TheBearProject Charity Art Show

TheBearProject Charity Art Show

Last year, Singapore's first "bear" community group
TheBearProject made its debut at The Pink Picnic, an
impromptu National Day gathering at the Botanic
Gardens. This year, we've decided to make a bigger
splash with our first-ever event at the Indignation
festival. It's a charity art auction featuring art
works by our members and invited guest artists, and
you're invited!

Bear culture is well-established in Western countries
and in certain Asian countries like Japan, Taiwan and
Hong Kong, but many in Singapore's gay community are
still coming to grips with it. Burly, rambunctious and
sporting regulation crew cuts, goatees and knee length
shorts, Singapore bears have hung out at bars like
Same and the now-defunct Oso for years. But it was
only last year that they came together as the
TheBearProject, a social networking group founded by
Ernest Yeo and Gary Lim. The group now comprises
roughly 120 bears, bears-in-training and bear
admirers.

Why an art auction? Well, there's a wacky,
irresistible ring to the notion of big heavy guys
peddling fine art. And since quite a few of us members
in TheBearProject were in the creative industries, we
thought: why not organise a little art show of our own
works, and auction them off to our members for
charity? We also managed to rope in local guest
artists that we know personally, who have kindly
contributed original works for the show.

So come along to Play on the night of August 16 for an
art auction with a difference. Bid on art pieces from
eleven TheBearProject members (including cartoonist
Otto Fong, newspaper columnist Ignatius Low and
graphic designer Gary Lim), and prominent local
artists and photographers like Heman Chong, Jeremy
Sharma, Tay Kay Chin and Chan Wai Teik. There's also
a stunning series of six paintings from
noted lesbian artist Genevieve Chua. Starting bids
range from just $100 to $2,500.

Here are the details:
Date: 16 August, 2008 (Saturday)
Venue: Play (21 Tanjong Pagar Road)
Time: 7.30pm onwards
8pm: Official opening
8.30pm: Interviews onstage with featured artists
9.15pm: Bids closed

The event is in aid of The Triangle Project and
several other charities. The Triangle Project was
started in 1992 by local theatre group The Necessary
Stage with the aim of providing opportunities for the
less privileged to watch theatre. The Necessary Stage
matches donors and charities with the former buying
tickets to our productions for the beneficiaries. This
scheme has proven to be very successful and numerous
beneficiaries of Voluntary Welfare Organisations have
experienced theatre as a result.
Half the proceeds from the art sale will be donated to
The Triangle Project and the rest will be anonymously
donated to charities tending to the needs of children
and needy families in Singapore. A full list of
donations will be posted on our website after the
event.

You can view all the artworks on sale at:
http://thebearprojectcharityartshow.blogspot.com

This Indignation event is open only to invited guests,
so please RSVP by providing us your
1) Name
2) Contact no.
3) Email
to thebearproject.charity@gmail.com
RSVP closes on the 14th August 08, midnight. So please
do register early!

See you at the event!

Hugs,
TheBearProject Charity Art Show Organizing Committee

New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does!
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/sg/

Women who love Women goes to Q Film Festival and More Screenings at Sinema!

Just to announce that the documentary, Women who Love Women: Conversations in Singapore is being screened at the Q! Film Festival in Jakarta this coming week on 11 August (7 pm) and 14 August (8 pm) at different venues. For more information, please visit www.qfilmfestival.org. Please help spread the news to family/friends in Jakarta. The Q! Film Festival will also tour to Jogjakarta and Bali.

as well, Sinema is extending the docu screening to August and possibly September. The dates for August are:

- Thursday, 14 August, 6.45 pm
- Thursday, 21 August, 9.30 pm


Venue: Sinema @ Old School (11B Mt. Sophia Road)
Tickets: $8 each
Ticketing Hotline (Sinema): 63369707
[Tickets to be reserved over the ticketing hotline; payment and collection of tickets only at Sinema itself]
For more information: www.sinema.sg

For more information on the documentary, please visit our blogsite: womenwholovewomensingapore.blogspot.com

ST: Who needs Speakers' Corner? (Aug 29)

Aug 29, 2008
THE POST-65ERS
Who needs Speakers' Corner?
By Hong Xinyi
YOU may have heard: The Government has loosened the regulations for
Speakers' Corner.

The administration of this famous little patch of land in Hong Lim
Park will soon be the responsibility of NParks rather than the police,
and demonstrations will be allowed there.

Even the burning of effigies at Speakers' Corner will not be
'pre-judged', according to an NParks official.

A Straits Times report stated that 'reactions to the news ranged from
a lackadaisical 'It's no big deal' to doubt that Singaporeans were
ready for demonstrations, even in a controlled environment'.

As a symbol of increased liberalisation, one could make a case for the
revamped Speakers' Corner as a significant milestone.

But perhaps the less than enthusiastic reaction to this relaxing of
rules is partly due to the fact that Singaporeans have felt little
need to air their opinions at Hong Lim Park. Instead, they have simply
come up with more effective ways of communication.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that the old chestnut of
Singaporeans being too apathetic and afraid to speak up for their
rights is becoming an outdated idea.

A few months ago, after meeting a group of anti-en bloc neighbours, I
decided to shop a theory around: the two most significant ground-up
civil rights developments of 2007 were the factions that coalesced
around their support of and opposition to Section 377A, and the
private property owners fuming about being forced out of their homes
by en bloc sales.

The Internet was an effective tool for those passionate about both
issues, with viral videos, online petitions and crusading blogs
featuring prominently in galvanising supporters.

The results, at first blush, seem to have been starkly different.

The debate that bubbled up around 377A seems to have faded into the
background, and this section of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay
sex, remains unchanged.

On the other hand, the Government introduced stricter regulations for
the en bloc process in September last year, due at least partly to the
unhappiness of home owners who felt they were being coerced into
participating in collective sales. Articles on contentious en bloc
sales also continue to appear in local newspapers.

What accounts for the different outcomes for these two 'movements',
both carried out with passion and a great deal of Internet savvy?

Cynics may suggest that it takes an issue as deeply pragmatic and
quantifiable as home ownership to get Singaporeans to speak up with
fervour and demand policy changes - and get them. And while collective
sales have led to nasty disputes among neighbours, I would argue that
it's nowhere near as divisive as 377A is.

I spoke to Dr Minority, the author of enblocsingapore.blogspot.com (he
prefers to remain anonymous on record as he is concerned about the
impact his anti-enbloc views will have on his professional
advancement), a while back.

This blogger said he did not believe that the home owners against
collective sales qualified as activists, nor did he consider the issue
'a cause', even though for many home owners, the thing at stake is the
emotional rather than financial value of their homes.

'This is a largely middle-class problem, and this particular class may
make a lot of noise, but ultimately they hope the Government will fix
things. As for holding rallies, that's not likely,' he said.

'But bear in mind, three years ago, the extent of any kind of
resistance amounted to anonymous letters being distributed. Now people
have become more organised. There has been a slight progression.
People are prepared to voice their own opinions. That's quite important.'

Meanwhile, blogger Alex Au, a prominent local gay rights activist,
pointed out to me that just because the mainstream media hasn't done
much post-377A coverage doesn't mean that the issues brought up by
this debate have been swept under the carpet.

He has seen more schools inviting speakers like him to discuss these
issues, for instance. And the nature of the gay rights movement here,
which is, according to him, quite informally organised and responsive
to topical issues, is also effective in its own way. 'It's like a
multi-headed hydra because there are so many different people doing
different things. The chaos is part of the effectiveness.'

What these two examples illustrate is that participating in public
discourse in Singapore is no longer - if it ever was - a matter of
getting a permit to speak at a particular corner.

The very notion of what is considered a civil liberty is being
expanded. In the age of the Internet, discourse is very often virtual
and fragmented, but it is most definitely already present.

So, sure, relaxing the rules at Speakers' Corner is a great sign of
good faith by the Government. But, perhaps, the time for symbolic
gestures has already passed.

hxinyi@sph.com.sg

The Times: Rowan Williams: Gay Relationships 'comparable to marriage' (Aug 7)

From The Times
August 7, 2008
Rowan Williams: gay relationships 'comparable to marriage'

The strength of Rowan Williams's views will astonish his critics

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Rowan Williams believes that gay sexual relationships can "reflect the love of God" in a way that is comparable to marriage, The Times has learnt.

Gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between men and women, and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong, he believes.

Dr Williams is known to be personally liberal on the issue but the strength of his views, revealed in private correspondence shown to The Times, will astonish his critics.

The news threatens to reopenbitter divisions over ordaining gay priests, which pushed the Anglican Communion towards a split.

As Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture at the Lambeth Conference, which closed on Sunday.

However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature.

He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: "I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness. " Dr Williams described his view as his "definitive conclusion" reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.

The letters, written in the autumn of 2000 and 2001, were exchanged with Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian living in his former archdiocese in South Wales, who had written challenging him on the issue.

In reply, he described how his view began to change from that of opposing gay relationships in 1980. His mind became "unsettled" by contact as a university teacher with Christian students who believed that the Bible forbade promiscuity rather than gay sex.

Dr Williams, who was ordained a priest in 1978, became a lecturer at Cambridge two years later and was appointed Dean of Clare College in 1984.

He told Dr Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had "definitely come to the conclusion" that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay.

He cited two academics as pivotal in influencing his view. One of them was Jeffrey John, the celibate homosexual whom he later forced not to become Bishop of Reading after an outcry from conservatives.

In his 1989 essay The Body's Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church's acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.

In the correspondence Dr Williams wrote of his regret that the issue had become "very much politicised" and was treated by many as "the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy".

Asked to comment yesterday, Lambeth Palace quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said: "When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."

ST: Anglican leader calls for moratorium on gay bishops (Aug 5)

Aug 5, 2008
Anglican leader calls for moratorium on gay bishops

LONDON - ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury Rowan Williams, struggling to hold
together the troubled global Anglican family, has urged church leaders
not to consecrate another gay bishop, saying the fellowship will be in
'grave peril' without a moratorium.

In his final speech at the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference on Sunday,
Dr Williams said Anglicans needed 'space for study and free discussion
without pressure' about whether to accept changes in traditional
biblical understanding of same-sex relationships.

He also asked churches to refrain from adopting official prayers for
blessing same-gender unions.

'If the North American churches don't accept the need for moratorium,
then, to say the least, we are no further forward,' he said at a news
conference ending the 20-day assembly in Canterbury. 'That means, as a
communion, we continue to be in grave peril.'

The 77 million-strong Anglican Communion has been splintering since
2003, when the United States Episcopal Church consecrated the first
openly gay bishop, the Reverend Canon Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Dr Williams barred Rev Robinson and a few other bishops from the
meeting and designed the event without legislation or votes, instead
focusing on rebuilding frayed relationships.

Still, more than 200 theologically conservative bishops boycotted the
gathering, upset that Dr Williams had invited Episcopal leaders who
consecrated Rev Robinson.

In June, just before Lambeth began, those same conservative bishops
formed a new global network within the communion that challenged Dr
Williams' authority but stopped short of a permanent split.

Dr Williams does not have the authority to force an agreement among
the conflicting groups.

The 38 Anglican national churches, including the US Episcopal Church,
are self-governed and loosely connected by shared roots in the
missionary work of the Church of England.

The 650 bishops at Lambeth said in a statement, however, that 'there
is widespread support across the communion' for an extended moratorium
on gay bishops and on blessing ceremonies for same-gender couples.

'A fellow Christian may believe they have a profound fresh insight,'
Dr Williams said in his final address. 'But the Christian with the new
insight can't claim straight away that this is now what the Church of
God believes or intends.'

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori issued a brief
statement that did not address the requested bans. She said the
communion 'is suffering the birth pangs of something new' and urged
patience in the church.

The communion is the third-largest religious group in the world,
behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

Many Protestant churches are also struggling with how they should
interpret what the Holy Scriptures say about gay relationships and
other issues.

Catholic Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, spoke at Lambeth, urging the bishops to
maintain Christian tradition.

Vatican and Anglican officials have been in talks for years about
reunifying - an effort complicated by the Church of England's recent
move to accept female bishops.

Fridae.com: Singapore gay advocacy group launches academic prize (Aug 4)

Singapore gay advocacy group launches academic prize
Sylvia Tan

People Like Us, a gay and lesbian group, are inviting submissions for The Rascals Prize, the first ever award for research work related to the subject of LGBT and Singapore.

People Like Us (PLU), a gay and lesbian group focussed on advocacy and public education, has launched a biennial award worth S$2,000 (US$1,500) for the best research work related to the subject of LGBT and Singapore. The initiative was launched at the opening of Indignation, Singapore's LGBT pride season on Friday night (photo above).

In announcing The Rascals Prize, Russell Heng, one of the founders of PLU, told an audience of about 100 people that the unconventional name was deliberately chosen to commemorate a seminal event 15 years ago where police raided Rascals, a gay-on-Sunday disco.

On the night of May 30, 1993, all the patrons were made to line up and those without identification were hauled off to the police station for the night. The event spurred a group of 22 people led by lawyer Wilfred Ong to petition against the "high-handed police behaviour," according to the PLU web site. The group received an apologetic official reply and the incident is said to have marked the last documented incidence of police harassment of gays.

"The indignation over the raid on Rascals galvanised them into action and thus People Like Us was born," PLU said in a statement sent to Fridae.

Aside from the reference to the incident, Dr Heng told the audience that the name serves to remind that society benefits from having some "rascals" who shake things up from time to time.

"As a society often incapacitated by a need to observe rules, the rascals who dare to ignore, bend or break rules get things done. Activists pushing maverick causes; bloggers who go where media dare not; street protesters who remind us of the right of free association; it's time we learn to celebrate these rascals more," he said.

Explaining the aim of the prize, PLU said, "We believe that the more knowledge a society possesses about sexual orientation, and the social responses to this aspect of our humanity, the faster we will rid ourselves of misunderstanding, stereotype and ignorant prejudice."

The prize is funded by the monies raised at the Wilde movie fundraiser organised by Fridae on May 13, 2008. A cheque for S$10,000 was presented by Fridae to PLU on Friday night.

Citing the group's difficulties in roping in academics or other external help in its early years, Dr Heng told the audience that the four academics he approached agreed without hesitation and sees their response as an indication that society in general has become more understanding of the LGBT cause today.

The jury tasked to select a winner based purely on research and academic merit – whether the work helps or hinders gay activism shall not be a consideration – comprises Professor Michael Hor Yew Meng, (National University of Singapore) NUS Law Faculty, also Chief Editor of the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies; Associate Professor Quah Sy Ren, Acting Head of the Chinese Division, School of Humanities and Social Science, Nanyang Technological University (NTU); Dr Sharon Siddiqui is a partner in a regional research consulting company based in Singapore and former Deputy Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies where her research interest covers issues of culture, race and religion; and Dr Kenneth Paul Tan is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS.

The first prize will be awarded in the middle of 2009. Submissions (recent independent research work; or research work submitted to a university, polytechnic college or academic journal) are invited for the first award, with closing date 31 January 2009. For details, visit http://www.plu.sg/society/?p=121.