Do you believe that there are people or groups of people discriminated against in Argentina?, is one of the questions included in a recent study by the Pulsar Institute (UBA), which focuses on the beliefs of Argentines. 73% of those consulted answered yes. And what would be the main cause of that discrimination? At the top of the causes is poverty.
Just the controversy – one of them, strictly speaking – in which the pre-candidate for legislator became entangled by Pro Franco Rinaldi, who has been denounced by his radical rivals for discrimination as a result of the dissemination of videos –highly shocking, by the way– with a strong load of homophobia, racism and machismo. “Flame thrower”, responds the political scientist in a stand-up uploaded to the networks during the pandemic, when he imagines “solutions” for Barrio 31. His internal rivals seek to remove him from the Together for Change list, while Rinaldi and Jorge Macri, his now political boss, denounce an attempt to cancel.
The last to join the onslaught was the actress Carla Peterson, wife of Martín Lousteau, who leads an intelligent and valid political move, within the framework of a campaign that aims to undermine the chances of his opponent. Intelligent because his argument points to representation, which is what is voted for: Jorge Macri’s candidate, affirms the radical, does not represent the values of Together for Change. Peterson accelerated: “It is not cancellation. Not a performance either. It is hate and discrimination. It is not an artistic fact or freedom of expression. Apologies are not enough.”
On the other side, they could counter-argument: Did Lousteau apologize for Resolution 125?, a measure so harmful to Argentines that it marked the beginning of a rift that devastated everything in its path, including family ties? Who will have done more damage, Lousteau with the 125 or Rinaldi with his “performance”? Whoever is free from “sin” cast the first stone.
The matter is glassy because, in the controversy unleashed around the political scientist, there are concepts new and disputed words (like the term “cancellation”, for example). Glassy because, although his statements deserve the widest repudiation, they are, according to the inter-American human rights system, on the edge (but within) of the field of freedom of expression and thought. However, anyone who has felt offended – which could be many – can denounce Rinaldi before the ordinary Justice, with a specific affectation of rights. In fact, last Monday the Buenos Aires Justice opened an investigation to determine whether or not he committed acts of discrimination.
Although, obviously, the morality police – specialists in pointing out others, but little predisposed to delve into their own shadow – they already have an indubitable verdict. Is it a solution to lower it from the list? And if it isn’t, shouldn’t there be a consequence on a candidate with such symbolically violent expressions? Is Rinaldi the only “villain” in this film or, in truth, is he the symptom – the vehicle – of a part of society that thinks like him?
Is it correct to say that they intend to “cancel” Rinaldi? Not strictly speaking. Cancellation is a term that can be applied to the cases of Juan Darthés or Kevin Spacey; maybe Jey Mammon’s too, though the matter is still ongoing. Cancellation is being excluded from society, losing your job, being removed from debates, not invited, not quoted in texts. It used to be called an ostracism.
Getting into these labyrinths makes the subject more complex and exciting. fills him with questions, rather than the easy trigger of obvious certainties. It forces us to reflect, in depth, on unresolved controversies. Mutants. It calls for rethinking the limits of freedom and the paradoxes of liberal democracy, capable of including even those who do not believe in it. Too deep to be dealt with seriously in the framework of an electoral campaign as intense as it is dirty.
As Ramiro Álvarez Ugarte, deputy director of the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression (CELE) at the University of Palermo, explains: “The limit of the field is hate speech and discrimination, when it is specifically linked to physical violence, not metaphorical like the case of Rinaldi”. Certainly no one would think of – or could – make a streaming humorous about the Holocaust.
Even, a large part of Argentine journalism –specifically, those who give their opinion in the media of communication– has confused concepts about what can or cannot be said, within the framework of democracy. There are many abominable things, like this episode, that democracy tolerates. And not to mention the disturbance caused by observing how a candidate, who has received violent charges of discrimination all his life as a result of his disability, tries to reproduce those same mechanisms on others. In a word: the Rinaldi case makes the concepts and opinions rooted in more than one stumble. Except for those who never doubt. Blessed of them.
