- In the USA the boss of a fast food chain tells a religious broadcaster that he is opposed to gay marriage and the authorities in some districts threaten to ban his outlets from setting up in their town. The governor of the man’s home state declares Aug 1st to be a day of solidarity with the fast food chain boss. (The net is full of reaction to this debate, I linked to a New York Times article believing it to be a more trustworthy source than some of the other publications that appeared when I Googled “Chic-fil-a”)
- In Ireland a judge calls Social Security “a Polish charity”. Later the judge apologises citing the “context” as her excuse.
- In South Africa the government takes steps to suppress news of atrocities committed by, mostly young, Blacks on their white neighbours.
- In a televised discussion in the UK a black Tory MP tells a black churchman that his intolerance of gay marriage is equivalent to others’ intolerance of black immigrants. (This was featured on BBC Newsnight 2nd August 2002, I am unable to provide a link)
What do
these four stories – and no doubt there are others that I could have cited –
tell us about the right to free speech and the treatment of minorities in the
world today?
It was, I
think, Voltaire who famously said “I disagree profoundly with what you say but
I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Or words to that effect).
Freedom of speech, the right to express an opinion however bizarre, is one of
those “inalienable rights” guaranteed by the US constitution though not
necessarily so well protected by laws elsewhere.
Duties accompany rights
But along
with rights come duties and it is the duty of all those exercising the right to
voice their opinion in public to consider the effect of their words on those
who might hear them. It is also, it seems to me, necessary for the speaker to
be able to defend his or her remarks with rational argument citing evidence.
When the Irish judge was unable to do that she was right to apologise,
recognising that the remark was hurtful to many hard working Polish people in Ireland.
I would
like to know the basis upon which those who oppose gay marriage hold such an
irrational opinion. How are they, or anyone else, harmed by the availability of
such a ceremony? The rational answer must be that neither they nor anyone else
is harmed by gay marriage. On the other hand, to oppose the idea is hurtful to
those who wish to publicly declare their love for each other before their god
and in the presence of a congregation of co-religionists.
Does that
mean it is right to seek to prevent a person holding such irrational beliefs
from setting up a business in my town? No, of course it doesn’t. Should
defending his/her right to express that opinion extend to having a day set
aside in his/her honour? Not unless you want to draw attention to unfounded
opinions that are hurtful to some of your fellow citizens.
Is
opposition to gay marriage equivalent to racism? Is it a “hate crime”?
We have come a long way in my lifetime
Before I
attempt to answer those questions it is worthwhile taking a short trip back in
time. Not so long ago it was considered perfectly rational to make the
assumption that black people are inferior to white people. In parts of the USA as well as in South Africa it was against the law
for blacks and whites to mix socially, let alone marry each other. This was the
case less than 30 years ago in South Africa
and little more than 50 years ago in the USA.
Go back
another 20 years, to the time of my birth, and you would have no trouble
finding people who thought it perfectly rational to argue that the world’s
problems could all be laid at the door of Jews and that the solution was … you
know the rest.
Within the
same time frame it was illegal in many parts of the world for two men to have
sexual relations. Indeed, there are still parts of the world where this is the
case.
These days
we, in the developed world at least, consider ourselves to be more enlightened;
we understand that behaviour that takes place in private between consenting
adults harms no-one else and is, therefore, not to be frowned upon by the law. We
understand and accept that people of all races are equally capable of being
clever or stupid, saintly or evil.
Engage the brain before opening your mouth
So
incitement to, or the actual infliction of, violence against people because of
their skin colour or their sexuality is inexcusable and the right to freely
express such a view is, I believe, correctly prevented by the laws of most
civilised societies. The same goes for expressions of hate towards particular
religions, including those whose influence on the governments of some nations
is so strong that those governments outlaw the practice of homosexuality. In
such cases it is right to condemn the government and to argue rationally
against the outdated religious teachings that are cited by the leaders of those
religions. But to incite violence or to make hate filled statements is
unhelpful and ought to be against the law.
So, hold
whatever opinion you like but please think carefully about the consequences –
the effect on potential hearers – before expressing them in public. And don’t
use beliefs that you can’t back with rational argument to try to change the law
of your homeland.
