The right to free speech is no licence to hate

If ever there was a blast from the past, Jon Qwelane’s “victory” at the Supreme Court of Appeals qualifies as the biggest blast. And, of course, he has welcomed the court’s decision.

You don’t have to be a legal expert to realise that his victory is not because the court found his homophobic views defensible in terms of free speech. No, the court found the law governing free speech is terribly worded and, therefore, not in line with the constitution. It is a victory for Qwelane, of sorts.

It is worth going back to the piece that Qwelane wrote for The Sunday Sun in 2008.

Among other things, he wrote: “… you regularly see men kissing other men in public, walking holding hands and shamefully flaunting what are misleadingly termed their ‘lifestyle’ and ‘sexual preferences…” and also “… otherwise, at this rate, how soon before some idiot demands to ‘marry’ an animal, and that this constitution ‘allows’ it? And, by the way, please tell the Human Rights Commission that I totally refuse to withdraw or apologise for my views”, because, he adds, “wrong is wrong”.

It is unbelievable that a newspaper published Qwelane’s views 11 years ago because there is no doubt that any self-respecting newspaper would not let views like these fly in 2019.

The common argument that “free speech” must protect such clearly violent and disgusting views is nonsensical.

Sure, a court has found SA law inadequate in its definition of hate speech, but any society that only defines itself based on what the laws say is doomed to fail. Laws are there to guide society but at its most basic, society must be based on an unflinching respect for all human beings, human dignity must be afforded, whether clearly specified in the constitution or not.

Qwelane’s piece suggested that homosexual human beings are on an equal footing with animals. Equating a human being with an animal is demeaning.

The man that Qwelane praised for being forthright because of his lack of fear in demonising same-sex relationships was president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe, who recently died a reviled man.

Mugabe did not need court protection or laws to spew his bile – he was a law unto himself.

Luckily for South Africans, the courts have done a sterling job in defending minority groups when called upon to do so. That Qwelane won on a technicality (of a badly worded Act) and not on the strength of his argument serves as a warning that “free speech” is not unlimited.

If people like Qwelane are allowed to insult a section of the population because they can hide behind “freedom of speech”, then society must ready itself for all the racists to come out of the woodwork.

Bigots like Qwelane need to be taught, just like AfriForum, that just because something is not categorically outlawed in the constitution does not make it acceptable in a thinking, critical society. The law can allow one to say “gay is not right” or fly the apartheid flag at will, but that law does not take away the hatred and disdain carried in those actions and words.

Even the Bible warns: “Some things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.”

Court victory or not, Qwelane and his ilk must know that hate is not right.

Sydney Majoko

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.