ON VIOLENCE AGAINST

LGBTS
AND OUR LEGAL SYSTEMS RESPONSE
Gino Leocadio S. Paje
In Iran, the last theocracy, the state itself commits violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and
transgenders (LGBTs).Four thousand people have been charged and executed for committing
homosexual acts since the religious revolution of 1979 overthrew Shah Pahlavis secular government
and put the Islamic Fundamentalists under Ayatollah Khomeini in power.
In the former Soviet Union where religion was suppressed for a few generations, Russian
ultranationalist youths now kidnap gay high school students and post videos online of humiliation and
torture. They are taunted with phallic toys, threatened with axes and forced to drink urine. The
ultranationalist organization responsible is egged on by state propaganda and a new law promoting
homophobia unanimously passed by the Duma and signed by President Putin.
In the United States, the supposed Land of the Free, a study claimed that between 30 and 40% of the
LGBT youth have attempted suicide because of bullying in school and other forms of discrimination.
Minority stress is considered a leading factor for suicides that number to 34,000 each year, with
homosexuals attempting the same four times likelier than their heterosexual peers.
In our own country, everyone is up in arms about the murder of transgender Jennifer Laude allegedly
by a Marine with the visiting U.S. forces in Subic. She was apparently drowned in a shit-filled toilet
when she was found in an Olongapo hotel. That some mainstream newspapers refuse to use the
pronoun she in referring to Jennifer reflects the majoritys consideration of LGBTs in our society.
Indeed, after reading all of these, one might be tempted to think that our country is comparatively
tolerant of LGBTs, with pop culture dominated by such popular personalities as Vice Ganda, Bb.
Gandanghari and the recently outed Charice Pempengco. For a state with very high religiosity,
tolerance of practices deemed to be in contravention of religious dogma is surprisingly the norm.
Or is it? Why then, we ponder, would sociopolitical commentary still treat homosexuality as taboo? We
are hard-pressed not to consider the popularity of mainstream songs like Gloc-9(and Ebe Dancel)s
Sirena as proof of Filipino youths still treating homosexuality as a behavioral aberration to be guilty of,
even subconsciously.

The song is pretty explicit about the violence here: Drum na may tubig ang sinisisid, naglalakihang
mga braso, sakiy dumidikdik. Drum na may tubig ang sinisisid, sa patagalan ng paghinga sa kin kayo
ay bibilib.

It alludes to a bittersweet story of a sons struggle as a Bakla and his mere acquiescence to physical
abuse he thinks he deserves for his homosexuality. Though the father does accept his sons gayness
towards the end, it might be due to force of circumstance; the former having nobody else to depend on
with his old age and terminal disease.
Shall we point out that the vast majority of us are not frustrated by this Baklas meek acceptance of
grossly abusive treatment, perhaps because we also think that it is acceptable to suffer corporal
punishment and humiliation for homosexuality?
Then, there is Abras Gayuma, which we believe to be a play on the young mans subliminal fear of
falling for a fellow biological male. Again, its popularity would point to our societys general, if
subconscious, recognition of there being something wrong with homosexuality.
We would like to put forward the idea that these two songs were meant to be satire, and to stimulate us
into questioning our stand on a phenomenon we were taught as young Churchgoers to be
fundamentally and morally wrong. To consider homosexual acts, then, to be depraved would
necessarily result in our perception of our peers inclined to practice it to be different from us,
fundamentally and morally. This partiality could only lead to the xenophobia that produced the evils we
mentioned at the beginning of this article.
It is to establish our relative tolerance of LGBTs that we illustrated extreme, albeit non-graphic,
examples of their repression in other jurisdictions. In contrast with those countries, we are indeed
tolerant. But we ask you to consider that last sentence, and mull on that last word for a while. Is it not
that when we tolerate something, we give cognizance to the fact that it is something detrimental?
It is not our purpose to expound on the reason for this recognition of homosexualitys bane to society,
but allow us to remind the reader that the conception that it is alien and undesirable does prevail in our
collective consciousness, regardless of the LGBTs relative good standing in our society. Let us at least
exhort the reader to consider that we are a in a state still fundamentally conservative, the only state
aside from the Vatican not recognizing divorce and where reproductive health is still a contentious
question.
While the majority of Filipinos do generally tolerate LGBTs, far be it from this writer to say that the latter
experience no oppression in the Philippine setting. From 1996 to 2011, there have been 103
documented incidences of killings of LGBTs, a lot of which were disturbingly brutal (as in strangulations
and one suffering 72 stab wounds). In our conservative setting, families will sometimes prefer to call a
hate killing a robbery in an effort to prevent or downplay a sensational article in the tabloids. We can
only wonder how many more were misreported or not reported at all.
And these are only the most extreme cases of hate crimes against LGBTs that we are able to present to
you. Sadly, the conservative nature of our society does not encourage the exploration of the subject of
controversial issues like our topic.

To illustrate an example: In a series of international exposes that would shake the very foundations of
the Vatican and ultimately result in the resignation of the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor
of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primateof Italy, Archbishop and
Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God,
some thousands of victims of sexual abuse by clerics in other Catholic countries emerged in 2011; not
one was reported in Philippine media. Oh, how noble our priesthood must be!

Perhaps this is why we consider ourselves not very prejudicial. Very few are willing to touch on the
subject, so the general public is insulated from the actual occurrence of hate crimes. Kept blissfully
unaware of the real situation, perhaps denying even that they happen, how can our society address
these injustices that continue to happen in the dark and behind closed doors? Returning to the notion
we put forward at onset, if the onlookers and even the victims themselves believe the LGBTs deserve
these crimes, will anyone ever cry foul?
Our legislative department is a bit confusing. On the one hand, it is one of the few that recognized that
rape can happen in marriage and has even dedicated one very comprehensive statute criminalizing
violence against women and children. On the other, nowhere in our laws is it recognized that violence
against LGBTs (an equally oppressed sector, and still unprotected) is a problem that ought to be
addressed.
One curious act penalized by the Violence Against Women and Children Act is economic abuse. It
refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent. This means that a
husband dictating what profession his wife can pursue is doing it at the risk of being held criminally
liable under our legal system. That is no different from our society expecting gay men to look for
professions in the limited niche of creative entertainment; a stark form of economic abuse Congress
apparently refuses to recognize.
Despite the general perception that ours is a country friendly for LGBTs, there continues to be a dearth
of the sectors representation in the legislative arena. The mainstream political apparatus is still hostile
to progressive LGBT legislative developments, being conservative by default.Thus, the sector is
constrained to only lobby for legislation uplifting its rights and conditions to sectoral parties deemed
sensitive to its plight.The latter of course, being preoccupied with their other areas of concern, can only
serve to fulfill a limited role in LGBT legislative advocacy.
This also means that, there can be no direct voting rights for LGBTs when the political mainstream
chooses to pass bills that may be detrimental to the welfare of the beleaguered sector, as is the case of
pending legislation expressly banning same-sex marriageand other LGBT rights recognized in other
jurisdictions.
It is worth mentioning that certain local jurisdictions have succeeded in promulgating ordinances that
mandate respect for LGBT rights. Indeed, it is much easier to advocate for these rights in a smaller
jurisdiction. But if the status quo in the House of Representatives is any indicia of progress in LGBT
rights protection, our national policy is harrowingly adverse to the same.