Latvian band Singapūras satīns falls under the blade of lynching culture

On Tuesday, Latvijas Radio 5 issued a statement: “In solidarity with regular listeners, we have decided to pause the music of Singapūras satīns on the air of Latvijas Radio 5. We wish everyone the opportunity to live in a physically and emotionally safe environment!”

Kristaps Strūbergs in the Youtube show "Pāļa bazārs" of his friend and band member Jānis Krīvēns, promises to punch all wife-beaters. Unexpectedly, he is now being accused of this sin himself.

To be honest, the day after, a softer statement was issued: “Issues that we have raised in the charity marathon “Dod pieci” are important to us! We will continue to play the songs of the group Singapūras satīns according to the content. We hope that a dignified solution will be found to the situation in the musician's family."

Although the songs of the popular group Singapūras satīns were removed from the radio for only one day, all this mess around the group's singer Kristaps Strūbergs' possible violence against his wife Mairita Rosicka caused irreparable damage to the group's reputation. The group is forever stamped with the seal of obscenity. Unlike other bands that dare to provoke the public and behave defiantly, Singapūras satīns musicians have so far been socially active and well-regarded in the public's top circles. Will they remain welcome guests at various television events as before? There is serious doubt about that. Strūbergs' own very successful career in various entertainment projects is also seriously endangered.

There might have been no need to talk about this case because show business is not all roses. The laws and rules that govern it can be quite cruel. However, this case deserves more attention, as it clearly reveals a widespread social phenomenon, which can also be called a disease. It is a culture of lynching, also called cancel culture, or being woke. This movement, which has already acquired a massive following in the West, has so far affected only a narrow social class in our country and did not seem attractive to the general public. The case of Singapūras satīns already makes this phenomenon broader. What's going on and where are we going?

Before we talk about lynching culture itself and its social roots, in a few words about this particular case. The wife of Strūbergs, the singer of the group Singapūras satīns, published the following post on social networks: "Hello! I have decided to leave a violent relationship. At the moment, I am still being punished for this by him blatantly ignoring our children, also financially. Yes, I have contacted and acted as everyone suggests - the police, NGOs, lawyers, etc., but the debts are rising, I can't go to work, because the little one is still too small for the kindergarten, a babysitter is needed, the situation is unenviable and there is no help. So I will ask anyone who can to at least financially support me, this would be a great starting point to go a little further in this situation." And a bank account to which to send money.

In today's Latvia, unfortunately, the situation is quite common. Husband is a drunkard, abuser. The wife flees, but the former does not pay alimony. In the present case, the situation is made slightly different by the fact that the alleged "abuser" is a visible person in society. A huge wave of outrage against the vicious abuser immediately rose, and there was an equal willingness to help the poor victim.

There is no reason to question Rosicka's words, but how many time have you heard conversations in which someone presents their version of the conflict situation, and the picture is always similar - I am good, honest, understanding, the other/others - selfish, insensitive, dishonest. Therefore, in order to be able to assess the situation more or less adequately, both parties need to be heard. This time, there was no question of even hearing the other party. Lynching the culprit on social media immediately began, which became even more widespread when the group itself published its message: “In response to recent false statements on the Internet, we are strongly AGAINST all forms of violence, just as we are strongly AGAINST defamation and the dissemination of false information. We are very, very surprised by this momentary surge of emotions that comes from a private family affair, and we, as friends, are very sorry that instead of resolving the divorce in a civilized way, there is public slander. We hope that both sides will find a way to resolve the situation in a dignified way without spreading a misleading narrative. Divorces are never beautiful, but they don't have to be ugly."

Even when Strūbergs' social lynching was in full swing and people swore en masse to never listen to the music of this damned group again, the "culprit" himself published his vision: "I hope you are ready to listen to my side of it too. First of all, with a clear conscience, I can state unequivocally: I have never beaten or otherwise physically harmed my wife or any other woman. Never. Of course, this is my word against the other side's word. But I have nothing to be ashamed of, both in front of myself and in front of my fellow human beings. I DID NOT DO IT! And I can't justify or explain something that I haven't done. Secondly, yes, there is a divorce process in our family, but it has not been and is not linked to violence. And my greatest desire was to settle peacefully, civilized, without anger, hatred and these kinds of actions. We have children together that I too want to raise. And, in fact, that's what's most important."

I would like to emphasize that I do not want to judge here who is more, who is less right. Rosicka may be right, and Strūbergs might be a vicious villain, but just as well, it may not be so. I was not in the room where it happened. However, this time it is not crucial. I want to draw attention to the basic culture of everyday life. This tendency for everyone en masse to tear down, to demand social lynching, as soon as allegations are made that someone has done or said something that is considered unacceptable in society, is rapidly gaining ground. There is no doubt that this spread of lynching culture will have an impact on public moral health. And not in a good way.

Many will probably want to object to what has just been said that it is not vital who is actually to blame, who is not - what do you mean it does not matter? It means everything. If Strūbergs is guilty, then the monster deserves what he got, and I don't want to hear that Malaysian calico ever again, as Dzintris Kolāts cleverly renamed the band, to reduce the banality of the topic. But everything is not that simple. It is not a question of who is guilty or not. The question, I repeat, is about the culture of our relationships.

It is not for nothing that I mentioned the lynching culture. When lynching is invoked today, modern people see in their head the frightened, innocent, poor dark-skinned man who, surrounded by hate-ridden, prejudiced racists, is pulled up the nearest tree branch. It's hard to imagine anything more disgusting and inhumane, so any comparison of this disgusting action with today's fight against violence may seem vile. But let's not rush to conclusions.

Let's start with the fact that, historically, the cases of lynching were in most cases objectively fair. That is, they were illegal by law, but in fact justified. In other words, in most cases, the convict was indeed guilty, and the laws of the time would punish him. In order not to bureaucratise the process, the local community opted for an expedited court, which often even complied with some formal procedural norms, which, of course, did not make these processes any more legal. But it wasn't the case that lynching would only take place because someone "didn't like the way that black guy looked at me." White people were also lynched. Among the approximately 4,800 lynched people between 1868 and 1920, there were 3,500 black people and 1,300 white people.

The lynching boom in the United States followed the victory of the North in the Civil War, when the paternal (custodial) system of relations or slavery was abolished in the southern states and all former slaves were released. Given that liberated slaves were often completely unprepared for independent living, as they had lived under the full care of their masters for several generations, many were in an objectively even more difficult social situation than they had been before.

I don't want to be misunderstood. It is obvious that slavery was an undeniable, unjust social atavism that had to be eradicated, the sooner the better. The point here is simply that the abolition of one system, even if it is unfair and historically decided, usually causes temporary difficulties. For example, the restoration of Latvia's independence once caused relatively serious social problems, and the effects of poverty in the 1990s still have not been fully overcome.

Thus, even after the end of the US Civil War, the usual order with the former social institutions was destroyed and the fight against crime was taken over by society. As is often the case, it is not without excess, but it does not change the substance of the matter. Most of the lynched subjects were indeed guilty. So what? Does the fact that someone had beaten or raped someone justify us doing this kind of extrajudicial retribution? Of course not. Lynching is unacceptable by definition, regardless of whether the lynched is guilty or not.

The same goes for today's social lynching. Proponents of lynching culture insist that society be actively involved in improving the social climate and creating zero tolerance for any undesirable phenomena. Violence against women is undoubtedly a socially undesirable phenomenon. As well as any other cases of violence, discrimination and other forms of oppression, humiliation.

But the question is different: can immoral behavior be eradicated by immoral methods? Lynching culture, no matter how high the moral considerations it is excused by, is and remains an immoral method. Therefore, we can only hope that in the near future, one of the basic conditions in the code of honor of every person respected in society will be non-participation in public lynching acts before all the circumstances have been clarified.