Interesting. This reminded me of the persecution of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn for saying inconvenient things about Islam.
In this case, an American blogger in Singapore criticized a judge, opining that she was "prostituting herself" by doing the bidding of a top politician. The blogger is supposed to also have criticized the Singaporean legal system as "corrupt". What, are the Singaporean People forbidden to criticize the state apparatus?
Sounds a lot like the way it works in Canada. When one makes comments found inconvenient by the state apparatus, which has an agenda (ultra-far-left) which can be inconvenienced by people simply saying inconvenient things, one finds oneself being persecuted for simply rendering an opinion. Enter the "human rights" commissions, which are actually nothing more than corrupt fascist entities telling Canadians what they may and may not say, taking away peoples' rights, ruining their lives and so on. Just for exercising their inalienable, constitutionally-guaranteed and -protected right to freedom of expression. And the commissions discriminate. They favor, for example, sexual extremists and fundamentalist Islamists over those who aren't like that. Rights are irrelevant to the commissions. Evidence is irrelevant to them. Equality is irrelevant. So many things which we thought were sacred and inviolable are irrelevant to the liberal fascists of the HRCs. They will personally, ideologically, politically, fascistically deem what shall be and what shall not be. They punish people for exercising their rights! When our rights as exercised are deemed inconvenient by the HRCs, they'll take them away! And they discriminate in so doing, taking rights away from members of some groups but not members of others, practicing hateful double standards!
I wonder whether truth is a defence in Singaporean courts, as opposed to in Canada. I wonder if the Singaporeans, in actual practice, have more rights than Canadians, or suffer the same situation via corrupt, ideologically-extreme, pseudojudicial fascism by bigoted and/or self-interested, in-conflict-of-interest state apparatchiks.
Another question: If the blogger in Singapore tries to offer evidence of corruption of the courts/judges, will the judge, if corrupt, then allow the evidence? Why would a corrupt judge allow evidence specifically inconvenient to him/her and the court? What's stopping judges from acting in their own interests, or in the interests of their cronies or of their ideology/politics? What if a judge is secretly hateful/intolerant? What's keeping such judges in line?
Hmm. This brings me to another question.
In Canada, who judges the judges? Sure, higher judges judge lower judges in appeals, but then who judges the Supreme Court justices? Why, in a free and democratic society based on the rule of law and a constitution and charter of rights and freedoms, should the People accept the SCOC's rulings as the final word on things? What if the People disagree? What if the ruling is clearly not in conformity with the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If the SCOC is reasonably seen by the People as having broken the Constitution/Charter and ruled simply as they saw fit, then what is the remedy? Shouldn't there be a form of democratic appeal? Why not have a mechanism wherein a referendum can be legally forced by the People to decide whether to overturn the ruling of the SCOC?
The People must be the final judge. Not unelected, unaccountable, politician-appointed, radical political activists pretending to be "judges" and going far beyond and outside the realm of their duties, the Constitution and the Charter.
We shall not tolerate a dictatorship/tyranny of the judiciary.
