komentaryo

in defense of Nicole

This is a translation of the transcript of Joms Salvador’s comments on the unthinking and insensitive soundbites that have come out of Nicole’s last sworn statement.  Click here for the original Filipino version.

I could not help but respond to the views this note on Nicole’s “retraction” has elicited.

First, on the basis of what’s preferable or not, it is true that it would’ve been better had Nicole and her family not “backed out”, if they didn’t get tired and just pushed through with the fight. From any given perspective — as a woman, as a Filipino, even as a victim — no one can say that in the eyes of the public, it was better that Nicole had executed her last affidavit.

But on the point of what is right and what is wrong — a moralistic enterprise that has as its by-products the notions of whether Nicole is scared or brave, selfish or selfless, shameful or decent — this should not be an issue here.

The reason is simple: we are not Nicole, we are not the woman who has had to face the distaste and ambivalence of the public, we are not the Filipina victim who is fighting a rapist, protected by both the US and Philippine governments.

Also, given thatNicole has conceded, has backed out at this point, does this mean that she wasn’t raped at all? If we analyze her affidavit well, she did not say that she wasn’t raped. What she said was this: she wasn’t sure if a rape happened. She said that maybe it was her fault, maybe she did or said something that allowed for her and Smith to become intimate.

Nowhere in the affidavit did Nicole say that she was taking back all the circumstances that surrounded the rape in Subic on November 1 2005: Smith carried a practically unconscious Nicole from the Nepture Bar as if she were a pig; Smith raped Nicole inside a moving Starex van; after which, Smith left Nicole on the sidewalk of Alava Pier, with her pants down and a used condom sticking to her skin. No one has said or proven these to be untrue, no one has said that none of these instances didn’t happen.

The Filipina Nicole was raped on November 1 2005 in Subic Philippines.

American soldier Daniel Smith raped her.

The law and the decision of the Makati Regional Trial Court are clear about Smith’s verdict: Smith took advantage of Nicole’s drunken state. Physical and circumstantial evidence proved that Smith raped Nicole.

Or have people conveniently forgotten this so that they can continue to view and judge Nicole based on the stereotype they so wish her to be?

Lastly, in order to understand Nicole and this last decision she has made, it is important to understand what rape is, and what happens to women victimized by it, especially for the ones like Nicole, who was raped by a soldier of the most powerful imperialist country in the world, who holds the most puppet-government in Asia by the neck.

This is the thing to do, instead of brandishing moralistic rhetoric to blame the victim of rape.

between the Philippine Daily Inquirer, among other major newspapers, posting images of her for all the world to see and calling the affidavit a “retraction” which IT IS NOT; between the conservative old men who fight among themselves (wow, namecalling! how macho!) and who think they are more intelligent than the rest of us because they (1) love to quote from the law (as if this has excused the Americans from trampling on this country time and again) and (2) blame everything on activism (as if they know what it means, when all they prove is that it has now become fashionable to be America-loving anti-activist fascists), and the women and men across generations who have said that Nicole is a disappointment, a waste of our time, a loser. what has become clear is this: we do not understand. and like the American soldier Daniel Smith, we would much rather work on the presumption that Nicole was a woman who deserved what she got (oh, pray tell, which kind of woman is this?), instead of seeing November 1 2005 for what it is: the night that a Filipina named Nicole was raped by American soldier Daniel Smith, period.

rape has nothing to do with the social class, the career, the life of a woman — much less how much she drank — at that point of becoming victim. rape has everything to do with a man eaten up by hubris, and imagining that he can get away with violence.

komentaryo

tungkol kay Nicole ni Joms Salvador

hindi ko mapigilang magkomento sa ilang mga naging pahayag hinggil sa note na ito.

una, sa pamantayan ng ‘preferable’ o hindi, totoo namang mas maganda sana kung hindi “umatras” si nicole at ang kanyang pamilya. kung hindi sana sila napagod at nagtuloy-tuloy na lang sa laban. sa anumang punto de bista — bilang kapwa babae, bilang kapwa Pilipino, o kahit pa bilang biktima — walang puwedeng magkaila na mas maganda at kaayaaya sa mata ng publiko kung hindi inexecute ni nicole yung huli niyang affidavit.

pero sa punto ng tama o mali — iyang moralistikong pagwawasiwas na iyan ng kaugnay ng pamantayang duwag ba o matapang, makasarili ba o selfless, kahiya-hiya ba o marangal — hindi dapat diyan hilahin ang usaping ito.

simple lang ang dahilan: hindi tayo si nicole, hindi tayo ang babaeng kailangang humarap sa alimura o ambivalence ng publiko, hindi tayo ang biktimang pinay na kinakalaban ang isang rapist na protektado kapwa ng gobyerno ng US at ng pilipinas.

pangalawa, kung sumuko man ngayon si nicole, ibig bang sabihin hindi na siya ni-rape? kung uuriratin ang bagong affidavit niya, wala siyang sinabing hindi siya ni-rape. ang sinabi niya ay hindi siya sigurado kung may rape na nangyari. sabi niya baka raw kasalanan niya, baka raw may ginawa o sinabi siya na naging dahilan para maging “intimate” sila ni smith.

wala ni isa man dun sa recent niyang affidavit ang nagsasaad na binabawi niya ang mga sirkumstansya ng rape sa subic noong nov 1, 2005 : binuhat palabas ni smith ang isang halos unconscious na si nicole mula sa neptune bar na parang baboy; ni-rape habang nasa loob ng umaandar na starex van; pagkatapos ay itinapon sa gilid ng daan sa may alava pier na nakababa pa ang pantalon at may nakadikit na gamit na condom. walang bumabawi sa ganitong mga paglalarawan at pagpapatotoong may nangyaring rape. ni-rape si nicole noong 2005 sa subic. at si daniel smith ang nang-rape sa kanya.

malinaw ang sinasabi ng batas at ang desisyon ng makati regional trial court sa verdict nito kay smith: sinamantala ni smith ang ganung state ni nicole. pinatunayan ng physical at circumstancial evidences na ni-rape ni smith si nicole.

o baka naman pati ito kinalimutan na ng ilan para lang sumakto sa iskema ng pagkastigo kay nicole?

huling punto na lang: para maunawaan si nicole at ang naging desisyon niya nitong huli, kailangang unawain kung ano ang rape at ano ang nangyayari sa mga babaeng biktima ng rape, lalo na iyong mga katulad ni nicole na ang nanggahasa ay sundalo ng pinakamakapangyarihang imperyalistang bansa sa daigdig na hawak sa leeg ang pinakatutang gobyerno sa asya.

mas mainam na gawin ito, kaysa magwasiwas ng kung anu-anong moralistikong retorika para manisi ng isang biktima ng rape.

komentaryo

FrancisM! National Artist?

it’s just too much. maybe, too soon.

anyone who has seen me since FrancisM’s death, anyone who has read this blog’s past two entries, would know that I love FrancisM. that i’m a fan, that i respect him as an artist and person, that i admire the kind of convictions that he had, the lines he crossed to prove that he would die for them. (more…)

kultura

today: grieving for FrancisM

a version of this essay appears in the Philippine Daily Inquirer: Mourning for FrancisM

I can imagine that this doesn’t apply to many Filipinos of a different social class and generation from mine. But for a particular sector who, in the 1990s, was enamored by American pop and rap, who were at an age in which they needed a sense of identity in the context of this country, there was Francis Magalona.

And this is not to say that he began in my consciousness as a rapper. If memory serves, he was singing and dancing on That’s Entertainment, acting in Bagets 2, and rapping the top 10 song countdown on Lovli-Ness, before he became the Master Rapper of this country. In fact, when he broke out as a rapper in the album Yo! and the song “Mga Kababayan”, it seemed to me like the most natural progression, for someone like FrancisM who seemed more intelligent than many of his generation, and who really did have something to say that was different and new. At least to my 14-year old ears, and my 17-year old brother’s, and I guess to many friends I’ve met since then, who now mourn with me and cry the tears we would normally only have for loved ones. (more…)

kultura

in mourning

the real thang is coming out in the Inquirer daw this week. but just had to get this out of my head, about why exactly i’m so sad, and am in fact, in mourning:

because FrancisM just might be able to take credit for the kind of activism I found I was open to, having been exposed to him as a rapper and as a Pinoy when i was a 14-year old girl, who thought that rap — among many other things — could only be for Americans. (more…)