Free Speech and Opinions

I have written about this in the past, but I am continually amazed that more people do not see a problem with judging one's opinion as wrong.

Case in point: a Muslim leader in Australia make a statement to the effect that that some women invite rape by wearing skimpy clothes. While I do not support this statement at all, the response to it from the general population is interesting.

The Prime Minister said that the leader should be given counselling because of this opinion. People were describing it with all sorts of negative adjectives. The leader later responded by apologizing. The vitriol that this remark produced was surprising in it volume and somewhat strange in its relationship to free speech.

Although, again I do not support such an opinion (am I only saying this so that I don't get referred to/forced into counselling?), however, what is "wrong" with his opinion. Instead of a expressing dissatisfaction with the person's opinion, the media and public officials lambast him for even having such an opinion, and implying that he is mentally defective for it. This person did not (as far as I can tell) attempt to get people to break the law and molest or rape the women he thought were skimpily attired. This type of speech would be easy to condemn, and probably necessary to condemn. But expressing an opinion, as part of his understanding and thought process, that it is more likely that a less covered woman is more likely to get raped, I cannot see as problematic. What I see is a dangerous desire for people to repress other people's opinions that do not line up with their own. Rather a better approach, that is less overtly critcal of a persons mental capacity, would be to site facts that refute such an assertion. Barring such facts, I don't see how anyone can say anything more than that they disagree with such a statement.

Let's look at this statement, but change the object of it. Lets say I make the statement: A person that leaves the door to their house unlocked is inviting someone to steal from their house.

I believe the above statement is not much different than the woman and clothing statement. If you disagree, try to suspend disbelief so that you might understand my conclusion. Between the two statements I am equating the house and women, the lack of door locks with the skimpiness of clothing, and the invitation to steal and the invitation to rape.

Although you may disagree, as I do, with this statement about the unlocked house, I doubt that you would find it particularly offensive. Why is it not offensive if the statement about women is offensive. I believe this is due to an implied, unspoken aspect of morality. Now remember the Muslim leader did not say that men who raped women were justified in the rape because of the woman's attire. To some degree he was making a statement that there are consequences to actions. However, people seem to assume that the expression of consequences implies justification of the consequences. I don't believe he meant that.

Examine the statement about the house. Most people would say to the people who left their house unlocked while away, "What were you thinking? What did you expect to happen if you didn't lock your house while you were away?" At least this is what I thought when this very situation happened to my sister recently. There was no moral judgement about her decision. This statement also does not imply justification to the act of burglary that was purpetrated.

I submit that both statements are very similar in meaning. Why does expressing one statement provoke so much hatred towards a person, while the other one is merely an innocuous statement? And centrally, what does this have to do with Orthodox Christianity?

Lately, I've been harping on my belief that soon, we as Orthodox Christians, will have a very rough time professing and proclaiming our faith. Much of religious thought is about how we change our base, self-serving desires and actions into desires and actions that are beneficial to others. This leader was expressing an opinion that there might be consequences to living in a particular manner. It disproportionally affects a specific group of people, namely women. This was the "sin."

Our Orthodox belief teaches us that there are consequences to living in the world. We have strong beliefs in the various roles of men and women. When will it be against the law to express opinions that may have negative consequences for a particular group of people? When will the Bible be banned because it casts women in a particular role, promotes slavery, or promotes genocide (all these are things that some people say the Bible supports)?

Even though I disagree with the Muslim leader's opinion, it does not mean he was wrong, or that he is "bad." Proving or disproving a statement such as this would be difficult. Vilifing a person over an expressed opinion is the first step in limiting freedom of speech. When will your opinion get you put in prison?