Dear Editor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
Having relied on The Philippine Daily Inquirer as an essential source of information on Philippine politics, lifestyle, and business, I would like to commend the newspaper for continuing to cover stories that matter to Filipinos both in the Philippines and abroad, often with exceptional depth and quality.
Thus, given my past admiration, it is with utter disappointment that I write to strongly critique a recent article, entitled “CBCP Wants Anti-Discrimination Bill Cleansed of Provisions on Gay Rights”, published on December 7th, 2011. In this article, Nina Calleja discusses the CBCP’s opposition to the current Senate Bill 2814 (Anti-Ethnic, Racial or Religious Discrimination and Profiling Act of 2011). Although the bill has passed the third reading in the Senate, it still has to go through harmonizing through bicameral discussions. The CBCP thus wants the phrase “sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity” removed from inclusion as the bill goes through this harmonizing process.
My opposition to the article stems from the following reasons:
1) Given the article’s public nature, and its ability to influence debate regarding an issue with such high stakes, I found it offensive that Calleja chooses to ignore one side of the conversation. Thus, she does not interview anyone—political activists, legislators, and academics to name a few—that could possibly provide feedback regarding the reason for the bill’s inclusion of this phrase in the first place. Off the top of my head, I could already recount many people who could have discussed the issue with similar depth and complexity. If Calleja can claim that no other sources of this information were available at the time of the article’s writing, then that should have been stated in the article, to at least give the impression of balanced coverage. Yet this article, as seemingly straightforward as it is, nonetheless provides a biased reading of the bill, and the CBCP’s stance as a whole.
2) Related to this bias, I was a bit offended by the tone of the article, especially the use of the word “cleanse” in the title. This word presupposes that the bill was polluted, tainted, and made “dirty” (the oppositional word to cleanse by the way) with the inclusion of a non-discrimination phrase that includes women and LGBT identified individuals. How come Calleja did not use “remove”, “stripped”, “taken out” or any possible terms that could convey a similar message, without the overtly political tone? Rather than having myself be accused of being defensive, I’d like to return to the article, and point to the copious amounts of quotations, perspectives, and frameworks coming from the CBCP, without ANY other possible viewpoints being included from the other side. This to me is explicit proof of the article’s point, which is to sway a particular set of legislators and the population, towards its bias around the topic. Granted that anyone should be able to write an opinion in a newspaper, then I suggest that as the Editor, you should have included this article in the Opinion section, NOT the News section as it still currently sits in.
3) Finally, as an out Filipino gay man, as an Assistant Professor of Women and Gender Studies, as a Filipino living in the Philippines and abroad, and as someone who feels invested in the equal rights of women and LGBT Filipinos, I would like to provide a counter-discourse to what Calleja wrote.
A) I find it offensive that Calleja can include passages about our “choice”, about our “third sex”, and about how the threat of the bill’s rightfully “changing society” for the better, without a single gesture or awareness of the violence that these harmful statements enact on our community. During the recently concluded Philippine Gay Pride (December 1), I saw the commitment of our community in fighting the continued spread of discrimination for everyone, not just LGBT identified folks, and to fighting the continued lack of awareness about HIV/AIDS (which is why the parade was timed to coincide with World Aids Day). Thus, as a community, we also desire the non-discrimination of everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, and religion (which the bill would have still preserved). This is the ethical thrust of the current bill, which is why sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity” were included in the last version.
B) As you can see in the bill’s phrasing, the removal of non-discrimination based on sex and gender would then also exclude not only “sexual orientation” but also sex and gender discrimination itself. Does the CBCP want the continue disenfranchisement of women and men based on their gender and sex (and not just sexual orientation)? I highly doubt the CBCP can claim that they believe women should still be discriminated, and survive politically (even though it is a religious group primarily).
C) The role of a newspaper, aside from providing information, is to educate the population. Thus, balanced reporting, which we had so forcefully fought for amidst multiple regimes and dictatorship, need to be preserved at all costs. This article, and its clearly skewed perspectives, fails to do so. Thus, it needs to be retracted immediately.
Thanks for your time. And regardless of the outcome of this letter, I do hope it gets noted. I’d still like to read the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and teach it to my students. Some of that faith needs to be restored.
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Diaz
Assistant Professor
Women and Gender Studies Program
Wilfrid Laurier University
—
Image from euronest
More information on the FRC, since our friend dboncan just loves to cite them for "hard evidence"
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-rese…
Can anyone provide me with the link to the PDI Opinion article? I trawled through online PDI but I was unsuccessful (the site design is oh so confusing).
Sorry…
Here you guys telling the paper how to run their business. sheeesh! Cant' understand how being a cross-dresser, gay, lesbian can be considered in the same light as a handicapped person when a handicapped person's lifestyle is impaired by a PHYSICAL condition that prevents them from functioning properly in society. You telling me that LGBT's also have an incapacitating condition that needs to be addressed through a law? I thought you were concerned with bullying and violence and the like, why don't you then address these issues as a matter of criminal justice.
Why discriminate based on sexual orientation, though? The LGBT community may not be physically incapacitated, but they are treated as second class citizens. If we really want to eradicate discrimination and bullying by involving the law, this must include the LGBT folk. We're not asking for special parking permits, just protection from people and organizations who keep push people around and ignore them "because they're gay."
Don't sugarcoat your homophobia by invoking arguments like "it's their choice to be what they are." If we're operating under that logic, I could easily say "I choose to be straight." Why do I get my rights?
Sorry, but there's no way around it. People who disapprove of homosexuality are discriminating and are bullying.
Why discriminate based on sexual orientation, though? The LGBT community may not be physically incapacitated, but they are treated as second class citizens. If we really want to eradicate discrimination and bullying by involving the law, this must include the LGBT folk. We're not asking for special parking permits, just protection from people and organizations who push people around and ignore them "because they're gay."
Don't sugarcoat your homophobia by invoking arguments like "it's their choice to be what they are." If we're operating under that logic, I could easily say "I choose to be straight." Why do I get my rights?
Sorry, but there's no way around it. People who disapprove of homosexuality are discriminating and bullying.
And here you are, telling these guys how to write a commentary.
I’m hate to break it to you, but violence and discrimination against the LGBT community is real. The same way that violence against women and children is real, the way discrimination against Muslims and indigenous people is real in our country. It’s not well-documented in our country because a majority of the LGBT community actually believe that they’re brainwashed to think that they “deserve” the treatment they get for being different. It’s not difficult to look for gay men or women who have been beaten up by their own fathers, bullied in class, or even raped. They need protection from the law so that may be treated equally.
The very same bill covers indigenous people, and people of all religions. I’m pretty sure they’re not all PHYSICALLY handicapped. But nobody ever doubts that they need to be protected against discrimination.
are you ignorant or what?
Dude…that's really a homophobic argument. And no, the LGBT's are in an incapacitating SITUATION that needs to be addressed through a law. Any attempts to deny that are ignorant and childish at best. Grow up.
You keep on harking that LGBT' s are so and so incapacitiated and yet you can't answer the questions I have posted:
1. Are they denied driver's licenses and the like?
2. Are they denied enrollment in schools and if they are, does the justice system deny them the right to be represented? How?
3. Are they denied equal protection under the law? How?
4. Are they denied employment specifically for these reasons? If so will the justice system deny them representation for this discriminatory act?
5. Are they denied organization in institutions? How?
Damn…your ignorance is frightening. As the previous comments have said, the LGBT discrimination is real. Look it up yourself, the only reason you are harking right now is your childish homophobia. Get over it dude.
“1. Are they denied driver’s licenses and the like?” -> Yes, I have a friend in Cebu who was denied a passport because of her gender expression. We can talk privately if you want to know more about this. We need a law to penalize the DFA and other institutions that do this.
“2. Are they denied enrollment in schools…” -> Yes, a certain school conducts masculinity tests and rejects students who show signs of femininity. Again, I can’t post here for confidentiality but let me know if you want further information. We need a law to abolish school practices like this as it violates the right to education.
“…and if they are, does the justice system deny them the right to be represented? How?” -> No, the justice system does not deny them this right but because they are minors, their parents would just look for another school to avoid the embarrassment of going to court because of their child’s perceived homosexuality. We need a law that will give the courage to parents to fight the discrimination against their children.
“3. Are they denied equal protection under the law? How?” -> They have equal protection on paper. But like I said, most victims do not go to court because there is no specific law that protects them from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We need a law that will empower these victims to come forward and enjoy the protection of the judicial system from discrimination.
“4. Are they denied employment specifically for these reasons?” -> Yes, I know several people who were not hired, not promoted, or terminated because of gender expression. We need a law that will penalize employers for these practices as it violates the right to work.
“…If so will the justice system deny them representation for this discriminatory act?” -> No, the justice system does not deny this but because of the prevailing culture of homophobia, most victims choose not to complain to avoid embarrassment. So again, we need a law that will empower these victims to come forward and enjoy the protection of the judicial system from discrimination.
“5. Are they denied organization in institutions? How?” -> We have reported cases of student organizations for LGBT people that were refused accreditation in schools because the school did not approve of homosexuality. We need a law to penalize these institutions as this violates the right to association.
Do you now acknowledge that (1) LGBT people experience discrimination? and (2) LGBT people are in a condition “that needs to be addressed through a law”?
I know we just closed our discussion on my article but I just wanted to make sure this does not escape your radar. Also, you've already acknowledged that there is a need for a law that will protect LGBT people from discrimination ("I agree because it doesn’t only happen to homosexuals but to everyone especially the poor but we are back on the same boat. A bill like this would not guarantee it’s implementation either. If the existing laws are not obeyed for one segment of society, why should we expect this to be obeyed to the letter too? But I will give this to you since redundancy of laws to me is a minor issue.") So just ignore the second question at the end of this post.
—
"1. Are they denied driver's licenses and the like?" -> Yes, I have a friend in Cebu who was denied a passport because of her gender expression. We can talk privately if you want to know more about this. We need a law to penalize the DFA and other institutions that do this.
"2. Are they denied enrollment in schools…" -> Yes, a certain school conducts masculinity tests and rejects students who show signs of femininity. Again, I can't post here for confidentiality but let me know if you want further information. We need a law to abolish school practices like this as it violates the right to education.
"…and if they are, does the justice system deny them the right to be represented? How?" -> No, the justice system does not deny them this right but because they are minors, their parents would just look for another school to avoid the embarrassment of going to court because of their child's perceived homosexuality. We need a law that will give the courage to parents to fight the discrimination against their children.
"3. Are they denied equal protection under the law? How?" -> They have equal protection on paper. But like I said, most victims do not go to court because there is no specific law that protects them from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We need a law that will empower these victims to come forward and enjoy the protection of the judicial system from discrimination.
"4. Are they denied employment specifically for these reasons?" -> Yes, I know several people who were not hired, not promoted, or terminated because of gender expression. We need a law that will penalize employers for these practices as it violates the right to work.
"…If so will the justice system deny them representation for this discriminatory act?" -> No, the justice system does not deny this but because of the prevailing culture of homophobia, most victims choose not to complain to avoid embarrassment. So again, we need a law that will empower these victims to come forward and enjoy the protection of the judicial system from discrimination.
"5. Are they denied organization in institutions? How?" -> We have reported cases of student organizations for LGBT people that were refused accreditation in schools because the school did not approve of homosexuality. We need a law to penalize these institutions as this violates the right to association.
Do you now acknowledge that (1) LGBT people experience discrimination? and (2) LGBT people are in a condition "that needs to be addressed through a law"?
I will end it on this note. You might be interested to see this link”http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02good day!
//I will end it on this note. You might be interested to see this link"//
May I point to everybody's attention that the Family Research Council is recognized as a hate group in the United States? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc… http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…
Who are you going to ass-pull next, Dickie – the Klan?
Hahahaha… hate group, what on the say-so of the SPLC. Arguing from false appeal to authority. Show me a ruling coming from the U.S. Courts that explicitly classifies the FRC as a hate group. Why don't you just look at the DATA and argue the data. Maybe because you can't so you resort to name calling, again Ho Hum!
Show us why FRC's stance is to be respected in the first place 🙂
SPLC was very privy in detailing prior cases where FRC was caught distorting facts and lying.
If you'd like to justify FRC, you'll have to explain where SPLC it gets its facts wrong. Otherwise, we have no inclination to respect any of their bullshit.
And speaking of the FRC, more material covering their previous rubbish:
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co…
hahaha what are you so scared of? Either the data they present is false or true. it's as simple as that! You don't have to jump hoops and do somersaults just to wave off the data. You have the gall to label them a hate group based on the say-so of a questionable organization. So does the U.S. Justice system consider them a hate-groupor not? Another simple question that is still waiting for an answer… well? All you do is label and throw ad hominems, for once prove the data false if you can instead of making a lot of empty noises.”SPLC was very privy in detailing prior cases where FRC was caught distorting facts and lying”I don't give a rats ass what a private company with vested interest says about another organization, I care about whether the FRC is considered by the U.S. a hate-group. Anyone can say anything about anyone as shown by my counter post. So go now and look….
oh oh wait what is it oh you mean the FRC is not a hate-group… really? Here's what the word is on the matter:In the Winter 2010 issue of its magazine,Intelligence Report, theSouthern Poverty Law Centerdesignated the FRC as ahate group,[27][28]saying that the organization “pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia.”[29]FRC President Tony Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as a political attack on the FRC by a “liberal organization” and as part of “the left's smear campaign of conservatives.”[28]On December 15, 2010 the FRC ran an open letter advertisement in two Washington, D. C. newspapers disputing the SPLC's action. A section of the letter supporting the FRC and certain other organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC had signers which included twenty members of theHouse of Representatives(including then soon-to-be SpeakerJohn Boehner), threeU.S. Senators, four state Governors, and one state Attorney General.[30][31]wow 20 congressmen, 3 senators and a state attorney general… FOR and the SPLC against, hmmm you've got a problem there my friend. But I am sure you are going to find another label for those who supported it… right-wing, fanatic etc… again. Tiring way of discussing. Good day to you .
//Arguing from false appeal to authority.//
This, from the man who claims that that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that it is damaging to children, despite the facts that several studies have shown that gay parents are just as capable of raising good kids.
And despite the fact that you have virtually no background in psychology, and despite the fact that the medical community has long since stopped calling homosexuality as a disorder.
But then again, I guess you're speaking from experience, aren't you? 😉
still waiting for a reasoned response and waiting, waiting, waiting……
You might be interested to see this link
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,017…
LOL. and may I point everybody's attention that the SPLC which Twinskies quotes is itself a money making scam operation:http://www.thesocialcontract.com/answering_our_critics/southern_poverty_law_center_splc_info.htmlSo much for your credible source and credibility. Hahahaha
Now you're citing an pro-white, anti-immigration group as your source.
Keep digging, old chap 😉
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…
You can find work as a Label-maker because that is all you've done so far. For once stick the issues at hand.
I didn't like the title, too. Thanks for pointing that out.