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.

It was appropriate. UJS, linked to the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) — basically a branch of the dominant party in the country, the Workers’ Party (PT) — hasn’t been the most consistent organization when it comes to the defense of the rights and freedoms of women. That’s understandable when we take into account that sometimes their need of defending the government and the status quo come before any other considerations.

Nonetheless, they did show up and they exchanged pamphlets with us. Our libertarian group, Coletivo Nabuco, distributed pamphlets with the essay “Seduzidas e desonradas” (“Seduced and dishonored”), by Brazilian anarchist individualist and feminist Maria Lacerda de Moura. UJS’s had an article against the World Cup and ended with an appeal, probably to appease the feminist crowd present, “For more women in spaces of power!”

They printed the same slogan on their largest banner. When we went to talk to the people who were in the walk, we immediately inverted it: “For less spaces of power to oppress women!”

UJS’s slogan betrays a misconception about what characterizes the fight for female emancipation. According to it, women’s issues are little more than representation problems, which can be alleviated with the presence of a higher percentage of women in the state and its decision-making instances. It’s as if we should allot quotas to each group in society: if women are 50% of the population, they should make up 50% of government.

It’s also an idea that keeps intact all the power structures in society that guarantee that women continue to be oppressed. Not only by the iron fist of the state, but also by the dominant patriarchal culture — which dictates which behaviors, clothes, jobs, studies, hobbies, gestures, and sexual activities are appropriate to women.

Representation in government is not a proxy for real and significant political authority. An analogy with racism can make this problem clearer. Around 7.6% of the Brazilian population is black. If government destined 7.6% of its offices to black people, what would change in their political situation? Little. The very number of people who describe themselves as blacks in demographic surveys is artificially low because of the racist culture in which we’re inserted. Proportional representation in the state, thus, doesn’t solve the bigger problem — racism (as well as sexism) feeds back into the power structure the state is a part of.

For the same reasons, reserving of placement quotas for black students in public universities means very little, for public universities themselves are excluding spaces that are unable to respond to the needs of the black population. They can only ever serve the needs of a small (and generally already privileged) minority, so a “progressive” ethnic composition of students doesn’t break the system of privilege. It’s just makeup.

Thus, we don’t need representation in spaces of power, because power is inexorably force and oppression. The power structure we have nowadays is sustained by the intersectional oppression of several minorities (affecting them differently in kind, if not in intensity), combined with the systematic oppression, though less manifested, of the people as a whole.

Women in power should be seen not as forces of change, but as results of change. Social and cultural changes open the doors of previously closed off spaces to women, but their representation in power shouldn’t be conflated with empowerment.

We don’t need more diversity in power, we need less power.

Oppression is the raison d’être of power. It doesn’t matter what its gender composition is.