Blog Archives

Limits of tolerance in a society

11/4/2021

Do you voice support for tolerance, diversity and inclusion? Then you demonstrate the right progressive woke attitude in today’s ideological battle and if you are flying the rainbow flag even more so … although you have to take care to choose the right version of the rainbow.
Or do you belong you belong to those who feel that tolerance, diversity and inclusion and rainbow-coloured versions of ideology is being forced down your throat, by the media, by forced participation in diversity and inclusion training at your place of work and by loud demonstrations in the streets.
The difference of views leads us to ask if the force-feeding of certain versions of tolerance, diversity and inclusion have gone too far. Perhaps contributing to less intolerance, more division and reciprocal exclusion in society?
Let us have a look at tolerance. As some form of tolerance is fundamental for avoiding conflict when practising diversity and inclusion.

What is tolerance?
The Oxford dictionary tells us that tolerance of or for somebody or something is the “the quality of being willing to accept or tolerate somebody/something, especially opinions or behaviour that you may not agree with, or people who are not like you.”
In a stricter sense to tolerate mean to bear or endure people and opinions that one finds objectionable, wrong or bad, not just different. As in bearing with for example strange obnoxious religious practices or people with opinions one finds objectionable, as in case of the two imagined positions in the introduction.
Intolerance would then mean not willing to accept ideas or ways of behaving that one considers not only different but wrong or bad.
But there is more to tolerance. It may also mean bodily tolerance to something: “the ability to suffer something, especially pain, difficult conditions, etc. without being harmed. Perhaps even tolerance to compulsive training sessions forced upon you.
An example of intolerance in this sense might be unpleasant physical reaction to certain foods.
Tolerance may also be an engineering concept. Representing “the amount by which the measurement of a value can vary without causing problems.” For instance, when assembling complicated things like a car or a computer. Without regard to precise tolerances the whole would not function. From a German definition “In a narrower sense, tolerance is the deviation of a variable from the standard condition or standard dimension that just does not endanger the function of a system. "
These are all general dictionary definitions. What we want to see is the shifting views and concepts of societal tolerance and what that means for its use today in relation to the diversity connected to identity politics. The focus is on tolerance in society not individual person-to-person tolerance or intolerance, although of course there is a connection.

Tolerance – from a position of power
This is about a dominant and powerful social position allowing deviant beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to exist alongside the dominant position without actually regarding them something one has to respect or recognise – as long as the dominant power is not questioned.
Historically this would seem to be the position we find in John Locke’s “Letter concerning Toleration.” Locke’s concern is religious toleration and relation between religion and the magistrate (government.)
According to Locke “the magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects. If a Roman Catholic believe that to be really the body of Christ which another man calls bread, he does no injury thereby to his neighbour.” …The power of the magistrate and the estates of the people may be equally secure whether any man believe these things or no. I readily grant that these opinions are false and absurd. But the business of laws is not to provide for the truth of opinions, but for the safety and security of the commonwealth and of every particular man's goods and person.”
The magistrate or government possesses the power to uphold “safety and security of the commonwealth” or what we may call the social peace. Power may tolerate religious views and practices as long they do not threaten social peace. On the other hand: “no opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society, are to be tolerated by the magistrate.”
Neither is the magistrate to tolerate religions “which deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government.” Thus, the magistrate, representing the power should not tolerate religious groups looking to a foreign power for protection and service.
Locke also argues that even atheists should not be tolerated by the magistrate as the taking away of God would dissolve the bonds of human society. Sounds strange today, but Locke may regard religion as a necessary condition for a moral foundation of society, part what we shall later see as the necessary social grammar.
“As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.”

Tolerance as embracing equality in diversity
Meaning a view arguing that a society must recognise and accept diversity, not just tolerate it from a position of power, but accepting diverse opinions, behaviours and persons as being equal, i.e. having the same status.
The view of tolerance from a position of dominance, bearing with views, behaviours and persons that the dominant views find are wrong, obnoxious or bad, could be seen as insulting to those who are just tolerated. Goethe: “Tolerance should really only be a temporary attitude; it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to insult.” Instead, he argues “Die wahre Liberalität ist Anerkennung.”
John Stuart Mill provides better arguments for recognising and accepting diversity. He argues “that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Toleration of different opinions and of free speech is important to Mill for these reasons:
“Toleration towards opinions is justified by the utilitarian consideration that not just true, but also false opinions lead to productive social learning. In arguments for "free speech" i "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion":
"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
Fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience." (“On Liberty of Thought and Discussion”)
Mill’s understanding of toleration marks a view of toleration fitting liberalism, but he still talks of different views having to be tolerated in an almost Lockean sense. This does not seem to be enough for some of the modern views on toleration.

UNESCO on meaning of toleration
The Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (UNESCO 1995) declare the meaning of tolerance to be “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. [Emphasis added]. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.”
Tolerance is here no longer seen from the viewpoint of a dominant power bearing with the limited amount of diversity in a society. It no longer represents concession, condescension or indulgence. It is active attitude appreciating “the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.”
Toleration no longer means to bear or endure people and opinions that one finds objectionable, wrong or bad. Now, one actively has to see and embrace different people and views as equal to oneself and to one’s views.
There something strange about this all-encompassing tolerance. Does it really represent tolerance, when instead of enduring something different one actively embraces the difference? Surely this no longer represents tolerance. It is no longer the idea of bearing with something you may not like. Now one has to disregard own’s existing community, ignore one’s own invisible social, ethical and cultural foundations in order to actively embrace “the rich diversity of our worlds cultures”?
How would one make judgements of good or bad, right or wrong, when embracing the rich diversity in which “'all individuals and groups have the right to be different.”? Or is there after all a limit to this view of tolerance as mutual acceptance of diversity.
A similar critique is found in Frank Furedi. He argues:
“The reinterpretation of tolerance as non-judgmentalism is often seen as a positive thing. In truth, the gesture of affirmation and acceptance can be seen as a way of avoiding making difficult moral choices, and a way of disengaging from the challenge of explaining which values are worth upholding. That is probably why the indulgent indifference of multiculturalism has gained so much traction in recent decades: in Britain and many other European societies, multiculturalism has spared governments the hassle of having to spell out the principles underpinning their way of life.” (Frank Furedi).
Well, perhaps the UNESCO declaration after all also realises that there is problem, when it states that tolerance is a responsibility. “The responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.”
Two problems here. Tolerance as a responsibility, how can one define tolerance as responsibility? Responsibility represents a duty “to deal with something or of having control over someone.” This, surely is not toleration.
And what about upholding say cultural pluralism, insisting upon what is after all a Western conception of democracy and human rights. Could it be that an unspoken Western view of tolerance as a dominant view bearing with diversity within certain limits imperceptibly sneaks in through the back door?

The rise of intolerant diversity
With rise of identity politics, Locke’s idea of toleration as representing dominant power enduring minority views that it may find objectionable, wrong or bad, is increasingly being turned its head by identity politics.
Identity politics representing “Political positions and activism based on an aspect of identity (e.g. ethnicity, religion, sex, or sexual orientation) shared by a group which feels that its concerns are not adequately represented.” (oxfordreference.com).
Very diverse minorities or identities intolerant of majority views are demanding or forcing the majority to tolerate, or at least show a kind of fake tolerance or indifference, towards the views, behaviours, demands, activities and people belonging to these minorities.

BLM crusade against “white supremacy”
Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) seem to be engaged in a crusade against what they see as systemic racism perpetuated by a white supremacist majority. There have been protests over much of the Western World under banners like “Black lives matter” with cardboard signs saying “I can’t breathe”, “No justice, No peace”, “Silence is violence,” “Don’t shoot,” “Stop killing us,” “Defund police” etc.
While some protests were peaceful, others were marked by violence, vandalism, looting and even death and injury, and the violence of course made it to breaking news media, taking up much of the news and becoming an inspiration for even more violence and general mayhem.
BLM protests spread all over the Western World and led to maniacal attempts, not the least among enthusiastic young white people, to find and fight against what they saw as evidence of racism and white supremacy everywhere in society.
The fight against racism taking many often rather bizarre forms. Not just in the shape ever so popular, but rather meaningless and inconsequential actions of “taking a knee,” but in the tumultuous tumbling of historical symbols seen as connected to racism.
Certainly, disturbing the social peace in society, but how does majority and the power representing the majority react to the disturbance. In general, intolerant reactions have been rather timid and limited except in instances like the serious clashes in Charlottesville in the US.
Instead, we are generally seeing a White majority acting overly tolerant and understanding. As if acknowledging the existence of hitherto hidden systemic and intolerant racism and a shameful White supremacy. Recognising that White Western societies harbour an inherent intolerant systemic racism and a sense of White supremacy. Promoting symbols and actions to demonstrate tolerance, diversity and equality. From the ridiculous attempt to fight racism with coloured stamps, Coca Cola’s “try to be less white” hints, to an expanding stream of diversity, inclusiveness and equality programs in businesses and organisations, like the UK Parliament’s “Value everyone” training of its members, to CRT curriculums making children feeling bad about being White, to critical university studies in “whiteness,” to the demands for preferential treatment, read less stringent demand on Blacks, not the least in university programs, and all the way to some cases of giving in “Defund police!” demands.
An example. A townhall at Harvard University’s Department of Mathematics brought up this demand for non-racist mathematics:
“Identify and push back against ways in which a discriminatory evaluation of mathematical ability is created and reinforced. Work toward building a community predicated on the recognition that mathematics harbors a diverse ecosystem of experiences and interests, all of which ae valuable.” One wonders if this actually means that students from certain minorities should be assessed and graded according different standards than the rest. A demand already found at Georgetown University’s Law School. See “Forced to resign for voicing an inconvenient truth”
In a sense we see that a forceful and intolerant ethnic minority supported by White followers are persuading and forcing a White majority to become more tolerant towards a Black ethnic minority and at the same time overly intolerant towards their own history.
What does all this mean for society? Will it promote a sense of community or led to separatism, promote equal opportunity for all, force a kind a kind of equity, result in less racism or lead to reverse racism and animosity among people?
Seeing racism everywhere may be counterproductive
The old, rather peripheral legal movement around Critical Race Theory (CRT) has suddenly gained interest in the fight against racism. Being used to support ever more bizarre ideas of a harmful inherent systemic racism and of white supremacy.
CRT sees racism as ‘embedded in the structure of society’ and having a material foundation. It purports to build a scientific foundation for understanding and combatting racism.
White supremacy being understood as “a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”
Such postulatory, but forcefully propagated ideas are beginning to affect the whole of society as the above examples indicate, but one wonders about consequences for the minorities seen as subject to racism, for so-called white supremacy and for society as a whole.
The ideas have resulted in a bizarre outgrowth of demands to teach CRT in schools, not the least in the U.S. and to plethora of whiteness- and white supremacist studies. To attempts by organizations and businesses to conform in strange ways to such ideas, enlisting the help of an anti-racism consulting industry.

The 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade for gender diversity
“Human Rights Watch works for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peoples' rights, and with activists representing a multiplicity of identities and issues. We document and expose abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity worldwide, including torture, killing and executions, arrests under unjust laws, unequal treatment, censorship, medical abuses, discrimination in health and jobs and housing, domestic violence, abuses against children, and denial of family rights and recognition. We advocate for laws and policies that will protect everyone’s dignity. We work for a world where all people can enjoy their rights fully.”
At first the fight was against intolerance and suppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender or so-called LGBT rights, but this is now too limited. Now, more letters have to added to the fight. Today it is a fight for LGBTQIA+ (Q for queer, I for intersex, A for Asexual, and the + for further diversity like gender nonconforming, nonbinary genderfluid etc). Not enough for Prime Minister Trudeau. When posting he talked about “Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.” Adding 2S for two spirited indigenous people and an extra Q for questioning people. Thus, adding more diversity.
Paraphrasing the UNESCO definition of tolerance, the fight for 2SLGBTQQIA+ people may be seen as a fight for respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's genders, their forms of expression and ways of being human against the historical intolerance and suppression shown by the majority.
A progressive fight for more tolerance of human diversity according to the UNESCO definition.
The fight has led to growing tolerance towards the “rich diversity of our world's genders” in many Western countries, but met with intolerance and opposition elsewhere.
In the US “The House” passed the Equality Act in February 2021, but it has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.
“This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.” Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.
“The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.
The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”

A rainbow regime going too far?
Has the success of the fight for the rich diversity of the world's genders under the colours of rainbow flag gone too far?
Persuading or forcing society to embrace the idea that gender self-identification trumps biological sex identity may endanger the rights of women and the well-being of children.
Women have argued that new proposals to allow "self-identification" of one's gender "threatens the legal status of the category "sex, which provides the legal basis for the exclusion of males from female-only spaces for the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Sex, which refers to the category each person belongs to on the basis of their reproductive organs, is a protected characteristic because sexism is directed at women because of their reproductive sex, not because of their "gender identity."
The protesting women therefore argue that watering down the definition of a woman in the sense of "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes " will in practice mean that women are exposed to new risks from men who self-identify as women, thereby gaining access to places that have been reserved for women.
Not without reason. Evidently in both the UK and Canada there are examples of rapists self-identifying as women being incarcerated in women's prisons where they have continued the assaults. ""A rapist and pedophile who was transferred to a women's prison after claiming to be female and assaulted four inmates there made no more effort to be a woman than wearing wigs and dresses." (The Times).
Allowing self-declared gender identification to trump biological sex identity is also seen to endanger women’s sports.
The International Olympic Committee transgender guidelines state: “Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under a set of conditions, among which is found the following: The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female.” These guidelines allowed the transgender weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, to compete in the women’s weightlifting contest at the Tokyo Olympics.
LGBTQIA+ supported by self-proclaimed progressives see these rules as proving the power of inclusion. Some biological women and men argue that this may at the very least confer a very unfair advantage on transwomen, thus being unfair towards biological women in women’s sports. A view supported by science “The British Journal of Sports Medicine found that even after a year of hormone therapy, transwomen on average had an advantage over cisgender, or non-transgender, women.”
The movement to accept transgender girls in sports, has led to conflicts in the US. When President Biden came into office, he wasted no time in catering to the progressives. Rescinding Trump’s efforts to the contrary. In an executive order to combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity he states: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. “
An order giving rise to protests, with states hurrying to forbid transwomen and girls to participate in girl’s and women’s sports.
Idaho was first to ban transwomen and girls from women’s sports leagues in schools and colleges, although the law is now suspended as a result of a court challenge the trend continues. At least 30 other state legislatures have proposed similar bans.
Indicating an ongoing conflict between LGBTQIA+ activist groups and their supporters and Women’s organisations, who are supported by conservative parties and religious groups.
Conflict is also found in relation to “Bathroom” bills, which allow transgender people to use bathrooms according to their self-identified gender.
Another conflict may be brewing. Recently there has been a wave of proposals and rules to allow children to self-define their gender.
Radical gender views may endanger children. In Norway it has for instance since 2016 been possible for the 16-year-olds to self-define their gender and apply for legal recognition, while children between the age of 6 and 16 can do so with parental consent.
In Denmark the organisation “Sex og Samfund” has argued “that children quite early in life - and here we are also talking all the way down to the age of 4-6 - can express a desire that they are transgender or do not want to live as the gender they have had assigned at birth.”
A consultant clinical psychologist at the GIDS clinic in London warns ““If a school just gets a whisper of a child who may be querying their gender and within minutes they are doing everything to make sure that child is regarded as a member of the opposite sex right from the word go — that may not be the best for that child.”
In Germany “Doctors and psychologists are registering more cases of children and adolescents who feel strange in their bodies and want to change the gender of their birth. The number of treatments in the Munich University Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry alone has quintupled since 2013; The special outpatient clinics in Hamburg, Berlin and Frankfurt recorded similar rates of increase.” (Die Zeit).
Apparently the current Hungarian government thinks promoting gender self-identification has gone too far. The Fidesz party this summer submitted a additions to an Anti-Pedophilia bill. Among these were: “No content featuring portrayals of homosexuality or sex reassignment can be made available to minors” and “School sex educators can no longer “promote” homosexuality or sex reassignment.”
Cries of homophobia protest greeted the proposals.
Perhaps society has become too tolerant in its respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's genders or maybe and the majority has become too indifferent, while the diverse LGBTQIA+ genders united under some version of the rainbow flag and goaded on by supporters on the left of the political spectrum are becoming more and more intolerant of other opinions, intimidating opposing opinions with accusations of transphobism.
While rules against hate speech threaten vocal opponents of accepting the more bizarre consequences of accepting “the rich diversity …”
Small minorities, allied with self-proclaimed progressives, are forcing their views upon society, and woe betide those who dare to question their views. The identity movement act with the religious zealousness of a new religion.
“A religion is first preached by a single person or a small body of persons. A certain number of disciples adopt it enthusiastically, and proceed to force their views upon the world by preaching, by persuasion, by the force of sympathy, until the new creed has become sufficiently influential and sufficiently well organised to exercise power both over its own members and beyond its own sphere. This power, in the case of a vigorous creed, assumes many forms” (James Fitzjames Stephen, 1873).
In the present case we just have to refer back to our illustrations and discussions to see how minorities seeing themselves as the progressive elite force their ideology upon what they see as a boorish backward looking, lukewarm and disorganised majority.
Shining example of democracy in action or a sign that existing societies are disintegrating? Split in all sorts of special interests and identity groups in a hastily expanding periphery, with
a clueless and powerless middle left behind?

Radical Islamism challenging Western tolerance
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” declares:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The European Declaration of Human Rights on the freedom thought, conscience, and religion also adds:
“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Sounds a lot like a modern version of Lockean toleration. “The magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching or professing of any speculative opinions in any Church because they have no manner of relation to the civil rights of the subjects.” Unless it threatens “safety and security of the commonwealth” or what we may the call social peace.
The problem with a radical Islam is that it encroaches upon the “civil rights” and it certainly threatens “the safety and security of the commonwealth.”
Thus, the question is: Is it possible for devout Muslims to wholeheartedly support the political and ideals and values of a Western society, when these ideals and values are in stark contradiction to their faith? The answer seems to be that there is no wholehearted support. On the contrary, there seems to be a reinforced tendency to assert one's own religiously based values, ideologies and its outward manifestations.
"For many of them [Muslim] the confrontation with Western norms and life styles and the ensuing experience of the contingency of one’s own beliefs and ways of life is deeply disturbing. In addition, many Islamic societies not only remain unaffected by Western modernization, but rather reject it explicitly, and draw the justification for this attitude from their religious beliefs." (Grimm)
Even the liberal type of Western toleration will not be able to accommodate a radical Islamism without either up giving up substantial and perhaps fundamental parts of the existing social and cultural baggage – or accepting the possibility of more or less violent clashes disturbing the social peace. Toleration in this sense cannot preserve the peace, without destroying its own foundation, as we shall see.

Mocking Islam on pain of death
On Friday 16 October, 2020 the French teacher, Samuel Paty, was attacked and beheaded by a knife wielding 18-yearold Chechen, Abdullakh Anzorov, who apparently posted a photo of the severed head on Twitter with message saying that the execution was the punishment for belittling the Prophet, before being shot and killed by police.
Samuel Paty had been receiving complaints and threats since he had showed some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a class about the freedom of speech. According to some sources, Paty had showed two cartoons to his students, one of which purporting to portray Muhammad naked with genitals exposed, although accounts differ on precisely what was presented.
The attacker did not know Samuel Paty, but was apparently goaded into doing something to avenge the Prophet by a Muslim parent of one of Paty’s students and by a video published by a local mosque complaining loudly about the teacher.
After Macron later had paid tribute to Samuel Paty, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan took to Twitter accusing Macron of encouraging blasphemous cartoons.
“Sadly, President Macron has chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, including his own citizens, through encouraging the display of blasphemous cartoons targeting Islam & our Prophet PBUH,” (reuters.com).

Muslim voices: Western secularism is the problem
Macron’s attempt in the to strengthen secularism and consolidate republican principle, has been criticised by Muslim as stigmatizing French Muslims. A very strict concept of laïcité will drive a wedge between France and its large Muslim population and lead to an Us against Them view of Muslims in France.
One hundred prominent Muslims also published a letter criticising Macron:” “Stop stigmatising Muslim women, whether they wear a headscarf or not, whose clothing choices have become a subject of national debate,” they said. “Stop the escalation of empty political and media debates. Stop the indictment of any speaker, Muslim or not, who does not subscribe to the racist speeches that have become omnipresent on our screens.” (Al Jazeera).
Even Western media have published similar views. An article in the New Times argues after the terror attacks that Muslims wonder about their place in France: “Central to France’s convoluted relationship with its Muslim citizens is the authorities’ vow to defend those who publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as part of its strict laws on secularism that allow blasphemy. But many Muslims, from shoppers at the open-air market of Ivry-sur-Seine to the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, have stated their unease with the cartoons, arguing that there should be limits to offense when it comes to religious beliefs.”

No, a complacent and indifferent tolerance is at fault
To Macron France has created its own breeding ground for radicalization by the allowing people to concentrate according to their origins and social background. France’s retreat from these neighbourhoods and the inadequacies of the integration policy, has allowed bearers of radical Islam to gain influence in the ghettos.
“Let us approach it and name it, this radical Islamism, since it is the heart of the subject, … a methodical organization to contravene the laws of the Republic and create a parallel order, to erect other values, develop another organization of society, separatist at first, but whose final goal is to take control, complete it. And this is what makes us gradually come to reject freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the right to blasphemy.”
Macron insists “What we need to tackle is Islamist separatism. It is a conscious, theorized, politico-religious project, which materializes through repeated deviations from the values of the Republic, which often results in the constitution of a counter-society.”
There is certainly evidence of self-segregation of Muslims. A survey by Institut Montaigne indicates that the French Muslim population can divided into three groups according to their views:
The silent majority of Muslims is making up 46% of respondents. “Their belief system allow them to adapt to French society.
The conservatives. They make up 25% of the sample and are at the heart of the political and ideological struggle.
The authoritarians make up the last group, 28% of the total sample. They are mostly young, low-skilled and facing high unemployment. They live in the working-class suburbs of large cities. This group is no longer defined by conservatism, but by its appropriation of Islam as a mode of rebellion against the rest of French society.
Social disintegration can also be observed in the UK: "British society is increasingly dividing along ethnic lines – with segregation in schools, neighbourhoods and workplaces – that risks
fuelling prejudice."
There is segregation in residential areas, segregation in the workplace, and there is segregation in schools. It promotes "prejudice, intolerance, mistrust in communities."
Although these are ethnic divides, it must be assumed that the dividing line is very much a dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What we see is Muslim self-segregation, with Muslim communities turning away from the society in which they live, referring to their religion’s " comprehensive doctrines " which, of course, are often contrary to Western values.
According to a 2015 poll by Survation for the BBC, they hold what one respected Muslim commentator called 'disconcerting' attitudes. A third of UK Muslims would like their children educated separately from non-Muslims. A quarter disagreed with the statement that 'acts of violence against anyone publishing images of the Prophet could never be justified'; and a quarter were sympathetic to the 'motives' of the Charlie Hebdo killers."
A report titled "Social inclusion: A wake up call" from "The Integration Commission" in the UK warns against the consequences of segregation or "a fractured society." But the seeds of such a development have already been laid.

When tolerance endangers itself
Have tolerance in the majority of Western societies gone too far? Contributing instead to the opposite: Intolerance, division and exclusion?
In his “The Open Society and Its Enemies” Karl Popper warns that “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists. (K.R. Popper).
In three cases discussed in this essay it necessary to ask: Where is the limit to tolerance in Western society in relation to the BLM crusade against White supremacy, the 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade for gender diversity and a Radical Islamism challenging Western tolerance? Do these groups meet the rest of society on the level of rational argument or do they denounce rational argument? Adhering instead to un-substantiated claims, pure expressions of ideology or appeals to the radical commands of religion?

From our discussion we see a whole array of challenges to Western societies.

Rational arguments are missing
The crusade against White supremacy may have roots in historical racism, but where are the rational arguments in the claims of CRT seeing Western society as “a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.”
We even find plain silliness as in the demands to defund the police.
The 2SLGBTQQIA+ crusade claims that feelings trump biology, that sexual identity of human beings is not determined by nature and biological fact, that gender can be chosen and changed freely according instincts and feelings. Rational arguments? Hardly.
In the view of Radical Islam, religious commands must also dominate the political sphere of Locke’s magistrate. As the commands are God given, there is absolutely no basis for rational deliberation.

Violent protest and intimidation
The BLM movement has been accompanied by violent protest, especially of course in the US.
The Rainbow movement has also been accompanied by protests, albeit less violent often taking the form of colourful in your face provocations.
While the Islamists to large degree would seem to get implicit support for their claims from singular instances of terrorism in the name of Islamism

Forcing their views upon rest of society
All three identity groupings show a glowing intolerance to any other views found in the rest of society, instead they demand almost unlimited tolerance for their demands from the rest of society.
Neither of the identity groupings seems to want to integrate into society. Instead, they want the rest of society to accommodate to their demands.
For instance, by cancelling existing versions of history. Insisting as a Black university professor recently did: “… critical race theory is just the proper teaching of American history.” Black movements also demand to be judged according to other criteria than the rest. For instance, with demands for different grading criteria and for non-racial science (like non-racist mathematics. Whatever that is?
The LGBT+++ demands include as we have seen that even very young children should be able to choose their gender freely based upon personal whims, and transwomen be seen and treated as if they were real women. The rainbow flag in its various designs is supposed to signify tolerance: “It symbolises tolerance, respect and acceptance in many cultures and is an expression of hope everywhere.” (FC Bayern). But certainly not for those who express a different opinion.
While radical Islam is seeking to force society to adapt to their religious whims and religious traditions, like Sharia law, or recent demands for acceptance of muezzin calls to prayer in Western cities.
Probably from the best of intentions we have been complacent and tacitly accepted that basic Western notions and values, large and small have been worn down and become frayed and fuzzy at the edges

Toleration as submission tolerance as suffering or indifference
What we are seeing is the diffuse and un-organised majority of people in Western societies no longer seem to show toleration from a position of power, but either submit to the intolerant claims of identity politics, meaning that tolerance become the “ability to suffer.” Or react with indifference to the views and demands of forceful minorities like BLM, CRT, 2SLGBTQQIA+ and radical versions of Islam. Helped by left leaning main media castigating those won’t submit to the demands of identity politics.
If you feel that your opinion does not count or people don’t like you no longer count, powerless indifference instead of tolerance certainly may be a possibility.

Separation and division
Identity politics see a value in in multicultural diversity, but the multicultural diversity results self-segregation that threatens social coherence.
From what we have seen the fight against racism may lead a heightened intolerance between ethnic minorities and the rest of society. Increasingly it looks as if the Blacks are demanding a position aside from the rest of society. The demand for equality for Blacks in majority White society no longer seems enough. Now, the demand is for a Black culture separate from a White culture, as indicated perhaps by the criticism of Whites appropriating symbols of Black culture. Not exactly something that would preserve the social peace. In fact, it might lead to more divisiveness and conflict in society.
The LBGT+++ gender movement may have begun as a movement to give voice and rights to a minority forced to live in the shadows, is now succeeding in impressing theirs views on the whole of society. The success of garish rainbow warriors and self-proclaimed progressives supported by left leaning media may be threatening the lives of youngsters, erasing the category of biological women, making mockery of women’s sports, and change language into a kind of Newspeak, ignoring the legitimate concerns of a majority.
A large section of Muslims seems to strive to create self-segregating “nations within nations” in the West with their demands for: Anti-blasphemy laws. maintenance of a patriarchal order, acceptance of Sharia, ritual slaughter and circumcision, maintenance of gender inequality, right to discriminate, for example by not shaking hands with women, and for religious dress codes to be accepted.

Diversity threatening social coherence
Tolerance as an engineering concept represent “the deviation of a variable from the standard condition or standard dimension that just does not endanger the function of a system.”
This may not only be true for engineering, it may also true for the society. Perhaps we may state it like this: Tolerance represents the amount of diversity that may exist without causing the destruction of coherence in a society.
What does this mean for our understanding of tolerance? It means that tolerance in reality must be limited to views, behaviours and actions that are not incompatible with this tacit social and cultural grammar as it exists at a given time in a given society. In our view it also means that tolerance can only be tolerance showed by the power of a majority resting upon and limited by this grammar.
This would mean that tolerance as defined by the UNESCO Declaration as “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human” and as “harmony in difference,” would be nonsense. The UNESCO declaration also speak of “Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.” No, it does not. Tolerance is not harmony in difference, and tolerance it not about replacement of culture.
Tolerance as seeing diverse views and behaviours, “the rich diversity” as being equal and able to be housed in the same society, will prove to impossible. Resulting in submission of an existing social grammar or outright conflict, which certainly does not represent tolerance.
A British report on citizenship has argued that efforts must be made to find or restore "a sense of common citizenship, including a national identity that is secure enough to find a place for the plurality of nations, cultures, ethnicities and religions long found in the United Kingdom.” (Crick Report).
Today an attempt to create to coherence through acceptance of diversity might be seen as an attempt to square the circle. It may prove impossible to squeeze the diversity we have seen into a shared coherent social form.
But what is this form be and how malleable is it? Locke talked of “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” but what are they and how do they come about?
Our answer is that it must represent a kind social and cultural grammar necessary for the preservation of civil society. We call it a grammar, arguing that it has meaning to talk about an analogy between a linguistic and a social grammar. “We learn and teach words in certain contexts, and then we are expected, and expect others, to be able to project them into further contexts” and in an extended sense this would also be what we are doing using a social and cultural grammar.
The origin of the social and cultural grammar? Is to be found in the evolution of man and community. Large parts of our grammar may consist of remnants of values that has evolved during the evolution of communities that we have either no evidence of or only very circumstantial evidence of.
The deepest and most durable elements of our grammar may very well be a result of this evolution, all of it. Some of our fundamental notions and feelings about morality and culture will have origins hidden so deep in our evolution that we can only transmit them from generation to generation as habits and inclinations we are not even aware of, and if we are, then we cannot give any explanation for them. We may of course guess as to their possible purpose and function, but in fact it is difficult to explain why we should have certain moral and cultural dispositions. Might we not be fairly confident in assuming that, although many other configurations might have been possible, the configuration found in a given community is consistent and important for upholding this community to a degree that we may only begin to comprehend. It is not arbitrary, there is a “reason” but we may never be able to comprehend it wholly. The “reason” has been produced and reproduced during man’s evolution, transmitted from generation to generation, leaving an echo in somatic markers, deeply held convictions and in cultural habits.
Maybe this was the role Locke found in religion
But this reason is not transcendental, is not given a priori, it does not represent a decree from God. It is located on the Earth, in man. Like God and the transcendental this reason has been produced by man, but we can have no recollection of the process, we may only carry the faint imprint in our feelings and reactions. This does mean that this reason is innate, it may be imprinted in other ways, and if it is hardwired in any sense, it might be in the neural network of our brain. This reason acts as like the field of an invisible magnet orientating us into patterns or grooves that we cannot comprehend, but have to follow.
These patterns, grooves or imprints are ineffable and tacit, in same way that a part of our knowledge is. We only experience the feelings, not the reasons, not the explanations. These imprints may be so much part of what it means to belong to a community or Gesellschaft, that we cannot really think about them or question them, they make themselves felt in the way they influence our thoughts. The elements of the grammar we become aware of may likewise be regarded as almost “natural” intuitions. Natural in the sense that we expect them to be shared by other human beings in a community.
We assume that we may be able to learn an infinite number of social and cultural grammars, but the one we learn is the one characterising our community. In this way the grammar come to be shared among the members of a community. Like the linguistic grammar it is neither freely chosen nor arbitrary, but the result is that “human thoughts … running along pre-ordained grooves.”
It is in these “natural” imprints we locate the roots of those intuitions when attempting to anchor “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.”
The “natural imprints are not absolutely rigid. They evolve and change over time imperceptibly or manifestly as a result of conflicts.

Merkel again giving in to blackmail on behalf of the EU?

Limits of tolerance in a society

Author

Archives