Sometimes I feel that certain columnists with the blue and yellow Pinoy blurbs are going the way of Nazi propaganda minister Paul Joseph Goebbles PhD.
One of the columnists I believe deserves the leftist egg on his face as an apologist for our liebe Frau Praesidentin. The other one writes hysterics against her. The hysterics border on Goebble’s speeches at the Berlin sportspalast! I will deal with the hystrical columnist in another post.
Our favourite political science prof and academic once ranted against student prostesters who threw an egg at his face and on General Esperon’s spotless uniform. He wanted the students be held criminally liable. To his credit, Esperon brushed it aside as ”democratic free expression”. Esperon knows what democratic culture is all about. But Alex Magno needs to be reminded that someone threw an egg at Goebbles once and the protester ended up as a case of Nacht und Nebel!
Oh well. Alex Magno has forgotten his political history. Egg, pie and tomato throwing is an old tradition of expressing dissent. In the United States and other liberal democracies, egg throwing is protected by free speech rights. I may be wrong but it seems the courts have established that no one has died from an egg on the face! Of course throwing the kitchen sink can kill and one can get charged with assault!
Example: The parliament of New South Wales, Australia passed a law that made egg throwing and other “disruptive” protests a criminal offence for the duration of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Sydney early this year. The High Court of Australia struck the law down as against basic human rights.
But today Prof Magno has written what I believe is the worst op ed column to come out ever in the Philippine Star. I were the editor of the Star, I would have “deleted” it. :-)
This is what he wrote
“But the Charter change agenda always seems to be trapped in the politics of the moment. If it is undertaken by way of a constituent assembly, the interests of the sitting politicians come into play. If it is done by way of a constitutional convention, the process would be open-ended, creating too much uncertainty and opening up too much political space for ideologically-driven players.
Those rabid opponents of Charter change who marched in the streets of Makati yesterday would not yield to the prerogative of elected representatives to begin consideration of a mode of Charter change. Whatever they propose, railroaded or not, will have to be, at any rate, submitted to the people in the plebiscite. That is the more appropriate time to debate the reforms submitted to the people for consideration.
Yesterday’s march was, from the standpoint of representative democracy, grossly premature. It preempts any discussion of reforms by duly-elected representatives who are acting within their proper mandate.
Yesterday’s march was an event of bigotry. It was undertaken in the spirit of rejecting even a mere discussion of proposals for Charter change. It is act trapped in the presumption of malice. It does not enrich our democratic culture.”
These words wouldn’t be out of place in a fascist blurb.
Nonetheless what is Alex Magno thinking? That the Congress has some sort of Fuhrerprinzip? or is it Gloriaprinzip?
May I remind the political science professor that in a democracy, Congress is accountable to the electorate. The representatives have the prerogative to discuss amending the constitution because the people have the right to discuss it also. In short the electorate has the ultimate prerogative. Congress just derives its powers from the people. The people decide if the amendments will pass. What is Magno trying to do? Shut people up?
Magno also is silly enough to ignore the reason why we have deliberative assemblies like a constitutional convention. The reason we have this is because we need political space for ideologically driven players, large enough if it need be. We hope that the democratic system will end with an acceptable compromise. Just before the the Russian Revolution, a member of the Duma once remarked that “the parliament is not a street corner”. This meant that at least in the Duma, there are rules. Magno wants to make his own rules. Is Alex Magno baiting the protesters?
What is Magno implying? That debate on constitutional amendments just happen when the amendments have been drafted presented for ratification? Debate should start even before the amendments are drafted, debate when they are being written, and debate before the vote comes.
While I don’t agree with staunch anti cha cha people, I still uphold their right to march if they want, unless their actions endanger public safety. The protesters assembled peacefully so we need not worry. Alex Magno has the right to express his opinion that the protesters are malicious. He ought to prove that well and provide the evidence. However it is becoming extremely obvious that Magno is a good party apparatchik in the propaganda ministry.
Popularity: 1% [?]
@Blackshama
i disagree with egg throwing as part of free speech (symbolic or otherwise). Can you cite any ruling that says so? the budapest incident was reversed by a higher court…
throwing something (anything!) is dangerous. moreover, even if 1 egg is never dangerous (but very embarassing!), whats the magic number that turns free speech into assault? 10 eggs? 100 eggs?
GabbyD
I get your point. As for the number of eggs that cross the line between free speech and assault, we will have to let the courts decide on that! :-)
But the non-lawyer that I am would believe that if people throw dozens of eggs, then that would endanger public safety and the police would have to do something.
Personally, I don’t agree with egg throwing. After all eggs are expensive and I would rather see it on my breakfast plate.
The egg throwing incident wouldn’t have been part of UP student protest history if Alex Magno kept his cool like what General Esperon did.
The Philippine Star? What’s that? I don’t see it linked under the News and Politics category of FV. Must be irrelevant, why bother?
“Egg, pie and tomato throwing is an old tradition of expressing dissent. In the United States and other liberal democracies, egg throwing is protected by free speech rights. I may be wrong but it seems the courts have established that no one has died from an egg on the face! Of course throwing the kitchen sink can kill and one can get charged with assault!
–Blacshama
I don’t quite know if egg throwing is a tradition. What I know is the basic that the limit of your right to swing your arm ends when the nose of the other begins.
In America, symbolic speech does not extend to throwing an object at someone’s face because he is pissed off over that person’s conduct, whether the person is a private invididual or a government official. U.S. Laws consider that as unconsented and unjustifed contact and define it as battery, not assault, if in fact the egg finds it mark, otherwise, it would be classified as “assault” if the assaultee saw it coming and ducked and he was place in an apprehension of the unlawful contact.
As regards the South Wales Statute which considers egg throwing and “other disruptive conduct” as unlawful, but was struck down by the Court as unconstitutional is a case of right citation with wrong emphasis.
I am not aware of that decision but the quote of Blackshama offers the answer. In the U.S. such decision would be struck down too as unconstitional not on the issue that “egg throwing” is a protected symbolic speech, but because the law would be vague and at the same time overbroad, and also gives “unfettered discretion” to the police authorities and therefore would not pass the constitutional test.
“Other disruptive conduct” is too vague and yet too broad. It would also give the arresting officer “unfettered discretion” to arrest anyone he considers doing “other disruptive conduct”.
correction: IN the U.S. such decision, should be such statute. :)
blackshama, your use of german words doesn’t work. the rally does not, in any way, shape or form constitute a “debate” on what to change in the constitution and when, how and by whom shall it be done. i agree with prof. magno. this “anti-cha cha” campaign, including this “interfaith rally” is for one, and only one purpose – to “stop” any move to amend the constitution. how can you debate amendment proposals in a rally of 10,000 like-minded people? my basic understanding of a debate is that it is a free exchange of differing ideas, in a peaceful and civilize give-and-take.
and, in all practicality, who do you think has the ability and authority to formulate and propose amended provisions? not the 90 million or so filipinos which constitute the entire “people”, nor even the 10,000 souls you have at the rally, directly, are they? that’s why we have elected representatives who are tasked to do that job. in due time, “we the people” will have our chance to “debate” among ourselves whether or not to adopt a proposed change and, as the final authority, to render our ultimate verdict.
the egg-throwing is a copy-cat act of incivility fostered by militant radicals the world over. we used not to do that in not-too-recent past. i don’t think it wins any heart and mind (except the hardened ones).
Bencard
Because Alex Magno himself has become somewhat intolerant of views contrary to his own. That’s the same issue with the hysterical Inquirer columnist. The use of German words is a literary device to get reader’s attention to that fact.
You got it. It worked! :-)
Now let me review my 6 units of college German! Oh I never liked diktat exams!
the objective is to be aware of views contrary to one’s own. One should put in the effort to correct the error of other people’s ways only when it is worthwhile (for monetary gain, to strengthen one’s power base, to debase the power base of the opponent, whatever). Unfortunately, many people waste spit and energy into correcting the error of other people’s ways even when it is not worth their while. Example: this blogpost entry.
blackshama, even assuming that magno is “intolerant” of other people’s views, does he ever attempt to prevent their being expressed? what exactly does he do? is what he do any different from me not “tolerating” speculative condemnation of people without evidence and due process, or when i try to rebut arguments that i don’t agree with? do you call that intolerance?
Gooten himmel!
But I liked this sir, I enjoy reading your articles.
But we all know he is an ashloh.