Singapore cuts Obama’s LGBT comments on Ellen
Click HERE
{In that episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Mr Obama had said to the talk-show host: “As much as we’ve done with laws and ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, et cetera, changing hearts and minds – I don’t think anybody has been more influential than you on that.
“You being willing to claim who you were, that suddenly empowers other people. And then suddenly, it’s your brother, it’s your uncle, it’s your best friend, it’s your coworkers. And then attitudes shift. And the law is followed, but it started with folks like you. I’m so proud of you.”}
Media is a double-edged when it comes to creating/perpetuating as well as alleviating prejudice. Celebrity influence plays a huge role. Other than Ellen, there are also Adam Lambert (who was in Singapore for the Count Down a few months back) and Elton John, just to name a few. And here, we also have US President Obama lending support, as is typical of the liberal democrats.
Other than celebrity influence in the media who help to shift attitude with their immense popularity, there is also mention of the law as a solution to prejudice. But note that while law may remove prejudice in the long run as people gradually let their moral compass be guided by the law over the years, the law is actually not very effective in the short run. At best, it is good at curbing discrimination by using the threat of punishment. But realise that even if we do not discriminate against others, the prejudice may still be in our hearts; it's just that we dare not act on our prejudice.
Distinguish between prejudice and discrimination: prejudice is the feeling, discrimination is the action.
As the last line of the excerpt above shows, it usually requires a shift in attitudes of the people first, before the law changes to reflect this attitude change, not the other way round. the law follows the change in attitude. The local example of the Penal Code 377A exemplifies this. Its repeal is unsuccessful because of the majority of the population is still against endorsing LGBT.
In a nutshell, you can use the law to force people to change, but it will cause their resentment; and even if they have no choice but to obey the law for fear of the punishment, the unwillingness and anger in their heart is something which the law cannot reach and assuage in the short run.....
But do we always have to wait for attitudes to change before the law changes? In cases like racism, genocides, and other examples where the majority are doing the wrong things and causing much suffering to others, we probably cannot afford to wait for the majority to change their attitudes before we amend the law....
Qn: Can prejudice ever be eliminated? (Cam. 2011)
{In that episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Mr Obama had said to the talk-show host: “As much as we’ve done with laws and ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, et cetera, changing hearts and minds – I don’t think anybody has been more influential than you on that.
“You being willing to claim who you were, that suddenly empowers other people. And then suddenly, it’s your brother, it’s your uncle, it’s your best friend, it’s your coworkers. And then attitudes shift. And the law is followed, but it started with folks like you. I’m so proud of you.”}
Media is a double-edged when it comes to creating/perpetuating as well as alleviating prejudice. Celebrity influence plays a huge role. Other than Ellen, there are also Adam Lambert (who was in Singapore for the Count Down a few months back) and Elton John, just to name a few. And here, we also have US President Obama lending support, as is typical of the liberal democrats.
Other than celebrity influence in the media who help to shift attitude with their immense popularity, there is also mention of the law as a solution to prejudice. But note that while law may remove prejudice in the long run as people gradually let their moral compass be guided by the law over the years, the law is actually not very effective in the short run. At best, it is good at curbing discrimination by using the threat of punishment. But realise that even if we do not discriminate against others, the prejudice may still be in our hearts; it's just that we dare not act on our prejudice.
Distinguish between prejudice and discrimination: prejudice is the feeling, discrimination is the action.
As the last line of the excerpt above shows, it usually requires a shift in attitudes of the people first, before the law changes to reflect this attitude change, not the other way round. the law follows the change in attitude. The local example of the Penal Code 377A exemplifies this. Its repeal is unsuccessful because of the majority of the population is still against endorsing LGBT.
In a nutshell, you can use the law to force people to change, but it will cause their resentment; and even if they have no choice but to obey the law for fear of the punishment, the unwillingness and anger in their heart is something which the law cannot reach and assuage in the short run.....
But do we always have to wait for attitudes to change before the law changes? In cases like racism, genocides, and other examples where the majority are doing the wrong things and causing much suffering to others, we probably cannot afford to wait for the majority to change their attitudes before we amend the law....
Qn: Can prejudice ever be eliminated? (Cam. 2011)
posted by Dark Shadow | 12:15 PM
<< Home