So some homosexuals want to be protected under the Sedition Act, well...

So some homosexuals want to be protected under the Sedition Act because they view themselves as a group with the selfsame rights to have their sensitivities molly coddled as are other groups.

One blogger, Solo Bear, has suggested that they do not qualify as a group that is on the same ‘league of religions’, and that unless they do, they cannot be afforded the protection of the Sedition Act.

My response, posted as a ‘comment’ on the relevant site :



Quite well argued Solo Bear. However, your argument is quite Confucian in approach.

The basis for your view is that homosexuals (i don't like the word 'gay' as i think it an unjust appropriation of the word, which means 'happy'. So what are heterosexuals then?) need to conform to the requirements of the Sedition Act to be afforded its molly coddling. In other words, we have to work our way around existing laws and conventions. That is quite typical of the Confucian approach toward life where people(mostly chinese and those whom are pro-capitalism) make the best out of a bad situation as opposed to getting rid of, or amending, the overarching bad situation.

Rules and Laws can and ought to be changed in the face of a changing milieu. So if homosexuals do not qualify for protection under the current criteria for groups worthy of protection, that would be due to the oversights of the past having knock-on effects on the formulation of the laws of today.

For instance, when protecting particular endangered species of animals, or animal rights, ought we to insist that they first get upstanding, speak in human tongue, be able to sit cross-legged whilst sipping an overpriced latte and expounding upon America's pro-Zionist stance before they are afforded the protection of the law?

I'm sure you get my point.


However, my point of contention with the homosexual movement for protection as a ‘sexual minority’ is that, whilst every group is going on about its sensitivities, very few are going on about the need to consider various views and not take issue with anyone who takes issue with theirs. I’m not into ‘sensitivity’ as I deem it quite childish and indicative of a cognitively retarded mindset that is averse to the novel or poses any threat to the basis upon which we base our self-esteem and identity, however weak and ill-formed - this of course does not refer to blatant insults or that which insults and diminishes another via exclusion.

Too much ado has been made of ‘sensitivity’. ‘Sensitivity’ is a double-edged sword that, whilst enabling a particular group to feel good about themselves, also protects ones penchant for the familiar, prejudices, biases, and so on. This can translate to the maintenance of an inegalitarian status quo that is, by law, entitled to our ‘sensitivity-cum-silence’. Hence, in the past, women might have been deemed ‘insensitive’ when they questioned the patriarchal society, or enslaved Africans, the right of ‘white’ dominance over their people, or a the culture of a household that abides by the dictum, ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’.

We have to ensure that whilst we clamour for ‘sensitivity’ toward our faith, ‘race’, culture, sexual preference, or the right to don jeans for the sake of exposing our boxers without critique, we do not marginalise the human potential to forward constructive criticism in the face of any phenomena. In that, I would recommend that the Sedition Act afford those forwarding constructive criticism its protection against the short-sighted use of the Sedition Act.


a2,

ed

0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo