Background: Vera Files published a report on how a new group of models and photographers, calling itself Mongoloid na Pogi Productions or Monggi Productions, received flak from groups such as the Down Syndrome Association.
xxx xxx
Commentary Written by Pseudonym One “On “Monggi”: http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/monggi-group-asked-change-offensive-name-224319403.html#ugccmt-container “ While reading the title of the report, I did not quite understand what the fuss was about, since “monggi”, at first sight, seemed to be a harmless word. However, as I read through the report, “monggi” of the production group Monggi Productions actually stood for “mongoloid na pogi”. Upon reading that definition, I began to question the reasons behind the naming of the group. What is a “pogi” or handsome mongoloid? Is there a “pangit” or ugly mongoloid? What does that mean? Why did they have to include the term “mongoloid”, a politically incorrect term to refer to people with Down syndrome?
“In my opinion, the name of the group is offensive. Firstly, the production group and its output falls under the media, since it has its own Facebook group and photographs that are published for the public to see. Also, stating that “monggi” meant “mongoloid na pogi”, the group should have known better and could have been more sensitive to the public, which includes people with these disabilities. What added to this problem were the photos of the group with celebrities’ faces that mimicked the “features associated with people with down syndrome”. The article was clear to state the Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities, which indicates that public ridicule and vilification of these persons as a crime. Based on the interview, it seems like they did not mean to offend this sector but the mere fact that their use of the term created a stir among members of the Down Syndrome Association of the Philippines, the act must be evaluated. According to The Philippine Journalist’s Code of ethics, “I shall not, in any manner, ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religion, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin”. Even though it is not explicitly indicated in the code of ethics, as a subject of attack to the person, this may also go for persons with disabilities. I, personally, would not use that word in public, let alone make it a name for my company seen by many online. It is a good that the group agreed to think about modifying the name of their brand, which gives us hope that this problem will soon be resolved. From this, I can say that one can show his or her artistry (in the form of writing or photography, and the like) without trying to clearly offend and violate a sector of society, in this case, people with Down syndrome.” Written by Pseudonym One
“It is hard to see why “Pugad Baboy”‘s recent issue was the first to draw so much ire from people for its jab at religion, society, and homosexuality. Satire can hardly be considered an unfair attack, as its purpose is not to force an audience against an entity, but to enjoin an audience to critically filter the practices it sees, and the satire’s subject to reconsider and reevaluate its courses of action. Satire has been the famous comic strip’s forte for many generations, and it has never caused any trouble for any party until now.
“On the other hand, perhaps Pol Medina, Jr.’s downfall was naming a specific and privately-owned entity as the subject of the strip’s issue. In doing so, St. Scholastica’s College was depicted as sharing a narrow and exclusive view on homosexuality with a larger entity–namely, the Catholic church–when allowing traditionally-discouraged same-sex relationships is the least of the Catholic church’s flaws where homosexuality is concerned. The perverted practice of homosexuality among some
members of the clergy, which have been attested to in several cases throughout time, is an even bigger problem than passively allowing harmless same-sex relationships to form. Medina needs not necessarily attack the Catholic church instead, though if in his interest to protect victims of homosexuality he decides to speak out, he may raise questions about it. However, there was no need to accuse St. Scholastica’s College of a shallow and demeaning view, as the administration does not explicitly take a stand against homosexuality, or at least not publicly or often. It was singled out to be painted in an unnecessarily negative light that it had not sought and had words put in its proverbial mouth–and this was something Medina could have avoided.
“(Interestingly, Kulasas themselves have attested to the truth of same-sex relationships in their school and do not take offense to the strip. It seems only the authorities are upset by the issue.)” by 2012-12727, blog admin did not edit.
