Punchline
More objections
By Ermin Garcia Jr.
IT’S just as well that the provincial board deferred approval of its preposterous proposal to compel restaurants and malls to construct a third toilet exclusively for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) ostensibly to allow two board members who failed to attend the public hearings to discuss the issues with the rest.
Fine. But what I found distressing and sorely lacking in the board’s process to validate the soundness, fairness and viability of their proposal are
1) The absence of the small entrepreneurs operating small restaurants and malls in public hearing on whom much will be asked.
2) Government facilities are not covered by the ordinance even after BM Ranjit Shahani pointed out that the members of the LGBT community are taxpayers.
3) It only held one public hearing. Such a proposal demands a series of public hearings, not just one, since it is discriminatory as a policy, promoting the interests of one particular sector alone.
* * * *
For the added education of the board members who signed the committee report endorsing the proposal, here are some solicited (since the issue is not generally known to the public) reactions gathered.
- “Ano yun?” was the common reaction when asked if they know about LGBT or what “Gender-free” means. Worse, not one claimed knowing colors and logo of LGBT, even among those who are obviously members of the community yet are not aware what LGBT acronym stands for.
- “What is LGBT in Pilipino?” some asked. Some wondered how the third CR should be labeled. “For Bakla – Bading- Tibo – Tomboy” (BBTT?). One quipped: “ MaleFemale”
- “Will the third toilet be closed to non-LGBT? Bakit?”
- “It encourages bullying. Those who use it become easy targets for bullying.”
- “Lesbians, gays and bisexuals will not use it because they are no different from straight males and females by appearance. Only Ms. Gay contestants will use it.”
- Some echoed the Ladlad representative’s sentiment, refusing to share a CR with PWD (Persons with Disability). They said it will give impression that LGBT is a group of disabled.
From the Sunday Punch Facebook:
Nelson Lim: I don’t think any of these (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders) would use the corresponding toilets intended for them. What a ridicule and humiliation they would receive when they come in and out of the toilet. This is purely sexual discrimination.
Howard Chua Cham: I could not say more sir ermin (Referring to the Punchline item “Legislating comfort rooms.)
Abet Ching: 100 TRUE likes
Atty Joey: If I were gay … I would rather mind having a separate comfort room .. in that case .. I woudnt want to be treated like any other … the proposed Provincial Ordinance to my mind is even more discriminative … In effect, they would not want me in a regular comfie room … sus maryosep!
Chit Zabala Mercado: A young boy was molested by a gay male person inside a men’s CR in a mall in quezon city about 2 yrs ago while the mother was waiting outside.
Wrs Vollmer: I reckoned having ‘other’ room aside from male and female except the disabled room it is discriminatory. Yes there is a need for another CR like room for mothers and for young ones not the ‘other’. For safety reason underage/young should be accompanied by adults in a restroom be it male or female. as what Rex said I agree with him. If the reason to have ‘other’ room is for cleanliness or health reason- you need to have regular clean up of the toilets. I’ve been to Japan and they have two sets of toilet one for Japanese one for Westerners.
Florencio Fernandez: I stayed in one of the nice hotels in Reno and used their fitness center and swimming pool. I noticed that they have three toilets; Men, Women and Other gender. First time to see this.
Rexc Catubig: Hindi additional CR ang kailangan–kundi provision of soap, water and toilet paper sa mga restrooms. At saka regular cleaning.
Ganito na lang para “Restrooms-More Fun in the Philippines”. O di ba?
Punchline: I rest my case.
* * * *
TAMAYO ORDINANCE. The ordinance authored by Councilor Jose Netu Tamayo and adopted by the Dagupan sanggunian last week, is sending a message to would be robbers and murderers – Nobody commits a crime in Dagupan and gets away with it!
That particular provision requiring motorcycle riders to remove their crash helmets when entering the commercial district literally hits the helmet on the head! It has removed one convenient tool for committing a crime. This hopefully will make it even more difficult for hitmen and thieves (whose faces are legally hidden and whose motorcycles allow them a quick escape) to operate freely. The Tamayo ordinance may yet show the country how to beat the criminals in the games they play.
Liga ng mga Barangay, led by Councilor Marcelino Fernandez, should follow through with individual barangay ordinances to further protect their respective residents. A provision authorizing a helmet checkpoint in the barangay should be in order, that which empowers barangay officials on duty to stop helmeted motorcycle riders and require these to be removed for identification purposes, nothing else. This will be supported by the PNP because it can be no different from government checkpoints for livestock, logging, etc. (But believe you me, regular motorcycle riders would be just be too happy not to wear their helmets around the city).
The Tamayo ordinance (and the suggested barangay ordinance) is definitely a lot better and effective counter measure than suspending the permits to carry firearms outside of residence to licensed gun owners, making hitmen’s potential targets extremely vulnerable.
The provincial board should also consider drafting its own ordinance authorizing barangays to set up helmet checkpoints. Preventing commission of crimes will help save lives; providing for more comfort rooms won’t!
* * * *
SEEN ORDINANCE. Finally, the Dagupan City government has empowered itself to protect itself against those who dare cheat it. For too long now, the city felt powerless to stop business establishments that don’t bother securing building and business permits from operating in the city.
The Seen ordinance finally empowers the city treasurer to close any establishment that dares defy the city’s ordinances.
Now, let’s see the city stop the Citystate Savings Bank branch that has been operating for two years now without a building and business/mayor’s permit. The last time I looked, the Citystate’s owners even sued Mayor Belen Fernandez, City Engineer Virginia Rosario and City Treasurer Romelita Alcantara for protecting the city’s interests. Touché.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
