- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,891
- Points
- 113
She is back row, second last to the right.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Who is District Judge Jasvender Kaur?
- Thread starter winnipegjets
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,891
- Points
- 113
There has been public disquiet following some inexplicable court proceedings of late. The highest profile case among these has been that against 16-year-old Amos Yee.
From reports, the prosecution arguments seemed rather weak. In fact, in her 16-page judgment, District Judge Jasvender Kaur rejects various grounds by the defence, but rarely mentions the prosecution’s reasoned arguments which persuaded her to arrive at her decisions. In a successful conviction, it would be prudent to cite the meritorious arguments of the prosecution within the written judgment since the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Rather than use an objective definition of obscenity to make a ruling, Judge Kaur argues obscenity—like beauty—is in the eye of the beholder.
She states that to determine obscenity in the case of Amos Yee’s crude graphic of the late Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher in copulation, one needs to consider Yee’s target audience and the corrupting influence on them.
She infers the target audience to be youth between the ages of 13-19 on the basis of Yee being a teenager though one would think a lawyer making such an assertion in court would immediately have been challenged to provide evidence.
In any case, having determined the target audience, the key she says to arriving at a judgment on whether the graphic is obscene is to consider the views of parents and teachers of this target audience. She does not, however, actually consult any parents or teachers.
Judge Kaur's describes her thought bubble:
“Would any right-thinking parent approve of their teenage daughters and sons to view such an image? Would any teacher approve of such an image to be viewed by his or her students in the school library?
In my judgment, the answer would be an emphatic ‘no’. It would meet with their strongest possible disapproval and condemnation.”
She does not say if the parent and teacher she had in mind were of a child as young as 13 years old, who would have entered Secondary One, or as old as a 19-year-old who would likely be in tertiary education or national service.
Judge Kaur’s subjective reasoning seems a poor basis for a judgment which could result in a jail sentence for a defendant in a groundbreaking, precedent-setting case.
Many parents abdicate to schools the responsibility of sex education to their children and prefer to hope their children remain naïve about sex till they become 21 and watch R21 films.
Due to the generational divide today, there is such a large gulf between what parents think their kids know about sex and the reality that one could conclude it is the parents who are likely to be depraved and corrupted by learning of what their teenagers know.
Presumably the very same graphic Yee made would not be considered obscene if I were to reproduce it on my blog since I do not write specifically for teenagers and doubt many teenagers would have much interest in my essays.
Perhaps most regrettable is the rather judgmental view Judge Kaur takes of whom she considers to be “right-minded parents” and teachers considered suitable for the profession. They are, of course, parents and teachers who react to Yee’s graphic with the “strongest possible disapproval and condemnation.”
One should not forget that there were those who considered themselves “right-minded parents” who objected vehemently—and unsuccessfully—to the Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on Sexuality, which was drafted following consultation with health professionals and counsellors.
It is arguable Judge Kaur’s inference that the majority of those who saw the crude image on Yee’s blogs were teenagers has merit, even if the prior readership was primarily from that age-group.
By all accounts, the majority of those exposed to the crudity were adults. It appears unlikely that any of the police reports made against Yee were by teenagers. We know the person who assaulted Yee was a 49-year-old man and others who had threatened harm were also adults. The vast majority who saw the crude image and commented at his blog and Facebook also appeared to be over the age of 19—and, therefore, not teenagers.
One hopes that an accused is not going to be sent to jail based on the intuitions of the judiciary.
Judge Kaur was quick to dismiss comparisons the defence presented of a similar image in an online South African Women’s Health Magazine stating:
“What is permitted elsewhere in the world is also irrelevant. I am not concerned with standards in other countries … It is for the court to judge if the image is obscene having regard to our current community’s standards or conscience.”
However, she does cite from cases from other legal jurisdictions such as the UK, Malaysia and India, including from jury trials, which are not part of Singapore’s legal system, that she considers relevant to her deliberations. Many of these cases are from the 1930s to 70s—a bygone era when the state of morality was very different to today.
As Judge Kaur acknowledges that “community’s standards and conscience”—nebulous concepts to begin with—change over time, how does a judge assess objectively what these are at any given time such that the public can be assured that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred due to inaccurate reading of community sensibilities?
Some would argue community sensitivities—changing as they are—should not even be valid considerations to legitimise witch hunts or curbs on free speech given more robust and overarching rights enshrined in the constitution.
Relating to the second charge of intention to wound the feelings of Christians, in a previous post, I had wondered:
“I am no legal eagle but it seems it is not necessary to demonstrate if Christians’ feelings were, in fact, wounded as it appears irrelevant to the charge. Instead, to make the charge stick, does the prosecution have to get into Yee’s head and provide evidence of his state of mind at the time he posted the allegedly offensive material?”
The judge makes the same point, which is why testimony by those who filed police reports was considered irrelevant. The implication is that, in future, complaints may not even be necessary for sedition charges to be made.
The judge adds, “intention, which is a state of mind, can never be proved as fact.” However, despite Yee’s denial that he intended to hurt the feelings of Christians, Kaur still concluded:
“It is not in dispute that the accused spent 2 to 3 days conceptualising, writing, filming and editing the script. I am therefore satisfied that the intent was deliberate.”
Yee had acknowledged that Christians could be hurt by his video in one of his statements. He had apparently also researched the Sedition Act. The judge uses these facts to conclude “the accused’s immediate intent was to denigrate both subjects (Christians and Lee Kuan Yew’s followers).”
Is it not equally plausible to conclude that, as Yee had taken 2 to 3 days to produce his video and researched the Sedition Act, he was in fact being careful and felt that any offence caused by his video would fall short of what would be interpreted as illegal? If so, surely the most Yee can be accused of is miscalculating, which is not the same as intending to wound. The Act, after all is ambiguously worded.
In hospitals, patients who experience trauma are routinely shown a pain chart containing emoticon-like facial expressions illustrating varying degrees of discomfort. This allows medical staff to take appropriate course of actions. How is the law to decide how much hurt segments of the public need to feel before the Sedition Act kicks in?
There are several other points from Kaur’s written judgment which the defence may take encouragement from in considering an appeal. I would like, however, to bring up one final point about the trial which is puzzling.
Following Yee’s convictions, bail was reduced to $10,000 from $30,000 and all previous restrictions were dropped. Why would Yee’s bail conditions be more burdensome when he was still innocent of the charges and less of a flight risk than when he is guilty? Why was he placed in remand and shackled in court during the trial if the prosecutor now makes the following statements:
“It is clear that neither a sentence of a fine nor a term of imprisonment would be suitable in the circumstances.
At 16, 17-years old, I don’t think one should be holding the odium of a conviction.
What he urgently needs is counselling and appropriate probation.
It is not in our interest to keep him in remand.”
The absence of logical responses and clarifications could lead to increased speculation as to the judgment and the inconsistent actions of the prosecution in the case of Amos Yee. There has already been much comment regarding the trial and outcome.
This and other recent precedent-setting cases such as the successful use of the Protection From Harassment Act against The Online Citizen and Dr Ting Choon Ming could lead the public to feel that the judiciary is more concerned with protecting the interests of the Government and the People’s Action Party than the public interest.
The perception of impartiality of the judiciary is critical particularly in a system in which the Government is responsible for the appointment of judges and the Attorney-General and the PAP’s hegemonic control of all aspects of governance in Singapore. The failure to convince the public of the institution's independence could prove detrimental to the confidence the public has in the judiciary.
http://maskedcrusader.blogspot.ca/
From reports, the prosecution arguments seemed rather weak. In fact, in her 16-page judgment, District Judge Jasvender Kaur rejects various grounds by the defence, but rarely mentions the prosecution’s reasoned arguments which persuaded her to arrive at her decisions. In a successful conviction, it would be prudent to cite the meritorious arguments of the prosecution within the written judgment since the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Rather than use an objective definition of obscenity to make a ruling, Judge Kaur argues obscenity—like beauty—is in the eye of the beholder.
She states that to determine obscenity in the case of Amos Yee’s crude graphic of the late Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher in copulation, one needs to consider Yee’s target audience and the corrupting influence on them.
She infers the target audience to be youth between the ages of 13-19 on the basis of Yee being a teenager though one would think a lawyer making such an assertion in court would immediately have been challenged to provide evidence.
In any case, having determined the target audience, the key she says to arriving at a judgment on whether the graphic is obscene is to consider the views of parents and teachers of this target audience. She does not, however, actually consult any parents or teachers.
Judge Kaur's describes her thought bubble:
“Would any right-thinking parent approve of their teenage daughters and sons to view such an image? Would any teacher approve of such an image to be viewed by his or her students in the school library?
In my judgment, the answer would be an emphatic ‘no’. It would meet with their strongest possible disapproval and condemnation.”
She does not say if the parent and teacher she had in mind were of a child as young as 13 years old, who would have entered Secondary One, or as old as a 19-year-old who would likely be in tertiary education or national service.
Judge Kaur’s subjective reasoning seems a poor basis for a judgment which could result in a jail sentence for a defendant in a groundbreaking, precedent-setting case.
Many parents abdicate to schools the responsibility of sex education to their children and prefer to hope their children remain naïve about sex till they become 21 and watch R21 films.
Due to the generational divide today, there is such a large gulf between what parents think their kids know about sex and the reality that one could conclude it is the parents who are likely to be depraved and corrupted by learning of what their teenagers know.
Presumably the very same graphic Yee made would not be considered obscene if I were to reproduce it on my blog since I do not write specifically for teenagers and doubt many teenagers would have much interest in my essays.
Perhaps most regrettable is the rather judgmental view Judge Kaur takes of whom she considers to be “right-minded parents” and teachers considered suitable for the profession. They are, of course, parents and teachers who react to Yee’s graphic with the “strongest possible disapproval and condemnation.”
One should not forget that there were those who considered themselves “right-minded parents” who objected vehemently—and unsuccessfully—to the Health Promotion Board’s FAQ on Sexuality, which was drafted following consultation with health professionals and counsellors.
It is arguable Judge Kaur’s inference that the majority of those who saw the crude image on Yee’s blogs were teenagers has merit, even if the prior readership was primarily from that age-group.
By all accounts, the majority of those exposed to the crudity were adults. It appears unlikely that any of the police reports made against Yee were by teenagers. We know the person who assaulted Yee was a 49-year-old man and others who had threatened harm were also adults. The vast majority who saw the crude image and commented at his blog and Facebook also appeared to be over the age of 19—and, therefore, not teenagers.
One hopes that an accused is not going to be sent to jail based on the intuitions of the judiciary.
Judge Kaur was quick to dismiss comparisons the defence presented of a similar image in an online South African Women’s Health Magazine stating:
“What is permitted elsewhere in the world is also irrelevant. I am not concerned with standards in other countries … It is for the court to judge if the image is obscene having regard to our current community’s standards or conscience.”
However, she does cite from cases from other legal jurisdictions such as the UK, Malaysia and India, including from jury trials, which are not part of Singapore’s legal system, that she considers relevant to her deliberations. Many of these cases are from the 1930s to 70s—a bygone era when the state of morality was very different to today.
As Judge Kaur acknowledges that “community’s standards and conscience”—nebulous concepts to begin with—change over time, how does a judge assess objectively what these are at any given time such that the public can be assured that a miscarriage of justice has not occurred due to inaccurate reading of community sensibilities?
Some would argue community sensitivities—changing as they are—should not even be valid considerations to legitimise witch hunts or curbs on free speech given more robust and overarching rights enshrined in the constitution.
Relating to the second charge of intention to wound the feelings of Christians, in a previous post, I had wondered:
“I am no legal eagle but it seems it is not necessary to demonstrate if Christians’ feelings were, in fact, wounded as it appears irrelevant to the charge. Instead, to make the charge stick, does the prosecution have to get into Yee’s head and provide evidence of his state of mind at the time he posted the allegedly offensive material?”
The judge makes the same point, which is why testimony by those who filed police reports was considered irrelevant. The implication is that, in future, complaints may not even be necessary for sedition charges to be made.
The judge adds, “intention, which is a state of mind, can never be proved as fact.” However, despite Yee’s denial that he intended to hurt the feelings of Christians, Kaur still concluded:
“It is not in dispute that the accused spent 2 to 3 days conceptualising, writing, filming and editing the script. I am therefore satisfied that the intent was deliberate.”
Yee had acknowledged that Christians could be hurt by his video in one of his statements. He had apparently also researched the Sedition Act. The judge uses these facts to conclude “the accused’s immediate intent was to denigrate both subjects (Christians and Lee Kuan Yew’s followers).”
Is it not equally plausible to conclude that, as Yee had taken 2 to 3 days to produce his video and researched the Sedition Act, he was in fact being careful and felt that any offence caused by his video would fall short of what would be interpreted as illegal? If so, surely the most Yee can be accused of is miscalculating, which is not the same as intending to wound. The Act, after all is ambiguously worded.
In hospitals, patients who experience trauma are routinely shown a pain chart containing emoticon-like facial expressions illustrating varying degrees of discomfort. This allows medical staff to take appropriate course of actions. How is the law to decide how much hurt segments of the public need to feel before the Sedition Act kicks in?
There are several other points from Kaur’s written judgment which the defence may take encouragement from in considering an appeal. I would like, however, to bring up one final point about the trial which is puzzling.
Following Yee’s convictions, bail was reduced to $10,000 from $30,000 and all previous restrictions were dropped. Why would Yee’s bail conditions be more burdensome when he was still innocent of the charges and less of a flight risk than when he is guilty? Why was he placed in remand and shackled in court during the trial if the prosecutor now makes the following statements:
“It is clear that neither a sentence of a fine nor a term of imprisonment would be suitable in the circumstances.
At 16, 17-years old, I don’t think one should be holding the odium of a conviction.
What he urgently needs is counselling and appropriate probation.
It is not in our interest to keep him in remand.”
The absence of logical responses and clarifications could lead to increased speculation as to the judgment and the inconsistent actions of the prosecution in the case of Amos Yee. There has already been much comment regarding the trial and outcome.
This and other recent precedent-setting cases such as the successful use of the Protection From Harassment Act against The Online Citizen and Dr Ting Choon Ming could lead the public to feel that the judiciary is more concerned with protecting the interests of the Government and the People’s Action Party than the public interest.
The perception of impartiality of the judiciary is critical particularly in a system in which the Government is responsible for the appointment of judges and the Attorney-General and the PAP’s hegemonic control of all aspects of governance in Singapore. The failure to convince the public of the institution's independence could prove detrimental to the confidence the public has in the judiciary.
http://maskedcrusader.blogspot.ca/
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,891
- Points
- 113
This ambitious woman is sucking up to the PAP big time.
copied Tr Emeritius
Dosh:
June 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm (Quote)
“Amos Yee to be remanded further for 2 weeks.”
What for? This calls into question the decision of Judge Jasvender Kaur. Is she married with children? Nothing personal, but the relevance: How can she sleep at night with this abhorrent miscarriage of justice??? Yes, I do respect a judge’s discretion. But, in the PAP court I will NOT respect the judgement. Implicitly or explicitly ‘higher hands’ are holding the puppets (judges) on a string – especially in political cases as in the case of Amos.
Dosh:
June 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm (Quote)
“Amos Yee to be remanded further for 2 weeks.”
What for? This calls into question the decision of Judge Jasvender Kaur. Is she married with children? Nothing personal, but the relevance: How can she sleep at night with this abhorrent miscarriage of justice??? Yes, I do respect a judge’s discretion. But, in the PAP court I will NOT respect the judgement. Implicitly or explicitly ‘higher hands’ are holding the puppets (judges) on a string – especially in political cases as in the case of Amos.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 105,968
- Points
- 113
Pussy judge who doesn't know how to end it. Now using Autism Spectrum Disorder to buy more time.
Cannot jail. Cannot fine. Now RTC also cannot. Caught with pants down, the pussy judge is looking for a way out.
How Ah Loong can help? Dun forget you are the clown prince who started it.
Cannot jail. Cannot fine. Now RTC also cannot. Caught with pants down, the pussy judge is looking for a way out.
How Ah Loong can help? Dun forget you are the clown prince who started it.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 743
- Points
- 0
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,180
- Points
- 0
Now the government is using ASD as an excuse to make people believe the goverment willing to give Amos a chance . The government don't want to admit that they kena pressure from the UN because of " face value " so the best is to play that ASD card to get out that sticky situation that they created . They thought they can bully Amos and send a signal to those who talk back about the government , never did they expect UN will come into the picture
surprise surprise
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 15,733
- Points
- 83
Arse Loong don't care one. She farked it up herself. If she wants a prized MP post or a prizier minister post. It will take more then opening legs n sexposing the stuffycunt
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,258
- Points
- 48
A future PAP MP, coming to a GRC near you.
Got to ensure have a shit skin vacancy to complete the team with racial mix.
Any shit skin giving up running in 2016? LoL
Here's a bigger pic:
but younger, of course. :p
No diff.
Bigger or Smaller pics...
the skin color remain the same. LoL
It's so obvious that this judge is carrying out the dictates of her masters. Has she not a mind of her own?
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 105,968
- Points
- 113
Having a mind of your own is a dangerous thing if you wish to prosper in the public sector.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,380
- Points
- 113
justbendover kaur?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,828
- Points
- 113
Pet kangaroo will do as white masters instructions
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 105,968
- Points
- 113
Q: What do you call this country if the Babu Singhs take over it?
A: Singh-Kaur-Poor
Similar threads
