Divine retribution

I first wrote about Paul Fernandez's story in Police treated gay man like a paedophile. In that article, I focussed on the way the police acted. But, as the Straits Times story reported (Police told employer about man's arrest) there were also issues related to Fernandez's employment, which were quite fraught as you can see from the letters at the tail end of the latter article.

The whole matter being months past, it didn't occur to me that it was the subject of yet another news story on Sunday, 26 June 2005 until I read it a day later.

The headline emblazoned on the front page of The New Paper said, "Teacher's gay, so they tear down the toilets!" (based on my memory, since I didn't buy a copy of the paper). How hysterical can people get, I asked myself.

I had to wait 24 hours for the web version of the New Paper to carry the story. By then the headline had been changed to a weaker one, "$40,000 fix-up after HIV outcry", but the story still leaves one speechless.

First, I should point out a significant inconsistency. In the latest story, it was reported (obviously based on what the school told the reporter) that,

the parents were aghast. They blamed the school for hiring the man. Four pulled their kids out. 

(They returned in April, said principal Queenie Tan, 50, because they couldn't find other centres to go to.)

Other parents insisted that the teacher not teach their children and must not be in the same room as their kids.

'It put me in a difficult position. It was as good as telling me to remove him,' said Mrs Tan.

Strange, that. The parents didn't know about the matter until Fernandez' story first appeared in the Straits Times on 5 February 2005. Yet, by then, Fernandez already knew he would be losing his job. He told the Straits Times (5 Feb 2005) that,

the school had intended to fire him from the outset and had concocted a story about the rules to cover up its true intentions.

The school however said they were displeased with him because he didn't abide by the rules set for him, such as teaching in a classroom with open windows (see Noel Chia's letter to the Straits Times, published 9 Feb 2005). Fernandez denied ever being informed of such rules (see his letter to Straits Times published 18 Feb 2005).

It's a bit strange that by 5 February 2005, Fernandez was convinced he was going to be sacked, when up till that day, the parents hadn't known about the matter. Yet the parents' pressure is being cited by the school as the reason for sacking him.

It's also worth knowing that it was Fernandez himself who contacted the Straits Times with his story, and that was how the story came out. The reason Fernandez contacted the Straits Times was because he knew he'd be losing his job, having been told verbally by his superior a month earlier that he was being suspended with a final decision to be made soon after (the superior leaving little to the imagination what that final decision would be through various roundabout references). Feeling unjustly treated and having nothing more to lose, Fernandez decided at least to get publicity for his case. This background was told to me personally by Fernandez.

Thus it supports Fernandez' contention that by 5 February, the die had been cast; the sack decision had been made, though not yet formalised. Thus, it does seem a little odd that the school now says their hand was forced by the parents, when the parents didn't know what was going on till after 5 February.

* * * * *

The resulting storm however, as you can see from the New Paper report, was far more severe than anyone would have anticipated. The parents demanded that the school be repainted, the toilet bowls changed, the chairs and all teaching aids thrown out and news ones bought. Fuelled by homophobia, paranoia and ignorance, it has cost the school $40,000 -- a huge amount to spend on a small facility for 15 pupils. As someone wrote onto the newspaper's discussion forum, they're "a bunch of idiots".

This is the price we pay when we demonise gay and lesbian people. The fundamentalists will leverage anything, from Old Testament injunctions to modern diseases (AIDS) to paint homosexuals black. When you stoke such hysteria, don't be surprised that it erupts. 

Of course the intention of the hate-mongers is that the hysteria whipped up should sweep away homosexuality, but in this instance it has whipped right back at a small school run by "very Christian" folks (Fernandez's characterisation, from personal conversation). I'm not saying that the principal and others had been stoking the hysteria directly, but like too many people of that faith, they don't stand up against the forked tongues spoken in the name of their religion.

In fact, Queenie Tan, the principal, herself provides an example of this.

Mrs Queenie Tan, 50, acknowledged that being a homosexual (which he [Fernandez] is open about) doesn't make him a paedophile.

She said, "Not all gays are paedophiles, and not all paedophiles are gays."

"A woman committing adultery is unlikely to pick on children. But with a gay, the tendency to be a paedophile is greater."

A gross generalisation?

Mrs Tan claimed she based this on statistics she had read from the US.

Those statistics were not made available to us.

Guess what, the Christian fundamentalist websites are well known for making these claims. In all likelihood, that's where she saw these "statistics" that even the New Paper doubted. Now why is the good lady so credulous of fundamentalist websites? The same good lady, who on 26 June 2005, said to the New Paper, "They are still human beings who need a job to survive. How can we ostracise them?"

You cannot have it both ways. Hypocrisy -- trying to straddle the divide -- means you're equally the object of hysteria.

Thus, there is something quite satisfying about the whole lurid mess. All the more so when we recall that it was Fernandez who first sought publicity for the matter. In a sense, he brought the temple down. It reminds us, we are not always powerless.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None