Hate speech a thorny issue
WHEN I began writing this column some time ago, I promised myself that I would write about anyone and anything, except religion.
Perhaps secretly, I did not trust myself not to say something that would embarrass my Catholic mother, thus turning our Sunday family lunches into awkward lectures on how I still did not get the meaning of life.
Besides I had witnessed enough religious debates to conclude that arguing for or against the different views is, for the most part, an exhausting exercise in futility.
And then, on Sunday, entertainer Somizi Mhlongo walked out of the Grace Bible Church in Soweto. He did so in protest against what he felt was an offensive anti-gay sermon by a visiting bishop.
Shortly thereafter Mhlongo posted on social media a video that sparked a heated, but essential discussion that is about much more than one man and his sexual or religious preferences.
He ignited an uncomfortable yet necessary discourse that goes to the very heart of our identity – one that challenges two aspects of our lives that are sacred to many South Africans: God and the constitution.
The story is that Mhlongo – a gay man – felt discriminated against by a visiting pastor who, while preaching holistically about the importance of one’s soul, referred to homosexuality as a sin so unnatural that not even animals practised it. Those who support Mhlongo strongly believe that the sermon was hate speech from a bigot who was given a platform by a religious institution that supports such views but does not have the courage to own up to its exposed intolerance.
They believe there is no place for such behaviour or utterances in our country.
On the other hand, the church and those who support its stance insist that there is no discrimination at play here because anyone is welcome in the church.
They believe that preaching the Bible – which in several Scriptures condemns homosexuality – is not prejudicial, but is an indisputable part of the church’s spiritual mandate.
They also believe that doing so is an expression of the church’s right to practise religion which is equally protected in the constitution.
My intention today is not to persuade you to believe one side over the other.
Judging by the strong personal conviction with which either side speaks on the matter, it is safe to assume we are not going to change each other’s minds and so attempting to do so, in my view, is futile.
The reality though is that here we are, all 55 million of us in this country we call home. We are gay, lesbian, straight, Christian or Muslim.
We are all governed by a constitution which equally guarantees us the freedom to be who we are, in the same way it protects our right to believe in what we choose to. So what do we do? Although interesting, I have found the current discourse on the matter to be largely centred around expressing our rights. While this is acceptable, I believe it is important to take the conversation beyond that.
Granted, this is an extremely difficult and emotive issue that exposes how, barely hidden underneath a thin layer of compulsory acceptance of each other, are some thorny differences that run deep.
But it is precisely for this reason that we ought to interrogate how, if at all possible, do we coexist and give practical meaning to the life so idealistically laid out in our constitution.
Take the word “discrimination” for example.
Mhlongo believes that by speaking with such contempt and comparing his sexuality to that of animals, Bishop Dag Heward-Mills was not only offensive, his utterances were homophobic and trampled on his right to dignity. Mhlongo believes therefore that this ultimately amounts to discrimination.
The church and its supporters disagree. They insist that because Heward-Mills’ sermon is protected by free speech, although he was provocative, he broke no rules – moral or legal – and therefore has nothing to be held accountable for.
This is the crux of it. It is this crucial point that we need to define clearly if we are to bring meaning to our journey towards authentic cohesion.
What we know is that our constitution promotes free speech.
But does this extend to speech that is deemed by some to unfairly distinguish between people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation?
If so, how different is this to those who make offensive statements against a different race, based on their inherent beliefs and in the name of free speech?
If we agree that the right to freedom of expression (and religious practice) is not an adequate defence for such utterances, what then?
Do we outlaw parts of Scripture so sacrosanct to some because they are deemed to be offensive to others?
It is common cause that in our country discrimination is, rightly so, a sore point.
The easy part, however, is rejecting acts of discrimination such as curative rape or murder, that are in contravention with laws that most of us wholeheartedly agree with.
The difficult part, so it seems, is to define prejudice in the context of speech, which I believe can be as harmful as any other. If we are committed to this democracy, we must therefore clearly determine precisely where to draw the line.
They believe that preaching the Bible – which in several Scriptures condemns homosexuality – is not prejudicial, but is an indisputable part of the church’s spiritual mandate