And as for - "I am certain that if this letter is published in The Straits Times, netizens and other cyber-terrorists will have a field day posting all kinds of nasty or defamatory remarks against me." I am not a cyber terrorist and my name is Steven McDermott aka soci, John Hicky and currently a research student in Scotland.
And the reason most bloggers attempt to remain anonymous is to protect themselves from defamation and sedition cases for speaking their mind - defending freedom of speech. Something I am sure you believe is readily available with the Straits Times regardless of what those annoying international independent organisations argue.
Regarding the Char case - I hope that the judge throws it out of court. The sedition act covers race and class and attacking, laughing at and offending a religion is a pillar of freedom of speech. Char was right to post the images and right to defend him or herself against the accuser. This time we have a religious 'jobs worth' arguing that he was 'offended'. Christianity and the iconography of Jesus Christ offends many, the persecution of non-believers, the Pope's refusal to endorse condoms in the fight against AIDS, christian fundamentalists in the US White House, the dangers and absurdities of organised religion 'offend me' but I sure will not be calling on the police force to endurse my belief system.
June 22, 2006S from nofearSingapore...
ITNews:
Bloggers should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make and not hide under the cloak of anonymity
I refer to the report, 'Divided views over police checks on blogger' (The Sunday Times, June 18).
Personally, I have developed a great distaste and distrust of bloggers who post anonymously or use pseudonyms to disguise their identities. I can understand that sometimes anonymous postings are unavoidable. However, when postings on the Internet are seditious or have a tendency to deliberately wound the religious feelings of any person, the perpetrator of the posting should have the full weight of the law brought to bear on him or her.
It appears to be the norm for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms to blame, insult and rant out against the Government or individuals believing that their postings can better the political process or current events concerning Singapore. Netizens have no legal or constitutional right to condemn the whistle blower who brought blogger Char's blasphemous posting of pictures of Jesus Christ on the Internet to the attention of the police. The conduct of netizens is similar to that of cyber terrorists since netizens have unashamedly condoned the seditious posting of Char, which could have sparked off strong reaction as did the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper in February this year. Fortunately, Char's blasphemous and seditious posting happened in Singapore, a country of tolerance. I am certain that if this letter is published in The Straits Times, netizens and other cyber-terrorists will have a field day posting all kinds of nasty or defamatory remarks against me. They will do so anonymously or using pseudonyms. To these cyber-terrorists I say, 'Be brave and don't hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms'.
They should have the conviction to stand behind any statements they make. If they do not have the confidence and passion to put their names beside their statements, I am sure that all right-thinking people cannot take them seriously. It appears to be the current trend for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity to act irresponsibly by ranting and musing about current events. If their ratings and musings do not cross the line of fair comment, they are free to do as they please. However, for bloggers who choose to post seditious and inflammatory comments that could cause anarchy by damaging the fabric of religious and racial harmony; they should be dealt with vigorously under the law. Cases of this nature should not be dealt with by the Community Court where the punishment meted out could be probation and performing a number of hours doing community service. They deserve a more deterrent punishment. I hope that I do not sound 'sub-judice', but I hope that blogger Char receives his just deserts for his blasphemous and seditious posting.
Lionel De Souza
12 comments:
when toilet cleaners were janitors
pang jeo: $0.10
pang sai: $0.20
after toilet cleaners became restroom specialists
pang jeo: $0.50
pang sai: $1.00
garden supplies stockist report:
decrease in orders for fertilizers
increase in orders for gardeners' boots & gas masks
home ministry report:
jump in number of people caught doing business behind bushes
SPCA special report:
dog owners' have observed their charges spending more time at lamp-posts whilst looking bewildered and disoriented during walkies
The Lionel De Souza I know of was a police officer in the Secret Societies Section - whenever he says something incendiary he'd always make a "disclaimer".
eg. Dear Sirs, I am NOT pro-gay or anti gay. But I think Gays are stupid. (Huh?)
He's one of the biggest supporters of the PAP, and writes frequently to sing praises of their actions (invoking only more contradiction har har). And as for publishing of his letters, well - our papers aren't exactly objective when publishing letters, aren't they?
once someone noticed that the same "member of public" keeps appearing in NYTimes reports about happenings in the streets; turns out this guy hangs around in the city a lot and always approaches the reporters to offer his comments when they need reaction from "members of public", and hopes to (maybe did) use his visibility to get work with advertising companies
we should admire enterprising spirit
se·di·tion
n.
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
Sedition is a big word. It conjures images of firebrands encouraging people to riot. The complaint of a single person doesn't sound like a lot of incitement. If that person had not complained, the cartoon would have been forgotten with the next mouse click. The police should act only if there is any real or likely negative consequences. The fact that you will be investigated purely on the opinion of one person only encourages self-censorship. It is another tool like defamation suits to stifle free speech.
Ignore that silly man, I got no interest in reading his bull crap. he can write whatever he likes to the ST forum, who give a damn on what he says. We have brains to disect matters and gauge what is wrong and right. The pics posted by Char are clearly not that blasphemous and seditious that would cause religion riot in singapore.
Like a blogger has said in his post "Jesus has died for sinners" I believe followers of his teaching would be merciful enuff to forgive the young bashful chap moment of mischief.
Let vengence not grow in your heart. Let the truth be separated from your lies. Amen say it after me MR lionel
lionel de souza, a stupid little singaporian prick. where i come from the gentleman would get a glasgow kiss and his hair parted with a cricket bat. He has been planated by your PAP and your puny little national paper will always print his letters because they are told to.
This man Lionel De Souza must be mad or uneducated.
Singapore is a democratic and free country.
What we have here are choices.
So people are free to be identified or remain anonymous.
It is their personal choice, nothing wrong with that.
Can we say those that identify themselves as stupid and is wrong from anonymity point of view?
Some would argue Singapore is not matured and not ready for identification of bloggers and forummers.
Given the present situation, there is some truth in that and it will be wise to remain anonymous.
Plus there are so many grey areas in the laws especially for bloggers/forummers who just wants to let loose,have fun and talk crap. This group would be better off remain anonymous or else their creativity will be curbed.
When I mean the environment is not matured yet for identification, I mean the ruling government has not yet mature, not the people.
Singaporeans have mature considerably but not PAP as they still cling on to certain traits of the past.
Until PAP or any ruling party mature about the need to let go and let loose on the environment, it is correct to remain anonymous.
Environment means overall climate in Singapore on freedom.
Public figures are after all public figures. If you want to be a public figure, then be ready for all kinds of views and comments or else remain a private citizen.
Is Lionel De Souza a PAP supporter?
I bet he is cause he makes ranting against government looks like a crime which we all know is not as Singapore have elections and elections of course must have more than one party and take sides.
This ex policeman must have a gratuity of a million dollars to speak so crazily.
He still do not grasp the essence of free and democratic nation. He thinks everything must be controlled and registered. He is mad but will not "conveniently die off"
In a realistic world, nobody is ever 100% right or wrong. Not even MM, SM , PM or PAP.
It is up to the masses to judge whether anybody is right or wrong.
Anybody can say whatever he wants. But it is up to the listeners to make a choice and decide to accept and decide what he/she says.
This logic is universal and can never be change, unless you live in North Korea or Iran.
This is why I am against defamation suits as it might paint an incorrect picture of the person's character and honesty even if he wins.
Clear example is TT Durai. He sued the two former colleagues until they go bankrupt.The court awarded him and his character to be clean and honest and his two colleagues' reputation went down the drain
But we all know now TT Durai is the complete opposite of what the court and laws rule him to be.
Thus the same can be said of the loser in the defamation suit. The courts are never 100% right in judgement.
Thus even if Lee Kuan Yew wins defamation suits all the time, it may not mean the courts and laws are correct in judging his character.
By Shakespeare:
"A rose by any other name would have smell as sweet"
Credibility and validity of any statement does not depend on names and the nameless.
It depends on individual judgement.
PAP !!! LEE KUAN YEW !!! LEE HSEIN LONG !!!! PLS REMEMBER THE PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, HUMAN BEINGS HAVE FREEDOM AND RIGHTS !!!! PLS TREAT YOUR PEOPLE LIKE HUMAN BEING !!! STOP MANIPULATING TRUTH AND FACTS TO SERVE UR CAUSE !!!
"It appears to be the norm for bloggers to hide under the cloak of anonymity or use pseudonyms to blame, insult and rant out against the Government or individuals believing that their postings can better the political process or current events concerning Singapore." Lionel De Souza
My reponse is going to be crude, and it is directed to Mr De Souza. So if you're easily offended, read no further.
Young man,
Opinions are like anuses: everyone has an anus, and everyone is capable of forming an opinion. The human anus and the human opinion is part of human nature.
I see that you have formed an opinion. Suffice it to say, you use your anus as well, consistently.
There is no "legal" or "constitutional" requirement necessary for you to use your anus. Why? Because if you didn't use your anus to expel the waste your body produces, you would get sick and die.
Each individual has his own independent conciousness. The nature of independent conciousness is to form opinions—each opinion is UNIQUE to the particular conciousness that formed it.
No law or statute can prevent this from happening. It is natural law at work when it is happening.
People therefore naturally form opinions on HOW they would like their country run and managed. Their independent conciousness also gives them "feedback" to whether the govt is doing a good job or not.
This is similar to the "sensation" you get in your gut which tells you "Gee, I need to take a shit now". This is again "natural law" at work. And take a shit you do—I hope, for your sake you don't hold it in, for that is very unhealthy.
Now when people have an opinion, especially about the way their country is NOT being run, they will naturally express that opinion. Unfortunately laws and statutes (man made) compel people in the real world to be silent, under the threat of 'defamation' or 'seditious speech'.
So that 'opinion' is going to appear (i.e. be expressed) in some way, whether you personally like it or not.
I don't force you to use your arsehole according to my standards—because I have no right to do so. I can tell you how to use your arsehole, but you are in no way OBLIGATED to "obey my command".
Similarly, I cannot force you to stop your mind from making an opinion. And neither can you force my mind from making an opinion.
So try as you may to argue that bloggers have no right to express themselves under the cloak of anonymity, and I say FUCK YOU to that— deal with it, I certainly don't agree with your opinion.
Please keep writing more. In that way we'll all know that you're still alive and kicking, and looking like a (proverbial) arsehole when you express your opinion.
Love and kisses,
Matilah Singapura
BRAVO MATILAH, VERY WELL SAID, DA SOUZA MUST HAVE A VERY ACTIVE ARSHOLE AND WELL AS AN EQUALLY FOUL MOUTH. hE WHO SPENDS THE DAY SHITTING ENDS UP BURIED IN THE STUFF.
http://onlinehammer.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1150114704&page=2
Post a Comment