Is Spud: The Movie a naked exhibition of the "casual denigration of gays" as claimed by Justice Edwin Cameron? Is writer Annelie Botes a poster girl for brute racism? Or, are critics of Spud Milton (the title character in Spud) and of Annelie Botes simply pathetic proponents of political correctness who cannot see the virtue of showing off one's prejudices? Are we in danger of becoming a nation of thought police?
The truth is that we are slipping between two extremes in our public debate about race, class, culture, language and other identity conundrums. We wrongly think that we must either celebrate the uncritical expression of any and all convictions regardless of their content (and, so, pat Annelie Botes on the back for being "honest") or we must promote political correctness and discourage the expression of speech that offends or moves us in uncomfortable ways (and hence the claim by some that we'd be better off if an Annelie Botes kept her views to herself).
Both of these positions harm society. We must reject them with equal contempt and carve out a third way. The alternative position is to uphold the entitlement of each of us to express our views publicly (subject only to outlawing clear cases of hate speech) while, at the same time, developing a language framework that facilitates interpersonal dialogue and debate so that we can allow our speech to be up for interrogation by others. Let's unpack each of these claims.
First, it is not inherently virtuous to be honest. The fact that someone might be a racist and that the subtext of their work - say, for example, a film or television series or book - sustains a racist ideology is not something to be commended just because they dared to put it on public display. It was bizarre to see even black critics, who normally are quick off the mark in pointing out instances of anti-black racism, thanking Annelie Botes for her "honesty."
You should not get moral discount for sincerity. We do not think a rapist or murderer is any less of a rapist or murderer just because they shout out in court, "It was me, Your Honour! I confess!!" Their actions remain morally odious despite their truthfulness and we have a social interest in sanctioning what they did.
What we should be proud of, however, is the fact that an Annelie Botes has the space in this country to express her views openly. But that should by now have been a pedestrian fact of living in a liberal society in which freedom of expression is securely entrenched. It is telling that we regard the exercise of this right as "brave". This indicates the sad reality that norms like free speech are not yet an uncontested part of the grammar of post-democratic South Africa.