If you were too young to have lived through martial law, I suggest you read up thoroughly. Better yet, talk to those who did and try to get a feel of how it was then. Or shut up.
If you did live through it but was apolitical, that’s alright; you’re not alone. But don’t pontificate as though you know about human rights more than others do.
If you lived through it and railed against it like many of us did, then I don’t even want to know you if you continue to insist that fighting for human rights then is just the same as doing so now.
You got it all wrong.
You see, there’s such a thing as context.
The activist Church then called it “a preferential option for the poor.” It’s true that human rights was a universal, albeit Western, concept, running the gamut of race, religion, and global boundaries.
But because the times called for such a preferential option, a “bias” if you will, for the downtrodden and the repressed, we didn’t screw around with semantics and intellectually masturbate whether or not we were defending the human rights of the dictatorship’s victims or its minions, who were routinely being taken down by the Left’s Sparrow Unit.
Flirting with such a conjecture was not only taboo but treasonous to the crusade. If anyone had the thick skin to mouth anything like that back then, he or she would have been branded a pathetic apologist to the status quo.
So, the next time you feel the urge to make a squeak about this administration’s anti-drug war as an affront to human rights, think again. Today’s context is as palpable as the multitude of victims of this country’s well-entrenched, gargantuan drug industry.
Like San Miguel’s offer to build rehab centers, it’s better to help save lives, yes?
Who knows, the life you save, as the motorist’s creed goes, may be your own.