The problem with the cancel culture

If you have been following South African media in the past few days then you could not have missed the rape allegations against DJs Fresh and Euphonik and the social media frenzy that followed. That is partly because people will deny that the alleged rape happened. They have been calling for a boycott of their music and that they should be taken off air. The uproar over an artiste being taken off air and their music being boycotted isn’t new. While some are quick to point out that in the interests of morality we cannot support and must not support alleged rapists, there is still the question of innocent until proven guilty. But are we to say that just because one is a criminal then everything they have achieved professionally up to that point must be discarded? Who can forget the frenzy over the cancelling of R. Kelly’s music when all those allegations against him surfaced! Imagine having bought a collection of the man’s music with good money that you must now throw away because he is an alleged sexual offender! Now I have since stopped listening to R Kelly and I did not ever like DJ Fresh and Euphonik to begin with but the discussion did make me wonder what if it had been my favorite artist, would I suddenly stop listening to music that I enjoy, that perhaps is tied to sentimental memories in my life all because I am cancelling the artist? And what good does it do to burn down all DJ Fresh and his counterparts’ records in a great bonfire? The answer is a resounding nothing!! The problem with the cancel culture is not so much that cancel culture is wrong; it is merely that we do not understand it. For Robert Kelly to run his trafficking cult or whatever that was he needed money, prestige and enough lawyers to evade the consequences of his actions and that is where the cancelling of his music makes sense. If radio stations keep playing him then he earns royalties, royalties that fund his defence team so he can get of scot free and continue to assault women at leisure. The same applies to his music being on streaming platforms and music stores. The more money he makes, the easier it gets for him to buy his freedom. This however does not apply to music one has already bought, the income of which is already in his pocket. Playing him from dusk till dawn to the annoyance of your neighbours does not put more money in his pocket and does nothing for the funding of his less than scrupulous lifestyle. Of cause the question still remains as to why you would want to listen to an alleged pedophile But people have different tastes, so that is that. The purpose of cancel culture should be to cut funding so that those who abuse, rape or murder people should not be able to fall back on their vast resources and avoid prosecution and or consequences. Cancelling for the sake of cancelling makes no sense. While it feels good to jump on the #BoycottSoandSo bandwagon what is often neglected is why the cancelling must happen in the first place. It becomes very hard to convince other people why we are cancelling an artist if we simply say we are cancelling them because rape is wrong. Of course, rape is wrong, but so are murder, trafficking and theft and all these are societal problems that can very well benefit from the cancelling of perpetrators. What we need to also explain before we cancel artists for sexual assaults and not for other crimes is that sexual assault is often based on power. The power and prestige that comes with being a performing artist is why cancelling these artists makes sense and is often necessary to ensure that the victims get justice. My personal stand on the issue of cancelling artists accused of sexual assault is therefore two-fold. I wholeheartedly agree that they must be cancelled, after all I would hate for my money to fund a legal defence for someone accused of rape. I also would not feel comfortable listening to certain songs because once you hear certain allegations against the artists then the lyrics start to have very strange undertones but the fact remains that to ask everyone to cancel their favorite artists and dispose of music they have already bought will simply be met with resistance and resentment unless we take time to explain exactly why the artiste in question are being cancelled. It is also worth noting that those against cancel culture do have valid points. What if we cancel an artist, strip him of revenue that we would have earned had he still been on the air and from cancelled shows only for the allegations against him to turn out to be false? Take another South African artist Sjava, whose shows were cancelled and was even stripped of certain awards only for the case against him to be dropped. Now having allegations against him dropped did not effectively convince me that the man is not a rapist as there are a number of factors that leads to a survivor of sexual violence dropping the case, especially one against a high-profile celebrity. The social media backlash for example and the often very hostile justice system could be to blame. But the fact remains that the man was denied his day in court and in the absence of conclusive judgment he is still innocent until proven guilty. An innocent man might have lost hundreds of rands due to cancel culture. I suppose in that case it does become a matter of personal conscience, what does one find more uncomfortable? Cheating an “innocent” man out of his money or funding a sexual perpetrators lifestyle and therefore making it easier for him to avoid consequence and perhaps strike again? That is unfortunately a personal decision that we all must make and not myself or anyone else can make it for the next person. Thakane Rethabile Shale