For the past weeks, Mideo Cruz and his artwork have been feverishly discussed.
I had not gone to the exhibit, but I have seen a number of pictures on the internet. Being a former Catholic, I could imagine how some of the Catholics would react. But being a spiritual atheist, such art did not bother me. I am not saying that Mideo Cruz created his exhibit to offend. In fact, in an interview, he explained his reasons for such display.
If Mideo did have good intentions for the display, should the offended Catholics have the right to complain or not?
The purpose of this article is not on the Mideo’s intentions with his art. It is not even to figure out if Mideo is guilty of anything or not. What a lot of people here in the Philippines are concerned about is Mideo’s art and how it impacts the idea of “free speech” and “free expression”. While a lot of people are offended by his art, a lot of those same people also do not want to censor such expression since it might serve as a precedent and limit free expression in the future.
I am not a lawyer, but my curiosity made me read the on the internet on what possible laws may be related to free speech and expression?
Article 201 of the ‘The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines’ is under ‘Offenses against Decency and Good Customs”.
In the “Section 4” of our “Bill of Rights” of our 1987 Constitution we have:
In addition to these Philippine laws, We have a statement, supposedely from no less than the United Nations. In this webpage we see a writer giving his opinions. The title of his article, “United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme”
A relevant question here is, “What about religious insult?” I think the next paragraph will answer that.
Here is the document which he was referring to.
As you can see, while the Revised Penal Code may penalize such acts, the Constitution just might allow it. Furthermore, the United Nations advices that blasphemy be a human right. From this, it is no surprise that such action, although possibly religiously offensive may actually escape legal sanctions. Actually, some legal experts say that Mideo Cruz did not violate law.
This was also shared by another colleague at UP Law, Dean Raul Pangalangan.
“The artist in question is…entitled to the protection of speech clause,” he said on “TV Patrol.”
From this, a common person who is not legally inclined may feel that if his art or writing is less ‘offensive’ than Mideo Cruz, chances are he will not get sued.
The big question here is if free speech and free expression has limits. Do people really have the right to be as offensive as they please? If you look at what the U.N. says, it seems that sky is the limit.
When you think of it, there are reasons why blasphemy should be allowed. What one persons considers as truth may actually be blasphemous to another. Who is to say that one is blasphemous and not the other. For example, for Christians, Jesus is the son of God, but for Muslims, Jesus is only a prophet. For a Christian, claim that Jesus is only a prophet and not the son of God may be considered blasphemous, but for Muslims, Jesus being the son of God may be equally blasphemous. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross, Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. Can you imagine both parties citing ‘article 201’ “(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;” to sue each other.
If you are Catholics, there are rules which the Vatican assumes that you should follow. You should not indulge in premarital sex and you should not indulge in homosexual acts. What if you are a writer and you would want to make several books with subjects which propagate those acts, should the law allow you to be sued? What if you made books which are contrary to Catholic teachings such as: The Joys of Premarital Sex, The Joys of Homosexual Sex; is it right for you to be vulnerable to lawsuits?
Maybe they are antiquated laws, maybe no one will use them, but you will never really know. Less than 10 years ago in Singapore, the country had consideredreviewing their oral sex law after a policeman was jailed for two years for having oral sex with a female.
A lot of offensive things which happen to Non-Catholics in this country. It is just that a lot of Catholics take it for granted. When some Catholics say or insinuate that a person of another religion has the wrong religion, that is offensive. When a Catholic tells an atheist that he is an evil person because he does not believe in God, that is even more offensive. The height of offensiveness occurs when the victim is a minor and is threatened with the concept of hell at such an early age. I actually know of someone who would have nightmares at night if he masturbated before going to bed due to the guilt driven by such brainwashing.
If you are pro RH bill, you can be considered offensive to the Catholic Church. God believing religions are supposed to be representing God. If you don’t follow them, you could be insinuating that they are not representing God properly. Sure they have the right to call you non-Catholics, but you also have the right to call them fake representatives of God.
That is really what free speech and free expression is all about. We all have our beliefs and we should be free to say or express them even if it offends and goes against the grain of what the public believes in. With no free speech we would be left in a society which hardly changes and is stuck on medieval beliefs.
I shall give you an idea on how free it is on other parts of he world. The next examples are on Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine.
Following is a trailer then a part of the fictionalized film.
If you think that was bad guess what the next one is.
And for the curious ones, here’s the trailer.
I tend to fall on the side of Free Speech (and yes, I’m capitalizing it on purpose). I do think though there is room for debate when it come to public art. Issues such as who can view it and is it funded by the taxpayers are valid. But, if someone doesn’t want to be exposed to some artwork, they need not bother to pay the admission price. I guess I’ve grown tired of the hysteria that accompanies any showing of a naked body or body part. Half the population has one.
I wasn’t able to see this exhibit either Ricky. But there’s the phrase: “there’s no accounting for taste” that comes to mind. On the matter of dictating what is “tasteful” — I draw the line art critic or no — that it should always be the province of the individual person.
I agree with Jan though that there’s a valid debate for publicly funded exhibitions.
You know what, we have to make a paper about Mideo Cruz on our theology class. I am afraid siding with freedom of speech would be offensive to the subject matter. I think that counts? -__-
Free will is provided for in theology — although the context of that freedom will vary depending on the moral code dictated by respective religions.
What I’d find interesting is a comparative analysis of how various religious views would or should react to Mideo’s exposition (e.g. how would Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus treat the exhibit?). Then that would also be a good way to analyze from a philosophical standpoint–how each religious system works or functions.
In what context is your theology class tackling Mideo Cruz? Is it from a purely Catholic/Christian context?
Interesting post …
Playgroup Singapore