Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Saturday, May 16, 2015 - 22:11 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

A Hymn To Careless Men

That's another hard drive gone kaput again - but then, I guess my usage pattern's probably not the same as the typical user's. Time to try out one of those 6TB offerings, then.

...which, however, wouldn't even begin to store the facepalms that our latest advocate of free speech deserves, for his quite asinine false allegation that his bailor had touched him inappropriately, only to later reveal that he was just trolling the media. Now, while the local press probably deserves a bit of that, the guy should realise that these sort of antics are exactly what free speech objectors will pounce on.

As it turns out, the guy's beef with his bailor appears to be attempted proselytism. On this, it just so happened that a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses dropped by today (nice fellows), and I suppose the main contention was not dissimilar - deity-based stands simply don't make much sense. More pertinently: while the guy's behaviour may be distasteful, why are the authorities trying to place his mental health under doubt, when individuals claiming to be operating under the express instruction of a self-admittedly vengeful invisible magic skyfather, do not need to have their sanity examined?

Sure, the point's not to hurt others' feelings unnecessarily, so I smiled, nodded, ate the pitch, thanked them for the pamphlet (to be added to the collection), and carried on. Hey, they're actually putting in the effort to walk the ground, that's worth some credit in my eyes.

But back to the case.


Thus Was It Written


All these words are true and I'll make you believe...


The verdict was never in doubt - guilty, on both the charge of "transmitting an image electronically showing obscene figures", and the charge of "attacking a religion with the deliberate intention of wounding their followers' feelings". However, the court appears to be leaning towards probation and counselling, while also removing the gag conditions previously attached to his bail, and sentencing the man who attacked him to three weeks in jail.

This could be seen as magnanimous... or alternatively, as an admission that the prosecution were on shaky ground to begin with. Some have noted it strange that the charge of making offensive remarks about a recently deceased public figure was withdrawn, when it seemed to be the main impetus behind hauling Amos up. And as for the two charges that he was actually found guilty on - they are in fact quite questionable, as shall be explained more fully.

First, his anti-religious tirade - he had done much the same in previous videos with nary a splash, so why charge him only now? Of course, none of his presented arguments are even that original (he admits to have been influenced by George Carlin, among others), and let's be honest, one can freely find tons of far more venomous (and, well, not untrue) accusations about the topic on YouTube. It is thus exceedingly unlikely that his not-even-very-polished rants could actually have wounded local believers more than they would have been.

Secondly, on obscenity - it is honestly unclear whether a line drawing is sufficient to "deprave and corrupt". Furthermore, there is in fact a convincing argument that the image in question would probably have exactly the opposite effect that the honourable judge appears to imagine that it would have, but it would be bad form to bring personal fetishes into this. On this point, the Reform Party leader has offered a pretty detailed denunciation of the decision. And again, let's be frank, that image would really not be high on the to-see list of innocent vulnerable youngsters seeking to "get excited".



Further illustrating the flimsiness of the verdict, I picture here a crop of Picasso's Les Femmes d'Alger, which has recently made news as the most expensive piece of artwork ever auctioned. This, I hope, should be sufficient to establish its bona fides as art, despite (or, more likely, in part due to) the exposure of certain entirely natural external bodily organs. Here, the functionality to easily pull up any face - including, but certainly not limited to, religious and political leaders - and superimpose it on the primary subject, has been added.

At what point does the obscenity appear, if it does?

What is true is that Amos can be described as disrespectful, bo tua bo suey, and from his current behaviour, perhaps not someone to get too closely involved with. But, and this is the important thing - none of this is a crime.

Not that this has stopped our ministers from harping on "comply(ing) with rules" (that we define), which did at least give them a taste of being on the wrong side of selective omissions - and they weren't even that material at all. Nor the trusty The State's Times, which by coincidence or otherwise, has saturated its forum with letters lambasting free speech.

Taking a line from each one - "People who speak ill of other religions will cause hatred and unrest within society"? Well, given that a fundamental tenet of at least some major religions is that they are the one true faith, this would in itself appear an unavoidable slur towards other religions. So, the main sin here appears to be stating it unambigiously.

"Freedom of speech, as inspired by the West, has not brought much benefit to its people." Ok lor. And why is this? Because if we allow it, some people might get offended and kill us. But, one might then argue, these very same people also tend to be violently against practices such as education, voting, music, sport... they shot a girl for trying to go to school, for example. Then what? Oh... I don't have anything against education in principle... but you know, some people might get offended and kill us, so suck it up lor. I do understand that the issue may be a wee bit more complex... but let's just say it's not convincing.


You say something we don't like. So you die.
What? ST Forum submitter also say - is *your* fault for opening your big mouth. You shut up, no problem, everybody happy happy!
(Source: dailymail.co.uk)


The third letter interestingly appears not so much as to be against free speech itself, as against perceived inconsistency in its application - or to be more specific, why is one particular religion placed under legal protection, while another is not? After a bit of research, my understanding is that this is not quite correct - taking Charlie Hedbo, which the letter-writer alluded to twice, they have been a fairly equal-opportunity lampooner; while they did apparently fire a cartoonist for a jab at said "protected" religion, that single case appears to be due more to the politics of the day than anything.

And, as a forum reply sagely reminds: "There is a huge difference between thinking 'I will decide what you can and can't say. And if you disagree, I will kill you' and 'You and I are both free to say what we think. You are free to buy my magazine or not. You are free to disagree and satirise me in return. But watch out if you do - I may draw another cartoon'."

As well it should be.


Wider And Deeper

Mr. Ham: Well said, human. Beating others up just cause they got a bit lippy? Why, that's so uncultured!

Me: Glad you agree.

Mr. Ham: No, see, it should be left to the professionals. I mean, have you seen that slap? Terrible, terrible form, leg off the ground, no core action at all, nor even any flair behind it - I would be dreadfully ashamed.

Me: I do not think that this is the take-home message.

Mr. Ham: Just messin' with ya. Actually, I was far more interested in the development of the two-man Istana protest case, because unlike this Amos affair, there is literally next to nothing that the powers that be can throw up to avoid looking bad - which may be why it's all hush-hush on that end.

Also, I've a funny feeling that the video might well not have been picked up at all had the guy placed, say, Obama's face on the adjudged-obscene photo, and switched all references about our former Minister Mentor and Singapore, to Obama and the United States instead - which could be a clue as to how the limits of free speech are enforced here.

Me: You may have some very good points there, Mr. Ham. Hmm, I don't even know why I scan The State's Times forum section, when a large majority of the accepted pieces are thinly-veiled brown-nosing love notes to the incumbents. Remember the UK election? So it seems that we can learn that opinion polls are bad - when it has been our dear The State's Times which has been misusing them, if anything.

And, it appears that the Tory victory should be taken as a sign that we should have less social spending, and that income inequality is no big deal... without taking into account the many other factors, the fact that the Conservatives actually won barely a third of the total vote at 36.9%, and that the real lesson, if any, from this is how the first-past-the-post system denies proper representation. But yeah, this is the mainstream media, so what can you expect?

Mr. Ham: Well, there was this suggestion about Singapore starting overseas satellite cities. Certainly fresh, I'd say.

Me: There's only the small matter of sovereignty, which however tended not to be that much of a sticking-point in the not-too-distant past, when nations were defined as much by people as by land. Sadly, it's become rather more sensitive nowadays, but you never know. Always wondered about the practicality of creating wholly-new settlements - shades of the Briggs Plan - in unstable regions as a precursor to reestablishing sufficient rule of law, myself.

I'd suspect the main discovery, if this were ever tried, would however be that the much-ballyhooed "Singapore success model" is not quite as universally applicable as might be thought. Still, with hobbit living being lined up to support perpetual population growth, I wouldn't be too against it.

Mr. Ham: *puffs on cigar* Yeah, not having transport hub potential aside - because which country with half a brain would give territory suitable for those purposes up - it'd also split the high-roller and money-lau... financial services market.

Me: *flipping more pages* ...and they're realising that automated cars play best with other automated cars, as anticipated. Which reminds me, will Mr. Robo be safe?

Mr. Ham: Why wouldn't he be?

Me: Well, about his new... job, don't you think that it is... really, really, not up his alley, so to speak?

Mr. Ham: What, the escort service? I don't understa... ah, I get it. You actually thought that I pointed him towards that type of escorting, did you? Now there's a laugh!

Me: I'm relieved.

Mr. Ham: *wipes tear from cheek* Oh, the very thought... no, human, Mr. Mallard runs one of the top security agencies in the land, one much patronized by visiting dignitaries. Why, Mr. Mallard himself is a veteran bodyguard, a decorated former Legionnaire, completely unlike his more... dandy brother who dabbles in, let us say, hanky-panky. *winks* Hah, there's absolutely no way... wait. *pulls out Rolodex* Ah. Ah.

Me: *facepalming* Get a pet, they said. They are great companions and reduce stress, they said.

Mr. Ham: *brightly* If it's any consolation, the other Mr. Mallard entertains a lot of visiting dignitaries, too.

Me: Mr. Ham...

Mr. Ham: *grumbles* Fine, ok, I'm on it. Just as well that I sicced that drone on him, before they got regulated away...





comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Midweek Madness


Related Posts:
A Tangled Web
You Bet Your Life
Excuse Me, Are You A Model?
Some Work And Some Play
Midweek Madness
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.