When thoughts and imagination cause harm

Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay, in defending Vice President Sara Duterte’s public threats against President Marcos, made a shockingly inappropriate analogy. During a hearing on the impeachment complaint against the VP, Suntay used himself as an example, “Alam mo, minsan, nasa Shangri-la ako, nakita ko si Anne Curtis, ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kung ano ang pwedeng mangyari. Pero syempre, hanggang imagination na lang ‘yon. Hindi naman siguro ako pwedeng kasuhan dahil kung anu-ano ‘yong na-imagine ko.”

Members of the House of Representatives quickly asked that his statements be stricken from the record, given their impropriety. He doubled down and said there was nothing sexual and immoral about his statements. Even after the subsequent public outcry, he gave the standard non-apology: “I stand by that analogy that I made, but if some people were offended, lalo na Women’s Month, I’m sorry for those who were offended, but if you read the context talaga, there was nothing malicious in it.” His conduct is a prime example of, at its mildest, a reckless and irresponsible argument, and at its worst, the exercise of political power to condone and support the use of violent rhetoric.

The question of whether one should be responsible for their rhetoric, especially when it inspires physical violence, is playing out in different political arenas. This is at the heart of the arguments laid out in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s confirmation of charges hearing at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Violent rhetoric also plays a pivotal role in the naked aggression of countries, such as the United States, toward other sovereign nations, as well as against their own immigrants and citizens.

Suntay posed a question: Can people be liable for their thoughts and imagination? He seems to think that they do not. There is, however, a school of thought in psychotherapy that considers thoughts as a form of behavior, thereby making them amenable to regulation and control. Not all thoughts, of course, are voluntary or welcome. We have automatic thoughts, thoughts that come up regularly and without our intention, and we have intrusive thoughts, thoughts that press themselves onto our consciousness despite us not actively wanting to think about them. Thoughts, by themselves, are not inherently harmful. Once they are attached to overt behavior, however, such as words or actions, they have the power to influence and cause harm.

The congressman mistook the Vice President’s words—as well as his own—as being merely thoughts. But the moment thoughts are expressed, especially in a public setting by public figures, one cannot insist that these thoughts are “just thoughts.” We are no longer dealing with purely private or random thoughts but have ventured into the world of words. And words can hurt. Words can oppress. Words can silence others. Words can exploit. Words can kill.

For public figures, and especially for elected government officials, words always carry weight. Words influence policy and laws. Words can either shut down or railroad investigations. Words can marginalize vulnerable groups. The more popular the leader, the more powerful their words are. And so, when the Vice President expresses violent rhetoric, even framed as “imaginings,” it encourages the verbal or physical violence of her support base. We don’t even have to think of hypotheticals, as the ICC investigation is attempting to show exactly how the former president’s violent rhetoric has encouraged extrajudicial killings. As Negros Oriental Rep. Janice Degamo pointed out in the same hearing where Suntay made his controversial remarks, she has the tragic lived experience of threats and violent rhetoric leading to the murder of her husband.

Suntay asked us to read the context to fully understand his words. I wonder if the congressman himself considered the context before making his statement. The context was a congressional hearing, a public forum. He was there, not as a private citizen but as a representative of Quezon City. The impeachment charges being considered were serious, involving alleged threats of killing the President and his family. It also happened to be Women’s Month (not that such sentiments are acceptable at any other time of the year). The fact that he continues not to see anything wrong with his statements means that he is assuming that it is common for men to “imagine” scenarios in their heads when they see a beautiful woman, which is exactly what terrifies women and makes them feel unsafe.

Was there no other way to prove his point but to give us an illustration of a man imagining himself with an unsuspecting and nonconsenting female celebrity? Ironically, he proved the opposite point: words can inflict violence.