*One might argue that self-made saints see sinners as having a debt of sin, but doing that would render the discussion irrelevant and irreverent.

It was clearly stated that the ability to swim should be a pre-requisite in sport where falling into the water is an almost guaranteed. Raised this during the db incident.

Even if life jackets are used, isn’t there a risk of malfunction of life jackets?

Yet despite what is apparent common sense, we have yet another tragedy involving a non-swimmer in a water sport. Sigh… That’s life. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the self. If one can’t think, too bad.

The approach should be to allow self expression (driving) but drawing the boundaries (traffic rules) instead of demonising it. Prosecute those who abuse it instead of using the fear of abuse as a reason not to allow it.

Hence, whilst there should be sufficient space for individuals to express their views & vent their emotions, such platforms should be well guarded to ensure that they are not abused.

“As for Europe – well in some European nations being a “Holocaust” denier is a criminal offense – so it you suggest that only 5,999,999 were gased instead of 6 million, you could be jailed.”

Things are not as simple as you like to make it out. I am assuming that you have deliberately set up with such a spurious argument to make the case for the PAP government.

In the Europe you should be aware that there is a human right charter to which virtually all EU and some non-EU country subscribed. The charter does provide for very so called “fair comment” in Law. Unlike say in Singapore. So it is not a simply as you make it out that someone can be branded a holocaust denier by the state and you go to jail. It probably can in Singapore.

After all Singapore is pretty selective in its enforcement. What about a PAP MP making a racist remark about how Little India was getting darker? Why was he not prosecuted.

As for Europe – well in some European nations being a “Holocaust” denier is a criminal offense – so it you suggest that only 5,999,999 were gased instead of 6 million, you could be jailed.

While the “religious feelings” of theists are protected from being “wounded” by the law (specifically Penal Code S298), no law exists to protect the “secular beliefs”* of atheists.

* – One might argue that atheists do not “hold secular beliefs”, but that would be digressing from the discussion.

Now, some of you out there might side with the American view on the freedom to paint judges as scum with little basis for that conclusion – there are discussion boards out there calling Justice Antonin Scalia a “corrupt lying mafia shill”. I would have to side with Ms Bhavani on this one. I don’t think judges should be accused of being corrupt unless there is either sufficient evidence to justify such an accusation, or if they’ve broken some existing rule on judicial bias.

Why should a judge, a public figure, be shielded from accusation, however founded or unfounded?

If a judge made a ruling that someone disagree, founded or unfounded, why should no one be allowed to comment on it. Since, such comments does not impede the work of the judge, the judge should just ignore such comments. If the judge cannot stand by his/her judgement in the face of criticism than one has to question whether a judge can stand the heat of being an arbiter of justice.

Perhaps we can design a life-vest that fits under the sailors’ outer garment rather than over?