IN November last year, a 13-year-old Somalian girl was stoned to death, after her father reported that she had been gang-raped. In Saudi Arabia, a woman who was gang-raped and became pregnant after her ordeal faces 100 lashes and a year in prison.

The problem is that these women, or girls, are viewed as having given their consent to the rape by being in a situation where men could force themselves upon them. Rape becomes adultery – though neither woman was married – and the women punished for crimes committed against them.

The key concept here, as in many sexual crimes, is consent. That is the difference between rape and sex, between harassment and casual flirtation. When consent is withheld to an act of a sexual nature, it completely changes the nature of the act.

I may be labouring a point. But it’s key to understanding why Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo’s position that consent is sometimes irrelevant is not only appalling but also dangerous. It isn’t the only important concept at stake in buying into Khir Toyo’s opinion that Elizabeth Wong should step down for "immoral" behaviour. But it’s possibly the most important one. Because what happened to Wong wasn’t a violation of her person, it was a form of sexual harassment. It happened without consent, and there is little doubt that she feels violated. Her trust was violated, her body was violated. Yet, for Khir Toyo, this is irrelevant. This is her fault. Just as, in a parallel fashion, the 13-year-old stoned to death was at fault. Both women allowed these violations to happen to them. So they are immoral and deserve punishment.

If the allegory seems far-fetched, remember that it wasn’t too long ago there was discussion in this country of lashes for women who couldn’t "prove" their allegations of rape. But it isn’t the only issue at stake.

In these days where assemblymen under investigation for corruption are being courted, where policemen are accused of attempted murder and landslides are considered an acceptable part of development, we have finally hit upon something that is truly immoral.

Taking your clothes off in the privacy of your own home. And then having someone, without permission, take photographs of you. And then, without your permission, distribute them online.

The main sin here appears to be having the temerity to be naked and vulnerable. Maybe being naked, and being a woman. After all, the rest of it isn’t something over which the representative for Bukit Lanjan had much control. Given the size of cameras, and the ubiquity of cameras, and the large number of cases of cameras that have been secreted in girls’ changing rooms, student toilets and the like, the only possible way to ensure that you are never caught with your pants down is to never take them down.

What’s lost in this barrage of blame is that nudity, in private, is not a crime. What is a crime, is taking photographs of somebody without permission and distributing them. There are good reasons for this dichotomy. The first results in no harm, not even any offence. The second is exploitative, harmful and, therefore, criminal.

What Malaysia needs to prevent this outbreak of "immorality" is not a condemnation of Wong, who appears to have possibly been guilty of bad taste but nothing greater. What is needed is legislation to protect Malaysians against invasion of privacy.

Sadly, some politicians fail to distinguish between the two. But sadly, again, it’s indicative of the way we tend to view women in Malaysian society.

Sonia thinks liberty and equality are the only real guarantors of security. Comment: letters@thesundaily.com