• Manipulated victimhood violates rights

In modern society, the concept of victimhood has gained significant attention, often serving as a means to highlight genuine oppression and injustices. However, in some cases, individuals, groups, or institutions manipulate the victim narrative to evade responsibility, suppress opposing views, or gain undue advantages. 

This phenomenon, commonly referred to as ‘playing the victim card’, can lead to the violation of others’ rights, fostering social division and undermining legitimate struggles for justice.

First, the victim card can be used to deflect responsibility. By portraying themselves as victims, individuals or groups may avoid accountability for their actions, shifting blame onto others. For example, a politician accused of corruption might claim political persecution to divert attention from their wrongdoing. Second, playing the victim can suppress opposing viewpoints. Those who criticise or question such claims may be labeled as oppressors, discouraging open dialogue and debate. Third, when victimhood is leveraged for personal or political gain, it diminishes the credibility of genuine victims, making it harder for real issues to receive the attention that they deserve.

The nature of victimhood

Victimhood is a powerful social tool that can generate empathy, sympathy, and support. It is essential for addressing real injustices, such as discrimination, oppression, and systemic inequalities. Historically, marginalised communities have leveraged their victim status to advocate for necessary reforms and social justice.

However, when victimhood is exploited dishonestly, it can create moral and ethical dilemmas that negatively impact society. One example is individuals who fabricate discrimination-based claims to gain advantages in workplaces, making it harder for those facing genuine discrimination to be taken seriously. Additionally, institutions may manipulate victim narratives to garner financial or political support, misleading the public about their true circumstances. Finally, excessive reliance on victimhood as an identity can create a culture of entitlement, where individuals prioritise personal grievances over collective responsibility and social cohesion.

The weaponisation of victimhood

Playing the victim card occurs when individuals or groups falsely claim oppression or exaggerate their suffering to manipulate public perception. This practice can manifest in various contexts, including politics, legal disputes, social movements, and personal relationships. The misuse of victimhood often results in the suppression of free speech, unjust legal outcomes, and the marginalisation of the actual victims.

Political manipulation

Politicians and leaders sometimes portray themselves or their followers as victims to deflect criticism and silence opposition. By presenting themselves as persecuted figures, they can justify controversial policies or actions while suppressing dissenting voices. For example, authoritarian leaders may label critics as enemies of the State to stifle opposition. In democratic systems, politicians may claim to be victims of biased media coverage to discredit negative reports. In some cases, entire political movements are built around perceived victimisation, mobilising supporters based on grievances rather than constructive solutions.

Legal exploitation

In legal settings, false claims of victimisation can lead to wrongful convictions or unjust settlements. Individuals who fabricate harassment, discrimination, or abuse-related accusations for personal gain harm both the accused and genuine victims of such offenses. For instance, high-profile defamation cases have emerged where false allegations have ruined careers before the truth was revealed. Additionally, legal loopholes sometimes allow individuals to exploit victim narratives for financial settlements, even when no real harm was done. Such manipulations create an imbalance in justice, where legal protections meant for real victims are diluted by fraudulent claims.

Social movements and cultural conflicts

Some movements that initially emerge to address real injustices may later resort to victimhood rhetoric to stifle criticism and dissent. When this happens, constructive debate and dialogue are replaced with intimidation and censorship, leading to an erosion of democratic values. For example, some advocacy groups may reject valid criticisms by framing all opposing voices as oppressors, thereby preventing meaningful discourse. Additionally, cultural debates over identity politics can escalate when victim narratives are used to justify exclusionary practices rather than fostering inclusivity. In extreme cases, victimhood rhetoric is used to justify retaliatory actions, undermining the very principles of justice that such movements seek to uphold.

Violating others’ rights

The consequences of playing the victim card extend beyond individual cases, as it can infringe upon the rights of others in several ways.

Suppression of free speech

False claims of victimisation are often used to silence critics. Those accused of being ‘oppressors’ may be denied the right to express their opinions, leading to an environment where open discourse is stifled. In academic settings, professors or researchers presenting controversial findings may face backlash if their work is deemed offensive by those claiming victimhood. In journalism, media outlets may self-censor to avoid accusations of bias. Online, social media platforms may remove content based on exaggerated victim claims, thereby restricting the free flow of ideas.

Unfair legal and social outcomes

False accusations can lead to the unjust punishment of innocent individuals, damaging their reputations, careers, and personal lives. Such cases undermine the integrity of justice systems and divert attention from actual victims who need protection. For example, high-profile cases of false sexual assault allegations have led to wrongful convictions, only for the truth to surface later. In workplaces, individuals falsely accused of misconduct may face termination without due process. In society at large, policies designed to protect real victims may lose public support when manipulated for personal gain.

Divisiveness and distrust

The exploitation of victimhood fosters social polarisation. When people perceive victim based claims as manipulative rather than legitimate, it creates scepticism toward genuine struggles, making it harder for real victims to receive support and justice. For instance, in intergroup conflicts, communities may become defensive and dismiss legitimate grievances due to past instances of false victimhood claims. Additionally, public faith in legal and social institutions weakens when false accusations are not held accountable. Finally, excessive focus on victim narratives can shift societal discussions away from problem-solving toward blame and resentment.

The need for accountability

To prevent the misuse of victimhood, society must cultivate a culture of accountability and critical thinking. Public institutions, the media, and legal systems should implement measures to verify claims of victimisation while ensuring that real grievances receive appropriate attention. This can be achieved by fostering transparency in reporting mechanisms, ensuring that allegations are subjected to thorough investigations rather than accepted at face value. Media outlets should prioritise fact-based reporting over sensationalism, carefully vetting sources to prevent the spread of misinformation. Legal systems must uphold due process, ensuring that claims of victimhood do not automatically translate into guilt for the accused. Educational initiatives can play a crucial role by promoting critical thinking skills from an early age, helping individuals to differentiate between genuine and exaggerated claims. Additionally, fostering an open discourse and encouraging constructive debate can help society navigate complex issues without falling into the trap of unquestioningly accepting all victim narratives. By implementing these measures, society can strike a balance between addressing real injustices and preventing the exploitation of victimhood for personal or political gain.

Encouraging honest dialogue and evidence-based discussions can help strike a balance between acknowledging legitimate injustices and preventing false victimhood narratives from undermining justice. One way to achieve this is through independent investigations that thoroughly examine claims before taking action. Additionally, promoting personal responsibility in social discourse ensures that individuals do not evade accountability by defaulting to victimhood. Finally, public education on critical thinking and media literacy can help people differentiate between genuine grievances and opportunistic victim narratives.

Conclusion

While victimhood plays a crucial role in addressing social injustices, its manipulation for personal or political gain can lead to serious ethical and legal violations. Playing the victim card can infringe upon the rights of others, suppress free speech, and create societal divisions.

By fostering accountability and critical thinking, society can ensure that genuine victims receive justice while preventing the exploitation of victim narratives for undue advantage. A balanced approach requires vigilance in distinguishing between real suffering and opportunistic claims, ensuring that justice serves those who truly need it while maintaining fairness and integrity.

(The writer is an attorney and a lecturer at the Colombo University’s Law Faculty’s Public and International Law Department)  

…………………………………………………………..

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication