Some time ago, I wrote an essay in which I stated: “Unrestricted free speech is not a right, it is a threat.” Now, more than ever, my words have been proven correct.
Just yesterday, a mosque in Quebec City was attacked by a white nationalist, a man whose racist ideology drove him to murderous terrorism. In fact, he didn’t even hold an interest in these thoughts until the far-right leader of France’s National Front Party, Marine Le Pen, visited Quebec City. The spread of hateful rhetoric directly led to him murdering Muslims.
But there were plenty of people who believed I was wrong, some even taking great offense to it. “Words are not violence,” one said. “Ideas which justify oppression have been repeatedly challenged and defeated by free speech,” said another. There were also those who made less-than-intelligent remarks, but I will not respect them by republishing them here.
The first argument, “Words are not violence,” fails to address the very real fact that violence begins with words. Words have power, carrying ideas with them. Did people irrationally start advocating for hate-based violence? Do people become bigoted by nature? No, the spread of such ideas is to blame. Protecting the people who are targeted by Nazis, for example, means eliminating the spread of Nazi ideology.
The second argument, “Ideas which justify oppression have been repeatedly challenged and defeated by free speech,” is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump. Speech did not defeat him. Speech also did not defeat Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, etc. No tyrant has ever been defeated by free speech. Tyrant are felled by revolution.
Unrestricted free speech remains a threat. The marketplace of ideas does not allow for equal access, as some would argue, but rather, it permits the existence of ideologies that seek to repress, terrorize, and even exterminate marginalized peoples. It turns a blind eye to these violent ideologies in order to remain on its false moral high ground of “liberty” and “equality.” “Protecting free speech means protecting unpopular ideas,” its proponents claim. Meanwhile, in protecting “free speech,” the very ideas that led to the Quebec City terrorist attack are also sheltered. “Free speech,” in this way, permits terrorist rhetoric.
There are some ideas that must not be allowed to spread. Censorship has become a necessity because lives are clearly at risk without it. In order to eliminate harmful ideologies, we must permanently eradicate them. If this means eradicating the people who spread them, so be it. There is nothing morally wrong with killing a would-be terrorist, as any right-winger would agree.
The Government of the United States has violated the most basic of human rights in such a flagrant manner and in an ever-increasing measure, and has continually been guilty of the most severe provocations towards the marginalized peoples of the United States since the election of President Donald J. Trump. Provoked by the acts of supporters and appointed officials, the President of the United States has condoned open acts of aggression against the marginalized peoples.
The President of the United States and his aides have defied the sanctions placed on the Russian Federation, and have engaged in treasonous acts against the United States of America, including, but not limited to, advocating for the hacking of Democratic Party systems, received financial investments from the Russian government, engaged in pro-Russian propaganda campaigns in Ukraine, and re-purposed propaganda from Russian state media for the 2016 general election.
Furthermore, the President of the United States has publicly attacked other members of the United States government, including Senators and Representatives, after receiving criticism. Representative and civil rights advocate John Lewis was a recipient of a racially-motivated attack after rightfully criticizing the President as “illegitimate.” Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was regularly threatened with prison time for daring to challenge President Trump in the 2016 general election. Senator Elizabeth Warren was routinely harassed and called “Pocahontas” by the President for speaking out against his rhetoric. The President has no respect for government officials unless they bow before him—a clear indication of totalitarian attitudes.
Finally, the President of the United States has become openly hostile to civilians that criticize him, particularly marginalized peoples. President Trump has acted openly hostile to journalists, referring to them as the “opposition party.” He has advocated for criminal charges against Black Lives Matter protesters for standing against police brutality. He has allowed for violent acts of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia to be committed in his name, and has acted in any way to stop them.
By treating political opponents, marginalized peoples, and virtually anyone who would criticize his administration as enemies, and by silently condoning acts of violence committed by his supporters, the President of the United States has made it clear that he will not act in the best interest of the nation or its citizens. Additionally, by maintaining treasonous ties to the Russian Federation, including directly benefiting from Russian interference with the 2016 general election, President Trump has cemented himself as a threat to democracy and to equity for all peoples.
The marginalized peoples of the United States therefore establishes the following facts:
Although the marginalized peoples, on their part, have strictly adhered to the rules of law in relations with the United States during every period of the present and established systems of oppression, the President of the United States has finally proceeded to open acts of aggression against any and all marginalized peoples, with particular emphasis on political opposition. The President of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
The marginalized peoples of the United States, consequently, discontinues any and all diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares, under these circumstances brought about by President Donald Trump, that a state of war exists with the United States of America.
With a title like that, I’ve more than likely made some of the people reading this more than a little bit uncomfortable. I’m sure there are some of you out there right now, thinking, “She’s going to call me a racist, isn’t she? I dare her to try.” Even more of you are likely thinking that no matter what, you couldn’t possibly be a racist. You have black friends, or judge people by the content of their character, or voted for President Obama, or never use racial slurs.
Those of you who are so adamant about ensuring that you are not racists, I have bad news. You’re probably racist.
To dispel the first argument to drip from my critics’ lips—no, not everyone can be a victim of racism. And to dispel the inevitable follow-up argument, racism is not simply “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of race.”
Racism began through conquering certain people groups, and has been facilitated through the enslavement of those groups. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, referred to non-Greeks as “barbarians,” the equivalent of uncivilized human beings, in order to justify the persecution and enslavement of non-Greek peoples. Of course, throughout the centuries, this idea of the “uncivilized man” would continue to evolve, until it began to describe native Africans. The Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun referred to native Africans as “humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings,” justifying the enslavement of their race. “Therefore,” he continues, “the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attribute that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.” Even the term “Negro,” coined by Portuguese traders in 1442, was coined to effectively divide the white Europeans from the black Africans, thus relegating them to the “other.”
This concept of “othering” would be the basis on establishing the concept of race, which is nothing more than an attempt to divide humans based on skin color and common physical traits associated with that color. In all instances, the white European race were seen as having the most desirable skin color and associated traits, establishing their “superiority,” which is the driving force behind racism. Because of the white Europeans establishing themselves at the top of the pyramid centuries ago, the prejudices associated with being “non-white” continue to be perpetuated today. White Europeans effectively colonized a grand majority of the world, bringing their prejudices with them and using them for the purposes of subjugation, as history notes in the transatlantic slave trade, the conquering of Native American tribes, and British Imperial rule over India, Australia, Africa, and the Asian Pacific. Because these practices of subjugation were so effective, no other conquered nation but India has been able to emerge as more than a global Middle Power. The only other non-white Great Powers, China and Japan, benefit from their absence in European colonization and global slave trades, and from the many positive stereotypes attributed to East Asian races. It can also be theorized that the lighter skin tone of East Asians allows for a certain degree of privilege among non-white races, as darker-skinned Asians are more likely to be discriminated against for their race. This is why we use the term “people of color” to define disprivileged races.
What do these effects have to do with racism? Everything. By establishing themselves not only as the “superior” race since the coining of the term, but also effectively preventing the dark-skinned races from attaining global power, white Europeans have firmly established themselves as the privileged class, worldwide. They have not experienced oppression based on the sole status of skin color (anti-Irish prejudice does not count, as their oppression was less about race and more about anti-Catholic and classist practices). They have not had their lands stolen and their people systemically eradicated through genocidal practices. Their nations have never been considered “third-world countries.” Therefore, we can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that the white race is the only one that can claim to be outright privileged.
Because race was established as a system to “other” for the purposes of division and oppression, it is foolish to believe that racism is any more than the result of power and privilege working in tandem. As we’ve established, the white race has seized both, and remains in control of both in our global society. And, because racism has been used through history to justify subjugation and to further cement the white race as “superior,” it is equally foolish to say that anyone but the white race can engage in racism or hold racist views. To clarify, this does not mean that people of color cannot be prejudiced, but that they cannot use such prejudices for the purpose of perpetuating institutional powers in order to subjugate others based on race. In short, racism is power plus privilege.
And now for the bad news: Any white person reading this essay is indeed a racist, no matter how much you wish to deny it.
Allow me to explain. A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by the system that sees the white race as “superior” (a white supremacist system). Because whites worldwide fall into this category, all whites should be considered racists. It is important to note that racism is not a state of mind, nor is it always an individual action. Racism is the result of whites seizing global power over other races, and exploiting that to etch the idea of white supremacy into the minds of other races. Once again, because whites are not and cannot be discriminated against on the sole basis of race, they cannot be victims of racism. “Reverse racism,” or the idea that whites can be victims of individual acts of prejudice on the basis of race, is a term used to deny the fact of white privilege. It is often used out of ignorance of how racism is defined, as well as the misconception that people of color acting out of prejudice against the white race is somehow morally wrong. Though unjustified violent acts and sexual crimes will always be moral wrongs, regardless of who commits the crimes, prejudice against the white race on the sole purpose of race is not a moral wrong, and never will be, for as long as the white race holds worldwide institutional power.
What, then, is a non-racist? This term was created by whites to deny their responsibility and complacency in systemic racism, in order to maintain their innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility to people of color. This is, in effect, victim-blaming. The responsibility for perpetuating, legitimizing, and benefiting from a racist system lies with those who actively maintain it and those who refuse to challenge it. To remain silent in the face of oppression is to consent to it. Being apathetic to it may as well be the same as vocally supporting it. However, being a vocal anti-racist is not enough to suddenly wipe racism from a white person. So long as the structure stands, whites will always be racist. If white people want to clear themselves of their racism, they must do their part in ensuring that these structures are dismantled completely. Inequality comes in all forms, and in our global society, the challenge is to destroy white supremacy wherever it may stand—even if it means radically transforming the nations that perpetuate it.
However, if you are more concerned with absolving yourself of the label of “racist,” you will never lose that label. Your goal, as a white person, should be the end of racism for the benefit of people of color, not the benefit of yourself. A racist will go out of their way to fight any accusation of racism, all while exhibiting textbook racism. You are not a racist because you treat people equally. You are not a racist because you admire the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. You are not a racist because you support Black Lives Matter. You are a racist because of your heritage and because you refuse to renounce that heritage and dismantle everything it stands for. You cannot (supposedly) hate racism while still loving everything that enables racism and stems from the fact that we live in a white supremacist culture. It’s the equivalent of calling yourself a vegan as long as you didn’t kill the animal, even though it’s perfectly fine for you to load and hand over the gun that did the killing.
“But not all white people,” right? Of course, some people may bear the mark of a racist, but certainly you don’t, right? Consider that by saying such things, you state that reinforcing your own self-image or reputation is of more importance than acknowledging the immorality of white privilege, and the harm faced by its victims, who have their pain flung back in their faces because they should cater to your sensibilities first and foremost. Further, you ignore the possibility that you are enabling such structures of privilege and any responsibility you had in perpetuating it. Even if you were hypothetically innocent of perpetrating racism, you are invalidating the struggles of people of color who have to climb uphill every day just to get to the place you were born at. Do you honestly think things would be better if, when discussing how whites are racist, we pointed to you and said, “You’re the exception, though”?
If you are white, and you are not an active anti-racist, you are a racist. Period.
“The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges,” as the saying goes. This idea has so permeated our idea human rights, it has even become a logical fallacy to shift the burden of proof to the “defendant” in the matter.
The presumption of innocence uses three rules in its execution. First, that the plaintiff/prosecution (accuser) has the entire burden of proof with regards to the essential facts of the case—that the accusation is valid in relation to the defendant (accused). Second, that the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever, and can elect not to testify or present evidence, and that this decision will not be used against them. Third, that any judge or jury cannot let their own presumptions affect their ruling, and the case must be decided solely on evidence presented during trial.
However, in the legal sense, the presumption of innocence is inherently biased. Take into account what the initial idea is in fact saying: “Let’s assume that the accuser is lying.” From the start, the deck is stacked against the accuser, which some may see as perfectly reasonable. If there is sufficient proof to corroborate the accuser’s accounts, then a presumption of innocence would not matter, correct? This is also a flawed assumption, as it places responsibility on the accuser to provide evidence to validate their claims, evidence that may not always be present.
Take, for example, an accusation of rape. If a woman revokes consent during sex, but a man continues with intercourse, she has been raped. She did not record the incident, nor has any evidence outside of her claim. Should such an incident be taken to court, the man would be acquitted, based on the burden of proof being on the accuser. In spite of the fact that a crime has been committed, the man would not have to defend himself, as he has no burden of proof whatsoever. Therefore, he would be acquitted of the crime, based solely on the presumption of innocence.
Consider this: All criminals are considered innocent until proven guilty, but all victims are considered liars until proven otherwise.
How does that make you feel? Does it make you confident that justice will prevail in our legal system? Remember that the system has failed many times before; many guilty criminals have been exonerated by the clause of “reasonable doubt,” which in itself is problematic. The “reasonable person,” in such examples, is only defined by how individuals idealize rational-mindedness. In such, the standard for what is “reasonable” will differ from person to person. Using the rape example once more, someone’s idea of a “reasonable person” may be one who understands affirmative consent, while another person’s may believe that intoxicated people may freely give their consent. This may put the undereducated or people of lower income at a disadvantage, not understanding the standards of “reasonable doubt.” And, of course, there exists the judgment notwithstanding verdict, where a judge may overrule a guilty verdict if they believe the jury did not understand “reasonable doubt” to an expected level (as with Liebeck v. McDonald’s). When even the legal system acknowledges that the concept of reasonable doubt does not work, how can we expect justice to be done accordingly?
There exists the idea of mob justice, of course. Although frowned upon openly, the idea still exists within the concept of public shaming. George Zimmerman, for example, may have been acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, but he has still been deemed guilty by the civilian populace, and shamed repeatedly by the media as a result. Although he may not see jail time for his crime, he will forever be known as a racist murderer, and has had his reputation completely tarnished. In some ways, this is a worse fate for him than a prison sentence, being cast out as a social pariah for the remainder of his days.
Let’s walk things back for a moment. The problems with the justice system are not limited to the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt. There exists another issue that is much deeper—one that permeates our modern society. As you may have guessed, I’m talking about racism.
Blacks are statistically more likely to be arrested than whites. They are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites, receive sentences 10% longer than whites for the same crimes, are more likely to waive their right to trial for a reduced sentence (even when they are innocent!), and represent the largest population of inmates. Additionally, black males born after 2001 are five times more likely to receive a prison sentence than white males. By comparison, Latino males are three times more likely than whites to be imprisoned. Consider this, as well: ex-convicts are more likely to receive callbacks from employers if they are white (17% get calls back) than if they are black (only 5%). The evidence is clear: the justice system is not blind, much less colorblind.
The system privileges the wrong people. The defendants have a distinct privilege, not being required to prove themselves innocent—unless, of course, they don’t happen to be white. What can we do about these issues? Nothing simple, unfortunate to say. We would essentially have to tear down the current justice system and rebuild it in order to make it truly just.
College campuses have disciplinary hearings that our justice system can learn from. For example, they operate on a preponderance of evidence, meaning that “reasonable doubt” is not the standard of proof, in favor of “more likely than not.” Defendants are required to prove that they are innocent, instead of leaving the burden of proof on the accuser. While some may say that this is equivalent to a standard of “guilty until proven innocent,” it is not quite that. The standard of proof is on both parties, maintaining a balance between accusations and defense. Instead of one judge, or a jury of peers that could be manipulated, a committee presides over hearings, and delivers the final verdict. This is significantly closer to perfect procedural justice than our current system entails.
However, there are times where it does take mob justice to deliver justice. If our system fails to act where it should in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent, it is up to the people to take justice into their own hands, and do what they must in order to ensure that righteousness is delivered properly. Whether this be through the aforementioned public shaming, or through more violent means (such as riots against structural injustices and inequalities), it is the duty of our society to ensure that we achieve and maintain true social justice.
