Posted on 07/22/2009 9:20:25 PM PDT by Maelstorm
SHE'S tired of the 'bullying' and 'torrent of abuse' she has received for her views on homosexuality.
She questions why her detractors have chosen to attack her personally and jeopardise her job, instead of focusing their attack on her views.
And she asks if people can appreciate the cost she has paid for holding on to her convictions and principles.
Dr Thio Li-ann expressed these views in an 18-point memo she sent to the dean of the New York University (NYU) law school and some faculty members, a copy of which has been posted on a US legal blog.
The New Paper reported last week that Dr Thio, a law lecturer at the National University of Singapore (NUS), has been criticised by some of NYU's students, faculty and alumni.
This was after it became known that she will be teaching a human rights course at its School of Law in the fall semester in September, as a visiting professor.
Some questioned how the former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), with her outspoken views about the gay community, could be allowed to teach human rights.
Dr Thio's latest e-mail, sent last Saturday, was in response to a letter sent by an African-American gay man to the law school.
The man, Mr Malik Graves-Pryor, is also an NYU staff member and NYU law student. He had asked for her appointment to be terminated.
Both letters were reproduced in full earlier this week on AboveTheLaw.com, a US legal blog.
NYU spokesman Jason Casell confirmed in an e-mail to The New Paper on Sunday that the blog contains the full memo that Dr Thio had sent to the dean, global visiting faculty, and global programme administrators, under which she had been invited to teach at NYU.
He said the university's stand towards Dr Thio's appointment has not changed.
It had earlier said that Dr Thio was selected based on her published academic scholarship, that she will be a valuable contribution to the classroom, and that there will be 'dynamic exchange' between herself and students and faculty who are in 'sharp disagreement' with her point of view.
Dr Thio did not respond to queries from The New Paper, sent to her both directly and through NUS.
Here are some excerpts from her memo:
People misrepresenting what I said
'I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position.'
No one should lose job because of sexual orientation, but...
'I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere.
'I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in my own academic environment.
'(But) While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support, for example, same-sex marriage...
'My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists (like insults and death threats).'
Hate my views, but why hate me?
'What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as 'bigoted' and ignorance or 'hatred'.
'I am deeply offended at Mr Graves-Pryor's characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job.
'I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral...and 'unfit to teach human rights?'
'Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles.'
Why am I not allowed to have a different opinion?
'Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying.
'Let's be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name.'
Nothing to do with what I teach
'Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows.'
Why fixate on one speech?
'I am tired of this obsessive and narcissistic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. (Dr Thio's 2007 speech against repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, which deems sex between men as a crime).
'Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women's rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me.'
What say NYU
'If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive.
'But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected. Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as opposed to 'sharp disagreement' with their views, is the order of the day?
'If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.'
Gay is the new black?
‘Let’s be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name.’
Yep! Put up or shut up, NYU!
No but they want it to be. The school has been more quiet about this than expected. The gaystapo allies are a little more timid on this case. They don’t want an intelligent woman who can rationally argue her case beyond her religious feelings to be highlighted cause it might give other intelligent people permission to be rational too. Can’t have the emotional idiotic politics of sex argued on any but a simpletons terms.
From what I’ve seen gay is the new fascist...
*chuckle*
For people who are supposed to be gay, they seem to be really angry all the time....
The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”
“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.
“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”
“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”
“Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.
“Ahh...,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
NYU is being quiet on this one. The homosexual community didn’t gain anything from beating up Carrie Prejean and this one will cost them even more if they let this intelligent educated woman get a platform of news media shows to make her case. Isn’t it time the conservative media actually start acting conservative and give a bit of a voice to ladies like Dr. Thio Li-Ann? Sexual activism is no better than global warming it is just as irrational and based on the most convoluted reasoning. We are winning the debate on Global warming. Let’s turn back the clock on sexual activism in the US. We can do it. Sexual permissiveness is far more costly than tobacco and obesity when you factor in the cost of out of wedlock kids, treating sexual disease, and related mental illness.
What gets me is that they seem to only want to be identified by their sexual behavior. Whatever happened to being judged by the content of one’s character?
I have a feeling the days of letting liberals frame
the debate are coming to an end.
Stand up and act like Americans, it’s not so hard to do.
Unfortunately true. The “celebrate diversity” crowd of the loony left wants us to accept, even embrace (figuratively) people and views at odds with our own beliefs. Yet when a conservative voices his/her conservative views, personal ad hominem attacks, “celebrating diversity” goes out the window. Then they are all about suppressing, restricting, ridiculing our views. Their hypocrisy is astounding, even blinding since so many of them don’t even recognize it for what it is.
I agree. We can stop them. Just because most scientists from liberal colleges are liberals doesn’t mean they are right. We need to stop ceding ground when it should not be given up.
As someone once said about the Stalinchina.
“It wasn’t a cult of personality, it was a cult of
hypocracy.”
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
What REALLY gets me is that it takes this asian woman from overseas to have the guts to say what is wrong with the gay nazi tactics.
Wow - this might be the most incisive indictment of political correctness I have ever read.
No, white liberal-progressives really place “gay” above “black”. If you doubt that statement, try being in a “mixed race” marriage and openly opposing “same sex” marriage. Then watch the reaction you receive. We’re below them, in their eyes.
I sympathize with this woman because I was labeled a bigot for opposing so-called same-sex marriage, even though I was very civil during the discussion. As soon as those people found out my views, they started the name-calling. And that’s a typical response: Remember the reports of gay activists name-calling black and other people who opposed them during protests.
A lady after my own heart ummm...I mean mind. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
