Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Even A Globalist Elite Gets It: Singapore is Right to Keep 377a

Michael Petraeus, aka Critical Spectator, is a Polish expat who lives in Singapore.

He loves the country. He loves the balance of rule of law and liberty which enables everyone in the country to have ample enough space for themselves, but the liberty is curtailed in such a fashion that the rights of others are not trampled.

Moreover, the press for communitarian standards is prevalent in Singapore, as well. The Red Dot nestled at the very botton of the Malaysian peninsula doesn't promote individual liberty as the final goal of government. Free speech is strictly limited. Individuals can face fines and even jail time for writing incendiary comments about religion or race. Groups must seek permits to display points of view in public. Rallies can only take place in Hong Lim Park. No parades are permitted in the city state.

Recently, they passed a "Fake News" law which cracks down on news which the government deems to be false or misleading. Anyone from a much freer free speech culture (the United States) would blanch at such restrictions.

The penalties for drug use and drug dealing are quite high, as well. Individuals can be arrested or sorely fined for littering. One American commented that Singapore's political and legal culture is quite "paternalistic."

At any rate, the city state prizes community harmony, not just individual liberty, and endeavors to strike a balance which considers the well-being of the whole. There is plenty of good and bad which people can comment on regarding this legal culture.

At any rate, Petraeus has an elitist and a globalist streak, of course.

He thinks that Singapore should import more foreign workers to take local jobs. This policy pushes aside the natural born or naturalized citizens of the country. This is fundamentally unfair, and it undermines the civic order of a country. Why bring in foreigners to do the jobs which the locals can do themselves? A country is more than an economy.

He also believes that the United States' high violence/homicide rate is a direct result of the Second Amendment, aka the right to keep and bear arms. This elitist dismissal of a fundamental human right is quite troubling. Sure, in Singapore he feels safe and sound walking the streets at night because of the harsh laws which rightfully punish potential assailants and criminals. However, the Second Amendment was never enacted to protect Americans' desire to hunt or to protect their homes from burglars. The fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was to arm and equip the citizenry against the government should it grow expansive and then tyrannical. This calculation was essential to the passage of the United States Constitution since the American colonists had to take on and ultimately took down the greatest Empire in the World at the Time, the British Empire, and they were keen at the outset on taking away the colonists' firearms.

Singapore's origins are quite different. They were expelled from the Malaysian confederation. The United States was forged out of Thirteen Colonies which expected to be treated with the same dignity and accorded the same rights as other Englishmen throughout the British Empire--and the British Government refused to accommodate that basic expectation.

Furthermore, the gross gun violence which has become all too prevalent in the United States is not because of the large number of firearms. The breakdown in rule of law in liberal enclaves, coupled with the unfounded gun control policies which disarm law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop violent criminals and street gangs, have contributed to the disturbing rise of gun violence in my country. If one were to remove the gun deaths which take place in top ten largest urban areas in the country, one would find that the rates of gun violence are considerably lower than in other countries.

Perhaps even lower than in Singapore?

At any rate, I wanted to establish at the outset that Mr. Critical Spectator has a globalist and an elitist veneer about his writings and view of the world. In addition, Petraeus tends to side with the Singapore government as much as possible, and denounce citizen uprisings at the outset. His critique of the Hong Kong protests make sense from the perspective of "What is the End Game?" However, the desire for any people, for any region of the world to be free of Communist tyranny, those sentiments are commendable, not deplorable.

So, with all of this outlined about Mr. Petraeus' view of politics and governance, it was quite surprising and even refreshing to find that he agrees with the Singapore Government's decision to maintain Section 377a, the statute in Singapore's legal code which criminalizes homosexual acts between men.

He begins his comments on this very contentious matter as follows:

This may be my most controversial article yet (at least to some) – but precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is important to publish it. So, let’s begin with a both baffling and bold statement:

 LGBT supporters and their opponents are both right.

Impossible? Well, let me explain.

Well, actually no. The LGBT supporters are clearly wrong. They are wrong because the whole ideology is based on three fundamental lies:

1. People are born gay.
2. People cannot change their sexual orientation
3. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or discredited about homosexual conduct vs. heterosexual conduct.

Still, let's give Michael cretid for poiinting out that opponents of LGBT rights are correct.

He continues:

Little over 100 years ago, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity, explaining gravity and, consequently, the behavior of large objects. About a decade later Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg gave the world their interpretation of quantum mechanics, which serves to describe the physical behavior of subatomic particles.

Unfortunately, while both are immensely valuable they lack a common link – in other words, what works for large objects doesn’t seem to work at a single subatomic particle level – and vice versa.

This paradox keeps springing to mind whenever I’m observing disputes that extend from the interests of an individual to the interests of the society – clashing with them violently – with people on both sides of the front exchanging arguments, completely missing the simple fact that they are speaking from entirely different perspectives.

And, interestingly, it may mean that much like the physical theories, they are both correct, while being in conflict with each other.

One such war is being fought over LGBT rights.

At one time, physics was considered natural law, in the same way that political scientists study ethics and moral law. The two subjects actually shared similar fields of inquiry in many universities until Immanuel Kant disrupted the comity of these subjects with his very bold assertion that "Things in themselves are unknowable" since man's perspectives so heavily immerse themselves into every aspect of man's interactions with the world.

But I digress.

What broader argument does Petraeus bring out from the conflict of two physical sphers in relation to two moral and culture spheres?

The differences in opinion boil down to a clash of an individualist against a communitarian view. The former – arguably more visible these days – suggests that individual freedom is of paramount importance and that people should have the liberty to do what they want even if it meets disapproval of the majority. Communitarianism preaches superiority of the common interest over individual rights.

This discussion does deserve more attention. Often, advocates of limited government and democratic values will say: "People should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm anybody." The framework which makes such a government possible, however, must abide by a number of cultural norms. Furthemore, a government which exists to ensure the protection of rights must ensure that those rights are not transgressed, whether in the short term or the long term. Regarding freedom of speech, for example, people cannot falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, which would lead to stampedes, harm, and even death. Defamation carries long-standing consequences against those harms by deliberate falsehoods spoken or published, and those harms undermine the rights of those victims.

Rights cannot exist unless they are accorded to everyone, and rights must be recognized as innate and essential to each person.

Both of these views – much like the physical theories – can coexist but will clash if they stray outside of the area they make sense in. On an individual level there is nothing wrong with anybody choosing to live with and loving any other person regardless of their gender (and as long as the relationship is consensual). There is really no reason to deny two consenting adults the ability to live (and sleep) with each other.

Yes, and no. 

In a superficial sense, yes there is no direct harm which follows when two men insist on abusing their bodies and call it "sex." Then again, the decline in human capital, the health care costs, and the general moral decline which follows when such acts are permitted do cost all of us. The consequences which ensuse from a culture that permits such behaviors does harm all of us.

However, while that works for individuals it does not necessarily work for the society at large.

The value of a relationship to an individual is defined by the person’s subjective interests and feelings. The value of relationships to the society is defined by their functional roles.

Since gay marriage does not serve a reproductive purpose it is therefore not equal to a heterosexual relationship (for the society), even though on an individual level they are both the same – i.e. are expressions of mutual love between two people.

These are worthy points to consider. Homosexual conduct serves no purpose for the community as a whole, and in fact undermines the community considerably. Individual rights cannot lead to societal wrongs.

 Conversely, forcing the communitarian expectation of a heterosexual relationship on a homosexual person is pointless for the society and harmful for the individual. It is therefore preferable that individuals retain their liberty in choosing whom to spend their lives with.

Here, I disagree with Petraeus. There is no such thing as a "homosexual person," for in reality, no one is born gay. There is no gay gene, and there is no innate characteristic which causes a person to be attracted to the same sex at a young age. These unnatural affections are a result of abuse, neglect, trauma.

Some people may argue that homosexual couples can have children via surrogacy or adoption but that’s just trying to find a detour to reach a predetermined ideological goal, while ignoring broader implications, consequences of which we don’t know yet – and this uncertainty warrants prudent behavior.

Yes, indeed. The rearing of children is NOT a private matter, but has considerable public implications.

 Asia doesn’t have a habit of taking all Western ideas wholesale, evaluating each of them for its usefulness instead or observing how they play out elsewhere before making a decision.

The first issue is the true long term impact on the children – and not only by the parents but also the society, as social stigma can impede good upbringing, even if both parents are perfect in their roles. Prevailing social norms have to be accounted for when enacting laws that address issues of a small minority. And while there is little scientific evidence of directly adverse effects, the samples used in research supporting same-sex parenting are neither randomized nor big enough – and possibly impacted by ideological bias.

Petraeus is wrong again. There is a substantial body of research which confirms that children do indeed need a mother and a father.

Secondly, setting any legal precedents in one case often acts as a gateway for promotion of other ideological goals, which are even more questionable. One of them visible in the West today is an attempt at normalization of transsexualism and the queer theory, supporting the idea of gender fluidity.

The decriminalization of sodomy is the first step to a much more sinister political agenda. Dr. Thio Li-An warned her colleagues about this in 2007.

This has severely adverse effects in both formal and informal ways, with courts ruling that children as young as 3 or 4 years old can undergo gender transitioning, with parents finding it fashionable to have or raise a transgender child – including celebrities like Charlize Theron, who is transitioning her 7 year old son into a daughter. Or with informal initiatives which grow in popularity, like the “Drag Queen Story Hour“, featuring men dressed up as women reading stories to children in schools and libraries around America and in a few cities abroad already as well.

Here’s the summary from their website:

“Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.”

MassResistance has been sounding the alarm on this perversion agenda for many years, and in the last three years we took every effort to stop these perverse programs. We have had a growing measure of success, to be sure!

 In other words, we’re no longer talking about what two people do in their bedroom but what millions of children are being taught in schools at an especially important and fragile time in their approaching adolescence.

DUH! Sexual conduct never stays in the bedroom. It has consequences far outside of the privacy of two people.

I don’t think it falls under “love is love” slogans. Especially as at least two of the men have turned out to be past sex-offenders. This is tantamount to a bait and switch scheme, and certainly does not inspire trust about the entire community – nor about the consequences of supporting LGBTQ causes only to be duped into letting both terrible people and terrible ideas dictate the new standards.

MassResistance exposed those sex offenders in Houston, Texas.

Is this the promised progress? Color me skeptical.

I’ve often praised Singapore for its common sense and today is no different – even though it may sound counter-intuitive in this case. Section 377A, which (technically) criminalizes sexual relations between men is a remnant of colonial legislation, most of which was repealed in 2007. It is not applied in practice and the government has long declared it would not be enforced.

 On the face of it, it would appear it is common sense to just get rid of it. But sometimes the most reasonable thing is to defend the status quo.

First of all, Section 377A serves as a political tool, appealing to largely conservative sentiments of the Singaporean society. Secondly – and crucially – it focuses attention of the pro-LGBT activists, who cannot progress beyond this obstacle with any other ideas.

And at all costs we must ensure that their ideas never progress. Perhaps 377a should be enforced.

As long as it exists, all protests will be revolving around its repeal. If it falls, one day, then it is safe to assume that Pink Dot will not dissolve – much like it never happened with activism in the West – but, instead, is going to turn to promoting other ideas, opening Pandora’s box for the government.

Yes, indeed.

 Singaporean authorities face an unenviable task of balancing the interests of the country (both its society and well-being of its citizens, as well as its global brand as a modern, supremely developed city-state) with the need to retain support from individuals across various age groups and beliefs.

At the same time the dead law exposes hypocrisy of the advocates of its repeal, proving that the government’s reluctance to remove it is not unfounded.

Very good point! The LGBT activists prove that their agenda is not about "Love is Love," but rather about furthering their hegemony and ultimately their supremacy.

Activists don’t care about the real conditions in which gay couples live in Singapore today – free from any persecution and arguably being the safest and most prosperous in the entire region.

 These facts are irrelevant because political and ideological agendas are too valuable, leveraging this meaningless section as a symbol to rally support behind.

Ultimately, the whole 377A drama has little to do with love or ending discrimination – even if many people who join in may idealistically believe it does. It’s about exerting ideological influence on the country and political one on the government that leads it. But the authorities cannot yield, in no small part because the pressure on them would only intensify to give protesters even more later.


There’s always some cause in bad need of support, after all.

As a result, the best thing to do is not to enforce the law and yet leave it there to prevent more ambitious pursuits of even more dubious aims. All of that while waiting to see where these ideas lead in the Western countries, respecting the will of the majority while leaving the door open for a safe and comfortable life to the minorities.

And that’s easily the most balanced, considerate and tolerant approach you’ll witness anywhere in the world.

The United States needs Section 377a!

No comments:

Post a Comment