Freezum Gesum

When the controversy over “Poleitismo,” the artwork of Mideo Cruz, broke out, my first thought was to go to the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) and see the exhibit for myself. A friend and I had plans to watch a play at the CCP during the time the exhibit was supposed to run. Before I could do that, the CCP board decided to close the exhibit citing security issues  (two people had tried to burn the artwork) and death threats to its officers and board members.

 Weeks before the controversy erupted, I found myself being given a lecture on the “evils” of the Catholic Church by a taxi driver who described himself as a devout former Catholic. Traffic was snarled because of heavy rains so that for over an hour, I listened to him say that Catholics violate God’s words because they worship idols and that the Rapture was happening soon and that none of the Catholics were going to make it to heaven.

 He also bragged that the leader of his Christian group gave him and other followers a magic phrase to utter. This phrase was guaranteed to save them from any kind of harm. He claimed that this was so effective that members of the group kidnapped by the Abu Sayyaf could not be beheaded because the phrase rendered the blade dull. He also reported that in the past, he gave the talk he was giving me to another passenger. This passenger allegedly got so upset that he tried to kill the cab driver. Luckily for the driver, the gun did not go off when he yelled this phrase. 

 What did you say? I asked.  He mumbled something that sounded like “Freezum Gesum” which I’m guessing to be “Freeze in the name of Jesus” in made-up Latin. I tried hard not to laugh the rest of the trip. I also think that I may have disappointed him by refusing to debate with him about the matters he was raising.  And by not giving him a chance to test the efficacy of the magic phrase because I made no attempt to harm or kill him.

 A lot of the discussions about “Poleitismo” center on the freedom of expression of the artist and the “censorship” that allegedly resulted from the closure of the exhibit. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in the case of US vs. Schwimmer calling for “freedom for the thought we hate” has been cited several times. I think that the issue involves much more than that.

 It involves the issue of the role of the State as a patron of the arts, a role also enshrined in the Constitution. Who gets to pick what kind of art gets exhibited in a publicly–funded institution? What kind of art should be exhibited? Should potentially offensive art be absolutely prohibited? A lot of comments on articles about the controversy ask if the CCP would have allowed art that was offensive to Islam to be exhibited at all.

 It involves the issue of freedom of expression of those who found the artwork offensive. Are people in positions of power required to keep silent if giving their opinion may be interpreted as unduly influencing the decision of the CCP board, as in senators threatening to cut the CCP’s budget or the President saying that “stoking conflict is not an enabling activity?”

It will be a while before we can distill all the lessons from the controversy. Since we cannot predict how overzealous believers will act, I just hope that artists who create works that upset them have the equivalent of the taxi driver’s “Freezum Gesum” that will be effective at keeping them from harm.