JUSTICE CRUZ RETORTS
21 08 2006In what could be a sharp rebuke against the weeklong attacks to his person and to his credibility as a writer, Justice Isagani Cruz retorted back, using MLQ3’s initial reaction as a starting point for his brief but direct-to-the-point rebuttal. Here are excerpts of that article entitled NEITHER HERE NOR THERE which came out in the Inquirer yesterday, August 20, 2006:
He calls me a hate-monger for deriding the vulgar practices of his kind and says I have no right to say what is tasteless and intolerable. Who has—he? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that freedom of speech includes not only the right to express the thought that agrees with us but also the thought that we abhor. Voltaire was grandiloquent: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Again, this is not to defend Mr. Cruz. But this is what I’ve been saying all along — that in a democracy where freedom of expression is an indispensable ingredient, ideas — good or bad, innocent or malicious, revered or despised — should, as a general rule, be allowed to flow uninterrupted. Mr. Cruz aptly notes:
Criticism is normal in the free society and is available to everyone right or wrong. The ideas that may be expressed under this freedom are not confined only to those that are sympathetic or acceptable, for that would make the freedom more shadow than substance. To be really meaningful, it should permit the articulation of even the unorthodox view, though it is hostile to or scorned by others. One of the purposes of this freedom, in fact, is to invite dispute.
Unfortunately, instead of answering Mr. Cruz head on, SOME of them responded by literally asking for his head on a silver platter. And to vent their ire on a man whose greatest sin was probably his use of the words pansy, vulgar, queer, siyoke, third sex, binabae, fairies, sexless persons and bading, they lashed out at him with equal if not greater intensity, SOME of them even wishing he is better dead than alive. Let’s look at what they had to say:
sounds to me like the pathetic rantings of someone who can do absolutely nothing about the passage of time. and like the dying gasps of an impotent old fool, he shakes his fists at the heavens, cursing his fate.i hope the newspaper gets a lot of feedback from this. i hope they get the right feedback… and have the guy fired. i wouldn’t be surprised if the faerie boys and girls lynched this old man to death sometime soon.
Mr. Cruz is ignorant, stupid, bigoted, and yes, cruel… As far as this senile old man is concerned, all gay men are weak sissies. He should be neutered so he can’t reproduce and spread his “macho” genes anymore.
Permanent retirement? I can’t wait to see that man go six feet under the ground!
Even I, a mere bystander, was not spared by the bigotry. So angry were their responses that to my surprise, they practically mouthed the same diatribes against my person:
OMG, are you stupid? The fact that he is “Justice Cruz” doesn’t excuse him for being a geriatric bigot whose morals have obviously withered with age… So please stop your pathetic attempts of defending this old lemming.
Oooohhh. Tough guy aren’t you. By the way, I’m Larissa de Ocampo, a 19-year old college student. Oh and yeah, I’m a lesbian. So here I am “man” enough to give you my real name, you chauvinistic pig… I couldn’t care less what happens to this man whom you oddly care about so much.
Which brings me to mind one poignant entry from another blogger who rationally dared to go against the tide of outrage and exaggeration. He said:
Bigotry cuts both ways. If you are intolerant of the opinions of others insofar as your orientation or personality is concerned, then that is fine; provided that you engage him properly. There are certain lines we don’t cross. Name-calling and personal attacks are good examples. Telling me that: “well he played dirty first, doesn’t that give me the excuse to also play dirty?” just means that you are sinking to his level, and, assuming that his bone is already as black as tar, then doesn’t that also make your bones dark, or gray at the very least? Please don’t attack the person who made those arguments without even considering what this guy had done or had been through. A blind attack on his credibility as a writer and his worth as a human being reeks of bigotry, albeit on a smaller level.
…Assuming that his opinions were ghastly, obnoxious and crude, would you sentence this man to eternal damnation and the fiery depths of hell just because he lived in an entirely different era, his mind shaped by an entirely different set of traditions and ideas through no fault of his own? What should you do? Do you stop him from writing? Prove him wrong by engaging him in a contest of name-calling? Sink to his level and also be stubborn, commit huge leaps in our senses of logic, and come up with irrational generalizations? Or do you need to become more mature and level headed, and begin your constructive rebuttal systematically and effectively? Does fighting fire with fire solve anything? Or is it more fun for us spectators to see who gets burned first?
What struck me most was this:
It’s funny that the gay community has reacted so harshly insofar as this opinion is concerned. When the Inquirer personnel for Reader’s Advocacy was interviewed she expressed horror in the fact that the letters sent to their office as a result of the said column was unprecedented, even more e-mails than the Garci controversy? You mean Mr. Cruz’s actions were more horrific and objectionable compared to what our “leaders” do? There’s the rub. Allow me to digress a bit. That brings me to our problem as individuals, we Filipinos only tend to focus on sensationalism and not substance, on interests of one particular group, but not that of the entire nation and future generations as well, on so-called controversial and sensitive issues per se, but not on controversial and sensitive issues that should involve the entire civic community. But hey, though we are one nation (see any recent encyclopedia), we should look after the more important interests of our own constituents and our own factions right? But that is another post. My apologies for ranting. I just have a thing for sense of priorities.
I think he’s right. Indeed, we are so eager to express our tirades against an old man’s opinion but play deaf and blind to the cheating, lying and stealing of our supposedly honorable political leaders. We are so sensitive about an octogenarian’s irresponsible comments yet display a cold shoulder toward the systematic murders being perpetrated on a nationwide scale. We tend to hold the mindset that as long as our interests are not affected, we don’t give a damn to the more glaring injustice pervading in our society. And to me that is wrong. Utterly wrong.
Going back to Justice Cruz, he further laments: Mr. Quezon compares me to the tyrants in the police states where unacceptable identity or thought is systematically exterminated. In the free society, ideas are countered with ideas, not pejorative names. For criticizing his kind, Mr. Quezon likens me to the Nazis and the Reds and brands me a hate-monger. I am a hate-monger against grafters, murderers, rapists and other criminals, but I only dislike the coarse homosexuals he defends, as is his right. Also disagreeable to me are straight persons who wear loud clothes, flunkies, hypocrites, humbugs and other unpleasant figures, male and female, in our imperfect society. I have the right to criticize them even as they have the right to reply in the common exercise of our freedom of expression. It all depends on what and whom you hate. If I criticize homosexuals who disgrace their sex with their tasteless practices and appearance, any one among them can rise in defense and say why they should not be called obnoxious. But not in an obnoxious manner.
Finally, he stressed this point in a rather sarcastic fashion:
Mr. Quezon faults me for disagreeing with some practices of his kind that I find intolerable and insists that they have the fundamental right “to those we choose to love, to have relationships with and with whom we aspire to share a life marked by a measure of domestic bliss and emotional contentment.”
Who’s interfering with your romances? As long as you are not violating the law, you are free with your liaisons, and I for one do not pry into your amorous affairs. Nor do I want to.The important thing is that you have no right to demand that I agree with your pleasures or to forbid me from criticizing your “emotional contentment” if they offend the public interest. You cannot claim a preferred treatment because you are what you are even as you say you should be treated like the rest of the people despite what you are.
Finally, rejecting my reservation that my criticisms are only for the distasteful among you, you piously declare: “I will not embrace him, not for that, much less shake his hand or offer him the opportunity for civilized disagreement.” That opportunity is not yours to give, Mr. Quezon, and as for not embracing me—thank God.
Ouch. That kinda hurt.
But seriously, there’s no denying that Mr. Cruz was also obviously offended by the onslaught of personal insults he received from self-righteous and self-styled individuals (straights and gays alike) who overreacted to what could have simply been dismissed as an old man’s archaic concepts on homosexuality.
Messing with a retired Supreme Court Justice is not as easy as they think. The man surely knows how to fight back.
And a political career — MLQ3’s — never sees the light of day.
I don’t have any idea what you mean about MLQ3’s political career. Why? Has he indicated any intention to run for public office?
(getting off at a tangent)
to all the Wo/Men out there:
when a man says “i’m MAN ENOUGH or i HAVE THE BALLS to do/say this or that,” culture makes it possible for most of us filipinos to understand that the person talking means he has enough strength, courage and dignity to carry out a deed.
on an intellectual, political level, statements as widely used as that above just bemuse if not appal me to no end. because as a female person, i can exhibit just as much strength, courage and dignity as any virile man would claim he can.
women can’t say they’re MAN ENOUGH to do/say stuff, and if women were to say they’re WOMEN ENOUGH to do/say anything, what images will they convey? it sounds to me tantamount to affirming those absurd gender essentialisms whose currency in society increasingly depletes by the minute anyway. (ESSENTIALIST DISTINCTIONS: man is to boss: woman is to secretary; man is to soldier: woman is to nurse; man is to rational: woman is to emotional; man is to muscle: woman is to heart; ad nauseam….)
when i was around 13 years old, a not-so-senior male playmate of mine who was valedictorian-standing in his highschool then, taunted me into racing to 5 sets of random IQ tests. He went through the tedious rigmarole of engaging me in meaningless challenges as if by way of testing the oddest claims to gender superiority and brilliance. i remember him telling me this: “let’s see if you HAVE THE BALLS to beat me… oh c’mon don’t cry!”
so i silently took him up on his cheapshot offer without hesitation, sporting a humungous smirk plastered on my face.
fortunately the absurdity came to an end sooner than expected: it was a best-out-of-5 thing (as in Chess) and i came out with lowerdivision and upperdivision marks higher than his in all first 3 sets. yeah, yeah i beat him, but i was never the type to revel in somebody’s shame anyway, so i just switched on the tv to tune him out.
he went ballistic of course, and i thought to myself, unraveling his own folly was for his own good and own educational pain.
he soon went to college to take up chemical engineering, and a few years later i did too to take up comparative literature with a specialization in theory, history & criticism.
i guess more to the point is this: there’s really little need, if at all, to assert a male person’s manhood especially in the face of challenge.
besides, saying “i’m MAN ENOUGH to do/say something” has no measure of philosophical breakthrough to make in discourse.
right? i hope you didn’t mind the brief anecdote. i particularly cautioned myself against coming off heavyhanded with the message that i hope i successfully put across.
Cheers to all the Wo/Men out there. =)
again, enough with those superficial WO/MANisms =)
amen to what you said, trix. certainly you have a way of discussing issues on a much higher “level”.
but don’t get me wrong if i ever used such phrase to challenge anyone to stand up for his or her convictions. it was never my intention to use such phrase to emphasize any chauvinistic notion of masculinity.
er (bashful, bashful)…
thanks for the compliment, bystander. i’m a columnist, it’s incumbent upon me to know how to pacify my impulse to explain and appease other people’s thirst for discovery. anything for the love of discourse.
that’s why i could no longer resist having a link to your site / blog. now, straight to the blogroll!
unfortunately, not all columnists are like you. they often use words to heighten propaganda rather than make a sincere attempt at getting to the bottom of every issue.
For calling this blogger a chauvinistic pig, i think Larissa de Ocampo, a 19-year old college student, a lesbian, is a bigot in the same sense that she deems Justice Cruz to be a bigot.
Here’s something to consider: you write,
“…that in a democracy where freedom of expression is an indispensable ingredient, ideas — good or bad, innocent or malicious, revered or despised — should, as a general rule, be allowed to flow uninterrupted”
You are not the only one “who has been saying this all along,” since one can say that being a pansy or being homosexual can be seen as part of self-expression.
The problem is that Justice Cruz wants to see pansy behavior and homosexuality stopped. In a way, he is practicing freedom of expression by calling for the removal of certain forms of expression.
(I entered this comment just to slip in edgeways a two cents’ worth over at Manolo’s blog. perhaps my point here might interest you. what is usually overlooked by most of us is the fact that mastering the art of lucidly unleashing one’s thoughts through the written word isn’t the be-all and end-all of being a writer. being a writer, especially a columnist or a widely-published fictionist/poet, brings with it the challenge of taking the kind of social accountability that’s quite tough yet necessary to reckon with. here’s for you, with all due respect =), the bystander
while i personally advocate “political tolerance” in discourse, i consider it just as critical not only that participants in it (especially writers who have extensive media mileage like columnists or fictionists) keep abreast of their evolving freedoms within present-day debates, but that they also stay attentive to the possible impact of their writings on those who are likely to read them. and
such an impact is difficult to scale beforehand, hence the need for a
writer’s discernment.
writing by profession is not a trivial thing; writing for an audience that has the potential to broaden and further diversify, can have real-life ramifications. writers cannot afford to lose sight of the social accountability that accompanies the territory of becoming well-known and of communicating with a growing audience. writing, BY DESIGN, is of as much personal, social and intellectual consequence to the person making written statements, as it is to the person really bothering to suss out the validity and heed the authority of
those statements.
the written word has the power not only to stir emotions; it has the uncanny ability to influence, if not dictate upon, behavior. and true enough, in many instances, the written word has ably fomented uprisings.
people actively AND prominently participating in discourse therefore ought to take upon themselves what is anyway the very minor duty of maintaining the delicate balance between freely seeking out an audience for the personal “politics” that they’ll openly express AND keeping themselves in tune with the likely repercussions for other people of venting their views.
(sometime this past june, i wrote a short piece for my column in the pioneering fil-am publication in the states Philippine News, titled “When Death Becomes a Columnist”. that’s where i lay what i feel is due emphasis on the importance of taking social accountability. hope you don’t find this post imposing or overbearing –it’s discursive, period. thank you.)
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines states:
“Article III - Section 4. 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.”
Notice that the Constitution has no requirement that the opinion held AND PUBLISHED by ex-Justice Isagani Cruz have to please the sensibilities of Manolo Quezon, Beatrix Guilas, Larissa de Ocampo, Teddy Boy Locsin, Bishop A. Lagdameo nor Satur Ocampo, much less Dubya Bush or Vladimir Putin.
Ex-Justice Cruz verbalizing AND PUBLISHING his article “Don We Now” is protected by the Constitution with as much ferocity as protecting the right of Bystander to maintain a blogsite with a picture of GMA in a “Heil Hitler” salute. The CBCP has the right to publish its opinion that condoms/sex-ed is against Vatican/Bible/church teachings; the NGO’s have the right to publish numbers and statistics on how condoms/etc can reduce HIV/AIDS prevalence; Schumey has the right to publish as many times as he wants his thought that GMA is “pretender” and queen of the (dis)Enchanted Kingdom; the Gay/Lesbian movement has a right to boycott the Inquirer.
Manolo has the right to refuse to shake the hands of the ex-Justice. Larissa does not have the right to hurl a stone at the windshield of the Bystander’s car.
“Notice that the Constitution has no requirement that the opinion held AND PUBLISHED by ex-Justice Isagani Cruz have to please the sensibilities of….”
No part of the constitution makes him immune from backlash either. He can cut up rough other people all he wants; and so can other people vehemently disagree with him. And people are free to come round to whatever opinion they find reasonable, take sides within the fray, and arrive at a consensus on the matter at hand.
Is the bone of contention here whether or not Cruz OUGHT to massage anyone’s sensibilities/ingratiate with readers and potential critics? I don’t think so.
“political equality” and “social equality” are two different things.
diametrically opposed views CANNOT be politically equal.
political equality, as a goal, is impossible to achieve, because politics will thrive for as long as relations of power exist. contestation enables the shifting of the seat of power.
social equality, as a principle, makes the levelling of social relationships and social positions possible. so assuming social equality can be achieved, can it eradicate relations of power and obviate the need for political contestation? in utopia perhaps.
equalizing AT THE VERY LEAST the social positions of and relationships between gays and straights can be achieved, e.g. in the juridical, legal and cultural domains. –and for that to be realized, the shifting of the seat of power from the traditional conservative to the moderately liberal has to take place. and that’s political.
Anonymous, you said:
“You are not the only one “who has been saying this all along,” since one can say that being a pansy or being homosexual can be seen as part of self-expression.
The problem is that Justice Cruz wants to see pansy behavior and homosexuality stopped. In a way, he is practicing freedom of expression by calling for the removal of certain forms of expression.”
–To be candid about it, yes. Calling one as pansy or homosexual is part of self-expression. Otherwise, they would not have been “words”.
What Mr. Cruz said is still part of self-expression. Either you accept it or reject it. If freedom of expression is limited only to those pleasing to our ears, then that would make freedom of expression mere form not substance.
Yes, jay. That’s what I told her also.
hey atty erwin james! =) oops! hold it!
i think what anonymous meant was this:
if “being a pansy or being homosexual can [itself] be seen as part of self-expression” THEN what do we make of Justice Cruz “practicing freedom of expression by calling for the removal of certain forms of expression”? (try going over that entry again.)
anonymous didn’t doubt or question the obvious — labeling is clearly part of self-expression –naturalmente. =)
and bystander, what can you say about the notion that as writers, columnists have the duty to be extra mindful of the impact of what they write on readers?
Hi Trix!
So nice of you to visit.
The “problem” with this statement of anonymous, re: “if being a pansy or being homosexual can [itself] be seen as part of self-expression” THEN what do we make of Justice Cruz “practicing freedom of expression by calling for the removal of certain forms of expression?”
is that he/she right away assumes that Justice Cruz was actually calling for such removal. I don’t think so (you can browse through my comments in MLQ3’s blog where I explained my position on this). Mr. Cruz recognizes their right to what he sees as vulgar, scandalous behavior. But he also has the right, the Constitutional right, to criticize them for being so. If we look closely, he ended his essay by asking this question:
“Is our population getting to be predominantly pansy? Must we allow homosexuality to march unobstructed until we are converted into a nation of sexless persons without the virility of males and the grace of females but only an insipid mix of these diluted virtues? Let us be warned against the gay population, which is per se a compromise between the strong and the weak and therefore only somewhat and not the absolute of either of the two qualities. Be alert lest the Philippine flag be made of delicate lace and adorned with embroidered frills.”
The above is not a declaration of a call to arms against the gay community. Justice Cruz was only posing a question to his readers which they could freely accept or reject. Besides, the article, standing alone, is not conclusive to prove that Justice Cruz was advocating for their removal as a matter of personal policy.
Ya, I knew what anonymous meant. I was merely using juvenile sarcasm to hopefully get the message accross and, as you correctly said — to state the obvious.
As to your second question, even if writers are extra-mindful of the social impact their writings could wield, there will always be those who would disagree, no matter how socially or politically correct they think their writings are. We cannot please everybody, trix.
diliman72grad said in part:
“Manolo has the right to refuse to shake the hands of the ex-Justice…”
–And if I may add, the Justice also has the right to thank God for Manolo’s decision not to embrace him. Hehe..
Trix, what diliman72grad pointed out when he cited that provision in our Constitution is also available to the gay community. It is mutually applicable.
“…even if writers are extra-mindful of the social impact their writings could wield, there will always be those who would disagree, no matter how socially or politically correct they think their writings are. We cannot please everybody, trix.”
-Of course. =)
PLEASE REQUEST MR. KOFI ANNAN TO RESIGN GRACEFULLY FROM
HIS POSITION AS SECREATARY-GENERAL OF THE U.N. ORGANIZATION!
Dear Progressive Comrades,
I would like to propose to your organization/ state agency the idea that Mr.
Kofi Annan should now voluntarily resign from his current post as U.N. Secretary-
General. I would like to request your state agency/ organization to peacefully and
lawfully appeal to Mr. Kofi Annan to voluntarily resign from being the Secretary-General
of the U.N., and, after resigning from such position, convince his colleagues at the U.N.
headquarters to implement reforms that will truly democratize the whole structure of the
U.N. Organization. I believe that Mr. Annan has done great works for the U.N. Org
as the United Nations’ Secretary-General. But his works at the U.N. Org didn’t pave
the way for the United Nations’ Organization to completely embrace democratic
procedures and processes. So, Mr. Kofi Annan should gracefully resign now from his
position as the U.N. Org’s Secretary-General.
I hope that your state agency/ organization will also peacefully and lawfully
call for the democratization of the U.N. Organization. I would also like your state
agency/ organization to support the nomination of Miss Aung San Suu Kyi as the new
Secretary-General of the U.N.. Miss Aung San Suu Kyi is the most eligible person in
this world right now who can replace Mr. Kofi Annan. Miss Aung San Suu Kyi’s
ascension as the new Secretary-General would give the U.N. Organization’s
democratization a better chance to succeed. I hope that your state agency/
organization will support these proposals. Our group is called the LEAGUE OF
POLITICAL ABROGATIONISTS or the L.P.A.. Our group is advocating real, global and
moral democracy through peaceful and lawful means. I hope that your state agency/ organization
will effectively support the mentioned proposals in this message. Thanks.
Sincerely,
RUMMEL PINERA
Chairman of the LEAGUE OF
POLITICAL ABROGATIONISTS
L.P.A.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment
What for, Rummel?
For his call to have a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah? I know this is a bit off-topic. But since you brought it anyway, I want to know why..
Bystander’s problem is that he doesn’t know how to read between the lines. Unable to understand the nuance of language, he thinks that in order to criticize Cruz one has to prove that Cruz directly advocated physical harm or control of gays. And yet Cruz’s rhetoric says much more than “mere opinion” or nostalgia:
“Now homosexuals are everywhere, coming at first in timorous and eventually alarming and audacious number.”
“And the schools are now fertile ground for the gay invasion.”
And then there’s the quote that Bystander himself gives. I am reminded of certain personalities in the past who also frightened readers or listeners by referring to the enemy being “everywhere” and how they will soon “invade” communities until we are all “converted” and turned into them. Of course we shouldn’t be frightened because such individuals are merely “posing a question.”
On top of all that, Cruz’s arguments are filled with absurdities. For example, why does he think this “gay invasion” will lead to a flag decorated with lace and frills? Some gays are very macho, especially lesbians who are very manly. Perhaps Cruz is only against gays who act like women. (Does this exclude graceful, feminine women who like other women? Uh oh.) And what about men who have sex change operations and become women? Or heterosexuals who are effeminate?
You’re going around in circles anonymous. I’ve pretty much answered your concerns. The ball now is with the public as to whom to believe.