AWARE, steeplejackers and pink durians

by MS05L (pseudonym)

On a deep, dark night I sat awake and drank coffee. Perhaps it’s because I don’t normally take much caffeine and am too sensitive to it, or perhaps I’m still reeling from the thrill of the victory of AWARE’s old guard at the May 2 EGM…but suddenly I had this massive, earth-shattering revelation:

Homosexuals are just like durians.

They both have a natural, biological cause behind their existence. They come in several different varieties. They did not choose to be what they are. Both are loved by some and hated by others. Some people will pay ridiculous sums of money to enjoy them, while others flee before them in gut-wrenching disgust. You can’t ethically force either down a person’s throat, nor deprive those who love them. Preaching to them won’t make them go away or change them into something else. And both were, are, and always will be an inescapable reality in secular Singapore; even if both are banned under certain contexts. Thank goodness homosexuals are not banned on the MRT, but I digress…

Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario. If a bunch of religious fanatics considered durians unholy, aggressively infiltrated the Association of Fruit-sellers for Action and Research, and then made a push to ban them, would they succeed? Would thousands have rallied against them to protect the right of durians to exist legally and be known to exist? Is it even practically possible to completely prevent our children from learning about the existence of durians by blocking all mention of them in the syllabus; forcing them to rely on the (at best) secondhand and (at worst) distorted descriptions of durians from foreigners on the Net? What if due to not understanding the risks associated with durian consumption, they get hurt handling knives when trying to split open the spiky fruits themselves…since they can only do it secretly behind their parents’ backs? If the fanatics managed to prevent the sale of durians in Singapore, would durian lovers be forced to buy them illegally and then get food poisoning when a rotten batch gets smuggled in? And would they then be forced to suffer from vomiting and diarrhea in silence because of social stigma preventing them from seeking medical treatment?

Naturally Singaporeans (including durian-haters) would scoff at this ridiculous scenario, but it serves to remind us that the attempted takeover of AWARE, and indeed the broader push by religious fundamentalists to undermine secular liberties, is NOT ultimately about homosexuality. LGBT folk and their supporters are just being used as a scapegoat simply because homosexuality is something that people can disagree over. This is a fact that must be acknowledged and brought up to counter the assumption that those who supported Thio Su Mien, Josie Lau and co. did so purely as part of a well-meaning moral crusade against the sinful temptations of same-sex relationships. There are risks associated with any action, be it anal sex or durian consumption, but current research supports the fact that both can be enjoyed in relative safety as long as practitioners are educated. When religious fanatics wish to take over another organization, they will use any contentious issue as a smear campaign to justify their cause. Here are some examples:

1. The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was founded in California, 1978 to counter the influence of destructive cults through advocacy, education and a telephone helpline which referred callers to counseling services. It was taken over by Scientologists (widely considered to be a cult themselves) in 1996 who basically accused it of religious intolerance and of forcing people to leave cult-like religions (against their civil liberties); and then used numerous lawsuits to bankrupt CAN…before buying it for themselves. Source. 
      
2. Even moderate churches themselves are regularly victims of infiltration. The National Council of Churches (NCC) in the USA is threatened by the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), who join congregations of member churches to undermine them from within. The IRD went to the media to accuse the NCC that money collected from Sunday donations in churches was being channeled towards financing Marxist guerillas. Since then, mainline congregations of Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians etc have become host to IRD parasites, who channel their funds towards supporting conservative causes and to create a totalitarian theocracy based on Christian biblical law in America. They have also used accusations of pro-homosexuality against liberal churches (such as the United Church of Christ) in the NCC. Source.
      
3. In the 1910s to 1920s, the Russian Reformed Baptist Church was invaded and had its reputation irrevocably tarnished by the fledgling Assemblies of God, who used accusations of pro-Communism in the turbulent era after World War 1. This is widely considered one of the first recorded instances of steeplejacking. Source.
      
4. The Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI) has steeplejacked the Catholic Church in Latin American, the US military and Republican Party; also in the guise of combating communism. In Guatemala, former president Efraín Ríos Montt was a minister who supported the FGBMFI. He subsequently became responsible for the slaughter of 200,000 indigenous Mayans. Source 1; source 2; source 3.

With a record like this, it’s probably safe to say that Christian fundamentalists will seize on any possible excuse to invade an organization to ‘name and claim’ it for themselves. In the case of AWARE, if it wasn’t about homosexuality, it would have been anything else ranging from anal sex to abortion etc. They would have found an excuse no matter what. For that matter, we can also say that any organization is at risk as long as they tolerate, let alone promote anything that is disagreed with by at least some segment of Singapore’s population. Who knows…even our government could be at risk!

Thus it becomes imperative for LGBT people and their supporters to counter the fundamentalists’ organized smear campaign by correcting misconceptions that have been disseminated to discredit AWARE. One of the biggest accusations floating around now is that gay activists have to joined AWARE to use it to promote their own agenda…this can be dealt with by the following counter arguments :

1. Homosexuals are not interested in having AWARE promote homosexuality, only that it NOT be anti-gay, which would have been the outcome if Josie Lau took hold.
    
2. Homosexuality was only brought up as a wedge to create social tension where there wasn’t any previously. The mainstream public didn't react to the screening of a lesbian film, or 1.5 minutes of mention of homosexuality in schools when these first occured. They only reacted when it was distorted into a gigantic issue.
    
3. As proof that the gay community does *NOT* hijack legitimate organisations, they have actually asked to set up their own organisation 'People Like Us' in the past and were rejected. Male homosexuals that joined AWARE did not expect to have the voting ability to influence AWARE as the organisation only permits females to vote; nor are they pushing for the right to do so.
    
4. Unlike Josie's gang, the homosexual community uses other means of reaching out to the public without smearing the reputation of other groups. It has its own gatherings, and while it welcomes support from other groups like AWARE, it can manage without it.
    
5. Homosexuals have many intelligent and open-minded female friends among AWARE’s members. The early years of the women’s movement and the queer community’s current struggle for acceptance mean that they share many experiences in common. Some would join AWARE purely to support their friends.
    
6. I suspect that some homosexuals took up arms in the AWARE saga out of a desire for public revenge against Thio Su Mien and her bigoted supporters who have written unscientific and homophobic letters to the press over several years. This segment of the queer demographic supporting the Old Guard is likely to move on to any other organisation she shifts her attention to, if attacks on AWARE’s credibility cease.

Supporters of the Old Guard cannot afford to slip into complacency after the victory of May 2. Judging from the votes received, 35% of the current membership of AWARE consists of Josie Lau’s supporters who may still seek to damage the organization from within; while other organizations must remain alert against takeovers and plug loopholes in their constitutions that allow such invasions to occur. What might happen next? Already the fundamentalists have managed to convince the Ministry of Education to suspend the CSE program. Will they start targeting other AWARE services? Will they find some obscure grievance with which to sue and bankrupt AWARE? The uneasy balance between inclusiveness towards new members and protection of an organisation’s goals can only come about through eternal vigilance -– such is the price of freedom to have our own durian kueh and eat it too.  

 
(I would like to thank dogemperor who has published an article on the international connections behind the AWARE takeover here: http://wayangparty.com/?p=9047 and Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer who I have quoted in my earlier essay in Yawning Bread, for providing the encouragement and much of the information behind this one.) 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None