Gay Patriot Header Image

On gay issues, academic freedom takes backseat to political correctness

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:00 am - July 29, 2009.
Filed under: Academia,Free Speech,Freedom,Gay PC Silliness

Perhaps because I had planned a short post on equality–and how gay leaders, in making that notion the watchword of our their movement have lost sight of the American ideal of freedom, that a post that Glenn linked caught my attention as I was preparing for bed.

It’s a story we’ve heard before; it’s just the facts are different.  Students at NYU Law School protested the appointment of Dr. Thio Li-Ann, a law professor from Singapore because of her support for a law in her homeland criminalizing homosexuality.   748 students signed a petition including this paragraph:

By bringing Dr. Thio to NYU, the Law School is acting in opposition to its own policy of nondiscrimination and undermining its commitment to advancing human rights world-wide. This is a step backwards in the Law School’s longstanding support of the LGBT community.

In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were discriminating against her point of view. Disagree with her I most certainly do, but shouldn’t people be able to challenge her positions through argument?  I mean, isn’t law school supposed to teach students how to think and argue?  You know that old Socratic method and all.

So, once again, the advocates of “diversity” and “tolerance” have shown themselves remarkably intolerant of different points of view.  Academic freedom takes a back seat to political correctness.  As Wendy Kaminer puts it:

. . . gay students (and members of other historically disadvantaged groups) are said to suffer actual discrimination when the administration hires faculty members who argue against anti-discrimination laws.  This confusion of speech and action — of advocating for discrimination and actually engaging in it — is common in academia, where academic freedom is too often limited to the freedom to advance prevailing ideals of equality.

According to Kaminer in response to Dr. Thio’s withdrawing of her appointment,

NYU law school dean Richard Revesz smartly finessed questions about her appointment by noting that while her views should not have disqualified her, despite their variance from the university’s ideals, the quality of her arguments in support of her views were relevant to her evaluation.

(Emphasis added.)  What is it about so many on the left that they’d rather shun or discredit their ideological adversaries than engage them?  If they were so confident of their views, they would welcome such an adversary as it would give them an opportunity to show the strength of their arguments by contrasting them to the weakness of hers.

Share

42 Comments

  1. Dan, I’m all for academic freedom. Further, I do my best to not influence students with any of my personal opinions, and let them find the answers themselves. Granted, it’s easier to do in math classes. But we can’t shut down the First Amendment in order to attempt to have acedemic freedom thrive. Opposition is usually more vocal than support on these occasions. Who knows, there may have been many while, like you, oppose Dr. Thio’s views, but would have liked to have her on the faculty to engage her views. In any case, Dr. Thio decided to withdraw her appointment.

    Like it or not, there are limits to academic freedom. If Dr. Thio believed, for example, that different racial groups should have different class statuses, she would have never been appointed in the first place. Perhaps we are getting to the point that persons believing that homosexuals who act on it with consenting adults are criminals should be treated the same way. Similarly, there was some point between the 60s and 80s where openly racist academics were no longer being appointed faculty members at academic institutions.

    Comment by Pat — July 29, 2009 @ 7:15 am - July 29, 2009

  2. I’m perfectly willing to consider any point of view; with some ideas, that may be the extent to which I “engage” their advocates, as some points of view aren’t really worth further consideration. In an academic setting, there is a difference between presenting a point of view in lecture that radically diverges from the stated mission of the institution and hiring a professor who demonstrably espouses it. It would be perfectly acceptable, for example, to invite Dr. Thio as a guest speaker, allowing students to engage her in a question-and-answer period challenging her intellect and her positions. However, hiring her is another matter entirely, as a paid professor becomes part of a community and a representative of it — especially in a case where a divergent opinion has direct impact upon the students studying in her specialty. In theory, one could pat oneself on the back for the diverse openness required to hire an Aryan Nations advocate, but that would require ignoring the nature of their ideas and one would be just as guilty as those who have taken the same attitude toward the current crop of tenured communists who were once heralded as diverse voices, oh so long ago. Open-mindedness isn’t a value in itself.

    Comment by Ignatius — July 29, 2009 @ 9:17 am - July 29, 2009

  3. Dan, I doubt the left is so confident in it’s views. That is why is has to strong arm each and every one of them.
    I think one of their big problems is thinking in absolutes. If abortion is a right, than every single aspect of it must be viewed the same. They can’t see the difference between a morning after pill and aborting a healthy child in the 9th month.

    Life is very messy, it is easier rather than think through the topics to simply ram it all down other peoples throats.

    Comment by Leah — July 29, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - July 29, 2009

  4. I think one of their big problems is thinking in absolutes.

    Leah, I’ve had that same problem with some conservatives.

    If abortion is a right, than every single aspect of it must be viewed the same.

    I imagine that’s true for some on the left, but not all. I’ve met people with wide range differences of opinion on the abortion issue. From being pro-life, to being personally opposed but supporting others’ decision to have an abortion, support abortion only in the first three months., support abortion until the time of viability, etc.

    They can’t see the difference between a morning after pill and aborting a healthy child in the 9th month.

    Probability not a good example, as many conservatives views these the same way as well.

    Comment by Pat — July 29, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - July 29, 2009

  5. Wow. History has been made here at GP. I find my view on this in sync with both Pat & Ignatius while disagreeing with Dan. If Thio were espousing an unpopular political view like David Horowitz and taking flack for it, I would agree with you Dan but since she goes into advocacy of criminal sanctions against gays that take this to a whole other level. If I were at NYU I would have joined the efforts to keep her out just as I would professors from Uganda involved with the nightmare their government is causing.

    Comment by John — July 29, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - July 29, 2009

  6. This line sounds like some sort of neo-leftist doublespeak:

    “In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were discriminating against her point of view.”

    Dr. Thio is the one decidedly against freedom. Standing up to fight that point of view is the right thing to do.

    Comment by DRH — July 29, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - July 29, 2009

  7. As I have previously met Dan, and he knows I now attend NYU Law, I am a bit disappointed he did not research this story a bit more thoroughly before commenting. For one, he knows I am far from being on “the left,” and I happen to be the NYU Law Student who started the movement to oppose Thio Li-ann teach human rights.

    This is a far more complex issue than it seems at first glance, and none of the bloggers writing about the issue have done sufficient research into the matter.

    The following is my comment to Andrew Sullivan after he linked approvingly to Kaminer’s story. Dan: you should know how to contact me on AIM if you wish.

    As the individual who spearheaded the opposition to Dr. Thio Li-ann, I am a bit concerned by your comments. Personally I view myself as a libertarian, and other NYU gay students have deemed me a closeted republic on numerous occasions! So the fact you deemed me as the “authoritarian part of the left” is a bit amusing :)

    Nevertheless, I would like to confront your statement that “It seems to me that gay rights supporters should always, always, always defend the freedom of speech and association of our opponents.”

    First, the main goal of the petition was to convince NYU that Thio Li-ann was unfit to teach a course in human rights due to the fact that she violated the human rights of those in her country. We had an optional checkbox that asked the school to rescind her invitation–granted, the vast majority of people checked this. As a student at a private University that costs 40k+ a year, do I not have a right to express my own speech to oppose the school’s decision to spend my tuition dollars on someone who wants to send me to jail? While libertarians outside of NYU may be quick to criticize my decision, would you not also be upset if you were subsidizing hate speech?

    Second, Thio was already notorious in Singapore, and if she had come to NYU and been demolished in a public forum, nothing would have changed in her country. Gays would still have no freedom of association let alone rights, and the chance to empower gay Singaporeans would have been lost. Instead, Thio is forced into the international media, and as a gay Singaporean blogger put it “Like the Confederate general who stands up to defend slavery as God’s way, to the southern Senator who stoutly condemns de-segregation, Li-Ann is finally beginning to realize that her long, eloquent, passionate speech in parliament, now available everywhere, around the world, is coming to become her lasting legacy.” Where you and others see this as a lost opportunity at NYU, I see it as an opportunity gained by the oppressed gay population in Singapore. To them, the debate over their rights was dead for the last two years. Now they have a new source of passion.

    I understand your point of view, and perhaps if she was not a visiting professor from a country in which she had oppressed the gay population as a member of Parliament, the reaction would have been different. Maybe we can now afford to debate the bigots of America because we can’t be sent to jail for our mere existence. Those in Singapore are not so lucky.

    Ryan Golden
    NYU Law Class of 2011
    Creator- NYU Students and Alumni Opposed to Thio Li-ann teaching Human Rights

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - July 29, 2009

  8. “If Dr. Thio believed, for example, that different racial groups should have different class statuses, she would have never been appointed in the first place. ”

    Depends on the race, doesn’t it?
    White, no. Asian, no. Hispanic or “african”- American… and it’s damn near a qualification.

    Comment by DaveP. — July 29, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - July 29, 2009

  9. Count me with the people who draw the line at the good professor’s advocacy of criminal sanctions against gays.

    She can advocate them all she wants, mind you. That’s free speech. But NYU Law School, as an institution, has an equally valid and important right to reject professors who hold certain views they find ‘beyond the pale’. That’s freedom of association. I’m glad to see that NYU Law finds advocacy of criminal sanctions against gays to be beyond the pale, just as I would consider advocacy of criminal sanctions against (say) practitioners of Christian ritual to be beyond the pale.

    NYU should provide a clear, consistent, moral rationale for their decision. I fault them for their flailing on that aspect.

    I *don’t* think it is valid to compare the good professor’s situation to left-liberal persecution of free-market and/or conservative professors, because, free-market and/or conservative professors generally aren’t advocating criminal sanctions against otherwise good and law-abiding citizens. Quite the opposite. (Free-market and conservative professors often want to *lift* sanctions on human activities, giving people more freedom.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - July 29, 2009

  10. Ryan,

    Thank you for your comment on here. I honestly find myself torn on letting her speak. There’s the let the idiot speak and remove all doubt. Then there’s the why give him my bullhorn?

    I have to think on this. I think letting her speak wouldn’t be bad. Letting her teach? Well I don’t think she’s qualified to teach that.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 29, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - July 29, 2009

  11. “NYU should provide a clear, consistent, moral rationale for their decision. I fault them for their flailing on that aspect.”

    NYU did not rescind her invitation. From day one, Thio attempted to play the victim, and at every opportunity exaggerates and misinforms the public. On numerous occasions she has flat-out-lied to e-mail’s that went to NYU and to the press. In Singapore, she can get away with this because all of the major newspapers are basically owned by the government. In the U.S., she cannot, and the free market of NYU stakeholders made their voices heard.

    In a recent article to the press in Singapore she stated: First, the online petition asserting I was an “opponent of human rights” over-simplistically assumes “gay rights are human rights”.

    That pretty much sums it up for me.

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - July 29, 2009

  12. The_Livewire: I have told the NYU administration and numerous press outlets that I would not have opposed her speaking at a conference on human rights or giving a speech like Ahmadinejad did at Columbia. But to allow her to use a visiting professorship at an esteemed western university to further her attempts to oppress the LGBT minority in Singapore is not acceptable.

    Also, prior to he creation of the petition, she accused an NYU student/employee of libel in one of her e-mails the Dean referred to as offensive. Are we NYU students supposed to sit down and shut up and listen to her espouse her hate speech, and when we attempt to rebut her ridiculous positions, be accused of libel?

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - July 29, 2009

  13. I guess I’m confused about what the ruckus is about, exactly. On reading the NYT link, it looks like:

    1) Professor gets appointment at NYU Law.
    2) Students make clear that they disagree with certain of her views and will be challenging them. As is their right, students ASK for her appointment to be rescinded.
    3) Professor sees which way the wind is blowing, doesn’t feel like meeting the challenge, and makes what is ultimately her own decision (however much others may have encouraged her) to give up the appointment.

    Voluntary action, all the way around. What is the problem supposed to be, again?

    You could say “Well this just goes to show the sad state of education, how you can’t even be anti-gay anymore without people speaking up to disagree with you.” Fine. Whatever. Knock yourself out, spreading the word.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - July 29, 2009

  14. Ryan,

    I never meant to imply that the student body should ‘sit down and shut up’. I happen to think the work to revoke her invite to professorship was the right thing, but I’d be worried if she wasn’t allowed to speak.

    I think we’re talking past each other, when we’re in agreement.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 29, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - July 29, 2009

  15. Livewire: I did not mean that portion of the message to be targeted at you, which is why I separated it from the first paragraph :)

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - July 29, 2009

  16. TL, it looks like NYU Law never took any action on Dr. Thio. It looks like they didn’t rescind her appointment, nor did they deny her any other means of speech. She withdrew.

    I think the nub of GPW’s post is:

    In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were discriminating against her point of view.

    Sorry GPW, I agree with the other commentors that that statement does not make any sense, as an indictment of the students. It might work as a mere description of fact. Another word for “discriminate” is “judge” or even “decide”, as in:

    In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were judging against her point of view.
    In opposing Dr. Thio’s appointment, the students were deciding against her point of view.

    Put that way, it is easy to see the students did nothing wrong. She expressed her views and desires (about whom she wants to associate with – NYU Law). And the students in question expressed their views and desires (about not wanting to subsidize or associate with her).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - July 29, 2009

  17. Why was she invited if her abhorrent views were well-known?

    First, the online petition asserting I was an “opponent of human rights” over-simplistically assumes “gay rights are human rights”.

    I mostly agree. This is probably not the strongest of Thio’s statements with which to indict her.

    Comment by Ignatius — July 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm - July 29, 2009

  18. Inviting her to speak at NYU could be interesting, though probably as disastrous and embarassing for her cause as Elaine Donnelly’s testimony before Congress on DADT last year was. Hmm…I kinda like that. Forget the teaching job and send the speaking invite!!! :-)

    Comment by John — July 29, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - July 29, 2009

  19. At least nowadays the topic can be brought-up on-campus. When and where I went to college, coming out or being outed meant potential immediate expulsion amidst hush-up scandal and family shame. The only thing ‘gay’ on campus were the slightly-’dirty’ art-house flicks with gay topics or characters presented by the Chaplain’s Office film-series. Even the Marxists-liberal members of the Professoriate considered sexual-diversity as bourgeois decadence.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 29, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - July 29, 2009

  20. I love reading the article first and then the author, since I can always tell GWP’s rants now.

    First of all, this is a public university, and as such has certain standards to uphold in regard to the way it uses its funding. Your viewpoint that gays should convince 51% of the world we deserve rights before we get them again rears its ugly head. If this professor was advocating pedophilia or sharia law, would New York taxpayers and university students be obliged to pay her salary on grounds of diversity? If she wants a job as a public figure, any reasonable person knows they are held to different standards.

    Second, can I just get your overall position, since it seems to relate to the California Prop 8 position similar to this you hold. My interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the people who wrote it is that the minority rights should be protected at all costs against the eventually tyranny of the majority. Examples from having republic as opposed to a direct democracy, the original electoral process of senators, and the check and balances system of government all point to a belief that 51% of the populace can and often does need to be held in check by the law. Yet, time and time again, post after post, you seem to hold the left and gays in contempt for ever considering a method other than convincing all heterosexuals of the validity of our rights before having access to them. Your belief that any rights gained by methods other than the ballot box rings hollow over and over again when I see these posts, especially when they are hallowed as some evidence of the evil, underhanded or intolerant tactics of the left. I’d rather have more liberty in my lifetime than spend it talking until I’m blue in the face and fall over dead never having been an equal citizen of this country.

    Good work, Ryan.

    Comment by Tim — July 29, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - July 29, 2009

  21. Actually, Tim, we love reading your rants even more.

    First of all, this is a public university, and as such has certain standards to uphold in regard to the way it uses its funding…..If this professor was advocating pedophilia or sharia law, would New York taxpayers and university students be obliged to pay her salary on grounds of diversity?

    That would be news to them.

    New York University (NYU) is a private, nonsectarian, research university in New York City. NYU’s main campus is situated in the Greenwich Village section of Manhattan. Founded in 1831, NYU is the largest private, nonprofit institution of higher education in the United States, with an enrollment of more than 50,000 students.

    Fail on argument 1 — although I am interested in your concept that, as a taxpayer, I should be able to demand the ouster of people from universities who believe that to which I am ideologically opposed.

    My interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the people who wrote it is that the minority rights should be protected at all costs against the eventually tyranny of the majority.

    Therefore, laws opposing polygamy, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and child marriage are unconstitutional, since they are a clear trampling by the majority of a minority’s constitutional right to have sex with and marry whomever they choose.

    Epic fail on argument 2.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 29, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - July 29, 2009

  22. It is a bit amusing how often NYU has been called a public university in the media, so I forgive the above poster :)

    Nevertheless, even private universities get significant funding from the government. And personally I feel the issue is even more important as a -student- since NYU is private. While the amount of stakeholders in a decision increase for public universities, the influence individual students should have on a private university should be greater since our tuition is not being subsidized.

    But all of this is only secondary to the main concern: Why should ANY university give a human rights violator a notch on his or her resume by giving some credibility to their distorted views on human rights?

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - July 29, 2009

  23. The epic fail on argument 2 happens partly because Tim has supplied no notion of – and for all I know, might not have any notion of – what rights people possess inherently and prior to the existence of government and why, vs., what “rights” are created and granted by government (and are thus, strictly speaking, privileges or not rights at all).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 29, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - July 29, 2009

  24. Herein lies the problem, Ryan.

    Nevertheless, even private universities get significant funding from the government.

    Followed by:

    the influence individual students should have on a private university should be greater since our tuition is not being subsidized.

    That “significant funding” means that colleges do not have to cover all their expenses from tuition — which means that they can charge you a lower rate BECAUSE they receive that government funding. You are indeed being subsidized.

    But all of this is only secondary to the main concern: Why should ANY university give a human rights violator a notch on his or her resume by giving some credibility to their distorted views on human rights?

    Your student body at NYU seemingly has no trouble giving its enthusiastic support and credibility to Hamas, which not only supports, but outright practices, murder and torture of gay people.

    Given NYU’s student tolerance and support of that, I fail to see why Dr. Thio represents a problem, especially since I doubt any of her classes were required.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 29, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - July 29, 2009

  25. I don’t see why you think NYU enthusiastically supports Hamas.

    Take Back NYU was a group of roughly 20 students with about 80 demands.

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 29, 2009 @ 10:26 pm - July 29, 2009

  26. North Dallas Thirty,

    At the very least by the “swinging fists meeting noses” theory of liberty, there is an obvious difference between protecting the rights of minorities and protecting pedophilia, incest, and child marriage. Group marriage in whatever form may be an entirely different question. Surely anyone claiming to be a conservative must understand this. How did you leap from the concept of minority rights to the conclusion of Epic Fail?

    Comment by DRH — July 30, 2009 @ 12:32 am - July 30, 2009

  27. i am a bit confused.

    Thio’s actions had nothing to do with gay marriage.

    as a result of her actions in Parliament, homosexual sex is illegal, but heterosexual sodomy and lesbian sex is legal.

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 30, 2009 @ 12:35 am - July 30, 2009

  28. At the very least by the “swinging fists meeting noses” theory of liberty, there is an obvious difference between protecting the rights of minorities and protecting pedophilia, incest, and child marriage.

    Let us examine that in the light of two common statements made about gay marriage.

    #1: “Gay marriage will not affect anyone other than the people involved in it.”

    By that logic, then, incestuous, pedophile, and other such marriages are fine, because they do not affect anyone else but the people in the marriage.

    #2: “You should have the right to marry whomever you love.”

    By that logic, pedophiles love children, incest practitioners love their blood relatives, and bestialists love the animals with which they have sex, so they should have the right to marry them.

    And, to Ryan:

    #3: “It’s none of the government’s business with whom you choose to have sex.”

    Then it is none of the government’s business if you have sex with a child, if you have sex with an animal, or if you have sex with a blood relative.

    Again, the statements made here are that the majority has no right to ban or otherwise limit the activities of sexual minorities and to do so is a human rights violation.

    Pedophiles, incest practitioners, and bestialists are sexual minorities; therefore, banning and limiting their activities is both unconstitutional and a human rights violation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 30, 2009 @ 1:01 am - July 30, 2009

  29. North Dallas Thirty: When two adult males have sex who is hurt? Your other examples do not involve mutually consensual sex. Does a child have the capacity to consent? Does a horse?

    When an adult male has sex with a child, the child is hurt, both physically and emotionally. Of course the age of consent widely varies country by country, but everyone must agree at a certain age a child will be irreparably damaged.

    And incest… I am not well-versed in this area, but I believe there is a public health argument to prevent the birth of abnormal children. Also, this is an extremely limited form of government intrusion. They are only saying you can;t have sex with a handful of poeple, as opposed to half of the worlds population!

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 30, 2009 @ 1:28 am - July 30, 2009

  30. Does a child have the capacity to consent? Does a horse?

    Depends on where you live don’t it? Can’t see much point in consent laws when we have liberals fighting to the death to teach kids how to do it. All the while they’re excuse is “They’re gonna do it anyway”, so what’s the point?

    They’re hellbent on the destruction of civil society and I can’t see where they’d give a rotten damn about consent laws or beastiality laws.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 30, 2009 @ 5:38 am - July 30, 2009

  31. Geez, North Dallas Thirty, you can really bring out the most artless arguments. Ryan answers them very well, though. And you still didn’t even address the question: How did you leap from the concept of minority rights to the conclusion of Epic Fail?

    Comment by DRH — July 30, 2009 @ 8:23 am - July 30, 2009

  32. OT: Congressman Paul Ryan on Obama’s health care plan.

    Comment by Ignatius — July 30, 2009 @ 10:08 am - July 30, 2009

  33. There is a huge difference between the government intruding into the life of someone who sexually abuses children, and teaching children about sex.

    If you cannot see this, I do not know what to say.

    Comment by Ryan Golden — July 30, 2009 @ 10:14 am - July 30, 2009

  34. I’m with Ryan.

    Seems like the wrong person for teaching a human rights course.

    Has this Dean Richard L. Revesz admitted he just may have been a little careless in selecting the best available teacher for this subject?

    Comment by Geena — July 30, 2009 @ 11:19 am - July 30, 2009

  35. There is a huge difference between the government intruding into the life of someone who sexually abuses children, and teaching children about sex.

    If you cannot see this, I do not know what to say.

    Well, the schools (government) intrudes into the life of parents and tells them that THEY are the ones who should be teaching little kids about sex because “They’re just gonna do it anyway”. The same people have some sort of weird fixation that we should do things like they do in Europe or wherever.

    Of course there are those who make the argument that you can bugger a 12 y/o boy in the Phillipines, so we should be able to do the same. And, of course, we have SCOTUS justices who love to look at laws everywhere else to make their decisions.

    If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 30, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - July 30, 2009

  36. When an adult male has sex with a child, the child is hurt, both physically and emotionally. Of course the age of consent widely varies country by country, but everyone must agree at a certain age a child will be irreparably damaged.

    Obviously not, since the age varies — and you have gay groups demanding that the pleasures of gay sex be taught to five year olds. Furthermore, NAMBLA and other pedophiles state that there is nothing wrong with it, that it is not harmful to the child, and that banning it would be a violation of their human rights and of the child’s human rights to pleasure. Finally, since the left has made it clear that children can give full consent to abortion and that Federally-funded agencies do not have to notify parents, it seems hilarious that you would then argue that they cannot consent to the process that makes an abortion necessary in the first place.

    Meanwhile, as for the horse, talk to the animal-rights leftist organizations at NYU and tell them that horses should not have legal rights. I think you’ll get that one thrown back in your face very quickly.

    Since you’ve established the precedent that the minority’s rights are inviolate and that the majority has no right to rule otherwise, you have no choice but to allow it. You have abolished the right to set standards; therefore, you have no capability to set standards for others’ behavior.

    Indeed, Ryan, why don’t you follow your own rhetoric? After all, you claim other peoples’ sexual relationships have nothing to do with yours and that people should mind their own business. Aren’t you being more than hypocritical by interfering with other peoples’ sexual gratification?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 30, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - July 30, 2009

  37. And incest… I am not well-versed in this area, but I believe there is a public health argument to prevent the birth of abnormal children.

    Sorry, but gay liberals have argued that reproductive consequences are irrelevant to sexual behavior and marriage.

    You are discriminating on the basis of genetics and blood, which is again illegal according to the left. Furthermore, by saying that people have plenty of other choices for marriage and sexual relationships, you are denying people the right to marry and have sex with whom they love — again something that the left claims is a human rights violation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 30, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - July 30, 2009

  38. [...] academic and religious views collide – Today In Singapore: The Slippery Road To Hate – Gay Patriot: On gay issues, academic freedom takes backseat to political correctness – Above the Law: Let’s Talk Even More About Dr. Li-ann Thio – Politics Daily: Li-Ann Thio and [...]

    Pingback by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 31 Jul 2009 — July 30, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - July 30, 2009

  39. Wow, NDT, once again you have given us horribly distorted arguments. Nobody with sense thinks the rights of minorities supercede the rights of the majority, but that is what you have argued with saying that minority rights are inviolate.

    Instead, it seems you’d rather gays live their lives in second class.

    Comment by DRH — July 31, 2009 @ 12:31 am - July 31, 2009

  40. Nobody with sense thinks the rights of minorities supercede the rights of the majority, but that is what you have argued with saying that minority rights are inviolate.

    Tell that to the person who said this:

    My interpretation of the Constitution and the intent of the people who wrote it is that the minority rights should be protected at all costs against the eventually tyranny of the majority.

    Instead, it seems you’d rather gays live their lives in second class.

    Actually, no, I think gays should live their lives like everyone else.

    It’s gays like you who whine and cry that gays should have guaranteed jobs, guaranteed health insurance, marriage without responsibility, public nudity and promiscuity without fear of criminal prosecution, to teach gay sex to children in public schools, etc.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 31, 2009 @ 11:35 am - July 31, 2009

  41. [...] academic and religious views collide – Today In Singapore: The Slippery Road To Hate – Gay Patriot: On gay issues, academic freedom takes backseat to political correctness – Above the Law: Let’s Talk Even More About Dr. Li-ann Thio – Politics Daily: Li-Ann Thio and [...]

    Pingback by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 31 — July 31, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - July 31, 2009

  42. Looking at the comments I can see some valid arguments but I think most are really missing the point here.

    I am straight and I am against the idea of gay marriage. I am also against the idea of homosexuality being made into a crime. I do have a problem with linking the two issues together because gay marriage is not a crime and is not even an issue that constitutes a human right. On the other hand making laws that cause homosexuals to be placed in prison or even given the death penalty, such as in Iran is and can be a human rights violation.

    Now here is my point: is this a single issue argument relating only to homosexuals? Does this person have an advocacy record for human rights in other areas e.g. being against the imprisoning of people because of their politics, or because they have long hair. Singapore has an appalling record where some of these other issues are concerned, but it is not as serious as the human rights violations in Iran with regard to those who protest against Nutjob.

    What I would like to know is what would have made this person someone who could lecture on human rights in the first place. The single issue of gay human rights is insufficient to preclude the person from a teaching position but her record on other human rights issues would be equally relevant.

    I would have to think that she was not the most qualified person to teach the subject of human rights if she has in fact violated the rights of others by pushing legislation that sees one group of people being sentenced to prison and being treated as criminals. However, I think that her whole record should be subjected to criticism if she is not known as a champion of those who face being political prisoners.

    I cannot comment upon whether or not the person is one who makes hate speech because if for example she is a Muslim then she would only be putting forward the views of her own mullahs. It is not hate speech unless it is stirring up people to go ahead to beat and kill others. From what I have read here that does not seem to be the case.

    Do the students have a right to protest over her appointment? Maybe, so long as they are not being hypocritical in that they accept the Hamas sympathizers on campus as well. Hamas and those associated with Islam and Iran in particular as well as with Saudi Arabia have a long record of human rights violations.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — August 3, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - August 3, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.