The event shook the country.  As well as the pain it caused amongst the population, it re-opened old debates. One of those being the possession of firearms in the home, given that the weapon used in the massacre was robbed at the boy’s home from his father who works in the Navy. The other being the young age of the killer, 15 years old, prompting discussions over the possibility of lowering the age at which charges can be brought against young offenders. 

Faced with this new scale of violence, there is a sector of society that is pushing for an increase in the national security budget and is in favour of “tightening up” on sentences for young offenders.  The most worrying aspect of this is the proposal for young offenders under the age of eighteen to be subject to the same sentences as their adult counterparts, thus violating universal children’s rights, an area that any civilised society has the obligation to respect. 

The intolerant nature of these groups is highlighted when on their list of “dangers” to society appear, prostitutes, pickets, the homeless, cardboard collectors, beggars and street children, converting the victims in aggressors. Their speeches either ignore or lend little importance to the social causes that generate insecurity.  These groups prove useful to the present government which is keen to divert attention away from structural problems such as education, health or employment.

BLUMBERG’S SPEECH

One of the most prominent figures in the sector in favour of taking a “hard line” with young offenders is Juan Carlos Blumberg whose son Axel was kidnapped and subsequently murdered by a gang of kidnappers.  His pain was reflected in a speech that moved the nation.  A few days after the killing the citizens of Buenos Aires came out on the streets and accompanied him en masse to the courtrooms and to Congress to demand justice and harsher sentences for delinquents.  

However, this undeniable social phenomenon ( the marches united approximately 100,000 people) had been rigged by certain fascist sectors of the media such as “Channel 9” or “Radio Diez” who had actively promoted the demonstrations.  The positive response of these media groups towards the march  – although generally opposed to this type of street demonstration – can only be explained by the fact that the general demands did not question the causes for the existing social inequality but called for greater guarantees both for their personal safety and that of their property.  A petition that falls somewhat short for a country in which half of the population lives below the poverty line. 

In this case, the existence of media manipulation became apparent when taken into consideration that prior to the Blumberg case there had been dozens of similar episodes and the respective families were never able to gain the same media attention. This limited response can be put down to the fact that in many cases the victims came from poor families or those with “dangerous” ideologies.  In contrast Blumberg is a businessman  with a medium-sized textile business in the exclusive San Isidro district and who comes from, what he describes as,  “a decent working family”.

But Blumberg’s definition is dated, it refers to a reality that no longer exists, to a capitalist model that needed workers but that is now 40 or 50 years out-of-date.  The neoliberalism or speculative financial capitalism that had its peak between 1989 and 2002, did not need a labour force. Today the consequences of that breakdown of productivity are being suffered. Unemployment or low level employment  is at 30% in Argentina..     

UNFORTUNATE  DECLARATIONS

Intent upon proving that his son deserved to live because, according to him, “he wasn’t involved in any unsavoury business”, Blumberg showed himself up on several occasions (the businessman defined as “unsavoury business”, certain areas of politics, delinquency or drug taking, overlooking the fact that these people also have the right to live).  For example he tried to set apart his son’s case from that of Sebastian Bordón, a young adolescent killed by the police.  His inaccurate information led him to label the victim as a “drug addict”.  He was finally forced to recognise his mistake and apologise to the family.

He also confronted human rights organisations who have dedicated the last 25 years to trying to bring to justice those responsible, both military and civilian, for the illegal repression suffered during the 1976-1983 dictatorship.  These organisations also seek to condemn cases of police assault and murder within the democracy.  Blumberg criticised them claiming that “human rights are not only for delinquents”, this unleashed another scandal which served to reduce his popularity further. His declarations appeared contradictory when taken into account that in the case of his son there was evidence of negligent action by the security forces to the point that it was suspected that part of the gang of kidnappers was integrated by members of the police.  He was also highly criticised for his proposal to reduce the age at which charges can be brought against young offenders from 18 to14 years old. 

Many people attribute Blumberg’s attitude to the fact that he is being advised by certain figureheads connected with the illegal repression suffered during the last dictatorship.  What is quite clear, is that from the moment his voice began to gather force amongst the Argentinean public he became, consciously or unconsciously, (that is the subject of another long debate), the spokesperson for the authoritarian sectors.  However, although he continues to maintain an influential position amongst the public he has now lost a certain amount of credibility. 

THE FEAR INDUSTRY

Shortly after the Carmen de Patagones killings the documentary “Bowling For Columbine” was released returning people’s thoughts once again to the recent tragedy.  Micheal Moore’s excellent work analyses a similar killing that took place in a secondary school in Columbine, in the United States.  The film aimed not only to relate the event itself but also to reflect upon its possible causes.  One of the film’s many conclusions is that in order to combat the sense of insecurity felt by society, the possession of firearms in the home has increased; and that this increase instead of bringing about an effective solution to the problem has, on the contrary, caused an upsurge in crime rates. 

At the same time the film mentions how certain sectors of the population took advantage of this situation in order to establish a culture based on fear.  A culture that is not coincidental but necessary to maintain the “fear industry” afloat. Who stand to benefit from the “fear industry”? The private security agencies, arms manufacturers, the sensationalist media, firing ranges/academies, the police, security alarms manufacturers, security firms ...........and so the list goes on.

Argentina cannot escape this reality because it deals with a phenomenon typical in societies in which a strong social inequality exists, in which the rich become increasingly wealthier and the middle classes descend progressively towards the poverty line.  The figures may prove repetitive but it is necessary to reiterate them time and time again in order to prevent them from becoming an accepted fact: in Argentina, the fifth largest food producer in the world, 50% of the population is poor and 63.3% of children come from poor families.

How do these statistics translate into everyday life? Any resident of Buenos Aires who walks around the city centre will observe not only beggars, but whole families sleeping on the streets amongst bits of dirty cardboard.  On most street corners  children clean car windscreens or juggle for money.  “Armies” of  cardboard collectors push their carts around and rummage through the rubbish bins. Buenos Aires reflects a city that served as one of the first laboratories for an experiment called neoliberalism.   

RESIDENTS TAKE UP ARMS

Just let them come, we’re armed.  We’re waiting for them and we’re going to gun them down”.  This threat was transmitted via the media on behalf of a Cordoba resident.  He lives in the Parque Horizonte district, a middle class area that came into the public eye when its residents decided to group together and buy weapons to defend themselves against attacks from juvenile delinquents..

Parque Horizonte is one of many similar places were people have decided to take the law into their own hands.  It’s the consequence of a weakened, practically non-existent state that does nothing to avoid the fact that the nation’s problems manifest themselves in a poor people’s fight against poor people.  The sectors of society that still have something, protect themselves from those who, for a long time now, have nothing.

In addition the great abundance of private security agencies, far from solving the problem, have become a refuge for retired or ex-police officers and those connected with the past dictatorship and its repressions. The police, for their part, have their own line of business and frequently work in conjunction with the gangs of delinquents.  One of their typical ploys is to create “police free zones”, areas where gangs of attackers and kidnappers can act without restraint.

The situation presented here is no exaggeration.  The President of the Nation, Néstor Kirchner himself confirmed that, “the security forces seek to create a psychosis situation within the community”. 

Meanwhile, burdened by the recent Carmen de Patagones tragedy, the Argentinean people debate which path to take:  some continue to choose that of intolerance and exclusion whilst others demand that significant changes be made despite being a long way from being put into practice.

Perhaps an old song by the famous singer-songwriter León Gieco sums up life in Argentina today: “1% have the power, 9% look to manipulate that power, 50% of those left over just about manage to eat and the rest die without knowing the reason why”.