carlos is not charlie

in january 2013, the day after the metropolitan trial court pronounced carlos celdran guilty of offending religious feelings when he posed as rizal brandishing a damaso placard in the manila cathedral, i blogged, in fairness to carlos celdran, reacting to the phrase “there being no mitigating … circumstance.”

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending the Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…”

i argued that there were mitigating circumstances back in those last days of september 2010 that drove celdran to take drastic action on the 30th.

two days before, september 28, the new prez spoke out unequivocally in favor of RH in a town hall meeting with expats in san francisco, earning the royal ire of the church. on the morning of september 30, newspapers and websites screamed the shocker that the CBCP was threatening the president with excommunication for being pro-choice and endorsing artificial contraceptives. that very afternoon celdran dramatized his outrage by staging his rizal-bearing-damaso-placard act in the manila cathedral.

the CBCP denied that excommunication threat the very next day but it’s not clear now whose mistake it was, the bishops’ or the reporters’, and the damage had been done.

mid-december that same year, 2010, to get in the mood i found myself doing the nine dawn masses of simbang gabi with katrina.  i hadn’t been to mass in ages except for the occasional wedding or wake, but suddenly i was curious to hear the christmas story again and how the church is telling it in this day and age.  only to be super scandalized and offended by a pre-mass anti-RH video and, after the gospel reading, a sermon partly dedicated to the evils of RH, even, equating RH with abortion, na contrary daw to isaiah the prophet’s admonition to “observe what is right, and do what is just.”  argh.  i remembered celdran and wished i had a placard screaming IT’S A LIE!  except i’m not one to make a scene, lol.

but carlos celdran is, one to make a scene, and, provoked, he did just that, but not at a mass — the day headlines screamed that bishops were threatening the president with excommuncation, it was a thursday, nothing going on in churches, except that ecumenical ek-ek at the manila cathedral, puwede na rin.

i get naman the view that celdran should not have disrupted whatever was going on (or not) in the confines of the church.  he could have pulled his stunt outside, like maybe at the doorstep, or the gates, staged there a monologue, an update on how the RH bill was faring in congress, or why not a dialogue with pro-RH fans and/or critics, even, an impersonation of, not rizal, but damaso, raised consciousness in the process.  media would surely have covered the show.

and i agree, that jail sentence is too much.  celdran was standing up and speaking out for 7 out of 10 filipinos long in favor of an RH law, butting heads with a most powerful and adamantly anti-RH church, and that was brave, and singular.

but please, let’s stop with the charlie hebdo referencing.  celdran being sentenced to some months in jail for offending religious feelings is not in a category with the charlie hebdo staff being killed, executed, for offensive caricatures of allah’s prophet. ibang sitwasyon at ibang level naman ‘yon.  si celdran nga ay matagal nang humingi ng paumanhin sa simbahan at malamang ay hindi na uulit, samantalang ang charlie hebdo ay tuloy-tuloy lang ang banat sa muslim fundamentalists.  to what end nga ba.

And now for Ona. . . A Manila Trial a la Nuremberg?

By G. U. Stuart, MD

I thought the controversy on the ActRx Triact anti-dengue drug was going to die a quiet death—consigned to inevitable oblivion by the strong arm of politics that threatened many close to the heart of the research, nitpicked every which way, vilified as crap, with a media ensemble so eager to chorus their tsutsuwariwaps, amens and hallelujahs for the rantings of the powers that be.

But, perhaps, the controversy is far from dead. There has been a flurry of emails from the other side of the controversy—taking Garin, Claudio, and Leachon to task.

But now, a new voice from the anti-Ona trenches—Dr. Francisco Tranquilino, a regent of the Philippine College of Physicians Board and Assistant to the dean and college secretary of the UP College of Medicine. He sings the familiar line: the ActRx Triact dengue study was “technically and ethically fatally flawed.”

Dr Tranquilino draws on the  Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.  He criticizes the inclusion of children in the Triact study as a “vulnerable” group. But how can you exclude children in a drug study for a disease where the children population is most vulnerable, where the majority of deaths happen in the same population. Also, nowhere in the Helsinki Declaration is it stated that children should be excluded in all studies. In fact, article 20 states: Medical research with a vulnerable group is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs or priorities of this group and the research cannot be carried out in a non-vulnerable group. In addition, this group should stand to benefit from the knowledge, practices or interventions that result from the research. The article, in essence, supports the study of the drug in this vulnerable group of patients.

And again, to belabor what has been said so many times, artemisinin has been extensively studied and used in  thousands of children and has proven to have an excellent safety profile.

Not done with bully pulpit pronouncements, Dr. Tranquilino draws from history and says: “Like the Nuremberg Trial, we might need out own Manila Trial” —referring to a series of trials for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany in the 1940s. Is he insinuating an analogy with the “Doctors’ Trial” brought about by Nazi human experimentations that led to the development of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics?

A Manila Trial akin to  the Nuremberg Trial? Are the doctors being accused of crimes against humanity? Is their research work being compared to Nazi human experimentation? That is a grievous, malicious, odious and defamatory insinuation—an insult to the Philippine medical research community. It demands an apology.

It also calls upon the community of physicians—researchers and clinicians alike—to show visible and audible umbrage. Till now, there have been only emails expressing quiet dissent, decrying the dirty and brutal politics that reigned in the Ona ouster and termination of the Actrx Triact anti-dengue drug study. To continue with silence is to risk consigning future medical research to the control of politics and politicians—to its inevitable demise or awful compromise.

And to Dr. Anthony Leachon, president of the Philippine College of Physicians: Do you agree with this position and insinuation by Dr. Tranquilino? And, lastly, let me rephrase your quote : “The interest of patients should take precedence over the interest of science.” I posit: The interest of patients should take over the interest of politics.

Why I am not Charlie

A Paper Bird

There is no “but” about what happened at Charlie Hebdo yesterday. Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed them for it.  Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence, whether you want to call that plane spirit or imagination or culture, and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity. There will be time to analyze why the killers did it, time to parse their backgrounds, their ideologies, their beliefs, time for sociologists and psychologists to add to understanding. There will be explanations, and the explanations will be important, but explanations aren’t the same as excuses. Words don’t kill, they must not be met by killing, and they will not make the killers’ culpability go away.

To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them.

Read on…

Charlie Hebdo, proud to offend

The newspaper was born in controversy in 1970, after a publication called Hara-Kiri was banned for mocking the death of former President Charles de Gaulle. That prompted its journalists to set up a new paper, Charlie Hebdo, named for its reprint of Charlie Brown cartoons from the United States and a French shorthand for weekly publication.

*

Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation 

The Blame for the Charlie Hebdo Murders  

Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion