Secondo la Karam, la sinistra dimentica che l’apparato repressivo dello stato è rivolto principalmente contro le persone ai margini e fa molto spesso pulizia sociale, e la proposta di ulteriore criminalizzazione e repressione (così come la lotta ai crimini finanziari) avanzata dalla sinistra non risolve le contraddizioni strutturali.

I problemi di sicurezza creati dal traffico di droga ne sono un esempio. Invece di chiedere più repressione per ridurre la sensazione di insicurezza, la sinistra brasiliana dovrebbe riflettere sul fatto che è la stessa criminalizzazione della droga a creare il circuito della violenza. La lotta alla criminalizzazione, dunque, diventa lotta alla violenza.

La Karam conclude notando che il ruolo della sinistra dovrebbe essere di critica al sistema prevalente, non di rafforzamento della sua logica.

Durante il dibattito elettorale del 29 settembre, il candidato cosiddetto minore Levy Fidelix, rispondendo ad una domanda dell’altro candidato Luciana Genro riguardo il matrimonio omosessuale, ha fatto alcune dichiarazioni omofobiche offensive sulla televisione nazionale. Fidelix ha messo in mostra la tipica repulsione eteronormativa verso gli omosessuali mascherata da “difesa dei valori famigliari”. Ed è andato oltre dicendo che il “sistema escretorio” non fa parte dell’apparato riproduttivo e che chi non è eterosessuale dovrebbe, in qualche modo, essere escluso dalla vita sociale. “Lontanissimo” dal resto della società così da poter curare i suoi presunti problemi affettivi e psicologici.

Molti a sinistra, non volendo perdere l’occasione, si sono detti a favore della criminalizzazione dell’omofobia, e hanno usato le parole di Fidelix come esempio di quello che bisognerebbe vietare. Secondo questa parte della sinistra, l’omofobia dovrebbe essere un crimine da trattare come il razzismo. Ma è proprio difendendo questo ragionamento che commettono l’errore della sinistra punitiva.

Criminalizzare un comportamento non può rappresentare il sistema principale per risolvere i conflitti sociali, perché si tratta di costrizione, che dovrebbe essere usata solo in caso di aggressione contro la libertà individuale.

L’idea di ricorrere alla criminalizzazione come soluzione di tutti i problemi è alla base dell’espansione drammatica della regolamentazione della vita da parte dello stato. In questo modo, qualunque comportamento può essere definito criminale.

La criminalizzazione delle opinioni inaccettabili è uno strumento diffuso, comune a tutti i regimi autoritari. Non è neanche uno strumento di cambiamento, ma di reazione. Non esiste una versione purificata perché in fin dei conti stiamo criminalizzando opinioni che davvero meritano disprezzo. È sempre e comunque uno strumento autoritario che serve a soffocare il dissenso.

Come fa notare Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature, i grandi cambiamenti storici non sono mai stati il prodotto della “criminalizzazione delle opinioni conservatrici” (cosa che un tempo non era neanche possibile), ma sono passati attraverso un processo storico più complesso che comprendeva la decriminalizzazione delle opinioni e la libertà di espressione. La grande scoperta liberale, se vogliamo garantire la pace sociale, è che non siamo obbligati ad essere d’accordo su tutto, ma solo su chi ha il diritto di decidere chi ha ragione: l’individuo.

Criminalizzare l’omofobia e il razzismo può avere esiti molto spiacevoli. Molti già accusano le femministe di misandria e il movimento Lgbt di “eterofobia”. Accuse assurde, ma non è difficile immaginare che qualcuno potrebbe chiedere la soppressione di queste espressioni, soprattutto se si criminalizza l’opposto, ovvero il machismo e l’omofobia. Nessuno garantisce che questi argomenti non possano in futuro essere criminalizzati come incitamenti all’odio, a tutto svantaggio della libertà di dibattito e dei diritti delle minoranze.

Ecco perché il modo migliore di combattere il razzismo, l’omofobia e le altre culture discriminatorie non passa per la criminalizzazione. Scrive Mano Ferreira in un suo articolo, “Por um principio da nao opressao” (“A Favore del Principio della non-Oppressione”): “Quando edifichiamo il principio libertario della non-oppressione, dobbiamo puntare all’espansione della libertà. Secondo me, è attraverso la cooperazione volontaria e il rafforzamento sociale degli oppressi che, legittimamente e efficacemente, si pongono le basi per la lotta all’oppressione. È necessario analizzare profondamente il meccanismo dell’oppressione e le possibilità di eliminarlo: in questa missione dobbiamo riconoscere l’importanza di autori che aderiscono a correnti epistemologiche diverse, capirli e ridare loro importanza.”

L’azione diretta e il boicottaggio sociale sono strumenti molto utili a questo scopo, come ho fatto notare a quelle femministe che combattono la cultura dello stupro.

Quando si lotta per il progresso della società è bene lasciar fuori la criminalizzazione delle opinioni. L’emancipazione delle minoranze si può ottenere, e si otterrà, attraverso un processo di consolidamento storico e di allargamento e svecchiamento delle reti della cooperazione sociale volontaria, dove la criminalità dello stato e l’oppressione sociale sarà rigettata per essere sostituita dalla libertà.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Karam notes that the left seems to have forgotten that the repressive apparatus of the state turns itself mainly against marginalized groups, serving more often than not as a form of social cleansing, and the very proposal of more criminalization and repression coming from the left (such as the fight against financial crimes) does not solve this structural contradiction.

An example of that is the security problem created by drug trafficking: Instead of supporting even more repression to drug trafficking to reduce the feeling of insecurity, the Brazilian left should reflect on the fact that it is drug criminalization itself that creates the cycle of violence related to drugs in the country. Thus, fighting against criminal law is fighting against violence.

Karam concludes that it is the left’s role to criticize the prevailing system, not to reinforce its logic.

In Brazil’s presidential debate on 09/29, so-called dwarf candidate Levy Fidelix made some vile, homophobic and offensive statements on national TV after being asked by fellow candidate Luciana Genro about his position on gay marriage. Fidelix showed the typical heteronormative revulsion to homosexuality disguised as “defending family values,” but he went even further in declaring that the “excretory system” is not a means of reproduction and that non-heterosexuals should be excluded somehow from social life, “far away” from the rest of society to treat their supposed affection and psychological problems.

Never skipping a beat, many leftists manifested themselves in favor of criminalizing homophobia and used Fidelix’s statements as an instance of what criminal law should ban. Homophobia should be a crime in the same way racism is, according to this sector of the Brazilian left. But in defending that position, they make the punitive left’s mistake.

Criminalizing a conduct cannot be the primary means through which social conflict is solved, because it is the most coercive way of doing so and the one that should be invoked only versus aggression against individual liberties.

The idea of criminalization as a solution for all human problems has dramatically expanded state regulation of life. And according to that point of view, there is no individual behavior that cannot be potentially included in our police records.

Criminalizing unacceptable opinions has been a common tool used by each and every authoritarian regime in human history. It is not ever a tool of social transformation, but of reaction. It will not be purified because we are finally criminalizing opinions that are actually worthy of scorn. It is still an authoritarian means to shut off dissent.

As Steven Pinker shows in The Better Angels of Our Nature, great changes in human history have not come from the “criminalization of conservative opinions” (something that was not even possible at the time), but through a more complex historical process that included the decriminalization of opinions and freedom of expression. To guarantee social peace, the great liberal discovery is that we do not have to agree on everything, but only on who should have the right to decide who is right: the individual.

The process of criminalizing homophobia and racism can turn ugly in the future: Many people accuse feminists of being misandric and the LGBT movement of being “heterophobic.” While these are absurd accusations, it is not difficult to think of a defense of suppression of their discourse on those grounds, since their opposite (machismo and homophobia) can become crimes. There is no guarantee that these discourses will not become criminalized and labeled as hate speech in the future, in detriment of free debate and minorities’s rights.

Therefore, the best way to fight against racism, homophobia, and other discriminatory cultures is not through their criminalization. As Mano Ferreira wrote on his article “Por um principio da nao opressao” (“For a Non-Oppression Principle”): “In putting together a libertarian principle of non-oppression, we should have in mind an expansion of human liberty. Thus, I believe that it is through voluntary cooperation and social empowerment of the oppressed that we build legitimate and efficient bases for fighting oppression. In that process, it is necessary to deeply analyze oppression mechanisms and its possibilities of undoing — a mission in which we should recognize the importance of authors who adhere to other epistemologies, understand them and resignify them.”

Direct action and social boycott might be very useful tools for that, something which I have pointed as a helpful tool for feminists against rape culture.

The paradigm of criminalization of opinions should be abandoned when we are fighting for social progress, since the emancipation of minorities is being obtained and will be achieved through a historical consolidation, amplification and enlightenment of the networks of voluntary social cooperation, where state criminality and social oppression will be fought and rejected in favor of human freedom.

Translated into English by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Sinistra Punitiva e Criminalizzazione dell’Omofobia.

The danger lies in forgetting the evil of imperialism due to a greater inclusion of people participating in imperial violence. A more diverse band of killers for government is still a band of killers for government. Diversity is a useful value, but it isn’t the only value. This is especially true when we’re discussing the subject of militarism. Miliaristic force is among the worst evils known to humankind and remains so even with a greater variety of people involved. It’s imperative not to lose sight of this.

It’s also important not to lose sight of how militarism reinforces the notion of the other. A phenomenon that is especially deadly for marginalized individuals like LGBT people. An example of this is the fear of a Helot uprising in militaristic Sparta. It helped keep militarism going in that society. Homophobia itself is based on a fear of the other. It may not be inherently tied to militarism or empire, but it definitely has that trait in common.

Militarism tends to lead to the demonizing of the other, because it embraces an “us vs them” logic – one nation-group or group against another. It often leads to the total destruction of an enemy. There is no regard for civilian life. The inclusion of gay and lesbian individuals in this practice of “us vs them” war would be ironic. This is due to the status of gays and lesbians as marginalized people in American society.

Let us work towards abolishing homophobia, empire and militarism. A trinity of evils that deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history. We anarchists can lead the way on this issue. It’s time to get started!

Woods defines the distinction between “thin” and “thick” libertarians as follows:

Some libertarians say the traditional libertarian principle of nonaggression is insufficient. That is merely “thin” libertarianism, they say. We also need to have left-liberal views on religion, sexual morality, feminism, etc., because reactionary beliefs among the public are also threats to liberty. This is “thick” libertarianism.

This misrepresents the ideas of “thick” and “thin” libertarianism.  Thickness is not defined primarily in terms of “left-liberal views.” Rather, thickness is any broadening of libertarian concerns beyond overt aggression and state power to concern about what cultural and social conditions are most conducive to liberty. As such, right wing views as well as left wing ones can be thickness commitments. As Charles Johnson explains in his essay Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin:

it is important to keep in mind that the issue at hand in these discussions goes beyond the debate over left libertarianism specifically. The debate leads to some strange bedfellows: not only left libertarians defend the claim that libertarianism should be integrated into a comprehensive critique of prevailing social relations; so do paleolibertarians such as Gary North or Hans-Hermann Hoppe, when they make the equal but opposite claim that efforts to build a flourishing free society should be integrated with a rock-ribbed inegalitarian cultural and religious traditionalism. As do Randian Objectivists, when they argue that political freedom can only arise from a culture of secular romantic individualism and an intellectual milieu grounded in widespread, fairly specific agreement with the tenets of Objectivist metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Abstracting from the numerous, often mutually exclusive details of specific cultural projects that have been recommended or condemned in the name of libertarianism, the question of general principle has to do with whether libertarianism should be seen as a thin commitment, which can be happily joined to absolutely any non-coercive set of values and projects, or whether it should instead be seen as one strand among others in a thick bundle of intertwined social commitments. These disputes are often intimately connected with other disputes concerning the specifics of libertarian rights theory, or class analysis and the mechanisms of social power. In order to better get a grip on what’s at stake, it will be necessary to make the question more precise, and to tease out the distinctions between some of the different possible relationships between libertarianism and thicker bundles of social, cultural, religious, or philosophical commitments, which might recommend integrating the two on some level or another.

So Woods starts from a misunderstanding of the very meaning of thick libertarianism. From there, he actually goes on to unwittingly describe a way in which he is a thick libertarian. He asks ” if the thickists are concerned that certain cultural attitudes might be dangerous to liberty, why do I never hear them express concern that the hysteria of the cultural Left might be prejudicial to liberty?”

Woods goes on to argue that the “cultural Left” has created a climate in which people are afraid to express opinions, “lest they be banished from polite society by the opinion police.” This concern is an explicitly thick libertarian concern, given it’s a concern not about aggression, but about cultural norms that limit discussion and debate.

Woods expresses doubt that “thickists,” by which I presume he means left-libertarians, have expressed any concern about the issues he raises. In large part this may be because many left-libertarians correctly recognize that racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia have upheld systemic structural violence, and that using non-violent social pressure against those who promulgate these bigotries is therefore worthwhile. In a world where white supremacy has been the ideological basis for campaigns of lynching and terror, for racial profiling by police, for legally mandated exclusion and inequity, responding harshly to white supremacists is justified. In a world where transgender women are regularly murdered for who they are and outing can be a death sentence, we should make transphobia socially unacceptable. And I’ve already written at length about how slut shaming, victim blaming, and misogyny uphold violence and undermine liberty.

However, some of the problems Woods alludes to are real and serious. In particular, I share his concern about how the Southern Poverty Law Center has directly collaborated with and strengthened the police state under the guise of fighting bigotry, hate, and “extremism.” In my view, their collusion with the police state has hypocritically strengthened and provided liberal cover for one of the most racist and oppressive institutions on earth.  Left-libertarian Kevin Carson called out the Southern Poverty Law Center on other grounds in his article Why I Don’t Much Like Liberals.

Other left-libertarians who would generally be considered thick libertarians have also addressed the issues mentioned by Woods. Jeremy Weiland wrote an essay titled A Leftist Critique of Political Correctness. And Anthony Gregory wrote a rather nuanced piece back in 2007 titled Reassessing Political Correctness. So Dr. Woods is wrong to suggest that thick libertarians of a left-libertarian variety have never expressed concerns about how liberal social views can become culturally ingrained as dogma.

The key claim of thick libertarianism is this: culture matters in the fight for a free and peaceful society. I think Dr. Woods and I would probably agree that a culture which demands reverence for war mongers like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt is destructive to liberty. I contend that a culture riddled with racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny is just as damaging to liberty.  Right libertarians should stop providing ideological cover for these oppressive norms and join us in fighting for a world conducive to liberty for all.