I can’t believe 10 weeks has flown by so quickly! I am finally enroute to Toronto after a lengthy overnight layover in Tokyo…what a fantastic city!

My last day at the human rights center was ridiculously busy. Since flooding last Friday cancelled all classes, today’s child rights class consisted of two parts; the right to life debate, and a panel of guests speaking on their experiences with child rights in the Philippines.

Back in early June, our team decided to have the students of the class prepare for and participate in a Right to Life debate that would span about an hour. For the debate, the “government” was proposing the decriminalisation of abortion, while the opposition would argue against this position. I was initially apprehensive about this topic considering Ateneo is a Catholic university headed by the most powerful Jesuit priests in the country (one who was a professor for the Child Rights course as well). Atty. Sison-Arroyo explained that although the school may not necessarily endorse the position on pro-choice, this was a matter of academic freedom, and at the end, just some healthy debate. Makes sense when you put it that way!

The actual debate was very interesting. Both sides presented good arguments, although it was unanimous among the judges (Atty. Sison-Arroyo, Tim, John, and myself), that the arguments produced by the students on the government side were much stronger, and that the opposition simply did not profess anything novel or out of the ordinary. An interesting point to note was that NONE of the sides ventured over whether the fetus should be considered as a child or not. Instead, this fact was simply taken for granted. It seems as if the Catholic upbringing of all the students allowed for some bias on this matter, as they really couldn’t imagine this to be otherwise, whereas in North America, this is usually the initial point of contention between pro-choicers and right to lifers.  Overall, I was pretty pleased with the way the debate went. It allowed the student to critically think about and analyze a controversial topic that is normally swept under the rug, and understand a point of view that is not normally accepted in Philippine society. (Interestingly enough, after the debate, the students debating on the government’s side claimed to have felt ‘dirty’ for arguing in favour of something so wrong…..)

Tim and I finished off the right to life topic by presenting the legal stance of abortion from a Canadian perspective. We outlined the history of the debate, starting from the 60s all the way to the milestone case of Morgentaler that opened the doors to accessible abortion. Just a simple lecture that when I look back at this now (knowing the little tidbit of information about the students above), I am positive that most of the students must have been slightly appalled at the liberalism granted to such a contentious act. Overall, I can’t say that I’m embarrassed that Canada has the abortion laws that they do, but presenting these facts to a group of people (including a priest), that so clearly don’t agree with that viewpoint is more than a little daunting!

Looking back at my experience at the human rights center, and in the Philippines in general, I have to say that I have learned a lot! A lot about the rule of law, life in a developing country, and about myself! When researching for the Child Rights textbook, I was exposed to the plethora of laws that the Philippines had, especially concerning the protection of children. Initially, I felt that this was really promising because why would a country create laws it didn’t care to implement? My experiences throughout the following weeks lead me to reality and to the truth. Firstly, many children are not benefiting from the laws that are created for them. Although statistics show that almost all children in the Philippines have some form of education, most of this is at the primary level. While travelling in more remote areas, we came across children and young adults who were not enrolled in school due to financial difficulties. These situations are what made me question the real motives and effectiveness of the laws that are enacted to eliminate such situations; laws enacted that provide free and compulsory education to all, regardless of financial background. If this is indeed one of the goals of enacting such laws, then there obviously needs to be more accountability to ensure that its benefits are being reached to all those who wish to take advantage. Second, it is important to remember, that although Western outlooks may stress the importance of certain values, it is unfair to hold a country, where life and standards are very different, to our own standards. As a very mild example, although children may not be enrolled in school, it is not fair to automatically assume that the child is being disadvantaged and mistreated. Developing societies depend on different forms of labour, industry, and income. Although agrarian society has nearly disappeared in the western world, it is fruitful and abundant in other societies. Future generations need to be trained and taught to upkeep these industries, which are just as important as those requiring a formal education.  The bottom line is that it is very easy to judge the values, morals, and ways of life of a person, whether it’s your neighbour or someone across the world. Until you sit down and talk to them and really put yourselves in their shoes, you cannot make judgement on their rights and wrongs. Take the time to understand someone else’s story!

posted by shivani  # 2:06 PM