VIEWPOINTS

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading tag=’h3′ padding=’10’ heading=’VIEWPOINTS’ color=” style=’blockquote modern-quote’ custom_font=” size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ custom_class=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Honorable individuals asking dishonorable questions

THIS IS certainly neither meant to cast any aspersion at anyone nor intended to heap praise on anybody. Much less is this envisioned to point out who are the sinners and who is saint.

This is but some kind of a reminder of the following rather well-known standing advisory: “Let one without sin cast the first stone!”

Hereto add the standard address directed first at the “Ladies” and only thereafter to the “Gentlemen” – with the official implication of respect for women first and foremost.

That man came into being first and the woman thereafter, this is a given. And that the first woman was the cause of the downfall of the first man, this is another given. But all these do not give man the right to trample upon the good name and dignity of any woman. Respect for women – be these single or married – remains an ethical standard for noble men.

More concretely, this is about the well-known and rather long ongoing so-called “Inquiry in Aid of Legislation” in conjunction with the trafficking – manufacture, distribution, sale – of prohibited drugs, be this anywhere at anytime. This is about the personalities therein involved pus the payolas supposedly given to well-known recipients thereof – such as a perceived huge funding that changed hands on the occasion of the past election in the country. So it is that not only the Senate but especially so, certain members of the House of Representatives scheduled these and those well-publicized hearings supposedly for the purpose of needed legislations.

It is the case where it is already a long since accepted fact that the main subject party concerned had a married driver, that she was attracted to him, that she thus had an amorous relationship with him. Given the inquiry if she received illegal drug funding, how much was it and from whom it came, some of the disrespectful questions asked in the supposedly hallowed hall by certain supposedly gentlemen were the following – herein expressed in much reserved wordings and less demeaning undertones – that can be considered as samples of some dishonorable questions asked by the supposedly honorable gentlemen:

* How long since was the supposedly secret amorous relationship going on?

* How deeply entrenched was the said loving interaction?

* How far would the driver concerned go to cover up the presumed misdeeds of the third party woman in his love life?

* Is there not some kind of sex video taken between the lady and the driver?

* Why should this not be shown in the open for a more open and more enlightened investigation of the issue – in aid of legislation?

None of the above observations is intended to demean the gentlemen legislators concerned. Much less is anything above meant to altogether absolve the perceived errant actuation of the woman concerned.

But yes, all her possible civil and/or criminal liabilities notwithstanding, she remains not only presumed innocent but also entitled to the respect of all those concerned – the inquisitorial honorable gentlemen legislators well-included.

So it is and rightly so that the lady concerned is perceived as a victim of the macho honorable legislators who not only asked dishonorable questions but likewise wallowed in machismo. Hopefully, they are without sin that they gleefully threw stones at her./PN
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]