Hooliganism

Sylvia Estrada Claudio

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

We fall into the proverbial slippery slope when we ask one man – Butch Abad – to answer for systemic violence. But individuals cannot be made to answer for the system in this way.

At a forum last week, a group of radicals mobbed Secretary Butch Abad. The UP School of Economics Student Council describes the incident on their Facebook page. 

It was last Wednesday, September 17, when the UP Diliman University Student Council (USC) in partnership with the UP School of Economics Student Council (SESC), held the Balitaktakan Educational Discussion Series on the Proposed UP Budget at the UP School of Economics (UPSE) Auditorium. Several guest speakers were invited, among them was Department of Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad.

Meanwhile, a mobilization outside the event premises, participated in by both student and non-student protesters, was spearheaded by Anakbayan, the League of Filipino Students, and other organizations affiliated with STAND-UP. Throughout the event, they stayed outside the venue and blocked all possible exits. Afterwards, as our guest speaker was escorted outside by UPSE staff, UP Diliman security personnel, and some UPSE students, the protesters violently harassed Secretary Abad by standing in his way and preventing him from entering his vehicle. Several of the escorts and even bystanders sustained injuries in the process. Among those wounded and bruised were an UPSE technician, one of our senior staff, and an UPSE student.

The UPSE Student Council condemned this action. 

Subsequently, professors of the UP School of Economics, led by their Dean, issued an even more strongly worded statementdescribing the incident as an “assault on the University.” The professors added further, “What is worse, some student ‘leaders’ thought nothing of gloating about the incident and celebrating their hooliganism in mainstream and social media, as if it were some kind of victory. This incident is not a victory but a blow to UP’s honor.”

In response, the faculty members of the organization CONTEND which had uploaded a video celebrating the incident stated: “The protest was a sustained collective action informed by the knowledge of the malfeasance of the President and Secretary Abad rooted in political patronage and the rotten culture of bureaucrat capitalism. The protest was guided by solid principles and scientific analysis of the issues at hand. It was the culmination of collective anger and frustration at the failure of this government to explain DAP, and the ditching of the impeachment complaints filed against a President who refuses to be accountable to the people.”

Justified violence

Being from UP, my days have been filled with social media debates on this matter. It seems the issue has become a debate about what a university should be. There are several other issues at hand as well and so there is wide interest in the matter.

I can only focus on one point: whether the violence was justified. In the many debates as well, this seems to be one of the main points of contention.

Those who justify the violence argue that there is a more systemic violence perpetuated by the system, now managed by Abad and President Benigno Aquino III. This violence is virulent, leading to poverty, hunger, disease and death. In light of this appalling situation, the anger is righteous and the violence justified.

I find this argument dangerous because all acts of violence, systemic or otherwise, are justified by an allusion to righteousness. However, righteousness does not justify violence.

Anger, no matter how intense and just, need not lead to violence. Men who batter their wives use the same justification all the time, “ginalit niya ako kasi, kailangang disiplinahin.” (She made me so angry, she needs to be disciplined.”) In the war on terror by the US administration, the torture and rendition of enemy combatants is justified by the noble cause of protecting the safety of the American people against the violence of the terrorists. Former General Jovito Palparan also cites as his motive for his war on the communists, the need to protect Filipino democracy.

Note that like the leftist activists, the batterer and the torturer are convinced of the justness of cause. Having been at the discussion boards on this issue, I can anticipate that the teachers and students who justify the mobbing of Abad will bristle at my comparison of their cause to the batterer and the torturer.

I agree to the correctness of their cause actually. And I condemn the torturer and the batterer. But I realize that the certainty of the torturer and the batterer is equal to that of mine and those activists. Therefore, I must say that the certainty of correctness, is a necessary but not sufficient reason for anyone to proceed to violence. Especially as, in the case of Abad, the violence is to one individual. 

Individual accountability

We fall into the proverbial slippery slope when we ask one man, no matter how we hate him, to answer for systemic violence. Our anger at an unjust system, at the stonewalling of the government, at the corruption, may be intense and warranted. But individuals cannot be made to answer for the system in this way. Who then decides which man or woman is “deserving” of this violent anger? Aquino and Abad only? Every Cabinet member? Everyone at the level of undersecretary and above? Everyone with a certain income? And if these people are indeed accountable as administrators and beneficiaries of systemic violence, am I allowed to whack them in the face should I see them on any occasion? Gather a group to help me whack them?

Our hatred of injustice cannot be made the basis to violate anyone’s basic right to safety. 

Because, he was one man against, if the reports are to be believed, 60 people. He had security of course, but not sufficient to protect him from coins and paper thrown at him and an attempt to grab his collar. Indeed the students and staff of the UPSE had to give him added protection resulting in minor injuries to some of them.

The ethical warrior

There is a moral ground wherein physical violence, even armed violence, is acceptable. In war when enemies are shooting at each other there is an assumption that deadly force can be met by equal force. Yet even in war there are rules to ensure that overwhelming force does not lead to human rights violations. Even in war, the moral ground must be established for the violence. 

Even when justified the ethical warrior does not bask in glory in the necessary violence. My cynicism is therefore triggered when people glorify their violence. It makes me uncertain whether they have done the painful self-reflection that is always a prelude to justified physical violence. All ethical warriors are reluctant ones who do not relish the necessity. The just warrior loathes the violence he or she must undertake. I learned that from my martial arts training a long time ago.

Sanctuaries

Even in war there are safe havens where hostilities must cease. Hospitals, places of worship and schools. Yes. Schools. 

As the UPSE professors note, in the war of ideas which is the lifeblood of scholarship and education, UP must be a safe haven. It must be a place where safe passage is assured to all “combatants.” And as in all wars, many who seek safety do not fully agree with either side of the battle or care nothing of the battle. This too is what I hear from the students who disagree with the radicals. Some of them are more committed to free expression of any sentiment, rather than any political cause. 

Others agree or disagree on various points with Abad and the protesters. Many came to listen to Abad in the assurance that their thinking may be done in an atmosphere of peace that is so necessary to deep thought. If there is any indication of where the majority sentiments lie on this, the hall where Abad spoke held far more students than those outside. And I do not believe that any of those inside loved their country less than those outside.

Radical equality

The CONTEND statement characterized the request for civility as “liberal bourgeois values,”  and that they find this an insufficient platform for their students to whom they must teach more rebellious ways. But more rebellious ways need to be underpinned by rules that protect human rights. Those rules, are inspired by liberalism. Liberal conceptions of rights and freedoms, were decried by Marx not because these were not ideal, but because these cannot be fully achieved in a situation of class inequity. 

In a university, liberalism is about rules that attempt to distribute discursive power equally. Rules of civilized discussion ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, so that they may use it to silence or intimidate others. Because when this happens, intellectual exchange is constricted. When this happens, a gang of committed, well-meaning and passionate advocates becomes a gang of hooligans.

I join my colleagues in the UP School of Economics in condemning the violence against Secretary Abad. They have called for inquiry and punishment. I would request a definite statement against this violence from our University leaders. We must assure our professors, students, alumni and the parents of our students that UP remains a safe place for everyone to express their beliefs. 

The radical thing about UP is not that communists walk our halls in peace and are free to protest. The radical thing about us is that we believe in the fundamental equality of every person and the full protection and fulfillment of each person’s liberal democratic human rights, including their right to freedom of expression. 

For a university, this belief must translate into a reality where communists, reactionaries, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, Zoroastrians, the shy, the manic, the apathetic, the children of the poor, the children of the rich, heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, cisgender and transgender people –  all walk the halls in peace and express their opinions freely. 

It’s called radical equality – the most dangerous concept of all. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada-Claudio is a doctor of medicine who also holds a PhD in Psychology. She is Professor of the Department of Women and Development Studies, College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. She is also co-founder and Chair of the Board of Likhaan Center for Women’s Health.   

 

 

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!