#INSANELY gay coded villain behaviour | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cursedvibes · 3 months

Note

jjk having queer-coded villains seems to be an intentional choice. what are your thoughts on this

Honestly, I think the queer themes and characters we've gotten in jjk are pretty great. Yes, some of them are villains and that is a common harmful trope, but first of all it is not just the villains and second you have to look at how their queerness is portrayed and implemented into their characters.

We have characters like Kirara and Hakari and I think you can count Tengen too, who are queer(-coded) and not villains. Their queerness is pretty explicit in case of Kirara and Tengen with Kirara having clearly transitioned and being some flavour of trans and Tengen also openly stating she's lost interest in gender and is if anything a gnc woman. Queerness is also not their entire character, just one minor aspect of it that is honestly not that important. Tengen being responsible for the creation of jujutsu society and Kirara rebelling against the school and then choosing to aid the kids in the Culling Game is much more significant than their gender. Tengen corrects Yuki about being a man and then we move on, it is not actually a big deal. Yuki is more concerned with Tengen's actions than her gender.

The comment from Panda insisting that Kirara is a guy was weird, but it isn't brought up again, everyone just doesn't gender Kirara when seeing them without making a big deal about how "weird" it is for a presumed guy to have boobs like you might've expected in other pieces of media. The implication here I think is just that Panda hasn't seen Kirara in a while nor knows them very well. The comment was unnecessary in my opinion, you could've shown in a better way that Kirara transitioned, but the way it is treated afterwards makes it better. I think it especially helps that we see Hakari so accepting of Kirara, it is something normal and their relationship is loving. Kirara's gender or presumed sex is no issue at all between them and the other characters just roll with it too.

Same could be said for things like Geto and Gojo's relationship for example, the most prominent example of queer-coding in jjk as is also heavily displayed in marketing for season 2 of the anime. Obvious choice, they are by for the most popular ship and tapping into shipping sells. Their the sasunaru of jjk. I don't think you could call it queerbaiting though because contrary to sasunaru you don't have this "jk they both ended up marrying some random women like the heterosexual men they are" and there are literally no confirmed relationships in jjk anywhere except for the people who are married (and those usually don't love each other). stsg have as much ground to stand on as Kirara/Hakari or Muta/Miwa. They are milking that money cow, but with the way it is handled in canon, it doesn't bother me much ignoring their fanbase.

Another aspect we see in stsg that also applies to how we see queerness in some of the villains is that their relationship (of whatever nature that might be) is there to humanize both Gojo and Geto. There is actually some meaning to it, not just shipper bait or an insane villain being gay and that being included as another aspect of him being reproachful like you see with many Disney villains. Geto's bond with Gojo (and his family) is portrayed as the last bits of sanity left in him and also any criticism you'd leverage against that could apply to Gojo as well, a main character.

Similar with the queerness of the other villains. It is either an unimportant detail of their identity or it is actively used to humanize them. Uraume's gender is purposefully unconfirmed, nobody even makes any assumptions and that fact is about as important as their hair colour. It's just part of their identity, nothing more. It is not portrayed as predatory or used for any "trap" jokes. At least not in canon, the fandom is its own beast and I think their behaviour comes from what they are used to seeing in other media not due to anything done in jjk.

Kashimo falls into the same category of unconfirmed gender. Fans and some fantranslators assume Kashimo is a man based on what they looked like in the past, but it is actually never confirmed in the manga. Neither Hakari or anyone else ever genders Kashimo. There being no assumptions made or their possible gender or androgynous appearance discussed. People just roll with it and it isn't made to stand out in the story. I don't think you can even call Kashimo a villain, more like an antagonist similar to Higuruma was one with selfish morality. Their gender or appearance doesn't play into that at all.

With Kenjaku I guess you could see them taking over Kaori as predatory towards Jin, but it is played different than the common tropes. For one, Jin is as it seems aware of the change, just chooses to ignore it. It isn't played as a "man tricked other man into sex" or "man disguised as a woman", in fact the story goes quite out of its way to state that Kenjaku isn't (cis) male actually. Both Wasuke and Jin address Kenjaku as a women, even when they have suspicions. Kaori stays in some form with Kenjaku, she isn't just a cheap disguise and pregnancy overall is an important topic for Kenjaku both in good and bad ways. When Kenjaku says "thank you for getting along with my son" it is the first big step towards giving Kenjaku more depth than just them being a big bad mastermind. Kenjaku cares in some way for their child and doesn't just see him as a test subject. So the time in Kaori's body clearly had value to them as well beyond just getting a vessel for Sukuna. Same goes for their meeting with Takaba for example, which is the biggest example we got so far of Kenjaku being proven to care about other people and gaining depth through it. Their relationship with Tengen could count as well.

So the queer aspects we got of Kenjaku are there, but they aren't shown in canon to be something strange, quite the opposite usually. I think you see it best when you compare Kenjaku to Orochimaru, who clearly, as stated by Gege too, is a big influence for the character. Orochimaru has the body of a woman in the first part of the series, takes over the bodies of children and shows interest in Sasuke that is often seen as gay. Orochimaru is portrayed as predatory particularly towards children/boys, a persistent stereotype of gay and/or effeminate men as well as trans people. When Orochimaru reveals in the fight against Hiruzen that he inhabits the body of a woman, the characters around are disgusted and not only because this means another person's body was violated, the uncertainty of Orochimaru's gender unsettles them. You see the same thing in Boruto. Multiple characters make mean or disgusted comments about Orochimaru because they can't tell their gender and the whole "are you a man or a woman, a father or a mother" gets pushed a lot, often used as a joke. Mitsuki is being supportive and corrects people, but that doesn't stop Orochimaru's gender being brought up almost every time they feature in the series. "omg I can't tell this person's gender this is so weird and creepy" don't you have more pressing concerns like the fetuses swimming in those tanks or the human cloning?

Compared to that, Kenjaku is handled much better. There is no weird fixation on children, they have only taken over adults from what we've seen so far (due to the size of their brain and it being a real organ I think that is even a necessity) and the bodies are also mainly there for practical needs, Kenjaku isn't shown lusting after them no matter the person's gender. Choso goes from assuming Kenjaku is Yuuji's father to calling them a parent. It isn't commented on, we just assume Tengen informed him. Kenjaku being revealed to be Yuuji's mother isn't shocking because "wtf that's a man in a woman's body", it is more so about the implications of them being related. It is also used to show that Kenjaku is actually not a cis man (everyone at that time even doubting Wasuke uses she/her naturally with Kenjaku not objecting to it despite not really pretending to be Kaori) and by being his mother they have a closer personal connection to Yuuji. The fandom usually puts more harmful tropes into this moment than there actually are in the manga. I'm pretty sure Yuuji was more concerned about Kenjaku actually being related to him than Kenjaku being his mother aka exhibiting a gender he might not have expected. The "my father is your mother that's so mind-boggling and weird" is something that only exists in fandom. I don't see a reason why Choso or Yuuji would care and everyone else even less.

Takaba putting Kenjaku in a nurse outfit is also only portrayed as another fun part of their shenanigans, being neither overly sexualized nor seen as off-putting or weird. I think it was actually put there because Gege wanted to emphasize once more that having a female body doesn't unsettle Kenjaku, they see it as normal. It is part of their identity, but that itself isn't the thing being made fun of, it's a joke about sexy nurses that's detrimental to Takaba if anything.

In the same way, Kenjaku being pregnant with Tengen isn't made a big deal either beyond what it means for the Culling Game or the merger. It isn't a strange pregnant man, just another instance of pregnancy symbolism in this manga where cursed wombs are quite a common thing. And Kenjaku's whole deal is motherhood, birth and pregnancy down to the choice of their name, which is derived from an ambiguously gendered or Virgin Mary-adjacent bodhisattva. These pregnancy themes are shown as both a good thing and a bad thing depending on the context and not on principle as disgusting or bad. Kenjaku's gender fluidity has thematic relevance, but it isn't mocked or portrayed as bad by itself.

Beyond Uraume, Kenjaku and maybe Geto depending on how you look at it, I don't think there are any other queer-coded villains? Mahito was a high school girl for a juju sanpo, but that episode was more wholesome if anything and I think it was just there to show his fluidity in sex and gender. Once again not mocked or brought up as a reason for why he's evil (she isn't even that evil in that high school AU).

So yeah, I don't see a problem here, I actually wish more mangas or animes would portray queer characters this way. Make sure villains aren't the only queer characters, don't make queerness their entire character trait and treat the characters with respect.

#asks #jujutsu kaisen

46 notes · View notes

autolenaphilia · 4 years

Text

A review of BBC Sherlock

BBC Sherlock is a terrible show. I’m not the first to say so, and I’m certainly repeating things here that other people have said, like Hbomberguy, who did a flawed but mostly fine critical look at the show. But I still think I have some original ideas to bring to the table, and even if this essay is long by itself, it is probably more approachable case against Sherlock than Hbomb’s long if compelling video (which I liked but don’t entirely agree with. He for example criticizes the show for not playing fair with its mysteries, which I think is fine for a Sherlock Holmes adaptation to do, because the original stories don’t “play fair” either. They pre-date that convention in mystery writing)

The main problem with the show, lies with its main character, Sherlock. The tv series had a problem with hero worshipping Sherlock and having an excessive and uncritical focus on him. The show revolved around the main character of Sherlock Holmes in a way that the original Holmes stories didn’t. Everything in the writing and the world it created was about Sherlock, and how cool he is.

The show makes airs of being a character study, but it is not interested in doing the work required for actually being that. Ultimately, Sherlock is the hero, and for Moffat & Gatiss this means he can do no wrong, even when he is wrong.

Sherlock is an arrogant jerk, being not only rude but outright cruel at times. He does this all the time, including to people who are supposedly his friends, like Watson. The good doctor actually gets the worst of it. In the show’s supposed “adaptation” of “The Hound of the Baskervilles”, Holmes drugs Watson without his consent or knowledge, just to test the drug out.

The show never reckons with all the cruelties the hero commits to his supposed friends. He never apologizes, nor is he confronted with his behaviour, never decides or is compelled to change. Instead Watson and co. remain loyal to the very end. He thinks it is permissible for him to act that way because he is a genius, and alarmingly, the very writing of the show seems to support him in that line of thought.

This is not at all due to the show reflecting the original short stories. The Holmes depicted in the canonical stories can be rude and inconsiderate to others, but seldom outright cruel. Compare the scene in Sherlock described above with a similar scene in The Devil’s Foot. In that short story, Holmes also tests out a drug he found on Watson, but everything else is different. Holmes explains the situation to Watson beforehand, asks if he wants to take part, and exposes himself for the same dangers as his companion. When things turn out badly, Holmes even earnestly apologizes for putting both Watson and himself in danger.

The Canonical stories weren’t afraid to make Holmes fallible either. He is a hero, but one with faults that can make mistakes and loses. Good examples are A Scandal in Bohemia and the charming anti-racist story The Adventure of the Yellow Face.

The original version of Holmes is genuinely heroic. The BBC show has in comparison a very warped view of heroism, being the hero means Sherlock is never wrong, even when he is wrong. The hero is a special person, who can’t obey ordinary rules. It feeds into a form of wish fulfilment. A male power fantasy (and this type of hero is always a man) where you are very clever and being that clever means you can mistreat people as you like.

This focus on Sherlock himself can also be seen in the diminished role given to the supporting cast. Martin Freeman’s Watson is used well in the first episode, as the normal person who acts as our introduction to the strange mind and world of Sherlock (the first episode is maybe the strongest of the entire show). This captures how he is used in the books and does that even without the intimacy of Watson’s first person narration. But that is all we get, he is a non-entity in the rest of the show. He doesn’t do much in the episodes that follow, and basically only exists to marvel and be shocked at how weird Sherlock is, and to be abused by him.

Mycroft exists mainly to provide missions for Sherlock and get him out of legal problems. There is an original female character, Molly Hooper, but the sexism of the writers means she matters even less. Her whole existence is determined by being a fangirl who has a crush on Sherlock, yet is treated horribly by him.

The show’s dubious idea of a hero is why the show has to make Moriarty into an overarching villain, who is behind pretty much every other villain they meet. Their Holmes is too important for ordinary crimes, he is a superhero who can only face a supervillain of equal stature, so Moriarty is changed into that type of villain.

Certainly the original Moriarty has traits that predicts later supervillains, but ultimately he is just a crime boss, albeit a very intelligent and dangerous one. And making everything about this epic mind duel between Holmes and Moriarty contradicts the tone of the original stories. The cases Holmes takes on in the canon seldom concern more than the people directly involved and often don’t even involve murders. Holmes occasionally takes on bigger things, but the stakes are seldom world threatening. In comparison to the Sherlock show, the lack of empty bombast and faux-epicness in the original stories are very charming.

The character of Moriarty is played very energetically by Andrew Scott, but ultimately he is boring, because his motivations are simply that he is insane and gay. I’m not kidding. Moriarty wants to play mind games with Sherlock, because he is attracted to Sherlock and his intelligence. This, as bizarre as it sounds, literally makes most of the plot of this show caused by Sherlock being attractive .

(Hilariously, they later retcon this to Moriarty being mind controlled by Sherlock’s evil sister. Her motivation, incidentally, is that she is angry because Sherlock didn’t play with her as children.)

It is also unconnected to what Holmes actually does. In the original story, the reason Moriarty is interested in Holmes is because Sherlock was able to figure out that Moriarty is the head of a criminal organization, which is what makes him dangerous to Moriarty. In Sherlock, Moriarty knows of and admires Sherlock from before the first episode even happens and Holmes only figures out who Moriarty is later. It is treated as natural fact in this world that Sherlock is so awesome that people admire and are obsessed with him, without him even having to do anything that proves it.

I can see the appeal of shipping heroes and villains with sexual tension behind them, like Holmes and Moriarty in many versions. But when the hero-villain relationship in this case just reinforces the show’s excessive infatuation with its main character, it turns the whole thing distasteful for me (and that is not getting into the problems with coding your villain as insane and gay in general, as fun as this kind of villain can be).

I can also see the usefulness in setting up Moriarty by having him involved in crimes before he is actually introduced. The original stories don’t really do it, so Moriarty comes out of nowhere in The Final Problem. The Granada Tv show by Jeremy Brett did it by having Moriarty be behind The Red-Headed League case, and that worked fine.

But the way BBC Sherlock just drains the show of any interest in the villains except Moriarty. They are just Moriarty’s henchpeople, their motivation simply becomes that Moriarty pays them. The reason why the Granada version worked so well is that the villains in the orginal short story about The Red-Headed League were almost non-entities, the sole interesting thing about them is their scheme, so Moriarty being behind them makes things more interesting.

Sherlock however doles out the same treatment to some of the most interesting antagonists of the original stories, such as Jefferson Hope and Irene Adler. The treatment of Irene is perhaps the very worst thing the show ever did, and perhaps the worst adaptation of the character ever (and this is a character that is so often distorted in adaptations)

The original short story, A Scandal in Bohemia is the story of Irene Adler defeating Sherlock. She is not a villain, doesn’t actually blackmail anyone, and is not a love interest for Holmes. She actually marries someone else right in front of his face. It is a good story, with Irene defeating him teaching both Sherlock and the audience that women can also be smart.

The episode of Sherlock which “adapts” this story is pretty much the opposite. Irene Adler is a villain who blackmails people. Instead of being an opera singer, she is now a dominatrix, and this is treated with all the sensitivity of a Frank Miller. And also a lesbian with stereotypical man-hating tendencies.

Now a lesbian villain could still be interesting, but the writing makes sure she is not. She is not even a truly independent villain, instead she is like most villains in Sherlock on Moriarty’s payroll. And the lesbian thing turns out to mean naught, as she falls in love with Sherlock. Apparently Sherlock is so attractive that he can turn lesbians straight. This infatuation leads to her losing to Sherlock and afterwards becoming a damsel in distress that Sherlock rescues.

It is amazing how something written and broadcast in 2012 is far more misogynistic than a short story from 1891, but BBC Sherlock managed to do it.

Jefferson Hope isn’t treated as bad, because he doesn’t have to contend with the writer’s misogyny. But it is still a terrible adaptation of the character. In the original A Study in Scarlet, half of the novel is given to depict his backstory and his sympathetic reasons for killing the people he did. Some readers dislike that part of the book, but it makes the story much better for being there. It gives the murderer a more complex character.

The show makes a hash out of this when adapting the character for the first episode. Now Hope is a simplistically evil character, who kills people because Moriarty pays him to. Thanks to some decent acting, he gets an ok Hannibal Lecter style confrontation with Sherlock, but it has more to do with Thomas Harris than Arthur Conan Doyle.

And it demonstrates maybe one of the most important differences between the canon and Sherlock. The Canon is very much interested in characters who are not Holmes. The stories are often more about the people Holmes and Watson meet while investigating their cases, than the detective himself.

Sherlock doesn’t give a damn about anyone who isn’t the main character. So despite having one of the most cruel versions of Holmes ever filmed, the stories are actually less morally ambiguous than the original stories. People who were antagonists to Holmes but not evil in the books are turned into malevolent villains. The show isn’t concerned with creating relatable and complex motivations and backstories for them and make them into characters in their own right, they are only interesting as foils for Sherlock.

The show’s version of Charles Augustus Milverton, who is turned into a Dane named Magnussen, is one of the few villains which are not neutered by being a pawn for Moriarty. His episode, “His Last Vow” is therefore one of the better episodes that don’t directly involve Moriarty. It is helped by a delightfully slimy performance from Lars Mikkelsen, which is enjoyable in a similar way to Andrew Scott’s Moriarty. But the episode also illustrates the show’s problems.

Again the writers decide Sherlock is too important to deal with an ordinary if particularly reprehensible blackmailer, so the show turns Milverton into a supervillain who uses blackmail to control entire governments and has become one of the most powerful people on the planet.

Any tension that is created by the performance and the high stakes is however undercut by perhaps the most serious writing problem this show has: the nonsensical plots and mysteries. The episode’s big reveal is a case in point. The finale reveals Magnussen doesn’t have any physical or digital evidence of the stuff he uses to blackmail people with, he just uses his impressive memory to memorize the information.

The problem with this is that it turns Magnussen into just a huge bluff, with a blackmail empire built on sand. Anyone of his victims could have stopped his rise to becoming one of the most powerful men on the planet by just asking him for proof. Of course, this also means there is nothing stopping anyone from just killing him which is what Sherlock promptly does once Magnussen tells Sherlock his secret for no good reason. This show builds up this super-clever villain and reveals that he is actually just a fool with a good memory, except it treats this as if this ludicrous scheme makes him even more clever.

Sherlock shooting Magnussen is a change from the original story that is very emblematic of how this show works. Milverton is shot in the original story, but by a female victim of his taking revenge. Sherlock and Watson’s role in the story’s finale is merely destroying Milverton’s physical blackmail evidence.

Moffat and Gatiss have removed agency from a female character in the canon and transferred her actions to the male hero. They even suggest the original story by having Mary Watson break into Magnussen’s mansion and hold him at gunpoint.

And her shooting him would have worked so much better as well, for they had prior in the episode made the bizarre reveal that mary was once a professional contract killer. It is an absurd backstory for it comes out of nowhere, but it could have made sense as part of the plot if it explains why Mary is able to break into Magnussen’s home and kill him. But no, Holmes stops Mary from killng Magnussen, and sedates her. The only reason for this seems to be the scriptwriter’s firm belief that women characters can not affect the plot in BBC’s Sherlock, only the male hero can.

And that seemingly minor change in adapting the story perhaps sums up the show perfectly. It adapts the original short stories with carelessness, picking the bits it pleases for the sole purpose to glorify and idealize its cruel male fantasy in the form of its supposed hero, who bears little in common with the character created by Arthur Conan Doyle.

#not tagging this because don't want to bother the fans with this in their tags #even general ones like character names that are true across incarnations #idk if tumblr searches now go after non-tag text as well but oh well

11 notes · View notes

earlgraytay · 6 years

Text

I don’t like real people who do evil things, but I love cartoon villains because they’re nearly always portrayed as the Other. It’s not just queercoding (though there’s some of that), or neurodivergent coding (though there’s some of that), or Women Who Are Sexy In The “Bad” Way (though there’s some of that).

Cartoon villains are always, always, always the ones who get the short end of the straw. If the good guys always win, the bad guys always lose- often in humiliating and painful ways. and in a proper cartoon, said villain is likely to come back for at least one encore, because long-form narrative works that way.

Therefore the cartoon villain- whether they’re in something that takes itself “seriously” like Star Wars’ cartoons or something that’s goofy as heck like OG Thundercats- the cartoon villain is always portrayed as someone who needs to be torn down; someone who deserves to be punished; someone that even our heroes of pure goodness and light can feel good about bullying.

sometimes it works. sometimes a show intended for kids, where the bad guys can’t do anything that awful on screen, can make a vile villain that you want to see humiliated and destroyed. most DC comics villains, when written properly, fall into this category- you want to see lex luthor taken down a peg because he’s an egotistical snot who constantly hurts people to prove that he’s Better Than Superman; you want the joker to be destroyed because all he wants to do is hurt people and he’s having a grand old time doing it.

but if the authors* think that queer people deserve to be bullied, their cartoon villain will be a queer person humiliated over and over again. if the authors think that people who are too smart deserve to be bullied, their cartoon villain will be an intellectual who gets humiliated over and over again. if the authors think that women who are too sexual deserve to be bullied, their cartoon villain will be an overtly sexual woman who gets humiliated over and over again. and if the authors think that neurodivergent people deserve to be bullied, their cartoon villain will be a neurodivergent person humiliated over and over again.

and because cartoon, often these traits are exaggerated and amplified-- to the point where a character who’s a ‘villain’ of this type is largely the traits that make them an acceptable target.

at the worst extreme, what you get is what @themysteriousmrenter calls Megward the Wizard: a character who exists to be the universe’s whipping boy. nothing can go right for this character, this character can never win or be happy, and anything they do, no matter how innocuous, will always lead to failure, misery, and humiliation. they might as well be living in their own private Idaho. even if you don’t go that far, the cartoon villain is often coded as something marginalised because that makes them an acceptable target in the eyes of the writer. they’re repeatedly humiliated and repeatedly fail, because they’re ~insane~ or ~intellectual~ or ~gross (because they have disabilities)~ or ~obsessed with the hero (in a gay panic way)~.

as a person who’s an acceptable target- someone whose neurotype is an insult, someone whose existence is treated as part of an ‘epidemic’- society’s prevailing narrative is that people like me deserve to be hurt, punished, and humiliated until we conform to the neurotypical standard of behaviour. and since i can’t properly conform, there are plenty of people who decide that i specifically deserve to be hurt, bullied, and humiliated for my sin of being different.

cartoon villains exist in a world where the primary narrative is that their existence is a blight on the world and they must be hurt and destroyed. if the show is more comedic, their ‘destruction’ is often played for laughs; even in a more serious story, they’re often bullied and humiliated by the heroes as part of their comeuppance.

that is why i like cartoon villains and why i often find them far more relatable than cartoon heroes, even though i’d rather help random strangers than blow up a planet. they are the people in the same crappy boat of societal disapproval. in their world, they are the person who is destined to be hurt because of what they are. most of the time, that makes them way more relatable and interesting to me than heroes who have society’s full approval.

* ‘Authors’ is tricky when you’re talking about a TV show because there’s always more than one writer, the actors portraying the character contribute to their portrayal, and Executive Meddling happens all the time. When I say ‘authors’ I mean ‘people in control of how the story is presented to the audience’, and for TV that’s a whollle bunch of people.

#on writing #villains #cartoon villains #je sers la mal et c'est ma joie #monsters

156 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Text

a compilation of note-worthy ones, deconstructed!

With the amount of times you hear politicians say a certain phrase, you can be 100% sure that Singapore prides itself on being a 'First World Country', and for good reason. We can boast of our 'economic miracle', relative social harmony and political stability that isn't a staple of countries worldwide.

Yes, we have it better than other countries.

Unfortunately, peel away the illusion painted by a pseudo-democratic and capitalistic society prioritising growth above all else, and you see plenty of dirty laundry. And where else to hide them, if not in our set of laws, which are phrased in a confusing miscellany of legal jargon that blindsides even the best of us? (well, it's possible that it's phrased as such to make it inaccessible to the public, hence stopping us from examining it too closely...but we digress.)

So! Presenting to you a easy-to-read-and-refer list on various noteworthy laws and legal situations in Singapore. We hope this gives you something to think about, and perhaps even galvanise you into action - whatever that means.

(List will be continuously updated as and if we find anything noteworthy)

1) Criminalising Gay Sex - Section 377A

The classic example. Essentially, it criminalises "any act of gross indecency [a man commits] with another male person". That means anal penetration between two men, or gay sex in short. Because it explicitly refers to the act, the government argues that no, they're not discriminating against gays. In 2015, PM Lee went on to say that gays are allowed to live their lives in Singapore, where the state does not harrass nor discriminate against them.

Obviously, the rest of society didn't get the memo.

Whatever the government thinks, formal and institutional sanctions (like laws) set a precedent that society follows. That creates an enabling culture, because society perceives that precedent as condoning their prejudice and discrimination towards the queer community. If you don't think that's true, think back towards a certain Mr Lim who threatened to "open fire" on gays in Singapore.

However, the curious thing is this - while the act of gay sex and same-gender marriage is criminalised, being gay in itself isn’t illegal. So yes, they’re “allowed” to continue working and living as best as they can in a conservative society. Funny how this sounds like how the state still wants their labour without being willing to acknowledge their humanity. What does that sound like, indeed?

2) Sedition Act

Singapore and freedom of speech rarely get along with each other. Apparently, the need for stability - be it in the political, social or economical sense - trumped the need for the right to civil expression. But if you consider the purpose of SG's government (or even the sole reason behind SG's creation) is to generate economic growth, it's only natural that freedom of speech is deemed less important. Especially if it obstructs economic activities. That's why public demonstrations, let alone protests or strikes, are banned without a permit - incidents like that can inconvenience companies, and thus erode Singapore's attractiveness as a business hub. Just think back on how the state handled that instance of SMRT bus drivers protesting about their low pay by virtue of their status as migrant workers. This line of thinking echoes a Marxist perspective on deviance, where deviance is seen as activities obstructing the interests of a capitalist state or elite.

This Act is a form of double-bind, just like racial harmony. While it does prevent - or at least, prosecute - 'seditious', hateful speech, it also fosters a culture of fear. What constitutes 'seditious' isn't clearly defined in the Act - it's just anything that is deemed to have disrupted/threatened social stability in SG. And that means certain people can misuse the Act to prosecute certain people for personal reasons, like political opponents. (Incidentally, for a state priding itself for adherence to rule of law, such ambiguity of terms seem to suggest rule by law - where the state governs the law instead of vice-versa, raising questions of “rational”, “just” laws twisted to suit state interests). Plus, starting court cases aren't cheap; just think of the legal fees involved! (So in a sense, this is kinda classist).

While some ideas are indeed too heinous to be shared - like hate speech - the point here is the culture of fear that has habituated people into subservience. The Sedition Act is another aspect of modern-day panopticon or surveillance, where the fear of being watched - and possibly punished for any deviant behaviours - gets internalised by us, so much so that we watch ourselves and others eventually - even if no such state surveillance is happening.

3) Penal Code

Singapore still keeps plenty of 'archaic' punishments; and what we're frequently bashed for is how we still carry out capital punishment. Specifically, death by hanging. Alan's Shadrake's book, Once A Jolly Hangman, revolves around our death penalty and the person responsible for hanging death row inmates - but don't look for it in the library. It's banned in Singapore. (here's a review).

Here are some crimes punishable by death in Singapore:

Drug-related offenses

Treason

Carrying/Possessing firearms

Piracy that endangers life

Perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person

Abetting the suicide of a person under the age of 18 or an "insane" person

Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder

Robbery that results in the death of a person

(Fun fact: Rape used to be punishable by death, but not anymore)

The rationale for keeping the death penalty is because it serves an effective deterrent; mainly for drug-related crimes in Singapore. While it may have merits with regard to internal security, such as terrorism and the unlawful possession of weapons/munitions, it has mainly been used against drug traffickers.

But deterrence is only as effective as the certainty that all humans are rational beings. Meaning, the death penalty is effective only if it stops drug traffickers from bringing drugs into the country. Has it? No. The distinction to make here is that those sent to the gallows are drug mules - people who carry drugs, and not the ones masterminding things - and sometimes, these mules are coerced to do so. So, is the law effectively targeting those in power in the drug trade? Or is it disproportionately affecting those at the bottom of the food chain; those who - more likely than not - have been forced into the business for whatever reason. Plus, to associate involvement with drugs purely as a failure of character, is to ignore the systemic and institutional reasons that drive certain populations (read: minorities, marginalised populations) to such things in the first place.

That's even if you want to go there. Some people would stagger at the mere mention of taking away someone's life. Like, is it even our place to do that?

On a parting note, even academics are quoted to be saying that there is no “reliable data on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent”.

4) Marital Rape - Section 375

Here's a good summary of its history in Singapore.

In short, it’s legal for a husband to coerce their lawfully wedded wives into sex, even if the wife doesn't consent to it. Also, men cannot be raped. That should be enough to show how harmful this law is - in promoting gender stereotypes, the legal support of rape culture/non-consent culture, and the cementing of the functions of marriage (i.e. to produce babies). Resistance to criminalising marital rape often include reasons of “protecting the family unit” and “difficulty in obtaining proof”; reasons that clearly value the needs of everyone but the woman in the marriage. However, the Government is reviewing said law, so progress? Progress.

On a related note, forced marriages are unlawful here, according to the Women's Charter, which is a legislative act designed to safeguard the rights of women and children in Singapore.

5) Internal Security Act

This Act guarantees the Ministry of Home Affairs extrajudicial powers to detain certain people without the need of a trial, suppress subversive activities against the state, and stop organised violence towards property or people in Singapore. Before the arrest can be made, the President has to agree to this detention order - and for that to happen, they must be satisfied by the reasons behind the certain people's arrest.

By 'certain people', we mean 'threats to national security'. That makes the ISA sound benign - which it can be. Especially if used properly, such as detaining would-be terrorists.

But the ISA has a checkered past. In the years after independence, it's been (mis)used to detain 'Communists' and trade union leaders. Words that will be forever associated with the ISA are Operation Spectrum and Operation Cold Store, because those are instances in which the ISA was exercised ... but on dubious grounds. Were the arrested indeed communists, or merely left-leaning political opponents or social workers; where religion offered them a medium to influence socio-political issues and thus undermine the authority of the state? Rajah states that the state polices religion to reinforce control over public discourses and not to uphold public order, because religion offers the public an avenue to influence politics. So, the question to ask here is: who gets to decide what constitutes “threats to national security”?

History has painted them as villains, but we need to remember how history is often a selective retelling of facts to tell a certain story. Ergo, history is subjective.

That’s not all. If you were to examine local laws pertaining to human rights, you tend to see this pattern of legally-protected freedoms...curtailed by another law. Singapore allows for public assembly and demonstrations ... but only with a police permit. Singapore allows for freedom of speech ... until it is prosecutable by the Sedition Act. Singapore ensures anti-discriminatory laws ... but only on the basis of your race, religion, and nationality.

Is this a case of restricting certain freedoms to protect other freedoms? We don’t want to be too hasty to conclude things, but it’s something to ponder.

6) Human Trafficking

We've covered this before in a Twitter thread on forest brothels, but the short of it is that Singapore doesn't have a law specific to this issue. As a result, recourse for victims of this crime is fragmented at best, and nonexistent at worst. According to the 2016 Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Report, Singapore is ranked Tier 2 - meaning, trafficking is a serious concern here, with the 2017 edition going on to say how we “fails [sic] to meet minimum standards in human trafficking”.

Who gets the brunt of this? Cis women. Most victims of human trafficking end up in the sex trade, but conflating sex trafficking with sex work in general only serves to undermine sex work as a profession. Plus, feminist discourse on sex work is still fragmented: divided between the three factions who see it as a moral failing/sin, structural oppression against (cis) women, or as a form of empowerment.

7) Migrant Rights

It’s curious to note how domestic helpers are not covered by the Employment Act because "it is not practical to regulate specific aspects of domestic work, such as hours of work and work on public holidays". Sure, it does make some sense, but on the other hand, you can see this as another instance of how women’s work is devalued, yet again. This is besides how domestic helpers are slapped certain constraints in their contracts that may seem...condescending. Take a look at page 46.

Then, there’s also migrant workers who work in the construction sector. And they aren’t any better off, too. The lack of a union or body to safeguard their rights (except NGOs), the stigma they face from Singaporeans, their financial and physical exploitation by their employers…in a way, you can consider migrant workers a form of modern slavery.

8) Criminalising Suicide - Section 309

Yes. It's criminal for people to attempt suicide. Yes, this rule is rarely enforced, and arguably serves as a deterrent against ending their life.

However, think of the symbolic effects. Can this reinforce the already pervasive stigma against the mentally ill in Singapore? A person, with mental illness and in need of help, is potentially branded as criminal because the law says so. Can this drive people away from seeking help? You should see the asks we get on our ask.fm handle. Do people considering suicide even think of getting arrested once they've decided to end things? (That's the reasoning given by a minister this author asked, once; where the threat of arrest will get people to think twice about their actions). But really?

More critically, why is the criminal justice system involved in a public health matter?

9) Abuse laws in Singapore

Currently, only married couples are afforded such protection. Unmarried ones? not really. So singles and live-in partners are excluded from such laws; and such laws manifest as the three exclusion orders one can slap on family members in instances of family violence. They are the Personal Protection Order (PPO), Expedited Order (EO), and Domestic Exclusion Order (DEO). AWARE explains these three orders quite succinctly.

Here's a paper PAVE wrote about this.

Why only married couples? That’s a good question. But consider this: Why not only married couples? Simple - marital violence doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Marital violence is often a continuation of, or begins from intimate partner violence...that happens before marriage.

The thing to note about most of the above laws is this: some of them are the by-effect of colonial legislation. Yup, you heard right - they're leftovers from British colonial control! So, not very "Asian Values" of us after all, isn't it?

Hopefully, this leaves you with something to think about.

A/N: Here's a link to Singapore's social policies as crafted by the Ministry for Social and Family Development. It's a huge infodump, but it's really useful and kinda is the authoritative source for this.

#articles #resources #growingupsingaporean #gender #sexuality #abuse #deviance #law #updated: 11/1/18

15 notes · View notes