Free speech....or maybe a nominal fee?

"Life isn't black or white. It's a million shades of grey." I have no idea who first coined that phrase, but for me it's attributed to my father. Definitely one of his wiser musings I feel. That's where so much conflict arises these days, isn't it?So many people think that way. 'X' is either black or white, right or wrong. The end. For most of us, we have evolved far enough to realise that life has the unfortunate habit of just not being that damn simple. However, are there not some things which we all have to agree are of paramount importance, that are definitively 'right' or 'wrong'?

Such as the importance of free speech for example. Surely that's a black and white issue. Right? Er...well...maybe. Personally, free speech is one of the things I hold dear. We are all entitled to our own opinion. Some people's opinions are downright ridiculous, no doubt. They are entitled to them nonetheless. I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. And that's where I often run into difficulty, unfortunately. I often get into trouble for having a habit of playin devil's advocate a bit too much. I see great importance in seeing all sides of an argument, that's all.

The most recent example to get me thinking on this is an incident in Greater Manchester recently, where a street preacher and his father were "threatened with arrest" for preaching the Bible in public. The particular verses he was citing included the passages Romans 1.27 and 1 Corinthians 6.9 from the King James Bible:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly..."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

Well you don't have to be a genius to work out what ol' preacher was getting at. More than likely it was the evils of homosexuality. Apparently he was threatened with arrest for "offensive" statements, which to some, amount to incitement to hatred. Now, see, that's were I get a bit stuck. I came across the story on a progressive Anglican blog, and one of my favourite blogs in general. The author, who I think is a brilliant man who writes very scholarly and articulate articles, takes this view. As someone advocating reform and inclusion in the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion, he believes the preacher's selective Bible quoting is incitement to hatred. I'm not so sure I agree on that. Oh I have been on the recieving end of many a fire-and-brimstone merchant, whose empassioned recital of the above Bible passages have certainly gotten on my nerves from time to time. That relentless evangelical zeal can be hard to escape (especially the American "missionaries" that seem to love Ireland so much). The guy in this article, as with many of them, has a preoccupation with the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. Which I disagree with, naturally enough. They are at best highly amusing and at worst downright annoying. But do they have a right to stand at the side of the street and tell I'm going to hell? Well, yes, I believe they do. I don't see it as incitement to hatred. They don't seem to be advocating harm against gay people. Now I know many will argue that they do untold psychological harm to vulnerable gay people, and I wholeheartedly agree. I was one of those people damaged for many years by negative ideas of homosexuality given by religion, so I know. That doesn't change my belief that religious conservatives or evangelicals such as this guy have a right to preach in public though. People are free to make up their own minds. I don't think some zealot screeching "REPENT! Lest the Devil shove a poker up your..." is incitement to hatred. Now, if it's a case of someone actively advocating harm against homosexuals (or anyone) then that's different. The likes of Fred Phelps and his WBC nutters or many extremist Islamic clerics advocating violence and death against gay people is completely wrong, and in that case, free speech is being violated to incite hatred. The current plight of gay men in Iraq is a sad example.

You can apply the same logic to racism, Islamophobia, sexism, etc. But there lies another question, which the author on the Changing Attitudes blog and many others would rightly raise: would the same rules apply to other groups apart from homosexuals? Would any form of racist sentiment be tolerated by free speech, for example? That's I good argument. I would refer to the "white nationalists" of Stormfront I mentioned in a previous post: are they entitled to espouse "white nationalism" as an ideology, once the don't advocate harm to ethnic minorities? I suppose, going on my own reasoning, that provided they don't advocate harm against ethnic minorities, then yes, they are entitled to believe white people are better than black people. However, the problem is, racism and Neo Nazism are rarely purely ideolgogical principles. They are based on hatred, rather like Fred Phelps and his attitude to gays, and require action. So they advocate harm to people, therefore are not entitled to propagate their opinion. But is someone who expresses concerns about immigration policy necessarily a racist? I don't think so.

I think it is an incredibly tricky issue. A lot of common sense is needed. There is a glaring difference between expressing concern about Islamic fundamentalism, and inciting Islamophobia. With relation to religion, most religions believe that theirs is correct; therefore others must be "wrong". They seek to save the unbelievers, therefore must attempt to prosletyse them. This involves telling them that their religion, or lack thereof, is wrong. And they are entitled to do so. Most of us would have the common sense not to tell people of other faiths they will go to hell, even if we believed so. However some people feel it is their duty to save the world from itself. And however idiotic it may be, they do have a right to express their opinion. As a Christian, I do tend to get a bit annoyed when people deliberately say offensive things about Jesus to piss me off. The idea of living in a nanny state that tells them they can't "commit blasphemy", however, pisses me off a great deal more. As offensive a person's opinion may be, I think once they are not advocating harm, slandering or libeling anybody, then they are free to say what they like. There's no litmus test for offence, unfortunately. Some people have incredibly thick skins, others don't. I think another thing that often gets forgotten about free speech and other civil liberties is that they work both ways. Take Bible Billy and his holy rolling friends: we gays espouse our right to freely contradict his views, don't we? So doesn't he have that same right? "But he's in the wrong!" you say. Maybe. But to him we're in the wrong. So one of us is wrong, but who decides which one? That's why free speech and debate are vital.