Friday, July 30

Approve in antifascism

This Sunday in the Puerta del Sol hundreds of people demonstrated again to demand justice for the murder of Samuel Luiz. One of the slogans that was repeated the most was: “Here we are the antifascists”, a great success, because fascism, homophobia, machismo and racism are linked by the same thread.

The actor and writer Carlos Bardem said this Monday in an interview that “the extreme right or the extreme right or the extreme constitutionalist center always use the moral superiority of the left as disqualifying. Yes, indeed, I am morally superior to any fascist, already any male chauvinist and any homophobe and any racist, and if it weren’t, I would be very concerned. ” And he continued: “Here it would be nice to have a broad debate on the role of the media in whitewashing this type of mob.”

It is pertinent to mention the role of the media, because some of them have standardized far-right speeches that pave the way for hatred. It is no coincidence that in recent years hate attacks have grown notably, in some periods up to 45%, according to data from the Ministry of the Interior. During this time, public campaigns have been organized against vulnerable groups from different sectors, not only from the extreme right. There are media spaces determined to present human rights as something questionable and debatable.

In this context, it is surprising that voices arise determined to point out those who ask that the homophobic component in the murder of Samuel be investigated. They are the same voices that are silent when others deny the ingredient of hate in said crime. They criticize the existence of homophobia in this case and for this they argue that there is not enough data yet to determine anything. If, as they say, there is not enough data, one wonders how they are so sure that there was no homophobic component in a collective lynching where “fag” and “fag shit” sounded like insults.

Their argument is similar to that of those who claim that the gender-based violence component in murders of women by their partners or ex-partners cannot be determined. Or those who these days ridicule in British territory the warnings – based on real and conclusive data – about the increase in sexist violence when the United Kingdom plays a football match and even more so when it loses it.

To defend their position and silence the warnings against homophobia, some cling to interpretations of the law, with a desire to exclude from public debate all those who are not jurists. By this rule of three, only an elite belonging to the world of law could pronounce on some of the most serious social problems of our society, when the truth is that too often we see more training in human rights in civil society than in the world of the judiciary. The current role of the Judiciary is good proof of this.

Throughout history, society has many times marked the path to legislative power, pointing out collective problems and demanding solutions in the form of new laws. Years ago divorce, abortion or homosexual marriage were prohibited and immobilists embraced the argument of the law so that nothing would change. In some parts of the world the murder of women at the hands of their husbands is legitimate if it is shown that they have been adulteresses. In many others, homophobia is not considered an aggravating factor in the face of a crime. In all of them there are very solemn ladies and gentlemen who defend these positions “because the law says so.” They are not ashamed, because they have a journalism that microphones them giving them prestige.

Before the law determined that certain crimes were sexist, they were already sexist. Something does not start to happen just because the law determines it. Another thing is how the legislator adjusts to the times. But not because the law says so, hate crimes suddenly appear.

If Carlos Bardem were a journalist, it is likely that some of his colleagues would have already made his words ugly, calling him an activist. In some circles of the journalistic profession the whitening of the banality of evil is consented, normalized. On the contrary, the defense of human rights is indicated as positioning, in the pejorative sense of the term. Journalism needs many more professionals trained in human rights and endowed with enough courage to shame those who look at the world from impunity and on high. Journalists who approve of antifascism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *