Yawning Bread. 4 June 2008

Attorney-General says "human rights now a religion" with fanatics

    

  

 

Last Thursday, the new Attorney-General, Walter Woon, speaking at a gathering of lawyers,

warned against a no-holds-barred society. In some places, he said, religions were targets for insults and advocates for same-sex marriage were allowed to frame their cause under the banner of human rights.

But is this what we want?… Is this a question of human rights?’ he asked.

-- Straits Times, 31 May 2008, A-G cautions against human rights becoming a ‘religion’ with fanatics


I would guess that according to Walter Woon, these people are not fanatics, but gay activists are.
 

Woon has been very selective in choosing two particularly emotive issues to frame his rhetorical question about what should constitute human rights, but a dispassionate glance at his own examples will tell you he is wrong. These are questions of human rights.

When one class of people (heterosexuals) are accorded privileges by the state and another (homosexuals) not, then it is a question of equality, which presumptively is a question of human rights.

When religions go about denigrating the dignity of women and circumscribing their social freedoms, or go about demonising gay people and demanding that they be criminalised, then indeed the human rights of the target populations are being violated.

Apologists for the Singapore government would no doubt say, that's not what the government means. We can engage on the issues, but we must not insult a religion; there is a difference between the two. I will tell you that the government themselves cannot see the difference between the two. Take the video Fitna by Geert Wilders. It was denounced by our government for being "offensive" to Islam, but if you watched the film yourself, you'd see that it makes some serious points. If our government uses such a cowardly definition of "targets for insults", then there is in fact no scope for a serious discussion about the issues, once a religion is involved.

If there's no scope, it becomes very much a question of human rights -- specifically the right to freedom of expression -- despite the denials of the Attorney-General.

* * * * *

 

What else did Walter Woon say?

Amid a new push by the legal community to raise awareness about human rights, Singapore’s Attorney-General has warned against ‘fanatics’ who seize on the cause to further their own political agendas.

Human rights has become a ‘religion’ that breeds devotees who border on the fanatic, Professor Walter Woon said on Thursday.

It would be ‘hypocrisy’ for such people to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society, he said.

[snip]

We have to be careful when we are talking about public law and not to confuse it with politics,’ said Prof Woon.

-- ibid

Today newspaper reported similarly:

We have to be careful when we talk about public law, and not to confuse law with politics. There are many people who think if a decision is made and they don’t like it, then this is something the law can correct. There is a line between a political decision and a legal decision," he said.

[snip]

Prof Woon weighed in on the issue with several strong words. Noting that human rights is "now a religion among some people", he said: "You have, like in some religions, the fanatics. And it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism (for these people) to set the views, as the leading spokesmen, of what is acceptable and what’s not."

Prof Woon stressed, it is a "misconception that Singapore officialdom is against human rights". He said: "What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they define what’s human rights, that decision is the decision of the rest of humanity."

-- 'Today' newspaper, 30 May 2008, Politics, law and human rights ‘fanatics’: AG Walter Woon

Who defines human rights? Woon appears to be suggesting that it should be the government and the government alone, and that anyone else using the legal route to press his case would be usurping the prerogative of the executive branch. 

This is a dangerous course to take. Political decisions must be lawful to be legitimate; that is, it must comply with limits as set by law and thus there has to be a big role for the independent courts in defining and defending human rights. It must not be a matter for incumbent politicians alone, as this would open the door to abuse.

Moreover, our understanding of human rights must with evolve with time as a society's consciousness of various issues is raised. Evolution necessitates a constant engagement with civic forces, very often with those who are most knowledgeable and passionate about a particular issue. In other words, social progress is an outcome of engagement among the jurists, government, civic groups and individuals. It cannot be productive for the government to reserve everything to itself and dismiss all other interests.

* * * * *

 

  

A friend who was in the audience told me that her impression of Woon's speech was that it was more targetted at opposition politician Chee Soon Juan and his followers. 

This is how we should read this passage.

 

 

 

  

It's interesting that Woon should choose same-sex marriage as an issue to hammer on, because if you reviewed the mainstream press reports, you would not find any opinion columns addressing this issue even at the height of the debate about Section 377A. That same-sex marriage is an issue in his mind without being an issue in the public forums of Singapore tells you a lot about the acute discomfort that government is already expecting itself to be in.

It is evident that the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in favour of same-sex marriage will have global impact. California is an economic heavyweight -- if it were an independent country in its own right, it would rank as the fifth or sixth biggest economy in the world -- and a major trade partner for Singapore. We exchange lots of expatriates with the state.

What is Singapore going to do about the spouses of Californians whom we want to attract here? Bear in mind too that California does not have residency requirements, so Singaporean couples can fly over to Los Angeles or San Francisco and get legally married there. Then what do we do when they return and apply for state-subsidised flats and register their children in public schools?

New York state has already decided to recognise same-sex marriages legalised outside the state. With that, California and Massachusetts marriages will be treated as valid in New York. So that's another heavyweight US state moving to full acceptance, in addition to Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Catholic Spain, and South Africa, countries that offer full marriage or civil union.

The British government has just issued a set of instructions to its embassies and high commissions worldwide to support the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people in other countries. See this report in Pink News.

This question is clearly becoming an issue -- a human rights issue -- whether the Singapore government likes it or not. It was hopelessly myopic of them last year to not even move on decriminalisation, thinking that the world would also move slowly, when it is in fact speeding ahead. The result is that we are looking even more hidebound. Despite this, instead of making an attempt to catch up, we have the attorney-general calling everyone on the forefront of this issue a "fanatic".

What a clever way of engaging with the wider world.

That said, the California question is not 100% settled yet. A proposal to amend the state constitution is likely to make it to the ballot this November, to define marriage in the state as that between a man and a woman. A constitutional amendment would override the recent state supreme court decision, and in California, all it takes to pass a constitutional amendment is a 50%-plus-one vote in a poll.

However, even if it passes, California would still be left with a UK-like situation where same-sex couples would get full civil union, i.e. full equal rights except for a difference in name. In fact such a situation is now the case in another US state, New Jersey. So the problem faced by Singapore isn't going to go away.

In any case, opinion polls indicate that the proposed constitutional amendment may well fail. A lot of homophobic people will blithely proclaim that the "activist pinko judges" of the supreme court were imposing their immoral beliefs on a God-fearing population, and that if only the people got a chance to speak up, this abomination of a verdict would be swept away. That may well be too sanguine.


If one argued against these folks in Singapore, would one be a "fanatic" who targets and insults religion?
  

An opinion survey conducted by the Field Research Corporation between 17 and 26 May 2008 found that 51% of registered Californian voters approved of gay couples being able to marry, while 42% disapproved. The survey polled 1,052 participants.

The Field report said,

These findings compare with the results of six previous Field Polls taken over the past three decades in which those supporting same-sex marriage were in the minority. For example, thirty-one years ago in 1977, more than twice as many Californians disapproved as approved allowing of same-sex marriages (59% to 28%). Over the years opposition for having regular marriage laws apply to gay and lesbian couples has decreased steadily to where a minority of voters now holds this position.

The survey also asked a more specific question: "There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?"

To this question too, 51% said they would vote against the proposed constitutional amendment (thereby letting the recent supreme court decision stand). 43% said they would favour the amendment.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Another poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times gave opposite results. It found that among registered voters, the proposal to amend the state constitution was opposed by 35%, backed by 54%.

So indeed the final outcome appears quite uncertain.


 

The bottom line is that it's no use pretending that Singapore's official conservatism is the mainstream view and everyone else a kind of loony. In a large part of the world, and one with which we depend on for our survival and prosperity, there is a broad current of opinion moving inexorably forward. Silly rhetoric by our attorney-general is hardly the right way to cope with change.

© Yawning Bread 

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None