Offensive online & TV content

I should be working. I have not done morning puja. I am behind time on my caferati project (this afternoon!!!) I am late with my Easter show draft. I am so so so way behind on my novel submission chapters, but then I read this in the Straits Times:

Nominated MP Thio Li-ann yesterday asked what action the Government would take against those who posted offensive content online, and whether it monitored television programmes for objectionable content.

As we all already know the actions she personally takes against those whose online content she personally considers offensive , I will not comment further on her.

Just her comments on objectionable TV content:

…the screening of a programme during prime cartoon time on a Sunday, that portrayed a gay couple with a child.

Dr Thio said that the show violated screening rules that require themes like homosexuality to be “cautiously treated and not glamorised and endorsed”.

Which in familiar straw monster rhetoric fashion gives the impression that a cartoon channel was celebrating the glamorous lifestyle of a gay couple. Listening to her question+comments (note: brought up in Parliament during Day 5 of the Budget Debate… in case you thought our Ministers address the chips on their own shoulders rather than sufficiently important/complex/weighty matters to justify their receiving the world’s highest ministerial salaries…) You think the point of this show was to ‘endorse’ a glamorous gay lifestyle of free sex, drugs, pedophilia…

Fortunately Dr Balaji pointed out that,

…the show was part of a series on home decoration and design. That particular episode was about a game room in the home of two men and a child.

Their relationship was an “incidental feature” of the programme, Dr Balaji said, and Singaporeans would “need to take a balanced view”.

In other words–in a home decor & design programme, look at the decor & design… thank you, Dr Balaji!

Is it the case that in this NMP’s eyes, merely acknowledging the existence of happy, balanced, non-promiscuous gay people is considered endorsement of the gay lifestyle?

What about happy, balanced, productive, monogamous gay people like the couple featured in the programme? What about Singaporeans whose lives follow that balanced model rather than the sordid imagery & ‘agenda’ she seems to have imported & accepted wholesale from the American fundamentalist literature?

Talking about the essay she wrote as part of her NMP application, this NMP said (in a ‘Today’ interview) she hoped to show Singaporeans “that this is their country”…

Well, a close female relative of hers was once heard to comment that gay Christians cannot really be called ‘Christian’.

Perhaps in this NMP’s eyes, gay Singaporeans cannot really call Singapore their country…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: