Not a Gay Affair
A columnist bashes homosexuals and gets a backlash
Not a Gay Affair
By Venus L. Elumbre and Don Gil K. Carreon
FACT: A person has the right to throw his fist around.
Question: Does this right end where another person’s nose begins?
On Aug. 12, a column by retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz for the Philippine Daily Inquirer titled, “Don we now our gay apparel,” angered the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and its sympathizers. Cruz recalled how it was like in his younger years when gays were fewer and openly homosexual behavior was not as tolerated as it is now.
Manuel Quezon III, also an Inquirer columnist, objected to the former justice’s opinion, saying those were bigoted and reflected an intolerance that led to the persecution, throughout history, of groups deemed different by society. In his column, Quezon also declared that he was gay. Quezon’s reply prompted a rejoinder from Cruz—an exchange that provoked a heated reaction from readers as well.
The Inquirer received roughly a hundred letters reacting to the column—the highest in its 20-year history—with only one or two favoring Cruz.
“Most of the letters were critical of and angry at Justice Cruz. They were really outraged,” said Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, the readers’ advocate of the Inquirer.
Dehumanizing
The most vehement reactions came from gays who were offended by Cruz’s criticisms. They took exception to a part of the column that said gays would have been mauled in the school where his sons studied during the ’70s when all male students were “certifiably masculine.” Gays saw this as an incitement to hatred and violence against homosexuals and condemned Cruz’s writing as unbecoming of a columnist.
In an open letter to Cruz, gay rights advocacy group LAGABLAB-Pilipinas said it was “ironic” that a former Supreme Court justice “finds it easy to dehumanize us, target us for exclusion, and deny us the right to celebrate our diversity and dignity.”
Demands for apology from Cruz and his censure were demanded by readers, with some threatening to picket the Inquirer office.
When such complaints are received by the Inquirer, the readers’ advocate investigates the column to see whether violations had indeed been made against the code of ethics and the guidelines for columnists defined in the Inquirer’s Manual of Editorial Policies (or the Bluebook). Depending on the seriousness of the findings, a reprimand or suspension of the column may be recommended. The publisher then decides what sanctions to impose.
Inquirer guidelines
In Cruz’s case, however, there was no need for an investigation because he had clearly violated the guidelines for columnists in the Inquirer’s Bluebook, Tirol told PJR Reports.
“Precisely, because we have guidelines. If we don’t have guidelines, then there’s nothing to follow, there’s nothing to violate. Then a columnist can just write whatever he or she wants to write, however strong the opinions are, or however hurtful or insulting they are,” she said.
Tirol specifically pointed to Section VIII of the Bluebook that says: “Delicate topics, particularly those dealing with religion, race, and minority groups, should be handled with great prudence and care. The columnist should always be aware of the dangers of bigotry. In no case should they criticize or ridicule another person on the basis of his or her religious beliefs, race, sexual preferences, etc.”
Another provision in the guidelines states that “While columnists are encouraged to write forcefully, obscenity, cuss words, expletives, and offensive language have no place in the Inquirer.”
No apology
On Aug. 18, Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot sent Cruz an email informing him of the readers’ complaints regarding his column. Cruz was also reminded of the newspaper’s code of ethics and the guidelines for columnists. (PJR Reports tried to get Cruz’s side for this article but he could not be reached.)
Also, Yambot called Cruz’s attention to the provisions of the Inquirer’s contract with columnists which states that publication of one’s column “may be suspended or denied if, in the editor’s judgment, it…is contrary to good taste,” among other criteria.
“My letter stopped short of asking him to issue an apology,” said Yambot.
In his subsequent columns, however, Cruz did not show any intention of apologizing. “There was opportunity for Justice Cruz to apologize had he wanted to, but he remained obstinate to his views,” Yambot said.
Is Cruz’s opinion against the gay community within the bounds of free expression?
Defending his column, Cruz cited 18th century philosopher Voltaire and US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who both asserted that freedom of speech included the right to express thoughts that others might find objectionable.
Nothing absolute
Media critic and Business-World editorial consultant Vergel Santos said, however, that Cruz was wrong to justify his statements as an exercise of freedom of expression.
“Justice Cruz should be the first one to realize that free expression is in fact not absolutely free. There are certain things in civilized existence that limit this freedom,” Santos said.
Ethics is one thing that defines the boundaries of free speech, he pointed out. “While you have freedom on one side, you have responsibility on the other,” he said.
Santos said Cruz was correct in citing Holmes that objectionable ideas may be discussed but erred in interpreting the manner in how those ideas should be discussed.
“What he has done is clear bigotry. Bigotry in fact goes beyond prejudice, which itself is not allowed,” said Santos. Bigotry is defined as strong partiality to one’s own beliefs and opinions and intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
“All topics should be discussed in media but it must not be bigoted and (expressed) within a civilized framework,” Santos said.
For UP journalism ethics professor Luis Teodoro, Cruz’s opinion is “bigotry that is trying to disguise itself” because in the first place, it is not based on facts but on wrong assumptions. An example, Teodoro said, would be Cruz’s idea that gay people are already dominant. Instances of gays being beaten up are signs of being discriminated against, not dominance, he said.
Unnecessary harm
Minimizing harm, which is one of the three ethical principles listed by the US Poynter Institute, encourages media practitioners to be compassionate to those affected by their actions and treat subjects and sources as human beings deserving of respect.
This principle simply means that journalists should not cause unnecessary damage and harm to the public they are supposed to serve.
Columnists, despite their freedom to comment on any issue, have to consider the impact their comments would have on particular sectors of society.
“If you are going to be a columnist, you have to be able to understand everybody. You have to put yourself in the position of everybody. And that includes even being able to understand people you dislike the most,” explained Teodoro, who is also a columnist for BusinessMirror.
A columnist is not supposed “to generate division, anger, and hatred against certain groups,” he added.
Awareness of the ethics of journalism is not enough, though. Journalists have to know the standards of the profession as well.
Professional standards in journalism, according to Teodoro, require that if one makes a commentary, it should be supported with data. Data must be attainable, which means it can be checked or verified.
Teodoro suggested that opinion writers first broaden their knowledge of the issues before commenting on them. Research must be done before anything else.
Dilemma
According to Yambot, how-ever, he and the editors in the Inquirer think that “while (Cruz) expressed very strong views and used offensive language, it is still within his right of free speech to express his views.”
Yambot thinks it is very hard to say when one’s freedom to use very strong language should be limited, especially when it begins to offend certain sectors of the public.
But for Teodoro, the line is clear. “The code of ethics takes precedence over the right of the person to say something discriminatory against certain groups,” he said.
The justification for such provisions in the code of ethics, he said, is to protect from further discrimination “vulnerable groups” like the gay community, Muslims, women, children, and ethnic groups.
In cases where editors face the dilemma of allowing the column to be published and giving weight to the sensitivities of those who might be harmed, Teodoro said publishers and editors should convince the columnist that publishing the column is not in the best interest of either the columnist, the newspaper, or the people involved.
Santos, who served as editor of various publications, said the editor who handled the column should have removed portions that were offensive. According to him, this would not be censorship because editors must not just guard against libel and grammatical lapses but also pose ethical limits.
Teodoro underscored the importance of self-regulation for columnists, especially when the sensitivities of the readers are at stake.
“It’s not a matter of an external power imposing restraint, but of restraining yourself because of ethical considerations in this particular case,” he said.
Learning experience
According to Teodoro, the issue “forces the media to look at themselves. It forces them to examine some of the things we do, some of the things that we allow to happen.”
It would also urge media organizations to inform or remind its writers about the newspaper’s code of ethics, he added.
The publisher of the Inquirer seemed to agree. Yambot said he would make sure that each columnist gets a copy of the Bluebook. “I should point out to them that we should read these provisions in particular,” he added.
The experience also compels the paper to exercise more caution in editing articles and opinion pieces.
“We’re going to read, copy-read, and reexamine all articles and columns for language that may be offensive to some sectors of the society,” Yambot said. He also assured gays that the Inquirer does not promote homophobia.
Yambot had met with representatives from the gay community and discussed the possibility of holding gender-sensitivity seminars for reporters, editors, and columnists to make them more conscious of the need to guard against discrimination.
As the Inquirer editorial on the issue puts it, this controversy, spurred by a single opinion piece, “may yet result in something good” for the gay community and that it may eventually contribute to the alleviation of their plight (“Born free and equal,” Aug. 22).
Let it start with media.
Comments are closed.