#a societally-approved institution like oxford or something

[arachnerd-8-legs]

im getting real sick of 'intelligence'

who decided reading books and writing counted as intelligence? who decided that getting high scores on a strict, unfeeling system meant you were better than everybody? who decided that people should be turned into numbers, tie their worth in society into numbers, to compare people on a scale that ultimately does not matter, so that the people who didn't dump everything to perform for it are berated and the people who did end up with nothing?

who decided not reading or writing was a lack of intelligence? who decided that living differently to them was a sign of lower 'societal worth' than those who conformed?

[21stcenturyteapot]

4. When Civil Liberties Clash

(LGBTQI + Religious Harm = Something’s Gotta Give)

Civil liberties often clash. When this happens, as the idiom says, something’s gotta give. We’ve all heard of limitations on free speech when individuals are defamed in public. You can’t exercise free speech if you’re badmouthing someone and it’s not in society’s interest to do so. People in free societies also generally frown on cruel and outmoded practices like stoning of adulterers, even though the Abrahamic religions contain instructions to do so – and it does happen in some societies.

My point is: it’s never a question of whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion can / should sometimes be limited. Both of them can, and should, sometimes. It is only a question of when.

(Quick disclaimer: my point of departure has always been, and continues to be, that the State should only get involved in these clashes when absolutely necessary, so civil liberties should be maintained as the default position, and limited only by exception and as little as possible – for reasons of combating serious and demonstrable harm.)

Given the examples above, it’s clear that the clash between LGBTQI rights and Religious Freedom doesn’t alone as a clash between competing civil liberties. A foundational premise of this dissertation is that absolute tolerance ultimately leads to an intolerant society. That’s because tolerating all intolerance means the intolerant have free rein and ultimately simply take over. For those with a more philosophical bent, Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is the relevant reference for further reading. Tolerance is generally understood to be the ability or willingness to leave, unmolested, opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with[1], and intolerance is an inability or unwillingness in this regard. (It’s important to note that respect is not a necessary condition for tolerance. In fact, tolerance, by definition, is the allowance of ideas or actions that one potentially does not respect, or agree with, to continue unmolested. Respect is more active approval towards ideas and actions than is required by simple tolerance.)

To maintain a functional society, it’s generally necessary to be able to tolerate ideas and actions you don’t agree with, but which do not require legal punishment or (perhaps) even public disapproval. Opposing ideas, by the very nature of human beings, have to coexist in peace for society to continue.

So, what do we do when the rights of marginalised LGBTQI+ South Africans clash with the speech / religious convictions of the religious? How do we maintain a society that retains fair and balanced civil liberties for all, while preventing the religiously intolerant from unfairly imposing prejudice on the LGBTQI+ community (which includes religious people, as pointed out in my last blog)? In order to do so, a certain amount of homophobic thought must be tolerated (it becomes untenable to police people’s thoughts) but, simultaneously, where thoughts spill over into speech and actions, as also described in my last blog, it needs to be addressed, and potentially curbed – either socially or legally.

Religious homophobia sometimes evokes simple disapproval in social settings, or on social media. Before going to legal prosecution or censorship, social disapproval might be escalated to group disassociation like de-platforming of voices by venues or institutions, or the loss of job. In the context of current societal battles in the areas of social justice for LGBTQI+ and religious intolerance, the question of how much intolerance to tolerate becomes a deeply practical, and deadly serious, one.

It is at this point that the homophobe will tend to cite freedom of speech or religion in defending their actions. To borrow from the world of employment, this is where the well-established concept of fair discrimination[2] becomes relevant.

Yes. It is possible to respond heavy-handedly. It is nevertheless crucial to understand that fair curbing of freedom of speech or religion in order to prevent demonstrable harm to marginalised groups should not, itself, be illegitimately construed as more oppression. A response to homophobia that is proportional to the severity of the religious homophobia being countered falls into the realms of self-defense, and is in no way the moral equivalent of someone preaching hate and trying to hide behind a false biblical pretext. The fact that a state, especially a secular state, includes a large majority of adherents of a particular faith, does not (in my view) translate into an obligation for that state to make special accommodations for religion – and especially not at the cost of marginalised people. There seems to be little reason to think that, just because a religious group happens to be in the majority, appropriate response in the form of SI should be limited to a greater extent than would be the case in a state without such a majority. If you’re interested in deeper reading on the discussion about when to afford protection to religious speech that might contain harmful homophobia, check out Brian Leiter and Martha Nussbaum’s Why Tolerate Religion[3] and Nussbaum’s The New Religious Intolerance[4], respectively.

In short, I don’t believe it’s justified (either socially or legally) to give biblically based homophobia special accommodation (legal exemption from rules normally applied to all citizens, or special permission to express religious or conscience-based convictions in ways that contradict laws normally applicable to all citizens). The implications for society would simply be too grave, in my view. The kind of society that doesn’t care whether marginalised groups are harmed, and gives religious people (of any sort) special latitude to cause that harm, is not the sort of place I’d want to live. Ironically, I don’t think it’s the sort of place religious people would want to live, either, if the tables were turned. A Christian woman denied a passport without her husband’s permission (as happens in some Islamic states) would become the subject (rightly) of massive outrage here in South Africa. So why are we allowing harm to come to our LGBTQI+ compatriots on the basis of Christianity itself? Neutrality on the part of the state is everyone’s best protection against the tyranny of some other majority. Basic accommodation by the state of all our civil liberties should be enough for everyone. Write to me if you have thoughts or questions!

[1] Cambridge Dictionary, Definition of 'tolerance', https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance,

Collins English Dictionary, Definition of 'tolerance, 'https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tolerance,

Oxford English Dictionary, Definition of 'tolerance,

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tolerance

[2] South African Parliament, Employment Equity Act, No 55 of 1998, Ch. 2, section 6

[3] Brian Leiter, 2013, Why Tolerate Religion?, Princeton University Press

[4] Martha C. Nussbaum, 2012, The New Religious Intolerance, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press