Real Child Abusers
In the unfolding case of Jan-Jan Pineda, the 6-year-old boy who cost controversial TV host Willie Revillame his worst legal and public battle, one might ask, who’s the
real child abuser? Is it Revillame who failed to police his own show when a kid displayed an on-the-spot macho-dance routine? I say, of course he definitely shares the blame. Is it the tyke’s parents who sent their kid to the controversial show to be “humiliated” by the TV host and by his live viewers (to borrow the description of the Commission on Human Rights)? Or is it the publicity-hound people behind the meddlesome government agencies (CHR, MTRCB and DOJ) and some do-gooders, namely, Dr. Ma. Lourdes “Honey” Carandang, blogger and environmentalist hippie Froilan Grate, and blogger John Silva?
Based on my objective, impartial analysis of this controversial matter that made people forget of the evils of another controversial issue, the Reproductive Health bill, those most guilty of child abuse are none other than the altruist-statists of the CHR and MTRCB and their do-gooder cohorts (Carandang, Grate and Silva) who believed they had the right to supersede the parental authority of Jan-Jan’s parents. These people, who are perhaps motivated by various reasons (e.g., publicity, altruism, leftism, etc.), have this so arrogant a belief that their purported compassion or concern for the psychologically and emotionally “abused” tyke gives them the right to disregard the parental responsibilities of the concerned parents and call on the government to intervene.
What these people don’t understand is that their highly conceited public display of concern for the child’s welfare clearly indicates that Jan-Jan’s parents had been remiss in their parental duty, or had been very much irresponsible, as the former and the state have now acquired the legal and moral right to represent the child in an ongoing legal battle which they themselves created. The child abuse case filed by these three personalities simply proves that justice and legal objectivity in this country have gone awry.
By what right do they invoke that Revillame and Jan-Jan-‘s parents were guilty of child abuse? Well, according to the psychological crystal ball of Dr. Carandang, the dancing kid was subjected to public humiliation and emotional and psychological abuse so she believed that he had the right to supersede the boy’s parental authority. This is the very kind of psychologist whom you should not approach for any kind of consultation. On the other hand, the two bloggers, Silva and Grater, firmly believed that the child was “abused” so they thought they had the responsibility to call the attention of the state. What do you expect from a statist environmentalist like Grater? Is it not that most, if not all environmentalists, believe that the environment should be preserved at human expense? It is exactly this anti-man environmentalist mentality that gave Grater the belief that he had the right to supersede the Pimentel couple’s parental authority.
If this will not prove the statism and the mediocre beliefs of these do-gooders, then I don’t know what will.
Consider this scenario. If your leftist/altruist (probably an environmentalist as well) neighbor goes to court and claims that you have exposed your 13-year-old son to
‘child labor’ (or to an abusive market environment) for allowing him to sell cupcakes and lemonade drinks at a public park, what does that mean? It means that you are a bad and irresponsible parent even if the kid likes what he’s doing. This one is actually a real case. Last year, two 13-year-olds named Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff decided to sell cupcakes in the park simply because they “wanted to earn money.” (See related blog story Young “Cupcake” Capitalists’ Innocent Fight for Economic Freedom).
Of course child labor, which can be associated with child abuse, is legally and morally wrong if it involves the use of force. If you force your child to work at a nearby factory in order to feed you, that’s a violation of the rights of the child. But if a kid likes to sell anything in the park or at school, then that’s not illegal or immoral, although some leftist academics and psychologists like Dr. Carandang may still call it “child labor.”
According to the psycho-epistemology of these anti-child abuse hippies, anything that is offensive to social norms, morals, or even public feelings should be regulated by the state and can give anyone the moral and legal right to supersede the rights of the concerned individuals (e.g., parents or guardians). True, their public clamor or advocacy would have been very much commendable had their allegations corresponded with reality and the real facts of the case. The question remains: Was there really child abuse, or such an “abuse” only exists in the minds of these meddlesome do-gooders?
What is very much apparent is that the child abuse case filed by these statist do-gooders is a direct insult to the parents of Jan-Jan. This is because it paints them as irresponsible, abusive parents.
I watched the video and I fully sympathize with the kid. I think he’s a very articulate, responsible and intelligent kid. For instance, when Willie asked: “Bakit may parlor ang
tatay mo?” the child answered in a very intelligent manner which shows his impressive grasp of concepts. The boy replied: “Kasi, para hanap-buhay.” If observed very closely, Willie’s question implies something. For most Filipinos, the word “parlor” connotes some stereotypical biases against men who work in beauty saloons or parlor shops. But instead of answering in a direct manner, the kid made an innocently philosophical reply. His father works in a parlor because he makes a living. What a very intelligent response to a non-serious query.
However, I disagree with Willie’s improper handling of the situation, as he exposed the innocent kid to a very intense situation. In cases like this which involves kids or handicapped people, the host must take great precaution. Excessive or unnecessary exposure of a kid or a handicapped person can have a psychological or emotional impact on the person involved. There is no question that Willie went overboard when he repeatedly asked the kid to perform his ‘unique’ dance routine. He should have known when to stop. This is the reason why the TV station, ABC 5, should have immediately controlled the damage before the issue caught great public attention. Now it certainly deserves what it gets, particularly the wave of ad pullouts that affected it operations.
Only this week the kid’s parents filed a libel suit against Dr. Carandang, Grate and Silva. Here’s an excerpt of the story from Inquirer.net:
MANILA, Philippines—The parents of a 6-year-old contestant in the TV game show “Willing Willie” Wednesday sued a child psychologist and two bloggers for libel in connection with allegations of child abuse that the couple said had caused them “dishonor, discredit and contempt.”
Joe and Diana Suan, the parents of Jan-Jan whose tearful performance of a “macho dance” in the March 12 episode of the TV5 game show drew dismay and outrage from viewers and groups promoting women and children’s rights, filed the libel complaint in the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office against Dr. Ma. Lourdes “Honey” Carandang, a child psychologist; Froilan Grate, a blogger, educator and environmentalist; John Silva, a blogger and senior consultant of the National Museum; and others yet to be named.
John Pineda, the Suans’ lawyer, said they would not allow the boy “to be exploited by certain people with a hidden agenda.”
“We strongly object to his being used as a poster boy for child abuse. He was never abused. We will not allow anyone to abuse him,” Pineda said.
The Suans took offense at what Carandang said in her letter to Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) chair Grace Poe-Llamanzares—that the boy was abused by show host Willie Revillame.
“She is not our doctor and we don’t know her,” the Suans said in their complaint. “She did not consult the psychologist helping the family. She hasn’t talked with [our son] nor has she conducted an examination, yet she made a hasty conclusion of child abuse.”
The Philippine Daily Inquirer tried to reach Carandang at her office at MLAC Institute for Children and Families for comment, and was told by a staff member to send questions by e-mail. There was no response as of press time.
Perhaps the videos below shows the very exact definition of child abuse or taking advantage of a child’s innocence. You be the judge!