#black_skin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thinktosee · 6 years

Text

OPEN LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP, sINGAPORE

Image courtesy Depositphotos

To : His Grace, Rev. William Goh D.D. Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of singapore

Dear Sir,

This open letter is a response to your pastoral letter dated Sep 18, 2018 titled :

“S377A – TO REPEAL OR NOT TO REPEAL : A CONSCIENTIOUS DECISION” (1)

A. OPENING REMARKS

Any law which wilfully discriminates, isolates, targets, inflicts pain or injury upon, suppresses, denies, or eliminates the natural and or individual rights of anyone or group is inherently and morally reprehensible. Such law has no place in our home, school, religious institution and society. It is a law of abuse and FEAR. An abuse and fear of a defenceless individual or minority group. An abuse and fear of a community of citizens!

The colonial-era Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes homosexuality, is one such law. It is a law by and for bullies.

B. INTRODUCTION

Reforming an ancient order or club is akin to swimming against a tide. The water has been flowing in the same direction for a long period of time. It can’t change course by its very nature, unless a tectonic shift occurs unexpectedly, like an earthquake.

The Roman Catholic Church was an enabler of colonial occupation everywhere, its cruel practices and discriminatory laws. The church arrived in the colonies as an active partner of the occupation army. As such, the laws which were introduced in the colonies were in support of imperialism – cultural, economic, political and religious. Many ancient, developed and tribal civilizations were brutally pacified, and some wiped off the face of the earth in pursuance of an imperialistic agenda of God, Glory and Gold. Many former colonies today continue to grapple with the painful memories and effects of colonial rule. The recent decision by Stanford University in the U.S. to remove references to Saint Juniperro Serra on its campus, is one example (2).

Any discussion of Section of 377A of the Penal Code should therefore take into account this imperialist model, which had at its core, an overall strategy to replace a culture, its institutions and traditions, with that of the colonial power’s – it is an imperialistic and feudal belief in might as a divine right. In essence, a total negation of individual rights is a necessary precondition toward this end.

The injustices perpetuated by the colonial administration, along with its laws, remain an issue in the former colonies. For it is these laws, meant to suppress the individual spirit in each of us, which helped sustain a colonial people and culture at the expense of the colonised population. Section 377A is one such law (3). So long as this and other colonial laws, denying the aspirations and rights of the individual, remain in place, we cannot and should never call ourselves an independent people, since these laws did not come from us, but were instead used to suppress us by an invading army of colonials, bullies and their enablers.

C. THE ROOTS OF MODERN LEGAL SYSTEM

The history of the modern body of laws and jurisprudence may be traced to mosaic, greek, roman and then later canonical/ecclesiastical edicts, to European or Western common, sovereign and secular (civil) laws (4,5,6).

These laws evolved from the unique/germane needs, demands, requirements, norms and interactions of the sovereign, religious, and civic institutions of European societies, especially during the period from the 11th century to the present. They were laws which were generally inherent to European feudal, religious and monarchical traditions and practices.

During the age of Western colonialism, which for our purpose here, may be deemed to be from the 14th to the 20th centuries, colonial administration was founded on these traditions and laws of the home country. Local customs, traditions and edicts were generally tolerated in so far as they did not impinge on the power, traditions and laws of the Empire. These local practices were however not applicable to the colonial representatives. That is to say that while the colonized people continued to adhere to their tribal, customary or royal edicts, they must also comply to the laws (and where required, the traditions) of the colonial power. That is, they were coerced to go against their better interests. The colonials were now the arbiters of the “common good.”

Over time, the legal code and customs of the colonial administrators replaced the local customs and edicts. Colonialism then was complete in the sense that any vestige of a cultural tradition of the colonized people had been eliminated and supplanted by the colonial power’s. They have become what the psychiatrist and writer, Franz Fanon appropriately titled, “Black Skin, White Masks.” That is to say, they took on the culture and traditions of the colonials (white masks). They have become devoid of a cultural and historical past (7). In modern psychiatry, this would be known as brainwashing.

For an abstract of Fanon’s seminal work, you may refer to Wikipedia via this link :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Skin,_White_Masks

D1. YOUR PASTORAL LETTER

Having now established, through the foregoing, the basis for a meaningful and wide-ranging discussion of S377A of the penal code, including the fact it is a colonial edifice benefitting imperial and undemocratic rule, I shall now go into the specifics of your pastoral letter to show its premises have little in way of undergirding the rights of the individual. More likely, your letter betrays a colonial mindset of authoritarian prerogative, which to put it plainly, is a belief that might is a divine right, of a tyrannical majority overriding the minority. Of fear over love, tolerance, dignity and the universal rights of every individual.

At the risk of going off-topic here, it should be noted neither the Vatican state nor the singaporean government has ratified the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 (8). This by and of itself, is most troubling. The UDHR is a starting point for any discussion about the most basic of human rights. It was instrumental toward the universal struggle for freedom and independence, across the world, in the 20th century.

D2. THE MAIN THRUSTS OF YOUR LETTER

Let us re-look the points which you raised in your letter then :

1. “The Church regards everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, with equal respect” – 3rd paragraph

2. “The Church therefore does not discriminate against the homosexual person.” – 3rd paragraph

3. “Sexuality takes into account the entire makeup of the individual as a male or female.” - 5th paragraph

4. “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. Any action that diverts sexuality away from this end to which it is ordered, is thus, disordered.” – 6th paragraph

5. “The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.” - 7th paragraph

6. “True married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it are ordered for the greater good of humanity.” – 8th paragraph

7. “To help us further form our judgement on this matter, this issue (of 377A) should be seen from the perspective of moral and civil law.” – 10th paragraph (page 2)

8. “The Church clearly teaches that a homosexual person or persons with SSA must be accepted with respect, compassion ad sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination on this regard should be avoided.” – 12th paragraph

9. “Laws should not be enacted simply on the basis of current or popular opinion but must be rooted in Truth and the common good.” – 14th paragraph

10. “Does this law deprive homosexuals of their personal rights, or will the repeal of the law discriminate against the majority which holds the opposite view?” – 17th paragraph, 3rd bullet point

11. “Is the preservation of this law necessary to prevent a further weakening of the institution of marriage and the stability of our families, which is the bedrock of our society?” – 17th paragraph, 4th bullet point

12. “Will repealing the law help to promote the flourishing of individuals, family and society according to God’s Plan? Or will it embolden activists to push further for the normalization of same-sex relationships, such legislation to permit same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples?” – 18th paragraph, 1st bullet point

13. “Will repealing this law lead to the subjugation of the rights of Catholics to exercise their faith values, and forces them to accept homosexual values in their homes, schools, faith communities, work places and places of worship?” 18th paragraph, 2nd bullet point

14. “Will the removal of this law subject the Church and her faithful to legal and political challenges for speaking out against same-sex unions or for refusing to offer services to same-sex couples which go against our faith beliefs?” – 18th paragraph, 3rd bullet point

15. “Will the Church be forced to accept the promotion of homosexual values and lifestyles in our schools, let transgender persons use bathrooms for those of the opposite sex….?” – 18th paragraph, 3rd bulet point

16. “I feel with when they are ostracised or marginalized by society. They too deserve to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.” - 22nd paragraph

17. “On the other hand, I share the anxieties and fears of those who subscribe to the traditional and scriptural views of marriage and family, that repealing S377A would lead the country down a slippery slope. This is because repealing the law will not be the end of the saga. Rather, it would only embolden the push to legalise same-sex unions, adoption of babies by same-sex couples, surrogacy, and even the criminalization of those who hold contrary views of marriage and who oppose same-sex marriage.” – 23rd paragraph

18. “Clearly, the spirit of both the moral and civil laws is to emphasise that same-sex unions are not a social norm as they do not help foster fruitful and life-giving marriages or cohesive families which are the bedrock of a strong and stable society. This is also intended as a safeguard to prevent champions of “gay rights” from taking their cause beyond the mere repeal of S377A.” – 26th paragraph

19. “Indeed, I would not object to a repeal of S377A if it were merely aimed at removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals. However, until and unless Parliament puts in place a formulation that more perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the law, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the majority who favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, adoption of babies by same-sex couples, surrogacy, or to criminalise those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, I am of the view that S377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances. This is because, by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible.” – 27th paragraph

20. “Looking at the dire consequences for countries which normalised same-sex unions and the ramifications that followed, may we not repeat the mistake that others have made……..” – 28th paragraph

D3. An attempt at DISTILLATION OF YOUR LETTER

This distillation should help to lay bare your logic :

1. You are against homosexuality the act, but not the person. You respect everyone regardless of sexual orientation. (1 and 2 of D2)

2. Homosexuality goes against your beliefs. Man and woman maketh a sexual union, and are central to family life. Homosexuals, Transgenders and others, do not. (3,4,5,6 of D2)

3. You are guided by moral and civil laws, which you said must be based on truth and the good of all. (7,9 of D2)

4. Unjust discrimination against homosexuals must be avoided. (8 of D2)

5. Homosexual values should not be allowed in the home, schools, work places, etc. That is, LGBTQI rights, beliefs and hence their dignity must not be normalized or legalised, since these perceivably present a threat to your beliefs, traditions and community. (10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 of D2)

6. If S377A is repealed, you fear the LGBTQI community may demand equal rights thereafter. (10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 of D2)

7. With Equal Rights, you fear the Catholic community may be discriminated, ostracized or legally isolated. (10,11,14,15,16,17.18 of D2)

8. S377A, by your definition serves the common good. Having regard to this, you support S377A. (19,20 of D2)

9. Your decision is also supported by the perceived “dire consequences” of countries which have accorded equal rights to the LGBTQI community, which you also termed a “mistake.” (20 of D2)

D4. MY COMMENTS

Human rights begin with the individual. Not the group. Not the majority. Respect for the equal rights and dignity of every individual, irrespective of race, gender, beliefs, faith, sexual orientation, and the like, is the first and foremost value to uphold within the human realm. Tolerance is that which builds and promotes harmonious social interaction. A system or group which judges and calls this into question, which aims to ostracize, marginalize and discriminate against another person or group, has not the values to which it claims to uphold (go ahead, cast your stone). And so it is with the church, and its partner, the singaporean government, in this matter of the colonial-era, discriminatory and unjust law, titled S377A. This law and others of its like, undermine the stability and cohesiveness of the people. It undermines the sanctity of the individual.

A common good may be defined as that which is in the general best interests of the people, having regard to justice, fairness and equal protection (under the law). Where justice, fairness and equal protection are not accorded or are restricted to a group, or where one group wilfully denies another its equal rights, then it cannot be considered a common good. It becomes what is commonly known as the “tyranny of the majority.” Or in totalitarian and authoritarian societies, “tyranny of the minority.”

There have been many historical instances where discrimination against an “out” group, led to violent rebellion and social instability. Hence, legal bodies are tasked to adjudicate over a law which may have wide public support, but nevertheless goes against the common good. I urge you to carefully review your position on this aspect as you appear to say that so long as the majority is of one opinion, it carries the day, even at the expense of justice, fairness and equal protection. Even at the expense of a sanctioned minority! You may also like to refer again to the recent decision of the Indian Court in support of the repeal of S377, for guidance in this aspect. I found their learned words very enlightening.

S377A denies equal rights and protection to a minority community. It is immaterial whether the law is enforced or not. It is an unjust law, specifically targeting a group or minority, and which serves to disunite the population in the process. With targeting, comes official discrimination, ostracization, isolation, manipulation and violence against the group. We need only look at the instances of violence inflicted on the LGBTQI community in the world to appreciate the gravity of our unjust actions and laws, and how these do not serve the common good. S377A also brings to mind the Nuremburg Laws enacted by Nazi Germany in 1935 (9). These laws, “The Law for the Protection of German Blood, and German Honour”, targeted a specific minority – the Jews. We all know what happened a few years later as a result of that – millions of Jewish people were first removed from Germany and occupied territories, and placed into concentration camps to be brutally exterminated. We should be mindful that the population of Nazi Germany was 99 percent Christian. Or perhaps we like to examine the plight of the Waldensians, many of whom were persecuted and massacred by followers of the church, who had first targeted the group as heretics (10).

The concerns which you expressed on the subject of repealing S377A show a scant regard for the inalienable rights of a minority. We should be especially mindful that when the church was first founded centuries ago, its members were targeted, abused, incarcerated and in some instances, killed. The church was a minority or “out” group then. It seems to have missed the importance of this part of its history and its relevance today, especially to the plight of the LGBTQI community.

When you say that you do not discriminate against the homosexual person, and yet deny that person the dignity and equal protection due, one is left the distinct impression that truth is also a victim in this matter. To sanction discrimination against an individual or group is an odious undertaking. To then explain that this is a necessary sacrifice by the individual or group for the “common good”, is even more alarming. To then conclude that the prolonged sacrifice and suffering of the individual or group are preferred, so as to further insulate your catholic community from the perceived harmful effects which may arise from the emancipation of LGBTQI should S377A be repealed, is one of the most disdainful admissions by any person. It too betrays a lack of love, compassion and respect for the dignity of the LGBTQI community in particular, and to humanity in general.

Your letter is a statement against change - a fear of positive change. A fear of a minority which you feel does not share in your faith. You perceive them as a threat to your way of life. Diversity, the bedrock of human civilization, is discouraged. Your letter is a story of might as a divine right. An act of persecution in the name of religion.

But change will come. Just as it did when the church finally changed course last month on the death penalty. (11) And even more changes will follow, considering the moral, legal and leadership challenges the church faces today, with public revelations and charges of sexual and violent abuse of minors by church officials spanning decades, and across the world. The rights and dignity too of these unfortunate minors were disregarded by a church which claimed to uphold moral law.

E. CONCLUSION

S377A is an unjust law enacted and promoted by an imperial power. That was clearly understood. That imperial power no longer exists. It is about time this divisive law is nullified too. No decent, self-respecting and independent community can continue to exist without justice, equality, freedom and the dignity of the individual. Section 377A does not serve justice, it wilfully discriminates against a minority, denying them equal protection, constricts their freedom and upends their dignity. And you claim this is moral?

I urge the church and the singaporean government to support the repeal of S377A, and to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Society accepts that it has no business to intrude into the privacy of two consenting adults, a man and a woman, in the bedroom. I am sure society feels the same about two consenting adult males or females, in the room. It is those who claim to speak on behalf of society, who have yet to accept this.

This letter may appear hard-hitting. It is meant to be. Where the rights of the individual are concerned, my late son, David taught me never to compromise, as that individual ultimately is you or me or our children. It starts with that. S377A is not just a singaporean issue. It is a continuation of the universal struggle for freedom and emancipation. As I had previously said to the prime minister – we cannot draw boundaries where human rights and dignity are concerned. Human rights have no geographical boundaries. (12)

In closing, a few words by the Indian Court in their recent judgement against S377 may be helpful :

“Social morality cannot violate the rights of even one individual.” (13)

These are wise words indeed. And that’s the TRUTH!

In the Spirit of David Cornelius Singh

David’s father

Email : [email protected]

Sources/References

1. https://www.catholic.sg/pastoral-letter-archbishop-s377a/

2. http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-stanford-junipero-serra-20180916-story.html#

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

4. http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000805-11.htm - The Evolution of Law, Edward Younkins

5. The New Cambridge Medieval History – Edited by David Lushcomb, Jonathan Riley Smith, et al.

6. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

7. Black Skin, White Masks, Franz Fanon, 1952. Grove Press (English).

8. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

11. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-deathpenalty/catholic-church-changes-teaching-to-oppose-death-penalty-in-all-cases-idUSKBN1KN1EQ

12. http://thinktosee.tumblr.com/post/166390138328/open-letter-to-prime-minister-of-singapore-death

13. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/gay-sex-is-not-a-crime-says-supreme-court-in-historic-judgement/articleshow/65695172.cms

0 notes