THE Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (Sogie) Equality bill is being maligned by people who have not read and fully understood it.
What is even more offensive is when people whose job it is to make laws are at the forefront in peddling lies to mislead the public. Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto 3rd is one of these people. As the leader of the Senate, Sotto should exercise prudence in criticizing proposed laws. He must demonstrate to the public the proper way, one that requires careful analysis of what is being proposed.
And here, Sotto fails miserably. He accuses the Sogie bill of providing a backdoor route to legalize same-sex marriages in the country. He anchors this mistaken notion on his wrong interpretation of the proposed provision that prohibits anyone from denying a person any license on the basis of the latter’s sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. He argues that this would include the issuance of a marriage license. He even cultivates an unfounded fear when he stressed that a public official can go to jail if he or she denies issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Sotto fails to understand that the Sogie bill only refers to discrimination against persons who are otherwise qualified to obtain a license, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. The law does not have any provision that changes the requirements to obtain a license. Certainly, a member of the LGBTQIA+ community who is blind cannot obtain a driver’s license, or someone who failed a licensure exam cannot be issued a professional license.
The proposed law has no provision changing the requirements for the issuing of a marriage license.
Currently, applicant couples should meet these requirements, which include that they should be of the opposite sexes, of legal age and have no existing valid marriages. Thus, Sotto is peddling fakery when he asserts that same-sex couples can now demand that civil registrars issue them marriage licenses.
Beyond misreading of the provisions, what also stands out are unfounded fears that with the Sogie bill, trans women will now descend like mad women on female restrooms, thereby putting at risk the women of this country. There is fear that women will now be vulnerable to sexual predators dressed as women. It is understandable to have this fear, and the duty of any rational public official or citizen is to bring the issue back to reason.
It behooves to ask how many cases of trans women, or men dressed as women, harassing girls and women inside public restrooms, have been recorded at any given time.
Over the 35-year history of non-discrimination laws that include provisions on transgender persons all over the world, there was only one case reported in Canada of a transperson who took advantage of such laws and committed sexual assault. This only means that for 35 years people have entered restrooms that are now compliant with non-discrimination laws all over the world, and we can just imagine the number of times people of different sexual orientations availed of such facilities, that there is only one case of sexual assault reported. In 2014, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 84,000 cases of rape in the entire US, and none of this was committed by a trans woman inside a female restroom, more so by a man dressed as a woman. And yet, critics of the Sogie bill are making it appear that this is a normal occurrence with high probability. And that there is reason to fear it.
Another unfounded fear propagated in relation to the Sogie bill is that it will open the floodgates for nuisance suits filed by the LGBTQIA+ on the slightest perception that they have been discriminated against, particularly in hiring and employment. At the outset, this is a clear case of prejudice that paints the LGBTQIA+ as irrationally litigious. But even then, one has to ask what is the problem if applicants or employees demand an explanation from employers if they feel they have been discriminated against by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. In the end this will force companies to be fair in their hiring and personnel decisions and employ robust rubrics in evaluating applicants and employees in accordance with law. A company employing fair labor practices would not fear a suit from a disgruntled applicant or employee, whether that person belongs to the LGBTQIA+ community or not.
Another argument raised against the Sogie bill is that it will violate the right of religious schools to freely practice their faith. The right to exercise one’s religion is indeed constitutionally guaranteed, but it is never absolute. It could be limited when it denies others their rights. Sectarian and religious schools, other than preparing their believers to become religious, like seminaries or convent schools, must always be weighed against public interest. If the role of the school is to prepare believers to take up their faith, then it may assert its rights against any move to undermine the free exercise of such.
But if the school is run as a public entity offering educational services and taking advantage of its tax-exempt status, then it cannot assert full and absolute rights. It is subjected to full state regulation by the Department of Education or the Commission on Higher Education. Thus, while those who follow the faith of its owners will be granted the benefit of fully exercising their faith, it must accord academic freedom to its faculty and staff and must respect the rights of its students who are not followers of the religion of its owners as provided by prevailing laws.
Certainly, a lot of the criticisms are based on unfounded fear without full understanding. But the advance of anti-discrimination initiatives across history has always required that those who are not discriminated against give up some of their comforts and privileges, as long as their legitimate rights are not diminished.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/08/31/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/lies-against-the-sogie-bill/608761/
No comments:
Post a Comment