Ostracism as protest against GMA

March 27, 2006 at 8:01 am
Ostracism as protest
If you are a peace-loving citizen who believes in truth, honor, integrity and all the values we have been taught to cherish, how do you fight Gloria Arroyo, whose brazen abuse of power intensifies everyday?
At a forum organized by a group calling themselves “Concerned Citizens of the Philippines” at the Manila Polo Club last week, sociologist Randy David called on the people to tap our “moral capital” and campaign for a social boycott of Arroyo.
Disliked by 65 percent of the people (67 million Filipinos), Arroyo clings to power through coercion and remuneration.
In his Sunday column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, David expounded on his idea of an Arroyo boycott: “There is no way we can fight the power of money except holding the face of truth to it and there is no way we can fight coercion except by acts of solidarity with its victims.”
He also said that we should not allow ourselves to be drawn “into a brawl” that her regime is methodically drawing us into.
David said we are citizens of a state. “But we are also, in our daily lives, members of our communities. Our children go to the same school, we often attend the same social functions, we shop in the same places. In short we share the same social spaces where respect is earned, and is not always automatically accorded the rich and the powerful.
“These spaces are regulated not by law alone but by norms of decency. These are the sources of our moral identities, far richer and older than the wellsprings of our common citizenship. It is from these that we ultimately draw confirmation for the correctness of our actions in everyday life.”
He further said, “We have not consciously mobilized the power inherent in these moral identities, whereas Ms. Arroyo has been brazen in the way she seeks to replenish her rapidly vanishing social and political capital.”
He cites Arroyo’s visits to a number of Catholic bishops and archbishops, obviously a propaganda ploy.
David suggests that “ordinary priests and nuns may call their bishops to account for their actions. The laity, who constitute the core of the church as a community, may whisper to their parish their misgivings.”
He said: “What may begin as misgivings could evolve into an explicit resolve to avoid contact with persons who actively work for or who callously profit from this immoral and repressive regime.”
“Such avoidance can ripen into open ostracism. This is the extreme form of assertion of the power of a moral community. Its effect is social isolation. It is the consumers boycott in the realm of social relations.”
There has been an incident of ostracism of Arroyo at the wake of her former best friend about two years ago.
The deceased was one of the very few friends that Arroyo had since their Assumption high school days. She was with Arroyo during her Senate days and was in Malacañang during the first six months of Arroyo’s unelected presidency.
After a bitter departure from Malacañang over an issue that involved Mike Arroyo, the lady was found to have cancer. A source who was close to the family said as the lady lay dying at the hospital, Arroyo sent word that she would like to visit her. She was asked if she had forgiven her powerful friend. She nodded. Asked if she would welcome her visit, she shook her head.
At her wake at the Santuario de San Antonio in Forbes Park, Arroyo sent word that she was going to visit and there was not much that the family could do.
When Arroyo entered the room, someone who was there described the scene as like “parting of the Red Sea.” All those who were seated near the aisle, moved out. When Arroyo took the seat on the left side, almost everybody went to the right side.
The source said, the hostility of the other guests towards Arroyo was so palpable she left immediately after the mass.
That experience must have been the reason why Arroyo did not dare foist her presence during the wake of a distinguished journalist and also of an incorruptible lady government official last year. Malacañang officials, who paid their last respects to both personalities, must have told her that her wreaths were relegated far away from the coffin, an eloquent statement how she was regarded in those circles.
David said: “We must begin to deploy in this struggle the moral resources that cannot be taken from us as communities.”
Yes. The housewife in Tondo who slammed her door on Arroyo’s face at the beginning of her stolen presidency did the right thing. Asked later why she did it, the housewife explained, “Ayaw ko sa kanya. Ninakaw na niya ang pagka-presidente. Pati ba naman ang dignidad ng pamamahay ko, nanakawin pa niya? (I don’t like her. She has stolen the presidency. And she still wants to rob me of the dignity of my household?)
Ostracizing her is not only a gesture of disgust over her lies, her thievery and her trampling of our basic rights. It’s sparing ourselves of her shameless presence.
Let’s do ourselves that favor
Email: collator.peedee@yahoo.co.uk

‘Not everyone who speaks against iniquitous arrangements with the United States is a leftist.’ Gonzales is off-tangent on Pozon There he goes again, shooting his mouth off, uttering uncalled for smart-alecky remarks unbecoming of a person in his position. I refer to our pathetic Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales who accused Judge Benjamin Pozon of "interpreting the provisions of the VFA in order to suit his agenda." He said Judge Pozon was "sympathetic to Nicole and leftist group." And who, may I ask, is the honorable(?) secretary sympathetic to? As a Filipino, and justice secretary at that, shouldn’t he be sympathetic to Nicole, the victim and not foreigner found guilty of raping her? Then Gonzales adds: "I think his (Pozon’s) agenda is to please the Left. Maybe he thinks that by doing so, he would be praised and would get the kudos and hosannas of certain sectors. He’s sympathetic to the victim. He’s sympathetic to those who support the victim, and who are those supporting the victim? I have news for Gonzales. The majority of the Filipinos are sympathetic to the victim, Nicole. Not everyone who speaks against iniquitous arrangements with the United States or any Western power is a leftist. Has it ever occurred to Gonzales and others like him that they could be patriotic Filipinos who love their own people and country above others? Even if they are leftists, at least they are Filipinos who most certainly love the Philippines more than the Americans or other foreigners do. What does that make of Gonzales and others like him in government and elsewhere, who would take the side of foreigners over their own countrymen? In certain situations, they would be called traitors. Please don’t talk to me about keeping our obligations under the VFA. Don’t make it sound as though the other party to the agreement always keeps its international commitments as it likes to claim. It does not when it goes against its nationals and national interests. In case people have forgotten, the United States is not exactly a model of a law-abiding member of the international community. The invasion of Iraq , for instance, is contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. Also, I need not remind anyone that the US , notwithstanding the fact that virtually the entire international community has done so, refused to accede to the International Criminal Court established by the United Nations. The reason? It does not want any of its nationals committing criminal offenses abroad subjected to the jurisdiction of courts other than its own. The Americans are just being consistent in the case of Lance Corporal Smith. And I, for one, do not begrudge them for that. I understand fully their sentiments about the Nicole case. They are simply protecting the interests of one of their nationals. And they, being what they are, should be the first to understand if we were to do the same, as in the case of Nicole. What saddens me further about this whole sordid affair is the stance of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is supposed to be the front liner in the defense of our nationals and sovereignty. No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo as expounded by the DFA in its submission to the Court of Appeals can ever detract from the fact that it should be defending Nicole and looking after her interest, not the convicted rapist, a foreigner. By the way, I have not heard or read any statement from our peripatetic Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto G. Romulo on the case. Has he, by any chance, been avoiding getting embroiled in the controversy that he has decided to throw to the wolves his beleaguered Undersecretary for Special Concerns Rafael E. Seguis instead? But I understand the DFA position. They have no choice but to follow orders from their boss in Malacañang. Unsolicited advice to the DFA, DOJ and the Garci-cum-military-installed squatter in Malacañang: Do not be cowed by the US Embassy statement that "continued US-Philippines military cooperation relies upon adherence to the VFA." Discard any notion that the Americans are doing what they are doing for altruistic reasons. Not by a long shot. They are doing it because it serves their national interest to help us in the common fight against terror. We are only incidental to the pursuit of their principal agenda which is to keep the terrorists away from their shores. They won’t care a bit how many of our people are slain by terrorists, just as they don’t care how many innocent Iraqi civilians are killed everyday. And please, Mr. Gonzales, don’t ever say that Pozon’s ruling had already "ruffled" RP-US relations. You make it sound as though we are to blame. If the relations have indeed been ruffled, it is simply because we are merely trying to protect our own interests – just as the Americans would if they were in our position. I am not a communist, a Leftist or anti-American. I am pro-Filipino. And if there are idiots out there who equate being pro-Filipino with being a communist, a Leftist or anti-American, I suggest they should have their heads examined. Malaya Newspaper by ReyO. Arcilla 12/21/06
Email: collator.peedee@yahoo.co.uk