Readers can see for themselves, in the box at right, the kinds of comments that he objected to.

The news story was about how the "gay protest" originally scheduled for 15 November 2008 at Hong Lim Park was being postponed.

Organiser Roy Tan, 50, a Singaporean who initiated the event, yesterday cited the overwhelming response from the gay community as a key reason for the date change.

The event was being postponed 'to ensure that all interested parties - straight, gay and queer - have the opportunity to participate in this landmark occasion', he said in a statement e-mailed to the media.

Many members of the gay community have expressed interest in taking part, he told The Straits Times when contacted.

A number of those who are backing the event also want to help him organise it, said Mr Tan, who works in the health-care industry.

An organising committee has now been set up.

Said Mr Tan: 'We're postponing it so we can have more time to organise a better event.'

-- Straits Times, 1 Nov 2008, Gay protest
to be held at later date

 
The first thing you'd notice about the comments is that they do not even address the subject of the news story -– the proposed Hong Lim Park event. They are in the form of rants simply because gay people have been mentioned.

If you substituted race in, say, Xiao Hong's comments, 

"Gays have no place in Sg. Go elsewhere please and do not pollute this place", 

and 

"These farking GAYS are all mentally sick... not fit to exist", 

most people would consider such statements unacceptable. Going by the example of the "racist bloggers" who were prosecuted under the Sedition Act -– not that I entirely agree with that course of action -– the government would step in promptly.

And that is commenter no. 11's point: Why the double standard?

A protest in Denver, Colorado. Just in case you think that this is an example of an anti-gay protest that is not religiously-motivated, look at the first word on the white placard. It says "Jesus".

It is quite obvious that there is considerable indulgence shown by editors and our political establishment to hate speech against gay people.

After all, at the bottom of the comments page is a warning by the sys op: "Any user who posts offensive or irrelevant comments will be banned from this Discussion Board." So, if the hateful comments are left on the board, does this mean that Straits Times does not consider them offensive?

How to explain this indulgence, where none is shown towards racial and religious hate speech?

The way I see it, the extra leeway given to anti-gay speech is because there is underlying sympathy (perhaps subconsciously) for the beliefs behind the rants. Which are? That gay people as a class are less worthy than others, and therefore those who carry out character assassination against them are not entirely wrong. They are "just expressing their point of view".

There is no other way to explain the indulgence shown to such hate speech.

The nearest equivalent we have in Singapore to anti-gay hate speech is the way some people here would use slurs when referring to foreign workers. But this proves my point: We are permissive about such speech because many of us consciously or subconsciously share such prejudiced views about foreign workers, or are at least sympathetic to them. Our indulgence proves it.

* * * * *

 
But am I not a free speech advocate? Yes I am, and in line with that, I am not calling for the state to censor such speech, let alone prosecute anyone. However, I've always maintained that there is a case for individual and corporate responsibility -- what we call community moderation -- and as the owner of the website, Singapore Press Holdings should be exercising moderation. What form that moderation takes can be nuanced; it doesn't always have to involve deletion.

For example, look at how the Bangkok Post responded to a letter that expressed homophobic views. They published the letter, but they also added an editor's note.

First, a bit of background: Four days earlier, on 27 October 2008, the Bangkok Post had published a feature article that profiled Natee Teerarojjanapongs, a long-time gay rights and HIV/Aids activist. You can see the feature archived here.

On 1 November, this letter (and the editor's note) was published:

No to homosexuality

Re: The article ''Gay Natee'' in the Outlook section, BP, Oct 27. There are several things your article, with its pro-gay stance, failed to mention. The majority of people are opposed to homosexuality, and rightly so, due to their religious convictions whether Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or Christian. The article fails to point out that what is defined as homosexuality is two men having sex with each other (or two women), and that is wrong in most people's eyes. Even the top Buddhist monk in Thailand has condemned this behaviour as going against the traditional Buddhist teachings of sexual purity.

It is sad to see Thailand over the years becoming more and more accepting of homosexual behaviour and the massive increase of homosexuality in Thailand compared to its neighbouring countries.

The article also failed to mention the large number of ex-homosexuals who have left the morally destructive lifestyle of homosexual behaviour, through the help of many ex-homosexual groups such as Exodus International and Parents, Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), and religious communities.

It is a disservice to homosexuals when their behaviour is admired rather than condemned, since understanding that there is a problem is the first step in correcting it. Instead, many fall under the ''politically correct curse'' or pressure from radical homosexual activist groups to accept this activity.

Chad Williams
Chiang Mai

Reply from Editor of Outlook: Mr Williams, I think you have completely mistaken the intention of our story when you say our stance is ''pro-gay". The story is not advocating gays or religious stands on sexual behaviour, nor what is right and wrong in terms of sexual behaviour. We are talking about human rights, equal rights as a human being to any public service, and the discriminatory nature of those who judge others based on their personal sexual identity and preferences.

Like Xiao Hong, Chad Williams was upset simply because a gay person was mentioned in a newspaper story. He felt that the newspaper, even in a descriptive feature that merely profiled a well-known gay activist, should express an editorial position condemning that person.

Billboard advertising Exodus' "Reparative therapy". Why do people believe such vacuous slogans?
  

Williams is evidently a proponent of the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" through Christian prayer and pseudo-psychological hocus-pocus, which is what Exodus and PFOX claim to do. Both these groups are linked to American fundamentalist Christianity. Furthermore, it is typical of their disinformation for them to claim that their anti-gay views are universal. Williams did likewise in his letter.

The editor's reply shows the kind of balls that local editors do not have. He rapped Williams with a reference to "the discriminatory nature of those who judge others based on their personal sexual identity and preferences."

* * * * *

 
In contrast, a Singapore editor wondered aloud whether in view of the religious sensitivity of the subject of homosexuality, Singapore should ban gay-affirmative expression altogether, a view not far removed from Chad Williams'. That was what Chua Lee Hoong, Straits Times' Political Editor, was leading up to when she wrote, in connection with the recent changes in policy allowing protests to be held at Hong Lim Park,

Clearly, there is a recognition that the new rules regime at Speakers' Corner is an ongoing experiment in political liberalisation, and how it pans out will have implications for Singapore's future political landscape.

[snip]

Two: The wall around race and religion issues is not hole-proof. Some issues extrude into the secular world, for example, homosexuality. What if fundamentalist Christians apply to hold an anti-gay protest on the same day that gay activists apply to hold a gay pride parade at Hong Lim Park? The Government would be hard put to allow the gay activists, but not the anti-gay activists on the grounds that theirs is a religious argument. Given the intensity of the views on this issue -- on both sides -- we can imagine what could erupt on the day itself.

-- Straits Times, 1 Nov 2008, A new buzz at Hong Lim

Her logic goes like this: If we don't allow anti-gay speech because it springs from religious (read: Christian) feelings, then we shouldn't allow gay-affirmative speech either.

Well, by the same token, we shouldn't allow anyone on Hong Lim to talk about alcohol, pork, beef, oysters, divorce, abortion, contraception, stem cell research, miniskirts or interest-bearing loans. These and an infinite number of other topics would raise the hackles of one religious group or another.

One is hard-pressed to decide which is worse: Those who spout infantile anti-gay hate speech, or the editors and government leaders who get all twisted trying to convince themselves that gay equality should be subject to a Christian veto.

© Yawning Bread