Last week was full of statements
calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code
(Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is
to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious
reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.
We will ignore complaints that Article
133 violates Church/State separation for their utter obliviousness on what the
concept really means. Also to be snubbed is that supremely asinine argument
that Christians must forgive everything and forget about justice. That has
never been the Catholic Church’s teaching. Forgiveness must always be coupled
with justice.
Then there’s the dim-witted
"Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by
that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be
discarded as well.
Instead, we look at the argument that
the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech.
Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is
not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express
opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded
places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to
restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or
intolerance.
The provision, as it’s currently
viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a
specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things
people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or
murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials,
have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to
jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the
Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth
in times of public want (see Article 25).
One incredibly bizarre argument
recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also
offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the
constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional
right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop
being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished
by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful,
intolerant manner in which it is expressed.
Then there are people who argue that
free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however,
inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person
who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and
starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the
cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet,
would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why
should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued,
enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not
be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could
constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating
the right to peaceful assembly.
On the other hand, it’s also true that
religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and
self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a
primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious
freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international
instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
That is why many countries in the
world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying
persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland,
Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst
others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has
consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate
speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious
hatred."
The point here is: whether or not you
believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality
remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and
their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of
family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is
something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable
to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol
-- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut
up about their religious rights.
Simply put, there may be room for
sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and
boorishness.
LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"
|
Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.
Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.
The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).
One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.
Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.
On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."
The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.
Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.
Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.
LAST week was full of statements calling for the unconstitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (Offending religious feelings). That such calls are reactionary and biased is to point out the obvious. The claims, however, were also based on fallacious reasoning and on assumptions that have no basis in or disregard reality.
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Me, myself, and I"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "China’s hunger games"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Lies, statistics, and indexes"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "Manufacturing competitiveness"
Trade Tripper -- Jemy Gatdula: "2013: sex, trade, elections"
|
Then there’s the dim-witted "Spanish-era" Article 133 is "antiquated" position. But by that "logic," the US Constitution and the Ten Commandments must be discarded as well.
Instead, we look at the argument that the foregoing provision is unconstitutional for conflicting with free speech. Such, however, ignores basic constitutional law: the right to free speech is not absolute. One cannot libel or slander people, commit vandalism to express opinions, display obscenities, falsely shout "fire" in crowded places. The point here is not to stifle dissent or contrasting ideas but to restrain speech that deliberately is meant to sow hate, violence, or intolerance.
The provision, as it’s currently viewed, has nothing theocratic about it. Neither is it meant to favor a specific religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are some things people feel strongly about. Hence, why crimes committed in another’s house or murdering one’s own family members, or assaulting teachers or public officials, have higher penalties. Considering today’s fears of terrorism, one can go to jail just by making a joke about bombs while inside an airport. That is why the Civil Code has a provision restraining rich people from flaunting their wealth in times of public want (see Article 25).
One incredibly bizarre argument recently made is that priests who speak against the RH law during Mass also offend the feelings of those who are pro-RH. But this ignores the constitutional right of the priest to religion and free speech, the constitutional right of the pro-RH individual to religion which includes the right to stop being a Catholic and not attend Mass, and the fact that what is being punished by our laws is not the contrary idea being expressed but the hateful, intolerant manner in which it is expressed.
Then there are people who argue that free speech shouldn’t come with restrictions. Such argument, again however, inanely disregards reality. And also quite hypocritical: I bet that any person who argues that, if confronted with someone who joins their family party and starts insulting them, causes a ruckus, makes them look silly in front of the cameras, and then posts pictures and smugly boasts about it in the Internet, would not hesitate to have the law fully enforced.
The other argument employed is why should religion be given distinct protection? If an Imam, it is argued, enters a gathering of atheists, disrupts proceedings, then why would that not be considered a crime? Actually, it is. On the top of my head, it could constitute qualified trespass, tumults, alarms, unjust vexation, or violating the right to peaceful assembly.
On the other hand, it’s also true that religion is given such protection because it is so fundamental, an inherent and self-evident inclination of people, that the right to religion is considered a primary human right that must be respected. Hence, this right to religious freedom is protected, not only by our Constitution, but also by international instruments such as the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
That is why many countries in the world aside from the Philippines penalize hate speech (i.e., speech vilifying persons on the basis of some characteristic like race or religion). Poland, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, South Africa, Canada, Germany, Denmark, amongst others, impose punishments for it. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled against speech offending religious sensibilities and hate speech. Britain punishes hate speech that seeks to "stir up religious hatred."
The point here is: whether or not you believe in religion or agree with the doctrines of a religion, the reality remains that religion is something fundamental to most people’s identities and their conception of rights. This fact, like the attachment to the ideas of family or marriage (both definitely established human rights as well) is something that liberals, progressives, or leftists have puzzlingly been unable to comprehend. The plea for tolerance (correctly understood from the Latin tol -- to endure a burden) should never be understood to mean that people must shut up about their religious rights.
Simply put, there may be room for sloppy thinking in the public square but none at all for bullying and boorishness.
Jemy Gatdula will be on leave from BusinessWorld starting next week until May 2013. He is running for Congress as a nominee for the Pro-Life party list in the coming May elections.
