The crime of accusation

Quick: what do sexual assault, racist practices, structural poverty and religious fanaticism have in common with each other? If you answered that they are the excesses of four major oppressive systems - patriarchy, imperialism, plutocracy and superstition - you are right. They also share a number of other remarkable similarities.

Most societies on Earth more or less recognise that these four things are destructive and dangerous, perhaps moreso in the West, although I could be saying that because I live in the West. Regardless, they also have in common that despite being touted as great evils, most people poorly understand their realities, origins and causes.

Thought leaders and mainstream media will depict rape as a vile crime, a crime in fact so vile that only the vilest people will commit it. As such, being accused of rape is a sufficient battle cry for people to suddenly proclaim that the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty (which is true), while these same people will have no problem calling for severe and disproportionate punishments for people accused of various other crimes.

Racism, too, suffers from the stereotype that it's Apartheid, segregation, slavery and Hitler: gross manifestations of racism that lead to a defensive backlash if anyone is accused of racist attitudes and acts who doesn't fit this extremely brutal narrative.

And yes, we think poverty is bad and pitiable, but pinning the blame for poverty on those that hoard wealth and use every bit of power they have to unfairly keep it that way, is treated as an insane call for communism and the gulags. Instead, we prefer to blame people for their own poverty - a parallel with sex crimes - and demonise the poor as incapable, lazy and stupid.

Finally, we're good at puncturing the cuckoo beliefs of religious fanatics elsewhere, but few people ever point out that the belief in unfettered capitalism traces back to a similar false notion of certainty that this will somehow clearly work out.

The blames for these crimes are put on others, on the victims themselves, and the true perpetrators and the system in which they are movers and shakers, remains unchallenged. In fact, to challenge it is to commit a moral transgression yourself.

Despite the concern for false rape accusations potentially destroying the accused's life, we don't talk about rape culture and how rape is terrifyingly common. We are shocked when we watch 'Schindler's List', but admitting that racism is still alive on the job market, the housing market and in our courtrooms is too terrifying to contemplate. The 1% is destroying our economy, but all they are their acolytes do is to complain about how unfairly they're being treated by perceived left-wing bias in the media (which is bogus). Lastly, religious leaders and thinkers hasten to distance themselves from fanatics, but these fanatics are merely the extreme consequence of the superstitions they themselves hold.

Obviously, the mechanisms with which oppressive structures cloud their worst excesses in uncertainty, extremes and distance from their own core principles are much more complex and contain more moving parts than merely making the accusation of these crimes almost criminal in themselves.

But, I think there is merit to see how clever these systems are to single out their own worst consequences and pretend how they are somehow not present in their mainstream versions.

The problem with ironic sexism and racism

I love comedy, and not in a bland, inoffensive Ned Flanders sort of way. I admire the audacity and cleverness of the Onion's best articles, I found it hard not to laugh and squirm at the same time when watching Ricky Gervais' original 'Office' and yes, I actually believe any topic can be the subject of a joke - if it's actually funny. Good comedy is hard, and the more sensitive the subject matter, the harder it is to be funny about it.

Of course, there is also a time and place for everything. Joking about the allegedly terrible quality of the Russian car brand Lada might be deeply offensive to someone who is an engineer for that brand and has spent their life trying to design the Perfect Lada.

The issue of context brings me to the actual topic I wanted to discuss - ironic sexism and racism. Especially among twenty-something college-educated people, it's almost sort of a shibboleth that attempts to express (1) how past actual sexism and racism they are so they can joke about it and (2) they are edgy enough to say offensive shit.

Indulging this particular kind of comedy is pretty typical for people who live in a bubble where they don't have to deal with gross instances of sexism and racism, but the world beyond that as well as the hidden world within that bastion of lily-white, self-described liberalism is a scary place where racism and sexism have violent and harmful consequences.

In addition, there's this thing called Poe's Law. Who knows whether you're being ironic or not? You can't expect people to read your mind.

There's the danger that if you propagate your ironic forms of abusive comedy, it gives actual sexists and racists the idea that it's okay to think that way. Next time you post something inane like 'make me a sammich bitch' on Facebook, the people who like that post may actually be the vile sort of guys who think a woman's place is in the kitchen. That may also be a good place to ponder where you really stand on that sort of issue. It's not because you don't think of yourself as a sexist, that you don't hold any sexist notions.

But what about free speech, right? For one, not every place in the democratic world is required to humour that right. Even so, the point is not that I think it should become illegal to make (bad) jokes, but if you're hell-bent on saying something offensive, you should know that people are going to respond to it and call you out on bad taste. Covering yourself in the Free Speech Blanket will be about as effective as constructing a bunker made out of poop.

Progress works for the privileged, too

An acquaintance of mine once asked me why I believe what I believe, and what my primary goal is to advance causes that I'm not a direct benefactor of. He agreed that ethnic minorities, women and sexual minorities all have their legitimate grievances against the system, but as someone who was currently benefiting from it - a white, heterosexual man - he didn't exactly feel like going out there and join their fight. "It's not my place to be there," he said, "why do you think it's yours?" A good question.

See, I believe that flattening pre-existing power structures and barriers beyond the ones we establish during our lifetimes is a huge blessing to how people can relate to one another. This benefits the rich and the powerful, too.

• If a company owner has happier employees who are not afraid to speak their mind, their loyalty will increase and their productivity will go up. A happy employee is a healthier and a better employee.
• If (institutionalised) racism would recede, interactions with ethnic minorities would be less fraught with distrust and prejudice. Instead of some vaguely threatening Other, you gain a greater potential of friends, acquaintances, colleagues and partners.
• If women would not be harrassed on the street, faced with disbelief when speaking up about sexual assault or not be the target of constant micro-aggressions, they would probably feel more secure, open and freer to give consent. No more nail-biting about - understandably - defensive reactions.

These are just a few quick points. It might be weird that I'm framing progressive issues within a context of benefits for the power structures they fight. After all, as that acquaintance pointed out when I told him the above, he said that there are probably people who simply don't care about having happy employees, black friends or safer streets. Yes, but we call these people sociopaths. My point is that everyone has a stake in making society better. To help out is certainly not an obligation, but it sure as hell is the right thing to do.

Democrazies

If you would ask an average citizen of a Western-style democracy to define the pillars of their government, the answers you'd most likely get are (1) rule of law, (2) separation of powers, (3) freedom of expression, (4) government by and of the people and (5) separation of religion and state.

Ever since Karl Popper wrote his 'The open society and its enemies' in 1922, democracies have had an uneasy relationship with 'enemies within', movements that seek to end one or all of those five pillars. The irony is that these movements demand protection under the banner of freedom of expression, so a democracy finds itself in a bind: to ban movements that, say, advocate a second Holocaust, anarchy or the establishment of a ruthless theocracy, a democracy would have to violate its own principles, thus changing in nature and inching closer to the goals of what they want to rid society of.

'Freedom of expression' is a thorny and misunderstood term. It's the ultimate refuge for people who refuse to face facts ("I have the right to say global warming doesn't exist!") and really, there's no country where such freedom is unlimited. For example, the Hitler salute is banned in many Western European countries, and a lot of countries have hate speech laws.

The question remains, what can a society do against fascist parties or religious fundamentalists of all stripe that make sure they don't cross the line into hate speech territory? I personally believe there's no simple recipe. Rather, there's several things a society can do:

1. Examine and expose. Don't pretend they don't exist. For example: a Belgian pact to keep out the far-right from all governmental levels only served to make it stronger throughour the '90s and '00s until its role was usurped by a new right-wing party that is worryingly growing very similar the one it's now absorbing.
2. Ridicule. Extremist movements are often completely prepostrous in their end goals. For example: by treating scientifically unsound theories like creatonism as serious contenders, the media legitimise it. Note that humour or ridicule should use sound logic themselves, not just 'funny because because'.
3. Address root causes. Why do these movements arise? While their ideology may be repulsive, their anger and resentment probably has a real cause. For example: the rise of movements like the UKIP is tied to the scathingly anti-European, populist anger addiction of right-wing tabloids that thrive on sensationalist headlines to sell more copies.
4. Educate. True democracy starts at home and in schools. It's necessary to explain to people time and again why a democracy is a good idea, why it is not always what people think it is and why it is important to develop critical thinking. For example: the influence of corporate-owned media and the poor quality of education has deluded millions of Americans to vote Republican, against their own interests.

On a last note, extremist movements are very adept at adopting emancipatory rhetoric from feminist, gay or other minority groups. They paint themselves as martyrs or victims. However, there is a big difference: traditional emancipatory movements fight for inclusion in a larger whole. Extremist movements want to exclude everybody else.

White Whine #3: Multiculturalism has failed

Multiculturalism is a fact. Just like gravity can't suddenly 'fail' to exist on earth (barring quantum fluctuations), so have cultures been living side by side for as long as cities have existed. To paint multiculturalism as a left-wing, happy go-lucky hobby project is completely ridiculous. What the right actually means to attack is the tensions between immigrant communities and their descendants with the communities that were around before their arrival.

By the way, I am going to talk mainly about North African and Turkish immigrants. Whenever a European person says 'multiculturalism has failed', they're not talking about any immigrant group other than Muslims. There have been occasional fears about Polish plumbers, but I'm quite sure that discussion wasn't as deeply mired in mutual prejudice, racism and cultural presuppositions.

No doubt that tensions exist. While I am very wary of making general assumptions about one culture, ethnic group or religion, there's no denying that the cultural distance between, say, a family with roots on the Moroccan countryside and native West-Europeans will be greater than between someone who's moved from Athens to Brussels. It is also true that for far too long, the left has looked the other way when the theme turns to crime among immigrant youth, how girls report feeling unsafe or getting harrassed by them, or how some young Muslims attack openly gay or Jewish people. That is seriously not cool at all and frustrates a lot of people.

The right, again, is also right in pointing out that bad social integration lies at the root of the problem, but it is completely wrong in putting the onus only on the immigrant communities themselves. Research has indicated that Flemings and Walloons are among the most racist people of Europe. Time and again, employers get outed for having a secretive policy of not hiring people who look too brown or are of North African or Turkish descent. This is a big, big problem because it foments frustration.

Traditionally, Mediterranean cultures are patriarchal. Their very overt patriarchy bothers a lot of Europeans (and Americans too, I am sure). To pick a less controversial example, if you've ever been to Southern Europe, you might have seen how from an early age, boys are sometimes treated as princes, and the bad apples among them act like impossible little Mussolinis with a huge entitlement complex. Now put little Mussolini in a context that simultaneously tells him that he's a prince, but the wider society he lives in considers him a backwards savage and oh yeah he's pretty sure he won't be able to find a job and never get to have all the fancy stuff or any sign that says he's made it.

Then, people he sees as 'naturally' inferior to him ascend beyond his social position: rich gay men with nice designer clothes, confident women who go out alone at night, or Jewish people who have always been stereotypically associated with financial success. Top it off with his confrontation with racism on an everyday level that you and I (I am pretty sure 99% of my audience will be white) never have to face, and yeah, you can sort of understand why a young man like that would be an explosive cocktail of anger. So they run back to their safe space: their culture, their traditions, their religion, the place where they meant something. The fact that snooty whites come around and tell them that their culture is backwards only strengthens this belief.

The left has generally remained silent on this issue. That's too bad, because I think that these problems can be successfully tackled from a very real socio-economic angle. Here's a few thoughts:

• Workplaces where there's a healthy mix of sexes and ethnic backgrounds will decrease racism. You realise you're all in this together.
• It is absolutely crucial that employers who are found to be discriminating get named, shamed and hung out to dry.
• Concentration schools and ghettoes need to end.
• Emancipatory initiatives from within immigrant communities should be supported, but the state shouldn't make its own - you can't force people to emancipate.

Other issues that could help advance the position of ethnic minorities more or less fall in line with other initiatives to create a more egalitarian society. I'm specifically not addressing homophobia and sexism within the Muslim community because I have a keen sense that these feelings are not altogether dissimilar of those in native, white underclasses in the West. They're just not as exacerbated by a sense of 'Kulturkampf' or racism.

Getting back to the idea of multiculturalism as a surefire mechanism to doom a society, I would say that this is simply not supported by history. The Roman Empire's might and power grew expansively as it absorbed other cultures and those cultures impacted Rome's. It's funny to note that even then, there were backwards, staunch defenders of Rome's "rural values". Genghis Khan built one of the world's most impressive armies (a questionable feat in itself, obviously) with a meritocratic structure, regardless of ethnic background.

No, rose-tinted glasses are a bad thing and stuff like this doesn't solve itself. But there is no alternative, and any serious solution can't be explained in a political slogan. Except, maybe, this one: we all suffer from various forms of oppression. Instead of snarling and guarding jealously whatever we have think we've got left, we need to make a stand together and solve this mess.

Are progressive movements antiquated?

The most high-profile progressive cause of today is probably the LGBTQ movement. They fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation and push for equal rights to heterosexual couples. While a lot of countries in the West still have miles to go to achieve true equality, the headway these movements are making is undeniable. It is a more quiet but by no means less vocal movement than the American Civil Rights movement of the '60s, the sufragettes of the '20s and beyond, and the first workers' unions of the early 20th century. Unfortunately, all this progress has lulled a lot of self-described progressive and conservative people alike into a false sense of comfort.

Certainly, if we have to believe the uninformed, the West has moved beyond racism and sexism, unions protect workers' rights and all is well. It's true, progress has been made on many fronts since the start of the 20th century, but to say that empowering movements have become obsolete is misguided at best:

- Violence against women is still a jarringly frequent occurrence
- The 1% continuously try to use their political henchmen to make people believe that unions and regulation are their enemy
- Racism, no matter whether it is dressed up as 'ironic' or not, still prevents people from getting hired and gets exploited by opportunist politicians
- Hostility against sexual minorities, verbal or otherwise, is still commonplace outside of large urban centres and sometimes even inside of it
- Women are still a minority in corporate Boards and high-profile political life

The list goes on and on. To make matters worse, there's a number of groups that insiduously claims that it is now, in fact, heterosexual white men who are getting the short end of the stick. The problem with this statement is twofold:

- Most hetereosexual white men are completely blind to their own privilege because they never experienced anything else
- They focus on petty anecdotes or elements of a patriarchal society that harms everyone, not just them

Progressive movements are certainly not antiquated. In fact, more than ever, in the face of environmental collapse, resurging hard right movements, corporate media manipulation and cynical exploitation of fear, a coherent progressive message is more important than ever. The bottom line is, and this will return in this blog a couple of times, that we are all in this together. Only if we attempt to erase mutual prejudice, we can truly make the playfield level and be societies that offer everyone equal opportunities to succeed in life and be happy - not just the 1%, who is happy to make us believe that 'uppity' minorities are our enemy and the cause of our problems. That is simply not true. The real problem is a deeply-entrenched system of privilege over privilege that finally ends with a tiny amount of white old men.