ENDS AND MEANS

At this day and age, who would have thought that people could still be sentenced to jail by simply expressing their opinion about issues concerning society?

At a time when human rights are at the very core of our basic laws, a person such as Carlos Celdran was given a verdict of imprisonment after expressing his support for women’s reproductive health and opposition to the Catholic Church’s meddling in the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. Even if the said bill is now a law (thanks to Congress), ironically, the Church still managed to score a point with this latest conviction.

Background

On September 30, 2010, Filipino tour guide, cultural activist, and performance artist Carlos Celdran staged a protest at the Manila Cathedral. Dressed as Crisostomo Ibarra, the lead character in Dr. Jose Rizal’s “Noli Me Tangere”, Celdran interrupted mass, raised a sign with the word “Damaso” (pertaining to a character in Rizal’s novel which symbolizes corrupt individuals in the Church), and shouted, “Stop getting involved in politics!” Celdran staged the protest in front of church-goers including Papal Nuncio Edward Adams, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, and Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim.

The police apprehended Celdran on the spot and detained him. The rector of the Manila Cathedral, Monsignor Nestor Cerbo, filed charges against him for violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:

“The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

Verdict

On January 28, 2013, the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 judge Juan Bermejo Jr. found Celdran guilty of violating Article 133 and was given an intermediate prison sentence of 2 months to a maximum of 1 year. Celdran, who was temporarily free due to bail, said he will appeal the sentence up to the Supreme Court. Netizens and ordinary citizens alike lamented their disgust and shock over the sentence, arguing that Celdran simply exercised his freedom of expression and that no one should be imprisoned for voicing out their opinion about a social issue. The hashtage #FreeCarlosCeldran is once again trending in Twitter and comments of support poured into Celdran’s official Facebook page.

Archaic, Punitive Law?

The lawyers of Carlos Celdran are arguing that their client was charged guilty under a law that is as old as the Spanish friars which Celdran saw in CBCP today—the Revised Penal Code. The 79-year old penal code, which is a revision of the original Spanish penal code, still contains archaic provisions that are no longer relevant and deemed inappropriate for punishing criminal liability at this day and age.

Nevertheless, there are still provisions in the law that enshrines the core of our constitution—human rights. This includes Article 133, the same article which Celdran was found guilty of.

Article 133 became part of the RPC with respect to the country’s Christian and Islamic roots but most importantly out of respect for religious freedom. It is anyone’s right to be associated in a religion of his/her own and exercise one’s religious beliefs. The article protects this right by preventing one religion from offending the feelings and beliefs of another religion, especially during the practice of such belief in one’s place of worship.

Article 133 is upheld even further by the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 5, which states:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed…”

The Most Unfortunate Place and Time

The 1987 Constitution enshrines not just freedom of religion but freedom of speech as well, as Section 4 of the Bill of Rights states:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

This very passage in our Constitution guarantees people like Carlos Celdran of the right to express their opinions no matter how these opinions go against the beliefs of any group whether political, racial, or religious in nature. Celdran’s protest in 2010 does not violate any laws if we are going to look at it from the ends—the expression of support for women’s reproductive rights and opposition to Church meddling in the passage of the RH Bill.

But the end does not justify the means.

It’s totally agreeable that back when the debate over the RH Bill is still hot, church leaders needed to be reminded of the limits of their influence. But the means through which Celdran gave his astounding reminder just defies the very core of our basic laws and makes him undeniably guilty of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

There are two important phrases in this violation: “…acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful” and “…in a place devoted to religious worship…”

By staging his protest during Holy Mass, Celdran placed himself in the most unfortunate time and place to express an unquestionable end. Whether it’s Holy Mass, Islamic sermons, or Buddhist prayers, it is offensive to intentionally interrupt one’s exercise of religious beliefs. We could argue that mass can sometimes be interrupted by cell phones unintentionally ringing or babies suddenly crying, but these are not willful acts of interruption, nor offensive in nature.

What made Celdran’s act even more offensive is his equation of Church leaders to corrupt Spanish friars while mass was going on by flashing the now iconic word. No matter how accurate this comparison is, you don’t offend the faithful inside their place of worship (and let us not begin questioning who we mean by “faithful” here, for Christ’s faithful followers are all sinners after all). If the word was posted outside of the cathedral, it could have been a different story for Celdran.

An Important Lesson

There are a lot to learn from this landmark case. One, you don’t step on one basic right in favor of another. If we can go around it to avoid conflict but still achieve the same ends, then let us do so. We are also made aware of the value of tolerance and how both Celdran and the Church should have exercised it: The former should have exerted due tolerance despite his flamboyant disapproval of the latter’s position; the latter should have exercised due tolerance by not going as much as filing a court case.

Most importantly, we are made aware of how our church leaders, who are preachers of forgiveness, should have been the first to exercise such virtue. It is understandable that the Church only wants to prevent future disrespectful acts from happening, hence, the filing of the case. But this is not Christ’s way; if it were Jesus who witnessed such act, He would admonish Celdran humanely and forgive Him for his trespasses. The church leaders who pursued this case are human after all—egotistic and filled with pride.

The only achievement of this verdict is the reiteration of respect and tolerance for religious beliefs. But by putting Celdran behind bars, this achievement will only defeat itself. Free Carlos Celdran! TSS

-----

“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”  

― C.S. Lewis

WHAT MAKES A MAN?

SEXISM (noun) \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\

: Prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially, discrimination against women

: Behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Society these days would like us to believe that women are the only victims of sexism. True. It’s a men’s world out there, and the empowered women of our generation are ever more eager to turn this men’s world around. There is nothing wrong with women fighting sexism, asserting their rights, and creating their own place in society. But little does society know that men can be victims of sexism too; and that both men and women can be perpetrators of sexist acts against men.

What are the common sexist stereotypes against men?

Society expects men to be providers/breadwinners. I guess this stems from the perspective developed from the hunter-gathering stage of human evolution. Men are supposed to be hunters, out for the kill so at the end of the day they have a beast to lay down their woman’s feet to feed the family for the coming days. The same today—men work backbreaking hours so that at the end of fifteen days he has a fat pay check to surrender to his commander. Men are not supposed to be doing domestic jobs such as housekeeping and raising kids. If a man does not have a car, a bank account, or a house of his own, don’t bother finding love anytime soon.

Society expects men to be physically attractive. Media these days has everything to say about what men should look like. They should be tall, well built, clean, handsome—the works of being a real gentleman. If you have a big tummy, unibrows, oily face, crooked teeth, too much hair, short height, it’s going to be a challenge finding a nice and lovely lady to fall in love with. Nerds and geeks have no place in a real man’s world as media would like to show.

Society expects men to be strong and not emotional. "Boys don’t cry" is a line often mentioned in song. Men aren't expected to watch chick flicks, read romance literature, or even write one. Men aren't supposed to be experience emotions such as giddiness, sentimentality, or utter despair. When women leave us for another, we are expected not to wail and whine like babies looking for their mothers. Men can’t be loud, talkative, and opinionated as these are qualities often associated with women.

Society expects men to be decisive and firm. Men shouldn't have difficulty making up their minds about something, let alone change their minds from time to time. Hence the reason why society used to give typhoons in the Philippines lady names like “Rosing” or “Bising” because of the erroneous belief that only women are temperamental, moody, and can change their mind at the drop of a hat. In times of crisis, men are supposed to show composure, without a hint of confusion and fear.

Society portrays all men as cheats. Let's face it: there are more films where men are portrayed as cheats. As if some women aren't capable of infidelity whether physical or emotional. If a guy notices a beautiful woman other than his girlfriend, women are quick to judge that they are cheaters. But when a woman goes mushing for a handsome, macho man other than her boyfriend, there is neither stigma nor judgement involved. And when a woman is being flirted on by other men other than her boyfriend, her friends will even say to her, "Ang haba ng hair mo girl!" Imagine how this could be cruel and demeaning for the boyfriend. Our society hails cougars but disdains older men in a relationship with younger women as dirty old men (DOMs).

At some point, I have no problem with these expectations if there are no thick lines that say these are what men are supposed to be. I understand that men have to work because it’s a necessity to survival, that men have to be well groomed because for health and hygiene reasons, that men have to be decisive at some point in a crisis, that man have to be strong in order to protect his family, that men have to be physically fit and healthy in order to accomplish his responsibilities as a guy.

But everywhere we look, there are thick lines that box us men inside these expectations.

Say, a guy gets laid off his job. He has difficulty finding one because of tough economic times. He is dubbed a bum, a hobo, a tambay (in Filipino, short for standby). Even if he stays in the house and take responsibility for domestic stuff like cleaning and laundry, the stigma of not having a job will always be there. Many men have been left by their wives just because they don’t have a job or preferred to stay at home to be house husbands instead of blue or white collar men who earn a fat pay check enough to buy women their whims and caprices in life.

"From time to time, men have to be the gatherers
and women have to be the hunters."

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not condoning indolence and laziness on the part of men. I’m just saying we should look at men and women fairly. When women stay a home and become housewives, nothing bad is said of them—which is a totally different case for men. This should not be the case; society has to accept the reversal of evolutionary gender roles. From time to time, men have to be the gatherers and women have to be the hunters.

I am also not condoning emotional instability. All I am saying here is men should be allowed to show some vulnerability when they have to. Like in the example above, when a woman leaves a man, can’t we cry out loud in pain like normal human beings do? Can we not show our despair through tears and wails, and be a total wreck from time to time? Can't we be like Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness" who despite his many pitfalls, wrong turns, and despair in life still managed to turn it all around?

Men who do not cry end up being mass murderers; Have you ever seen a woman in a shooting rampage? No. Because women let it out when they’re sad. They are allowed to show weakness, insecurity, and fear. But us men, we are expected to show strength even when deep inside we are frail and unstable. Just as women, our emotional needs need to be taken care of too.

But the worst of these thick lines is how society makes it a requirement for men to be physically attractive. I guess that’s the reason why we have a proliferation of beauty products for men and tremendously vain metrosexuals. In the eyes of traditional women, we should always be the dashing prince out to save them from being locked up in their tower. If you’re not packing abs or sporting some muscle, you don’t get the girl’s number, you don’t get steaming hot sex, and you don’t get true love.

What society does not understand is how this distorted view causes a lot of insecurity in men perceived as not physically attractive. Hence, in order to make the cut, some men become unnatural by trying to be who they’re not. These men aspire for greater height, desire longer penises, and pushing themselves beyond their limit at the gym.

True. Physicality has something to do with finding the right partners in life. That in the evolutionary perspective, big muscles for men and big boobs for women signifies the capacity to procreate good offspring. But this is the same reason why the Nazis cleansed Germany of men and women who are perceived to be of bad genes. But we are not Nazis looking for true love. Hence, we shouldn't label nerdy, geeky, unibrow sporting men as degenerates.

We should not define manliness in the context of physique, capability, or capacity; manliness flows from the mere humanity of a person—how at the beginning, he cries in the face of fear, but still faces it with all might, how he provides not just material but also non-material things, how despite his imperfect self—he still loves you with everything he has.

True. Man has to be able to provide for himself. It is an indicator of whether he can take care of someone else in his life. The same should be true for women. We are not entering a relationship because we want somebody to take care of us. If it is for this reason, then we should more probably enter a nursing home or hire a caregiver instead. Men and women enter in a relationship out of their mutual want to live a life of love and care for each other. If you cannot give it to yourself, then how else can you be expected to give it to another person? If you only expect to receive love and care and not reciprocate it, why call it a relationship in the first place?

This paradigm shift goes both ways; it applies to how society traditionally and evolutionarily sees both men and women. I’m calling on society to take off the glasses of physicality and materialism and see people in the context of love and humanity. TSS

-----

People shouldn't try so hard to change people; rather, we must change the way we look at people. - Anonymous