[LINK] RFI: Singapore's Blocks
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:19:15 +0100
Ralph Wallis wrote:
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > No he wasn't. He was killed for *being* homosexual
> No, he was killed for being *openly* homosexual. There are
> speech issues. If he stayed in the closet, he'd be alive today.
Hm. Plenty of people have been killed just because people thought they
were homosexual (or witches, or Catholic, or...). Being open about it is
not a requirement.
> Are you arguing I shouldn't have a right of anonymity because
> it would be rare for me to get killed for expressing my views?
I was correcting your inaccurate statement, that this man was killed for
his views. He was killed for what he was (or at least what his killers
believed he was) and it is an important difference.
I also disliked your categorisation of the USA as a repressive country,
apparently because such a thing could happen in it. If that's your idea
of a repressive country, you've lived a very sheltered life.
Karl Auer (email@example.com) +41-1-8881812 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +41-1-6327531 (w)