http://www.repeal377a.com

You are as convinced of your own opinions as I am.

I have read of your stated authors inclusive of Ayn Rand but would come to slightly different conclusions that is why we are human.

Further, so there is nothing to add.
Frankly, I follow the maxim
“trust but verify”

So you do not deny that there was a reported case in the Scandivian countries which was only reported because the person did not desist and was willing to be jailed for being thrown in jail for a time without any probationary period which is common.

Frankly, did I state the conclusions stated in your rebuttal. No, those weere your statements.

For your stated hate case in Victoria, do note that it was only highlighted after it went to court and towards the end after it first broke in Piers Ackerman opinion column. Was it reported beforehand with full background, nada in the Age or SMH.

As a Sydneysider, I do read from both the right eg LGF to the left spectrum Daily Kos although I would prefer Pournelle’s political spectrum axis instead for political analysis.

I will not reply to your further comments point by point as I am just putting up the perspective done from a factual points done. I will just point out that he did urge people as per your comment rebuttal in 2 and if it this creates your perception issue of false majority, so please what difference between your cited opinion polls,which could be argued to be the same.

Regards

Its interesting you consider yourself a liberal-turned-neocon. That suggests your definition of “liberal” is taken from the American context.

That being the case, I can tell you that American libertarians see no difference between neo-cons and liberals: both are equally enamoured of the idea that government intervention is the universal panacea to anything.

If you really want to understand the libertarian position (note: libertarian is NOT “liberal” in the American context), then you might want to read up some Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

I will address your comments point by point.

1. Creation of a false majority

The two key sentences are:

“Hence the greater the number of similar opinions the greater the weight government will give.”

and

“All a person needs to do is write is something like…”

Also consider the pro forma responses set out in his email. It is clear that he intends a mass mailing campaign to create a false impression of a majority.

2. The existence of a gay lobby

A distinction must be made between people who support the repeal on grounds of supporting homosexuality, and people who support the repeal on grounds that the law is unjust.

The former is pathetically few. This are the people that Derek Hong refers to as the “Gay Lobby”. How many actual gays are there in Singapore? Not alot.

Then there are those who are NOT gay, but support the repeal on moral grounds. I belong to this camp. I argue that s 377a is immoral and unjust, and I cannot in good conscience think that it is a law that should stay in our statute books.

Is there a gay lobby? Let is do this simply. Check up on the dictionary meaning of “lobby”. Any dictionary will do. Do you think the numbers of gay people in Singapore are sufficient to justify the MPs even caring about their votes? No.

Ergo, there is no “gay lobby”.

Which is exactly why there are others who are NOT gay, who argue for the repeal. This state of affairs is morally unjust, because these are a group of people who have no voice, and who number so few that their votes don’t matter. It is up to those who are not gay, but have a conscience, to argue for the repeal.

Are WE a “gay lobby”? No, we are not. We are the moral majority. The moral majority who care enough about other human beings, who reject USING religion as a means to oppress others.

3. Criminalising of free speech

An interesting note: you ask me to refer to news reports in Scandinavian countries for evidence of pastors being jailed for criticising homosexuality, while in the same breath you claim that news reports in Australia cannot be trusted to report the truth.

Is that not blatant double-standards? Is that clearly not selectively cherry-picking evidence to suit your position?

How about let us assume that ALL news reports cannot be trusted. Then we can discount any news reports of any person being jailed for criticising homosexuality. Or do you prefer to stick with inconsistency of reasoning and logic?

To just rebut your first claim that he lied.
Read the email, all he requested that all parties who are concerned to write to the relevant parties to lodge their concerns. Very democratic,is it not.Did he request for duplicate emails,none/nada, bot emails,none/nada, use duplicate identities,none/nada.
All you have done is shred your own argument in this particular aspect to seek truth. You are than just as guilty of mailing and making polemical statements.

As to the 2nd, no GLBT lobby, what than is PLU, Sayoni, etc or their intended activities or the foreign groups/speakers linked with. Please just because they are not legally registered, does not make them not a lobby group.

3. That people who seek to decriminalise homosexual sex acts also seek to criminalise religious free speech.
Please see the case in Sweden or other Scandinavian countries for an actual case, in which yes, pastors were prosecuted and he went to jail although released on appeal.

For Australia or NZ, do you read the news everyday or all papers, no, please note that almost all major papers there have a neo liberal inclination instead so they do not report the news of such espcially if it just warnings or fines. This from someone who has been around since 23 years ago with a network of people as such.
So please stop making such polemical statements for also this aspect.

From a necon leaning, (a liberal hit by reality)

Regards
WANG