Am back from sunny Singapore, and what do I find back here in the Pearl of the Orient? Bitchslapping all around!

Of course, you all remember Isagani Cruz? Yeah, I thought so.

Well, fellow (gay) Inquirer columnist Manuel Quezon III wasn't about to take that hateful tirade lying down.

The grand inquisitor
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer

Published on page A15 of the August 14, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

KURT VONNEGUT ONCE OBSERVED, “FOR SOME reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.” Vonnegut was pointing out the basic immorality of society’s self-proclaimed moral custodians. Hate the sin but love the sinner? But that opens to a possible debate on what is sin.

How much easier, more certain and eminently satisfying to decree, “Kill them all. God will know His own.” The result is the perversion of the finer instincts of religion into a false trinity—faith, hope and bigotry, setting aside charity which represents an inconvenient truth: Christ was friend to prostitutes and tax collectors, and He debated even with the devil. Must Christianity end with Christ?

Retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz says that his vigorous and vicious condemnation of gays, lesbians and transgendered people is not supposed to incite hatred and intolerance—or to be precise, that he is not invoking a blanket condemnation of all gay people. He only objects to some, not all. For example, he has nothing but the most generous and respectful thoughts for those who conform to what he finds tasteful and tolerable behavior. And what is tasteful and tolerable as far as his wounded sensibilities are concerned? A minority meekly and absolutely surrendering to the tyranny of the majority, a sub-culture reduced to the subhuman, in which the individual is instructed to live out, every day, a total repudiation of the self. Cruz demands the elimination of a diverse and rich culture—one that is as much a mirror of society’s larger complexities as it is an alternative to some of the worst instincts and features of the broader culture for which he has stepped forward as spokesman—because the minority displeases and disgusts him.

He would have me, and everyone else like me be a slave, a fugitive, a hypocrite and, most of all, a coward. And I find that disgusting. I find it neither reasonable nor acceptable. I do not even find it understandable. Cruz does not understand us, does not want to, would be unwilling to. Yet he says he hates only some, not all, of us, and expects “some of us” to embrace and thank him?

For what? That he reserves his scorn only for hairdressers and fashion designers? That he respects me, the writer, but heaps abuse on someone else because that someone uses slang I don’t use, speaks louder than I do, wears what I don’t wear—and those superficial differences are the things that guarantee me (and those who behave otherwise) Cruz’s respect?

I will not embrace him, not for that, much less shake his hand or offer him the opportunity for civilized disagreement. For he is blind to the civilization to which I belong, and to the fundamental identity I share with those he despises. Whether we have a little learning or not, whether we speak in the same manner or not, regardless of what we wear and what mannerisms we choose to exhibit, we are the same, for in the fundamental things—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—there is no difference. To permit Cruz to make such distinctions is to grant him and all those like him an intolerable—because it is fundamentally unjust—power to define myself and those like me.

When he casts the law as an instrument for prosecution, persecution and discrimination, he must be fought. That he discredits polite behavior by portraying civilized discourse as a fancy disguise for his uncritical obedience and intolerant enforcement of uniformity; that he defames religion by turning it into an ideology of hate; that he makes a mockery of filial piety by insisting that tyrannical instincts should be cultivated among the elderly and enforced upon their direction—these should inspire not pity for his moral dementia; these must provoke anger. And condemnation.

To be different is to be held in suspicion. The nonconformist is a subversive. Subversion and rebellion make societies become more generous, more diverse, more compassionate—and an individual more free. For the inability—or unwillingness—to see rebellion as a virtue and not a flaw is what provokes the uncomprehending hostility that makes the anxious herd stifle dissent and stamp out anything different. But humanity is not a herd, and being human demands a vigilance against the kind of provocations that start stampedes.

I will respect anyone’s convictions, but only to the extent you will respect mine. Goodwill inspires the same; tolerance results in cooperation. But I will not be told whom to love, whom to be friends with, what culture to represent, what mannerisms and interests to adopt and, much less, discard. I will not modify my behavior or limit my pleasures merely to please Cruz or bigots like him. The respect gays, lesbians and transgendered people experience is a brittle kind, but hard-won. Far more has to be won, in terms of actual legislation or in every sphere of our lives where discrimination virtually takes place every day.

The behavior Cruz finds so obnoxious is the price he and everyone else must pay for the pink triangles of the German concentration camps, the labor camps and prison cells of Soviet Russia and Communist China and Cuba, the merciless beatings and taunts endured by so many over so long a time. It is his punishment for representing a society whose instincts remain fundamentally murderous toward anyone different. If he weren’t such a hate-monger, he might realize it’s no punishment at all, and that society is all the better for the increased prominence of gays.

OH SNAP! I now apologize profusely for all the times I made fun of Manuel Quezon III's hair, because I believe he just delivered a meta-bitchslap of the highest order.

* * * * *
But apparently, Mr. Cruz has got some moxie in him, because he just has to reply to Manuel Quezon III. If I'd just been bitchslapped like that, I'd stay on the ground.

Neither here nor there
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer

Published on page A10 of the August 20, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

IF I had known that Manuel Quezon III was gay, I would have desisted from writing that column last week on homosexuals out of respect for a fellow columnist. But now that he has retorted angrily and called me a bigot among other names, I have no choice but to reply.

I started that column with the caution that it was not intended as an attack against homosexuals in general and did not include “those who have behaved in a reserved and discreet manner unlike the vulgar members of the gay community who have degraded and scandalized it. I offer abject apologies to those blameless people I may unintentionally include in my not inclusive criticisms. They have my admiration and respect.”

As Mr. Quezon himself does not consider himself among the exceptions, he would be what we lawyers call a “proper party,” or one who is directly injured. In fact, he appears to be severely wounded by my remarks and is hemorrhaging profusely. He, therefore, has a right to react to my “insults” in the waspish manner he saw fit.

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.”
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.

If I do not appreciate the paintings of Picasso, any one who disagrees with me may say so and explain his reasons. But he cannot attack me personally for criticizing his idol. 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.

Hate is not per se objectionable as Mr. Quezon may imply. Jesus Christ hated sinners and angrily drove the merchants and money changers from the holy temple they were desecrating. Was he a hate-monger for doing so? When Winston Churchill called on his countrymen to resist the enemy with all their blood, sweat, toil and tears, was he a hate-monger in the despicable sense of the phrase? That is what Mr. Quezon would call me for criticizing his kind.

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.

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.

As Fr. Mickley of The Order of Saint Aelred pointed out in the Ang Ladlad mailing list, it's basically a rehash of his first column.

* * * * *

Of course, it's Manuel Quezon III's moral obligation to hand Cruz' ass back to him. AGAIN.

Oblivious in Cloud Cuckoo-land
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer

Published on page A15 of the August 21, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

JUSTICE ISAGANI CRUZ SAYS IF HE HAD known what he now knows, he would not have written what he wrote, “out of respect for a fellow columnist.” Justice Cruz’s belated expression of consideration is an unrepentant insistence that his is only an expression of discontent.

His declaration went beyond a defense of sensibilities, and was a case of the law of unintended consequences in action. What the venerable Justice Cruz intended as a defense of good taste and morals has sparked a furious debate on whether he was tasteless and imprudent in what he asserted and in the words he chose, and on how his critics—including myself—have responded.

Justice Cruz quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes and Voltaire, who were great men. But like all people, great or ordinary, they were flawed. Justice Holmes was a magnificent thinker in every respect save one: his belief in, and defense from the bench, of eugenics. Eugenics was a pseudoscience that sought the improvement of populations by what could only be called selective breeding, including the forced sterilization of individuals with genetic defects.

In 1927, Justice Holmes penned the American Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Buck vs. Bell. Carrie Buck had been committed to the Virginia State Colony for epileptics and the feebleminded. The superintendent wanted the teenage Buck sterilized (she had the mental age of a 9-year-old, he said), because Buck had a child out of wedlock (it later turned out she was raped by the nephew of her adoptive mother, who then committed her ward to the State of Virginia).

Only one justice dissented with Justice Holmes’ decision on the case. The most famous passage of the decision includes, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes …. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

As for Voltaire, his colossal standing in the Age of Enlightenment cannot obscure his anti-Semitism. In his “Dictionnaire Philosophique,” he said the Jews were “the most abominable people in the world,” and that they were “an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition, and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched ... still, we ought not to burn them.’’ How kind.

In their day, Holmes might have been seen as the personification of rational and modern thinking relative to public health; and Voltaire was admired for his brilliant mind and eloquence in defense of reason and liberty. Today, we know better than to equate vaccinations with forced sterilizations or to condone anti-Semitism.

As for Christian principles, I think it neither desirable nor reasonable to demand that people renounce their interpretation of their faith, in order to accommodate my contrary opinion. That would be to demand apostasy, an unconscionable thing. But it is highly reasonable, I believe—and even imperative—to insist that in a secular society, a community’s faith shouldn’t result in making the harassment, even the persecution, of others, justifiable.

But our differences are far more fundamental. He says he only dislikes “coarse homosexuals,” and says we can agree to disagree as we might about, say, Picasso. He says he’s only expressing his views and that it is an exaggeration—and obnoxious—to object.

Justice Cruz can take pride in the “macho,” which is his culture, though he ignores the harsh reality that macho men tend to find the solution for what they dislike in the use of their fists, or baseball bats, or guns: for what is machismo without violence? It thrives on the kind of enforcement of society’s norms he wistfully says would have been experienced decades ago by the kind of homosexuals he loathes.

And the past, present and potential targets of such corrective measures, those who he says represent a clear and present danger to God and country, are supposed to meekly accept his endorsement of such methods? He says there’s a threat; he points to past solutions with nostalgia; what is the solution he proposes—or which might be proposed upon his inspiration?

Hence my strong objection to Justice Cruz’s insisting on a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable gays. There is the danger that in less discerning hands—including those wielding closed fists, those who are eager to strike a blow for normality on the faces of those who flout convention—the distinction he attempts cannot be maintained. And that even if it were, it would only ensure temporary safety for some, not all; when in their heart of hearts, all gay people are fundamentally the same because of their sexuality. And that is why his distinction is unacceptable: it divides, so that he may rule. That leaves no room for toleration or cohabitation, much less mutual respect.

We may celebrate and even honor people like Holmes, Voltaire, Churchill (who defended freedom in Europe but also fiercely opposed independence for India) or Justice Cruz, but there comes a point for all of us where our own prejudices get the better of us; and it is up to those who are potentially placed in harm’s way to object, as vigorously as possible, to prevent the law of unintended consequences from kicking in. Because taste is not an abstraction; its legitimate defense all too often legitimizes physical and mental suffering of the kind Justice Cruz will never have to experience or possibly comprehend.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

This is way more exciting than any teleserye. For serious.

* * * * *

But even before Manuel Quezon III's rebuff, an article condemning homophobia came out, also in the Inquirer. A way to woo back the pink pesos they stand to lose, hmmm?

Homophobia is hell
By Oliver Pulumbarit
Inquirer

WORDS HURT EVEN worse than sticks and stones, sometimes.

We discover their power early on, and the fact that school is a battlefield where taunts, insults and threats are practically an evolving art form. Usually, the most hurtful ones are aimed at those who don’t conform to the majority’s definition of “normal.” Bakla, bading, binabae, syoke… they can be hurled with utmost force and fierceness by schoolmates, relatives, and even teachers and other authority figures.

Those who know they’re gay feel like nobody will ever understand them. They’re lucky if they have parents or friends who do. If not, chances are, they’re forced to blend in, because it is school, after all, and denying several years worth of self-hate, shame and guilt may feel preferable over enduring verbal ridicule, or physical injury, or both, on a daily basis. Society has no place, we’re told and taught as youngsters, for those who aren’t macho, or religious, or upholders of “tradition.”

In this day and age, there are still gay kids and adults suffering the same savage bullying and intolerance, regardless of their nationality, race, or religious affiliation. It’s always painful to read about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of hate crime victims Matthew Shepard and Brandon Teena, or those who’ve committed suicide because they felt that they could never fit in. It’s hard not to shed a tear while hearing stories of people suffering unbelievable humiliation because of their sexual preference. It’s frightening to think that, yes, it could’ve been you. Or your lover, friend, mom, dad, sibling, teacher, doctor, priest, lawyer, employer, even your favorite movie star.

Ideology of evil
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are still being demonized by the supposedly educated guardians of morality. It’s especially infuriating when anti-gay sentiments directly come from recognized religious leaders. Almost five years ago, Rev. Jerry Falwell irresponsibly declared on “The 700 Club” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were God’s way of punishing their country. He lambasted his perceived culprits, people “who have tried to secularize America,” among them “gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle.” Pat Robertson, not surprisingly, agreed.

You just have to wonder how they can be so judgmental and capable of spewing such vitriol, when their faith is supposed to be based on tolerance and understanding. It’s actually dangerous when influential figures condemn unthinkingly and with impunity, because, let’s face it, their words are canon. It’s truly bizarre then, that the late Pope John Paul II and his successor Pope Benedict have both openly spoken against gay people and unions repeatedly, too. Does God really consider homosexual relationships an “ideology of evil,” and “weak”? Isn’t the deity supposed to be unconditionally gender-blind and more informed than that?

So many haters are eager to stereotype them, eager to warn others of their “unnatural” tendencies, eager to announce that they’re all hell-bound. In this country, there are still companies that refuse to hire qualified gay persons. Cross-dressers are often heckled by janitors in comfort rooms, or are barred from certain establishments. A friend’s homophobic co-worker commented last year that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was punishment for “the numerous homosexuals” in New Orleans. Wow.
Talk about having mixed-up issues! When your sexuality or gender identity, an integral part of your being, is devalued or despised by someone else, whoever that may be, then speak up. Don’t be afraid. Don’t offer the other cheek. Call other people’s attention to it. It is a big deal.

Alan Moore’s “V for Vendetta” depicted a world where subversives and minorities were hatefully rounded up, including those whom the fascist government in that story considered sexual deviants. Prisoners were subjected to harrowing medical experiments and other indignities. Only about six decades back, in the real world, that has actually happened in Nazi concentration camps, to gay men, who had to wear identifying pink triangle badges. Today, same-gender relationships in parts of the world are still taboo; even consenting adults are actively arrested for it and subjected to unnecessary shaming. While we have pride parties for gays, certain countries have prison sentences for them.

If you are a gay person and you haven’t done so already, speak up and keep making your horror to such injustices known. You don’t have to out yourself if you feel that it’s an inconvenient time, but try to reach out to others who can speak for you. It is very fortunate and important that there are active gay advocacy groups in the Philippines now such as ProGay, Ang Ladlad, The Library Foundation, LAGABLAB, and several other tireless organizations that continue to fight for various GLBT rights, and are working for the passage of a bill that would criminalize discrimination. The Rainbow Rights Project, a group of lawyers and activists, is distributing free “Pink Cards,” which lists your rights as a bar patron, and related info that can protect you from corrupt or fake law enforcers. Arm yourself with knowledge. Google these groups, learn from them and support them.

Be proud
And if someone cites some verses from Leviticus to condemn you (like a politician did in a local debate show just two years ago), respond by saying that he or she is deliberately ignoring sexist and barbaric customs in nearby passages. Look them up. They’re there.

It’s also very important to love yourself. Be proud that you are truthful, free, and aren’t doing anyone harm.

To parents who think that this is none of their concern, please think again. If you suspect that your children may be suffering in silence, talk to them. Go beyond what your elders taught you. Your child can be gay, or not gay, regardless if he or she is acting effeminately or in a masculine manner. Face your fears and understand them, and assure them that you will be willing to listen. Gayness is not a disease or a condition that can be “cured.”

The reality of it is, unbeknownst to you, your teen son or daughter may be involved with someone for months or years already, and they have plans to start their own family one day. They may be hoping their union will be recognized without question in the future, with benefits that straight spouses enjoy. Yes, homosexual relationships aren’t destructive, as imagined by those who are narrow-minded and insecure about the matter.

Role model
If your gay child wishes to be the next Isaac Mizrahi--or the next Ellen DeGeneres, Q. Allan Brocka, Rustom Padilla, RuPaul, Andoy Ranay, Allan Heinberg, Aiza Seguerra, Bruce Vilanch, Rosie O’Donnell, Rufus Wainwright, Bryan Singer, Manuel Quezon III, Ricky Reyes, Melissa Etheridge, Darren Hayes, Clive Barker--applaud him! Your kid chose a role model well, and shows fortitude and honesty at an early age. Good gay people, just like good straight people, have been, and will always be challenged to think around the conventional and traditional to survive and make the world better.

It is elating and empowering that there are many people who are now more accepting of differences, and are celebrating the gay spectrum’s contributions to all parts of culture. It’s also great that gay people are acknowledging their identities, and not just at gay-friendly and gay-frequented districts. But it doesn’t end there. Let’s continue to speak against the bitter, dinosaur gay-bashers. Let’s use our words and actions to rescue, heal, and enlighten others before damaging words lead, once again, to sticks, stones, and worse.

* * * * *

The whole Cruz debacle of 2006(TM) has gotten so big, even other newspapers are cashing in!

Gays among us
The Manila Times
Friday, August 18, 2006

ISAGANI A. CRUZ is not your run-of-the-mill journalist. He was a justice of the Supreme Court, a well-regarded civic leader and an eminent person in his profession.

On August 12, in his column, Mr. Cruz inveighed against homosexuals. He was promptly rebuked by another columnist of the same paper who said that he took offense because he himself is gay.

The testimony of a gay-rights organization in Congress last week may have served as the hook for Mr. Cruz's comments. We also surmised that his comments were long held views that he could no longer resist bringing into the open.

If not for the hate and bigotry that Mr. Cruz's column might engender we would not have written this editorial.

Gay rights were hard-won. That the larger Filipino community—along with communities in other countries—has learned to accept gays is cause for cheering and not jeering.

Mr. Cruz yearns for a prelapsarian age when there was only one homosexual in the Legarda Elementary School and one "in the whole district of Sampaloc" where he lived. Both provided the more manly students with "diversion." Mr. Cruz, as an adolescent and later only as an adult, clearly did not look hard enough. Statistics would turn up more than two.

He argues that if there were only a few and that they disported themselves "decorously" he was willing to overlook their sexual preferences.

He finds their "vulgarity" intolerable and their sullying the "beautiful tradition of the Santa Cruz de Mayo" outrageous, even blasphemous.

Mr. Cruz is horrified that today "homosexuals are everywhere." They are no longer "timorous"; they have become "audacious."

He concludes his diatribe thus: "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?"

Yes, Mr. Cruz, let us allow them to be what they are, to express themselves freely, to participate in whatever way they wish in every aspect of our national life.

We do not agree that by doing so we weaken our social fabric or dilute the genetic base of our nation.

In fact, we think that toleration and open acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals will make our society stronger because such an attitude will rid it of hate and bigotry. Furthermore, homosexuality is not encoded in the genes.

Mr. Cruz's idea of an acceptable social order is anathema to us. He calls it conservatism but it's really conformism of a rather odious sort.

The Manila Times has always stood up for gay rights and for the toleration of those who are different not only in their way of life but, more important, in their ways of thinking.

We think we're right.


All this makes me feel really, really proud to live in the time I do right now. Yes, terrible things are happening all over the world, but there are also good people out there fighting the good fight.

*Cross-posted to ang_ladlad
* * * * *

As for what befell me on my trip, I think I'd rather do that in another entry, because this one is long enough.