Jus Nicole, Jus Silaya, Jus Mater Mei

Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!

(Fine, fine, my Latin has never been top of the pops.)

In late 2006, I wrote fairly strongly-worded blog posts on the issues surrounding convicted rapist Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith and his acquitted co-accused Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, Lance Corporal Keith Silkwood, and Lance Corporal Dominic Duplantis, and the rape of S_ N_, known as "Nicole". One of my posts (The Subic Rape Case Resolution: The Jester-in-Exile Dissents with Many) even led to a fair number of readers sending emails.

Interestingly enough, most of the emails that condemned my stand on the issue seemed to come from Filipinos who were either US expats or local middle class (surprisingly, a good number of this group being women), while a large number of the emails concurring with my views were of foreigners (and likewise as surprisingly, a lot of them being servicemen and their families).

I also recall a rather specific kudos coming from a person apparently involved in a militant women's group, saying (among other things) something along the lines of "it is good to see that there are Filipino men who do not hesitate to support women in the fight against gender-related violence", thanking me for "being one with us in the struggle against oppression against Filipinas everywhere."

De nada, amiga, I recall having replied. Of course, in the back of my skeptical mind I thought, "if there were any instances of violence against women perpetrated by the terrorist New People's Army and these instances became public, would these militant leftist women's groups be likewise as strident in their protests?"

Since at the time I had not been able to uncover any, I gave that question no further thought. I do recall telling myself that it doesn't matter that these groups are leftist, only that the cause they are fighting for -- that is, women's (and kids') rights -- is worthy of unqualified support.

However, it seems to me that I have found a litmus test to apply to these militant women's groups. The result of this test shall, without doubt, lead me to either support them all the more or spit at them for their hypocrisy.

***
Admittedly, the information I stumbled upon comes from DJB, someone who has been posting vehemently against the Left, but I did go to Inquirer.net to get the story as reported locally. Excerpt from the story US court gives asylum to Filipina allegedly raped by rebels:

A Federal appeals court has granted political asylum to a woman who claimed to have been gang-raped and tortured 26 years ago in her native Philippines.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday that Rosalina Silaya was a target of the communist-led New People’s Army rebels because her father fought during World War II under US Gen. Douglas MacArthur, then supported President Ferdinand Marcos.

When Silaya was 23, she said, members of the NPA barged into the family’s home, knocked her unconscious and kidnapped her.

Over three days, she was beat up, cut, burnt and raped before the men dumped her, still naked and bound, in her family’s living room. She became pregnant from the rapes and delivered a daughter in 1983.

Silaya said after the ordeal she was “fearful all the time.” She added, “Wherever I went in the Philippines ... I was afraid the NPA soldiers would find me.”

That fear led her to take a job as a nanny in the United States in 1985 and did not return home when her visa expired, she said.

Here's an excerpt from the decision (hat tip to DJB for the data:

OPINION TROTT, Circuit Judge: Rosalina Silaya ("Rosalina")1 seeks review of the BIA's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal ("withholding"), and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Because the record compels a finding that Rosalina was subjected to past persecution on account of imputed political opinion, we grant the petition with respect to the asylum claim and remand to the BIA. I BACKGROUND Rosalina is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She entered the United States in May of 1985 as a non-immigrant visitor. When she remained beyond the visa's authorized stay, she was charged with and conceded removability. Subsequently, Rosalina submitted an application for asylum, withholding, and relief under CAT.

Rosalina was born in San Mateo Sur, Philippines. Her father Estaqiou was a World War II veteran who served under General Douglas McArthur. The people of San Mateo Sur knew he was a veteran because it was a small town, and he received a pension from the government.

While she was growing up, Rosalina heard stories about the New People's Army ("NPA"). The NPA "is a violent, revolutionary Communist group which actively opposes the Philippine government" and "has a well-documented history of political violence." Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 734 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Rosalina was told that the NPA were "really violent and aggressive people and that there are many members in [her] town." Rosalina testified that NPA members came to her house often and asked for food and money. She said her father gave them what they asked for because he knew that the NPA was against the government, and, because he was a World War II veteran, the NPA was against him too.... According to Rosalina's testimony, her father feared that if he didn't give the NPA food or money, they would come back and hurt him and his family. Rosalina said her family was scared of the NPA because her "father supported the government and because he was a military veteran." She said also that when the NPA came to the house and spoke to her father, "[t]hey would always make comments like `when is your daughter [Ros alina] going to grow up?' or `is she going to stay here and live with you in San Mateo Sur?' " Rosalina testified that when she was about fourteen, her older sister Salvacion was kidnaped and missing for almost a month. When Salvacion returned, "she [was] a mess. She ha[d] a lot of bruises, scars, clothes torn apart, half-way naked, people laugh[ed]. My sister was, lost her mind. She's not the same." When questioned as to whether she knew who had taken her sister, Rosalina said, "My father had the idea and he said they are NPA people." The Silayas later found out that Salvacion had been raped.

After Salvacion was kidnaped, and when Rosalina was approximately sixteen, Rosalina's father sent her to Manila to live with her sister Candelaria because it was too dangerous for her to stay in the family home. Rosalina believed her father sent her away to protect her from the NPA. She finished high school in Manila and worked in a bakery.

Around Rosalina's twenty-third birthday, she went back to San Mateo Sur to see her parents. When Rosalina's bus arrived in San Mateo Sur, several men from the NPA stopped her and asked her if she was Estaqiou's daughter. She told them she was. The men walked her to her house, telling her "they knew about [her] father." In the middle of the night, the men returned to the house.

Rosalina and her mother hid in the bedroom. The men pushed the door to the house open and asked Estaqiou where Rosalina was. Rosalina heard sounds like people were fighting in the other room and heard the men saying, "I want your daughter." The Silaya family's dog barked at the men until they cut its head off with a sword.

Eventually, the men overpowered Rosalina's father and put a sword to his throat. They came into the bedroom and punched Rosalina's mother, knocking her to the ground. Ros alina said she "heard the men yelling about [her] father being a war veteran." Although Rosalina initially fought the men, one of them hit her, and she lost consciousness.

Rosalina woke up later to find she had been blindfolded and taken away from her home. She was naked, her hands were tied behind her back, and she was hanging upside down by her feet. She could hear the men laughing at her. Over the next three days, the men repeatedly raped her, hit her, yelled at her, and forced her to perform oral sex. They cut her, poured hot thick liquid on her, and burned her, possibly with cigarettes. The men threatened to cut off her head and put her in the fire pit. They left her hanging upside down "so she will learn her lesson." After three days and three nights, the men returned Rosalina to her family home. She testified that the men carried her back home and threw her in the living room, still bound and naked. The next morning, her parents sent her back to Manila. Rosalina later found out she was pregnant as a result of the repeated rapes.

Rosalina was angry and ashamed by her pregnancy. She tried to abort the baby by drinking clorox and taking pills, but her attempts were unsuccessful. On August 29, 1983, she gave birth to her daughter, Maria Analisa. After Candelaria saw Rosalina hitting the baby, she sent the baby to live in San Mateo Sur with Mr. and Mrs. Silaya. Rosalina believes that her parents sent Maria Analisa back to Manila when she was seven to live with Candelaria because they were "still afraid that the NPA soldiers would come back." Rosalina said that although no NPA members approached her in Manila, she was still afraid. Rosalina said she "was fearful all the time. Wherever I went in the Philippines, even in Manila, I was afraid the NPA soldiers would find me and torture me again." Because of this fear, Rosalina took a job as a nanny and came to the United States in 1985.

I think that saying "putang-inang mga hayop kayo" is an insufficient diatribe, no matter how vehemently the speaker would spit it at them.

A telling fact of this brutal incident is quoted "because my father had a title, `Municipal Counselor', my family was viewed as being reactionary in the Marxist eyes of the Communist guerrillas" (I'm guessing the victim could have meant either "barangay councilor" or "municipal councilor"), and makes the crime even more dastardly than it already is (if that were at all possible; rape is rape is rape is rape).

So this is the litmus test: will militant women's groups support Silayan and condemn the brutal rape and its perpetrators?

I suppose that if that militant women's groups choose not to condemn the rape, they just might attempt to justify their non-condemnation (thereby tacitly putting their seal of approval on it). I can think of several alibis how they might try to do so -- and I'm going to demolish each of them.

Alibi: Militant women's groups could say that the rape happened 26 years ago, and is so far in the past that we should let it go and move on.

Answer: If that is your alibi, why are you still involved in demanding justice for our "comfort women", when the crimes against them happened more than half a century ago?

Alibi: Militant women's groups could quote Congressman Ocampo, and say that the Silaya should have "raised the case here at the time; there was a mechanism for such cases".

Answer: Tell me, how easy was it in 1982, and even post-EDSA I, and even up until now, to investigate, prosecute, and convict terrorist cadres of the New People's Army for rapes they have allegedly committed in our courts of law? Or, if you will contend that Silaya should have applied to your "people's courts", could she and her family been assured of a fair trial, given that because of her father's status as a WWII veteran, a Marcos supporter, and councilor, he was already viewed by your armed gang as "reactionary"?

You must think the public stupid.

Alibi: Militant women's groups could quote Congressman Ocampo's "I'm not aware of such an incident" (meaning he had the means and the standing to be aware of such incidents? Bleh; under rug swept, is it?), and since the alleged rape was not publicized, it is likely that the alleged rape never happened at all.

Answer: Uh-huh. So the only rapes you will believe to have happened and demand justice from the perpetrators are those that are publicized? Would that not mean you will not fight for justice and redress and protection for women who are afraid to report the assaults against them?

And here I thought you wanted to give voice to the voiceless. (Yes, I have heard that slogan of yours before.)

Heh. And here is the clincher -- leftist militant women's groups could quote ex-CPP member Satur Ocampo and claim that the terrorist New People's Army "don't do that" and that it would be a "strange story" to claim otherwise.

Answer: Such a disingenous dissimulation and a sweeping generalization -- based on what? Personal knowledge and expertise? Backed up with what, may I ask? Read the testimony, Ka Satur, and note how credible it is compared to your sweeping generalization which, in light of the terrorist NPA's criminal activities, is demolished completely.

That Silaya was raped, and instead of demanding that an investigation, apprehension, prosecution, and conviction of the perpetrators be done (I am aware of the prescriptive period, but justice must be served somehow), Congressman Ocampo would rather brush it aside because it would be politically embarassing to admit that his former(?) comrades committed such atrocities, such is the sort of politician the Congressman is.

Kahit anong lakas ng sigaw mo sa EDSA laban sa mga buwaya, trapo ka rin tulad nila, Satur. Your struggle in support of justice and against oppression being a selective one, you are no different from those whose fights are dependent on political expediency and survival.

You, Congressan Ocampo, are no different in that respect from that damned squatter in Malacanang.

***
Friends, don't vote for their party-list come 2010; hell, campaign against them. The women in our lives -- mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, daughters -- deserve better than such as he in office.

On this day dedicated to the most precious of all the women in our lives, we must remember that whatever injustice is perpetrated against any woman is an injustice perpetrated to all women.

Let us remember that the fight against those who hurt women is a fight on behalf of the women in our lives.

Food for thought this Mother's Day.

'Nuff said.




Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back