“Well I don't know why I came here tonight,
I got the feeling that something ain't right,
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down the stairs,
Lapidators to the left of me,
More to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you…”

(With Apologies to Stealers Wheels, Stuck in the Middle with You).

There has been much to and fro across social, and mainstream media between Eusebius McKaiser and me. The conversation, if you can frame it as such, is actually a big one – it raises many important issues that call for exploration and discussion. It should go beyond offence and a response thereto. It’s about how we engage, and the freedom and space that allows that debate to happen.

Alas, it has descended into a cat fight of sorts. The debate, triggered by the tweets, should have been conducted on the basis of factual verification of allegations and an examination of whether the characterization made was, or was not an intentional slur, or an innocent use of valid idiom. The attendant issues should be addressed within this context.

It has however sunk, in large measure, into a vilification of me as a homophobe and misogynist, following a tweet, in defence of a female colleague, in which I pointed to a motive for his unwarranted characterization of her, and employed the historical literary phrase “a woman scorned” is as predictable as it is deplorable.

Twitter is hardly the platform for reasoned debate – a simple call for clarification, a challenge to the veracity of my assertion about his unsuccessful entreaty to the DA, and a query as to why I referred to him as such, would have been apposite. But no, McKaiser took maximum offence, and proceeded to go on the attack – on twitter, on radio, in print, and more.

A commonly used phrase was used in reference to him. Would it have been OK to employ the phrase if the recipient were not gay, if the recipient was a heteronormative man, or a woman? Would the putative offence taken by such reference to a heteronormative man be considered as the reaction of ‘someone’ who doth protest too much? After all, what’s wrong with the scorn of a woman? It reflects a certain steeliness, a reaction to being rebuffed – McKaiser was rebuffed by the DA; I contextualized this in relation to his treatment of my colleague.

Some perspective – “A woman scorned” is a common phrase, largely gendered. Homophobia usually manifests where people transgress gender norms — something McKaiser does not generally do. He actively inculcates an image of being macho, and masculine. He is not the target of an assault on the basis of him fitting within gender norms.

It’s the context that matters. McKaiser’s attack on my colleague came across to me as the actions of ‘someone’ scorned, given his rejection by the DA, and a commonly used idiomatic and literary phrase came to mind.

McKaiser happens to be gay, but he also happens to be ‘someone’ who wields more power, by virtue of his broadcast audience and following, than most LGBTI people in South Africa.

He has since fired-up his machine and gone into battle mode. He has rallied the woke identitarians, and they are on a roll. Safe spaces, cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, decrying offensive literary allusions, objecting to offensive historical depictions, and art that’s considered offensive – offensive anything is targeted; offence appears to be the default position here.

And so, the world must become a safe zone; using the language of psychological harm, ideas are condemned, rather than rebutted. The "pain" received from the decision of another person’s views, articulation, or expression has become the paramount parameter of pique.

The common refrain is, how dare you "privilege" free speech, a mere "abstract right", over personal emotional experience? Mill’s contention that by hearing contrary ideas, if only to consider and discard them, do we grow intellectually is disregarded in this illiberal tirade that has gathered traction amongst those who demand to be protected from the expression and thoughts of others.

It matters not that it is insanity to push, as some do, to make offensive speech unlawful – the logical continuum of their beliefs and actions. And when this madness is prevented from gaining currency, the same people resort to attacking and shaming those who had the temerity to use a word or a phrase, display an art work, or perform a duty in line with their professional calling that is perceived to have offended their being, violated the sound in the echo chamber off their birth, and triggered their pain.

As Cass Sunstein, currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard, opines in Bloomberg, “The English language needs a word for what happens when a group of people, outraged by some real or imagined transgression, responds in a way that is disproportionate to the occasion, thus ruining the transgressor’s day, month, year or life. We might repurpose an old word: lapidation. Technically, the word is a synonym for stoning, but it sounds much less violent. It is also obscure, which makes it easier to enlist for contemporary purposes.”

The fact is, countless forms of expression that are taken as routine and commonplace by many people, offend others, but if we were to ban all speech that offends some others, we would in effect have to restrict speech that offends the sensitive and the eccentric, as well as speech that offends more widely. Offence is at the behest of the beholder, and attempts to elevate offence into a crime would place everybody’s freedom of expression at the mercy of others. It would undermine the right to freedom of expression.

Is there a list, I wonder, of verboten words and expressions, or are we expected to simply stumble in the dark, bumping our shins against unfamiliar furniture as we navigate the room we inhabit?

As Baroness Onora O’Neil, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, former President of the British Academy, chair of the Nuffield Foundation, and founding President of the British Philosophical Association says:

“... this does not mean that there is nothing to be done when we find others’ speech offensive. It means only that this is an area that cannot be regulated by law. There are lots of good reasons not to speak in ways that will offend others - from good manners to prudence. And there are lots of effective ways to react when others speak in ways that we find offensive. For starters, it may be a good idea to speak to those whose speech offended. They may not have realised how or why their speech would offend, they may stop speaking in those ways, apologise, or explain why they said what they did. In some cases they may even show that there were good reasons to express themselves as they did.”

Lapidation, though, is another matter entirely.

Does he really believe that I am the arch bigot in parliament – the one deserving of lapidation. The benches in parliament accommodate more worthy recipients of that particular focus, if that is your agenda. Moreover, the continent is awash with it, as the recent deplorable Kenyan pronouncement against homosexuality shows. But this is where particular animus frames the reaction, and the lapidation is selective. God knows, there are more meaningful battles to fight…

Instead of heeding the wise words of O’Neil, the lapidators, driven by animus and agenda conduct a reprehensible battle. Left-wing lapidators focus on racist, sexist and homophobic behaviour. Right-wing lapidators focus on disloyalty, disrespect for authority, a lack of patriotism or hypocrisy. They’re as bad as each other. There is a difference between intellectual engagement and lapidation, but the difference is lost on them. I have consulted widely among people in the LBGTQI community, to learn and understand – is there anything constructive McKaiser might suggest instead of lapidation? I have yet to hear it.

This is why I stand firm on this issue, why I will not be bullied by McKaiser who uses his platform on Channel 702, and myriad articles in the press that aim to to ‘slay myths’ about identity politics, to push a personal view.  The proliferation of commentary by partisan broadcasters, talk-radio hosts and bloggers has blurred the lines between news and opinion in many people's minds. Slanted reporting is rapidly replacing media objectivity. McKaiser is a prime proponent of this trend. His agenda is suspect; his animus plain, and his double standards, legion.