Double-standards at work: the RH bill and the Cybercrime law

From the blog "Ignored Genius":

What the RH Bill and Cybercrime Prevention Law have in common

I’ve been called dumb, stupid, closed-minded, etc. It usually happens when I sound to be talking against something that is popular.  Though the fact is I do not speak against something not for the sake of just being against it. I just try to look for balance. Most of the time, I’m really not against it but just figuring out the pros and cons. But for some it’s like either you accept it or you’re a moron. For them, some things are like a sweet candy that we can readily enjoy, eat, swallow and forget about anything. For the objective of these things are good. It’s for the benefit of everybody. Including me. Including you. There are a lot of things created for a righteous goal. But not all means are acceptable. This is something difficult for most people to understand. That is until  something surprised almost everybody. And it includes both sides.

According to some law experts, the Cybercrime Prevention Law includes the online libel. It means that a person can be penalized by fines and jail terms if found to have committed defamation of another person “using the internet and any other similar means which may be devised in the future”. That’s according to Sec. 4 of the said law.  A lot of people are protesting it being deemed as an enemy of freedom of speech. Libel laws in our country criminalize defamation and malicious discredit of another person’s reputation. And defamation does not always mean telling lies. It could also be of speaking the truth but having no good motives.  And most reason given by people who are against it is that this specific part of the Cybercrime law is vague. And that this will be in danger of being abused by some people. And also, being “malicious” and “discrediting” will mostly depend on each people’s perception. And allegedly, this might threaten the Filipinos right to opinion and thus curtailing freedom of expression.

A Facebook profile photo.

And unknown to some, or probably to many, there was a similar controversial clause found in the RH bill. I heard it was removed. Or maybe not but I’m sure it was there. You can check it on this link.  On Sec. 28(e) of the bill, it was stated there that “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act” will be penalized thru Sec. 29 of the bill. Either fined or a jail term. The “act” pertains to the RH bill. 

Like what was mentioned on this other blog post, there are those among us who talk about one thing but do the opposite. Like how most people are currently exerting a lot of energy to fight and to reverse the implementation of cybercrime law especially that specific clause that non-verbally includes “online libel” while many of them totally embraced the RH bill version that included the clause with the similar logic of penalizing people due to “disinformation”. And also those who were angered at the swift passing of the Cybercrime law but raised brows due to the “delay” of voting for the RH bill. The “delay” that makes it possible for our lawmakers to remove clauses and provisions which they may see as unnecessary. Just like the “disinformation” prohibition part and then the others.  And probably to avoid the same thing which is now happening around the Cybercrime Law.

Nice shirt design

Now a lot of us are crying out loud and blaming anybody we could blame. That is bound to happen if someone looks at personalities rather than the issues. And using emotions rather than logic. We'll contradict even our own selves. But never would we find fault of our own. 

For some, it’s still about the RH bill. But no it’s not. It’s much worse. It’s uglier. But unless we stop focusing on personalities, side issues, etc, we’ll continue being sidetracked, divided, weak and less effective. One thing I’m thankful about this Cybercrime Law is that people now realize how hard it is to accept certain freedom being taken away. Now most of us are hurting. Crying like caged birds. Whichever side you are, almost everyone is now angry.  Almost everyone is now up in arms. But then again,where were you when we were fighting for that same freedom when it was threatened by the RH bill?

Another columnist comes out against the RH bill

CAP Note: Those who have read her columns for the past many years would know that Carmen N. Pedrosa of the Philippine Star is by no means a "Catholic columnist", given her history of criticizing the doctrines of the Church. She used to be a supporter of the RH bill: as she stated in her August 5, 2012 column for the Philippine Star, "I was one of those who were for the RH bill in the past because I did not think that the poor should be deprived of their right to decide how many children they should have." However, the dubious means employed by some pro-RH supporters to push for the bill, as well as the mounting evidence of the damage that population control can cause to a nation's long-term demographic (and therefore economic) stability seem to have been instrumental in changing her mind on this matter.

Although Mrs. Pedrosa has expressed her mounting doubts about the RH bill in previous columns (such as her August 11, 2012 column where she already declared that "I find it difficult to support the RH bill. It is a corruption of the commonweal and in time will be destructive"), it is with this September 8, 2012 column that she firmly and completely comes out versus the bill and declares that in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

*****

The money factor in the RH bill 

FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) 

Updated September 08, 2012 

The way it looks to me, there is a dead-set intent by Congress to pass the RH bill and it has less to do with the Philippine economy or religious principles and even less, for the sake of the well-being of Filipino women. The debate is being fueled by these factors and made to appear as a Church vs. State quarrel with the state taking a stand for economic reasons and the Church for religious principles. But very little has been said about money.

*      *      *

Here is why: It used to be that USAID provided the money for an international population control program. The Philippines was one of the beneficiaries of that program and it included artificial birth control, among other things. The Church’s teaching is against artificial birth control. But as religious teaching, it did not impose sanctions on personal decisions.

As far as the middle classes in the Philippines (mostly Catholic church goers) are concerned family planning is a private matter and many use artificial birth control without giving up their religion. The poor did not have that choice.

USAID funded artificial birth control. Pills, condoms and IUDS were made available to those who could not afford it.

 But in time the USAID stopped funding the program. A reliable report said “the Philippines relied on international organizations, mainly the US Agency for International Development (USAid), to fund its population control program. It gave $3.5 million annually to subsidize artificial birth control like condoms and pills.

Because of limited funding sources, USAid in time was forced “to stop supplying the Philippines with condoms in 2003, birth-control pills in 2007 and contraceptives through injections in 2008,” the report added.

The question arose whether to continue the program in the Philippines and if it was to be continued who or what would fund the program. A new policy had to be found. The solution: let each country fund its own program. If money were to be set aside for the program, a bill would have to be passed to enable the government to allocate funds for it. That is the RH bill. It has to be passed to make sure that there will be funds, local funds to continue the worldwide population control program in the Philippines. There are no two ways about it.

*      *      *

According to an article “US Aid to World Birth-Control Efforts Faces Cuts” the downsizing began in 1996. According to Steven Holmes who wrote for New York Times, the Clinton administration subsequently lifted the ban on aid for international birth control efforts that included abortion and abortion counseling. There was a struggle between the House, the Senate and the White House about the ban that “threatened to block the passage of the $12 billion foreign aid bill.”

*      *      *

So it is not quite true when US Ambassador Harry K. Thomas says that the issue of passing the RH bill does not concern the US government.

There is duplicity too among Church officials. On one hand, Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Commission on Family and Life earlier said he believed the US government had influenced President Aquino’s “abrupt decision” to support population control.

But on the other hand, CBCP media director Msgr. Pedro Quitorio said he did not believe the US government had influenced the President. Aquino committed support for population control even before he visited the US.

Given this background I do not think it is accurate to reduce the RH bill debate as a local issue between the Church vs. the Aquino government.

*      *      *

Sen. Pia Cayetano recently moved to “delete controversial provisions in the Senate version such as the section that provided the care of women who have undergone abortions” as a concession.

She also sought a change in the title of the bill, from “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development” to “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood.” 

Cayetano, as chairman of the Senate committee on health, changed the title of section 9 of the bill. Instead of family planning supplies it was to be called “essential medicines.” Hmm. She said the title would be changed to “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System and Family Planning supplies.”

Under the section, she added: “The Philippine National Drug Formulary System (PNDFS) shall be observed in selecting drugs including family planning supplies that will be included or removed from the essential drugs list in accordance with existing practice.”

Senator Vic Sotto is not as stupid as some people make him out to be because his speech writer had plagiarized an article from a blog. However, flawed he put the debate on a different direction.

*      *      *

The heart of the issue is whether or not we need to pass the RH bill. It is ironic that while the Church is seen as obstructing the passage of this bill, it is in fact protecting freedom. If passed the RH bill will by nature be coercive using the power and infrastructure of the state. On the other hand, the Church’s teaching as teaching is not coercive. Catholics can take or leave it as they have..

The Church has the obligation to keep to its teachings and members who do not believe it can leave the institution. There are those who believe that the size of their families is a personal decision and that is the primary consideration.

The State will have to seek a new paradigm for helping the poor other than giving them artificial birth control. As it is, the RH bill will institutionalize state coercion focused on cutting the number of poor in the Philippines.

It is unfair not to give them the freedom of choice. I know poor families who think of children as insurance for the family’s future. They believe that the more children they have the better off the family would be when all of them have jobs and contribute to the family kitty.

*      *      *

With this perspective and in order not create more division among the people it might be more prudent not to have an RH bill at all.

Maybe the government should return the problem to the USAID to find the funds to continue their population control program in the Philippines.

Why journalists should not support the RH bill

From Sun Star Baguio:

A matter of knowledge

By Sam Bautista

YOU can count in one hand the number of journalists (well locally anyway) who have expressed their opposition to the Reproductive Health bills filed in the House of Representatives (HB 4244) and the Senate of the Philippines (SB 2865). Literally.

Aside from columnists Fr. Andy Cosalan and Mike del Rosario, the only other Baguio-based journalist I know who is against the RH bills is me. Sure, you can probably count in Bro. Jimmy Bernabe (of DzWT) but there probably isn’t any other.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

If you have a journalist friend, ask him or her this simple question: “Do you support the RH bill?” and you will probably get a positive response. But ask him (or her) if he (or she) has actually read the bills in Congress, the answer would probably be a “No”.

Which is really funny because how can you support something so important in our lives unless you fully understand its contents?

I was fortunate enough to have been invited to Saturday’s symposium on the RH Bills and why the Catholic Church is so staunchly against it. Thanks to the Sacred Heart Community for inviting me to this very important discussion. Thanks too to the Diocese of Baguio and Benguet for the opportunity which only solidified my objection to this piece of legislation which started out with a lie and continues to lie to the Filipino people.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Back to journalists.

If only my colleagues were there Saturday, especially those pro-RH, then they may change their tune if only on one account.

You see if there is one thing which journalists will vehemently and rabidly oppose is censorship. Censorship meaning government curtailing anyone’s right to self expression and especially the Freedom of Speech and of the Press.

And yet, majority of journalists would support the RH Bill without even knowing it is one of the vehicle by which these freedoms, which the 1987 Constitution assures, will be attacked. The RH bills if passed by Congress will definitely disallow these freedoms journalists hold dear and close to their hearts.

So, ask your journalist friend again if he (or she) knows this little known fact, and you might just get a blank stare. Yes, a blank stare from one we look up to because they are supposed to know more about these things than mere humans.

Yes, friends, it will curtail our right to speech and the press. Yes, it will muffle your voice once it passes Congress muster.

How so?

Well, under the prohibited acts section of HB 4244, Section 28, this paragraph is included:

“The following acts are prohibited… e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.”

The punishment for violating this paragraph are, under Section 29. Penalties, imprisonment from one month to six months, or a fine of P10,000 up to P50,000, or both upon the discretion and direction of the court.

Maliciously engages in disinformation about the RH law is merely legalese to mean no one may talk AGAINST the law. Which means me, if this thing passes. In fact, I expect to spend six months of every year in prison and lose all my earnings because I will not stop talking against this RH thingy especially if Congress passes it into law.

Maliciously engages in disinformation about the RH law is censorship, pure and simple.

So it really is a wonder why any member of the press could even support a bill which guarantees State censorship.

Anyway, challenge your journalist friend to first study the RH bills in the House and Senate just to see if they know what it truly affects him (or her).

Tomorrow: The RH bill is pro-woman? Don’t bet a breast cancer on it!

Published in the Sun.Star Baguio newspaper on September 21, 2011.

How does the RH bill promote irresponsible parenthood?

From the blog Drawing Lines:

When ignorance becomes deadly
By "Petrufied"
(Originally published in The You, Inc. Chronicles)

Ever heard of the term “reproductive rights”? It sounds very nice, doesn’t it? In fact, it is a very nice concept, on the condition that by “nice” you mean “foolish” as the word meant in Old English.

Why is that? “Reproductive rights” basically points to the right to do anything with one’s fertility and body because it is one’s own. A woman with reproductive rights can kill her unborn child without being called a murderer. A husband with reproductive rights can get a vasectomy without informing his wife. A teenager with reproductive rights can have an IUD inserted without telling her parents. The big deal is, it’s their body; let them do with it as they please.

How the RH bill can lead to witch hunts versus pro-lifers

Published this week on the New Katipunero website:

The RH man hunt

CROSSINGS

Butch Junia

Any violation of the Reproductive Health Act or commission of any of the acts prohibited therein shall be penalized with imprisonment ranging from one month to six months or a fine of P10,000 to P50,000, or both, depending on the discretion of the court.

That is clearly and ominously provided in Sec. 29 of HB 4244, “An act providing for a comprehensive policy on responsible parenthood, reproductive health, and population and development, and for other purposes”, or the RH Bill.

As far as I can recall, and I do not claim a long memory or deep knowledge of state policies, this is the only development policy I know that has penal and punitive provisions. Violation of this policy has been criminalized.