I had a good giggle at lawyer Oscar Franklin Tan’s presumption of my supposed “charm,” thinking of those people who would contest that statement. As far as sexist putdowns go, it’s a fail. Am I a bigot? Bigotry, like charm, sometimes lies in the eyes of the beholder.
I am surprised that Tan failed to get the point of my commentary (“Religious police in the Bangsamoro?” 6/5/15), considering that Randy David, in his lucid and elegant rebuttal, did. But since Tan didn’t get the point, here goes: Islamic values permeate the Bangsamoro Basic Law to the extent that an Islamic substate is in the realm of possibility, since not only is there a Shari’ah justice system provided for in the law, but also Shari’ah enforcement (hisbah) and Shari’ah law.
Since I had to edit the original from 9,000+ characters with spaces down to 5,700, explanations of unconstitutionality had to go; after all, clearly the whole concept is unconstitutional. I presumed this would be clear to the Inquirer readers, much more so to lawyers. Certainly it was clear to two lawyers who read the commentary and did not make the mistake of assuming that the example of a Qisas offense I cited was anything more than an example of a Qisas offense.
I have two pieces of advice for Tan. First, focus on what you are reading to get the message, rather than on what you are going to say. Second, stop talking about yourself. You reveal too much. Having read your past columns, my reaction to your account of mainland Chinese not inviting you to their Chinese New Year and then giving you some cockamamie excuse that the non-mainland Chinese weren’t sufficiently Chinese, was: “Maybe they just didn’t like you.”
—ARACELI Z. LORAYES, Alabang, Muntinlupa City