with that.

That line of thought makes no sense to me. Government usually seeks for loopholes that are used against them, not loopholes that could be used to get individuals into trouble, at least not as long as there aren't any actual victims that got into trouble and complain afterwards. Changing laws can and does create new possible loopholes, so changing a law just because it might or might not become problematic just isn't something that happens.

So no, there is no need for somebody to say: "Mhh... better keep this one.", it's simply enough that there just isn't anybody who is like: "We NEED to get rid of this!" - or in other words: If you think these laws are that bad (and they may very well be) you should "be in the streets protesting" to raise awareness.

 

[aelf]

Exactly, she is under fire for doing her job which includes advocating for the policies of the government.

Yale-NUS can either have powerful allies from the government or it can have board members who are independent, not both in the same person. Although I suppose that since this is a national university the choice between the two is illusory.

It's not even about having allies. I don't think Yale actually has a choice. Either have government officials on the Yale-NUS board or it won't even be able to set up the college at all. That's pretty normal over here.

But obviously that can put it in an awkward position, as it so happens this time.

This isn't about the broader question though, this is about if it is reasonable to demand the removal of this person from the board of the college. This is about if there's any reason to suspect any conflict of interest in her two roles that will have any remotely significant impact, or if this is being blown out of proportion.

How I personally feel about the law in question (or some similar hypothetical law that effects me personally) is entirely irrelevant.

Because you said this...

And if her support is based around the fact that it's not enforced anyway, this is a far cry from supporting a law which is actually directly harming people.

...by way of saying that the position she took isn't that bad. I'm telling you why some people would find it that bad.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because you said this...



...by way of saying that the position she took isn't that bad. I'm telling you why some people would find it that bad.

Do you deny that supporting a discriminatory law that is not enforced is less bad than supporting a discriminatory law that is enforced?

 

[metalhead]

I don't think one is any worse than the other. Consistent enforcement at least creates a reasonable expectation among the population as to what behavior is criminal and what is not, which is a critical component of law and order. A discriminatory law which is "not enforced" can still be enforced arbitrarily, and therefore people have no legitimate way to anticipate how not to run afoul of enforcement of the law.

Then there is the issue of changing enforcement - a law not being enforced now can return to being enforced in the future, so it remaining on the books is still threatening to the group(s) it is discriminating against.

 

[Leoreth]

Not to mention that such a situation enables implicit threat, a convenient option to deal with undesirables, and legitimizes violence against LGBT people outside of a government context.

Not enforcing an unjust law may be better than enforcing it in individual cases, but it still runs afoul of rule of law, and there is a reason we have rule of law.

Furthermore, making it a practically not enforced but theoretically enforceable law shifts the decision about the application of the law from legislative to executive and judicative sectors of government, which are generally less democratically accountable (although I don't know if this applies in a Singaporean context at all).

 

[warpus]

Laws on the books that are not usually enforced in a lot of cases exist so that the police can go after undesirable members of society.

So IMO, if a law is not enforced anymore, get rid of it. Otherwise it's going to be one of those things used against people when the cops are just looking for something that will stick.

 

[luiz]

Laws on the books that are not usually enforced in a lot of cases exist so that the police can go after undesirable members of society.

So IMO, if a law is not enforced anymore, get rid of it. Otherwise it's going to be one of those things used against people when the cops are just looking for something that will stick.

Of course the law should be done away with, ideally. The question is: if indeed a great majority of Singaporeans support banning homosexuality (as is hinted; I have no idea if it's true), what should the government do? Round-up the homosexuals, keep homosexuality banned but in practice do nothing, or completely disregard majority opinion and make homosexuality legal?

Ideally we would say the latter, as we don't negotiate individual rights. Ideally. In practice we do negotiate individual rights, and going after a clear majority position may be counter-productive (again, no idea if that's the case). Everything considered, the government approach might be justifiable.

I bring again the Saudi Arabian example. The very best we can expect from an enlightened Saudi king is to not enforce the laws against homosexuality. If a Saudi king did that, it would be enormous progress. It's completely stupid to imagine he could, even if he wanted, actually make homosexuality legal. I'm not saying Singaporean society is as insane conservative as the Saudi one, but merely pointing out why "unenforced laws" might be a good compromise, in some circumstances.