Javier Buenrostro
Last Saturday, Patrick Crusius drove almost ten hours from his hometown, Allen, to El Paso, in Texas, with the purpose of killing as many Mexicans as possible. He conceived the attack as a response to what he considered a "Latin invasion" in Texas that he had to stop, and thus left him seated in a document he published earlier in 8chan, an internet platform that mixes the same racist forums as theories of conspiracy and manifests of white supremacism. Before the writing of Crusius, those of the murderer of the mosque in the Christchurch neighborhood, in New Zealand, and that of the Poway synagogue, in California, were published on the same website.
The fact that the murderer has revealed in advance that he wanted to kill as many Mexican and Hispanic people as possible makes it clear that it is a hate crime. But it can and should be more. According to some national and international laws, it could be typified as a case of terrorism and since there are multiple fatalities of another nationality, which were also the main objective, the case could be included in that of international terrorism. Should Patrick Crusius be judged as an international terrorist and not simply as another case of a mental illness or as a "lone wolf"?
Javier Buenrostro, historian from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and McGill University.
"Every event of violence perpetrated by a minority in the United States is quickly classified as an act of terrorism, while white American citizens who star in these violence are promptly qualified as mentally ill, seeking to give the news a withering or minimizing acts".
What is the importance of this difference? We have even seen the tiredness that every event of violence perpetrated by a minority in the United States is quickly classified as an act of terrorism, while white American citizens who star in these violence are promptly qualified as 'mentally ill', seeking to give a folder fulminating to the news or minimizing the facts. This was done, in this case, Donald Trump, who when describing Crusius as mentally ill, omits all the context that exists around him.
That context is the discourse that comes from an ideology of white supremacy, with enemies determined by their nationality of origin or even appearance. This connects directly with the hate speech Trump has been giving for years and is the focus of his re-election campaign. Trump's "Make America Great Again" speech and discussions on the 8chan portal about "Latin invasions" and the desire to "purify America", shorten the same beliefs. The hate speech that the American president has fostered for years is the perfect breeding ground where crimes like Crusius occur. It is simply the next step. And that is why it must be understood that they are not simply mentally ill, but terrorists with a defined ideology and purposes.
"The hate speech that the American president has fostered for years is the perfect breeding ground where crimes like Crusius take place. It is simply the next step. And that is why it must be understood that they are not simply mentally ill, but terrorists with a defined ideology and purposes "
Javier Buenrostro, historian from the National Autonomous University of Mexico and McGill University.
That is why the action of the Mexican government in qualifying the act for terrorism is very important, since it could set jurisprudence or at least that there is a precedent of a turn in the way in which these shootings are perceived. The López Obrador government, through Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard and the Attorney General's Office (FGR), has decided to integrate an investigation folder, the first of its kind in the history of Mexico, trying to document a case of terrorism on the ground American, asking to have a joint participation in the investigation and has even mentioned the possibility of extradition.
What are the chances of this happening? In my opinion, they are minimal. The first difficulty is that although the murderer's motivations, shared and with interactions on the internet, are known, the participation of an action as a whole, with more members, or that could belong to a network has not been proven. That is the biggest legal obstacle for the fact to be classified as terrorism. But he's not the only one. Although there is a clear motivation to kill Mexicans and Hispanics, of the 22 dead, only 8 are Mexicans, which implies that two thirds of the fatalities are still US citizens killed in their own country, which makes it very unlikely that an extradition is allowed.
Another cause, which is not minor, is related to politics and electoral times. In the midst of his campaign for reelection and having as his main rhetoric the anti-immigrant discourse, Donald Trump will not let anyone who fully identifies with his bases, such as Patrick Crusius, be tried outside the United States. It would be a very bad electoral propaganda, especially for a character as abusive as Trump.
"If the case as terrorism is unlikely to prosper, why does the Mexican government try it? Are they mere statements for the tribune? No. They definitely have a purpose. The first is to displace the notion of the 'mentally ill', who Trump wanted to defend from the beginning. "
So, if the case is unlikely to thrive as terrorism, why is the Mexican government trying? Are they mere statements for the rostrum? No. They definitely have a purpose. The first is to displace the notion of the 'mentally ill', which Trump wanted to defend from the beginning. The second is that a thorough investigation is done so that it is not classified as a 'lone wolf' at the first. Perhaps Crusius acted alone, but in a country that has already moved from hate speech to hate crimes, and with anti-immigrant networks swarming on the internet, which coexist with physical networks such as the Rifle Association or the southern republican conventions and from the Midwest of the United States, it is a matter of time for us to see violent organizations that perpetuate crimes of this kind, if they do not already exist. More with Trump in power and seeking reelection.
The actions of the Mexican government will not bear fruit for the moment in legal actions. But it is a way of protesting against the hate speech that is proliferating in the United States, which is largely due to the virulent language of its president. It also helps to point out that hate speech has already turned into hate crimes, but that it is still transforming and can reach worse points, such as a terrorism of white supremacist organizations throughout the entire American territory, which dedicate to the hunt of the Hispanics. We are at the doorstep of that and these legal pressures are a way of drawing worldwide attention to the point as well as building the antecedents in case these nightmares become reality.
Finally, all this has helped that the center of the debate moves from the anti-immigrant discourse, in which Trump feels comfortable, and addresses a broad discussion about the possession of weapons, an old domestic taboo between Republicans and conservatives, as well as to the issue of terrorism that has an international resonance. It is a diplomatic way to influence the American debate. We will see how effective it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment