|
When Filipinos got incensed by the Teri Hatcher remark in Desperate
Housewives that she wanted to check the diplomas of doctors just
“to make sure that they are not from some med school in the
Philippines,” some political commentators of a liberal free-speech
orientation insisted that Filipinos were simply being overly
sensitive. After all, they argued, the remark was not meant as a
racial slur but only as a joke, an implied reference being made to
the recent cheating scandal in the Philippine nursing board exams,
where the credentials of our medical graduates were put into
question.
For the past 20 years or so, there has been a
raging debate within liberalism between those who value freedom of
speech as against those who value political correctness. While
acknowledging the insensitivity or wrongness of racial or sexual
slurs as well as the potential harm they create, free-speech
liberals object to the institutionalized persecution foisted upon
those who have been careless enough to make politically incorrect
remarks. Some professors have lost tenure as a result of them, even
if these remarks did not reflect their actual opinions.
The issue regarding Hatcher’s politically
incorrect remark, however, is not that of its insensitivity or of
institutionalized persecution. It concerns the redress of a wrong,
even if unintentionally caused by a remark made only to draw
laughter. The evil of a politically incorrect remark involves that
of racial or sexual stereotyping. An entire race or sex is
categorized as a group which perpetuates a negative image of
inferiority, stupidity or lack of morality as well as an unhealthy
atmosphere of oppression or hatred against the group. Freedom of
speech is trumped by equality. Its value is outweighed by that of
avoiding invidious discrimination.
The harm therefore to Filipino doctors or, for
that matter, any graduate of Philippine medical schools is
substantial. There exists in the United States dislike, envy,
resentment or bigotry against immigrants and minorities, Asians and
Filipinos included, although not to the degree as against the
blacks.
This unhealthy attitude will be reinforced by
the insensitive remark. Consequently, patients will avoid Filipino
doctors and nurses or will be averse to consulting or being treated
by them. Moreover, these doctors and nurses will be disadvantaged in
competing for jobs or may even lose jobs they currently hold. This
will happen despite the fact that graduates from Philippine medical
schools are among the best in the world. An apology and the future
deletion of that insensitive remark, therefore, is the very least
that ABC should do, to undo the damage already caused.
The situation with respect to the joke made on
former President Aquino when she was referred to as a “slut” in
Daily Show of Comedy Central is a different matter. It was one made
at the expense of a political personality and was not intended to be
a reflection on the Filipino people. Hence there was no
stereotyping.
Moreover, celebrities and political
personalities should not be so thin-skinned as to be offended by
this type of treatment. They should accept this as an inevitable
consequence of their voluntary choice to be thrust into the public
limelight. Under that glare, no one is exempt from ridicule and
every one is subject to tasteless or insensitive remarks, whether he
or she be a president, prime minister, screen goddess, music diva or
even a religious figure such as the Pope.
Admittedly, some religions consider treatment
like this to be sacrilegious or blasphemous when directed against
their leaders. For example, the irreverently funny movie Naked Gun,
which indiscriminately ridiculed many personalities, was banned in
some Middle Eastern countries because it also made fun of Ayatollah
Khomeini. Some Muslims who watched the movie here in the Philippines
found it hilarious and pitied their countrymen who were deprived of
an opportunity to enjoy a good laugh.
There is a further reason why Filipinos should
not make a fuss. Unlike Desperate Housewives which some people may
mistakenly take seriously, the Daily Show makes its living on
irreverent, obnoxious or absurd humor which its audience expects to
be outrageous and ridiculous.
Thus, although I was unable to watch the show
personally, I can surmise that the joke was directed not at Mrs.
Aquino, but at bigoted or narrow-minded Americans who will never
accept a woman president. The joke, it seems, was actually a form of
disguised praise.
President Aquino was mentioned in the same
breath as Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, who are
generally acknowledged to be fine leaders. And yet the Daily Show
was able to find fault against them. In the case of Mrs. Thatcher,
a picture of her face was pasted over that of Britney Spears who was
getting out of a taxi sans underwear. This faultfinding, therefore,
must have been intended only as irony or absurdity.
Similarly, the joke against President Aquino,
who is believed to be extremely religious if not saintly, was meant
in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Otherwise, if the show meant the joke
as to have some semblance of truth, the joke would have focused on
something other than her sexual morality or lack of it.
|
