Picking and choosing
But David Edgar sees things differently. He sees them strangely, too.
For most of the past 30 years, being in favour of free speech meant being in favour of good things (notably honesty about sexuality) and against denial and repression…Now we are having to defend things we disapprove of, such as the glorification of terrorism or, indeed, calls for censorship. The conundrum that one of the things liberals have to tolerate is intolerance hasn’t needed to be at the forefront of debates on free expression before. It is now, and it should be.
‘One of the things liberals have to tolerate is intolerance.’ No it isn’t. I don’t subscribe to any principle that requires me to tolerate intolerance or to defend things I disapprove of; one of the principles I subscribe to is that things should always be judged on their merits. I think free speech is a good but I don’t think it’s the only good and I don’t think it should always trump other principles; I think it depends. I think free action is a good too, for that matter, but that doesn’t commit me to defending all actions; it depends.
Yes, it is bad for wives to have to obey husbands, or for parents to renounce gay children, but such attitudes were common among this continent’s indigenous peoples until relatively recently – and people coming to live in Europe should not be asked to disavow them as a condition of entry, any more than they should be forced to express opinions on any other matter.
Ah, but that’s not the issue – you’ve given yourself too easy a case there. What about ‘people – men, perhaps? – coming to live in Europe’ who beat their wives or daughters, who take their daughters out of school, who coerce them into marrying someone they don’t want to marry? Or who beat up their gay children rather than merely renouncing them? That’s the issue – not disavowals in airports, but actions.
The title of that bit of wisdom is ‘Sorry, but we can’t just pick and choose what to tolerate’ – which is quite laughable, in a depressing way. Yes we can. That’s exactly what we can do, and have to do, and do in fact do, all the time. We tolerate some things and not others, some actions and not others. Think again, David Edgar.
I have a slightly different take but agree on the conclusion.
Liberals don’t have to tolerate actions which, though voluntary and individually harmless, perpetuate practices that are socially harmful and impose burdens on others. What’s offensive about the veil isn’t that it symbolizes the subjugation of women but that it symbolizes ethnic separateness and impedes assimilation. The presence of veiled women reinforces the notion that Muslims represent a unassimilable cultural group and sets back the interests of individuals who, because of visible racial characteristics, will be marked as members of the group rather than English people who happen to have brown skin. It contributes to making race more salient.
And, yes, I do think it might be a good idea to make it compulsory to speak English in public (in English-speaking countries) and to be proactive about breaking up ethnic neighborhoods. Again, these manifestations of ethnicity and cultural cohesion set back the interests of individuals who want to assimilate, and the interests of their children and children’s children unto the nth generation who have no connection whatsoever to the ancestral culture but will be associated with it in perpetuity because of the color of their skin.
And as the Manic Street Preachers so presciently remind us, if you tolerate this, then your children will be next.
Liberals don’t have to tolerate actions which, though voluntary and individually harmless, perpetuate practices that are socially harmful and impose burdens on others.
Couldn’t this argument be used equally by the most obnoxious conservative? Once you introduce a concept such as ‘socially harmful’ you’re treading on very treacherous ground.
Ophelia
more sense in an increasingly sensless world. Have you read “The War for Childrens Minds” says something similar to what you’re saying here. Being Liberal does not mean being relativistic or tolerating everything.
You note
“‘Sorry, but we can’t just pick and choose what to tolerate’ – which is quite laughable, in a depressing way. Yes we can. That’s exactly what we can do, and have to do, and do in fact do, all the time. We tolerate some things and not others, some actions and not others” is spot on.
We use our reason to establish that certain things are objectively wrong and refuse to tolerate those things. Isn’t that what growing up is about.
Dermot
p.s. picked up a copy of “Why Truth Matters” and its next on my reading list
“Now we are having to defend things we disapprove of, such as the glorification of terrorism…”
I think this goes back to something that came up here a few months ago, relating to what “tolerate” actually means. Nobody “has to” defend things they disapprove of (otherwise OB would have to stand on a soapbox all day long singing the praises of organised religion). What is wrong with saying “the law permits so-and-so to express himself in such a way as to glorify terrorism, but I disagree with those views utterly, disapprove of them being expressed and consider their expression dangerous and irresponsible”? As long as you’re not forbidding something, you’re still tolerating it and this actually-not-so-fine distinction seems to escape too many people. Or, it doesn’t escape them and they’re deliberately trying to inflame passions against expressions of disapproval as if they were already an actual measure against something.
Edgar’s starting with a false premise.
“Now we are having to defend things we disapprove of, such as the glorification of terrorism or, indeed, calls for censorship.”
No we aren’t. Most people miss this point then end up in a circular argument. So tedious and irritating, because I actually think he and the eds know he’s doing it too. Join the fray indeed.
Well, isn’t he equating defending the principle of free speech with defending all the negative things for which free speech can be used? That’s just silly, whether he’s doing it on purpose or actually can’t tell the difference.
But it does make one ask oneself what editors or sub-editors get paid for if something like that gets through.
I’m with Stewart on this one. There is a difference between opposing something, disapproving of it and voicing one’s disgust on one hand and intolerance on the other. One can disapprove of someone being a Tory but still tolerate their political views.
I intensely disapprove of the niqab but tolerate its existence.
I would however approve of measures taken to ensure that the social harm which is caused by the niqab or the social harm of which the niqab is a symptom is minimised.
Dave: Talking about Franco presciently? Good song though all the same! :)
I’m largely in favour of Edgar’s viewpoint; however, I think his definition of intolerance is too mild. He takes intolerance to mean merely those who don’t have an easy-going acceptance of other people’s lifestyles. He’s wrong to say we should tolerate intolerance, because the intolerant won’t let us. A muslim who believes all infidels are going to hell, but who lets them go about their lives on Earth is being tolerant. A suicide bomber is intolerant, because he or she won’t allow non-muslims the freedom to live and be different.
I’m not bothered about veil wearing, so long as it’s a free choice. If people want to assert their cultural difference from me then let them, so long as it doesn’t stop me making a living and expressing my own difference. Any assertion of identity is an assertion of difference, so it’s unavoidable.
One is, by default, tolerating even those things against which one is actively campaigning, provided one isn’t causing them to become illegal or physically taking the law into one’s own hands to prevent them. Inciting others to do so probably also falls outside the definition, but surely everything short of those things doesn’t. Muslims protesting the Motoons is still tolerant (why shouldn’t they have a right to protest, just as we then have the right to disagree with their opinion?), but to commit violent acts or carry banners inciting to violence is on the other side of that line. A law can be intolerant of certain things (most countries have one that is “intolerant” of murder) and individuals can have “intolerant” opinions, but it seems to me that some kind of coercion or incitement exceeding anything legally specified is necessary before one can be accused of “not tolerating” something.
“I’m not bothered about veil wearing, so long as it’s a free choice.”
Defining that is where things get complex. One can “choose” to wear a veil just because one wants, or the “choice” can also be between wearing one and the fear of something unpleasant or even life-threatening. Or even something as apparently innocuous as not being “part of the crowd.” At least part of the reason some women born to Muslim parents wear veils etc. is the same as the reason lots of teenagers wear jeans or get tattoos or piercings. Sheer peer pressure. It does, however, seem a lot likelier that some degree of parental encouragement, if not pressure, is present in the case of veils than in the cases of jeans, tattoos and piercings.
Supposing it were the custom among the men in a part of society to brand their initials on their wives’ foreheads and suppose an unconnected craze for branding letters on their foreheads caught on among women who didn’t belong to that part of society. And then suppose you wanted to stamp out forced branding…
H E Baber – “What’s offensive about the veil isn’t that it symbolizes the subjugation of women but that it symbolizes ethnic separateness and impedes assimilation.”
You cannot separate the two. It is only women who are being separated and impeded, as they are the ones who wear the veil. And why is the subjugation of women less offensive than ethnic separateness?
Stewart wrote:
Defining that is where things get complex. One can “choose” to wear a veil just because one wants, or the “choice” can also be between wearing one and the fear of something unpleasant or even life-threatening. Or even something as apparently innocuous as not being “part of the crowd.” At least part of the reason some women born to Muslim parents wear veils etc. is the same as the reason lots of teenagers wear jeans or get tattoos or piercings. Sheer peer pressure. It does, however, seem a lot likelier that some degree of parental encouragement, if not pressure, is present in the case of veils than in the cases of jeans, tattoos and piercings.
Supposing it were the custom among the men in a part of society to brand their initials on their wives’ foreheads and suppose an unconnected craze for branding letters on their foreheads caught on among women who didn’t belong to that part of society. And then suppose you wanted to stamp out forced branding…
You can’t legislate against peer pressure, or the non-violent pressure of families. You could ban veils from schools in the same way that some schools banned things like Pokemon cards because it encourages peer pressure and fighting. I’m against banning veils from schools on pragmatic grounds: people take religion a lot more seriously than Pokemon. They see it as an essential part of their identity. If a compromise can’t be made, then complete separatism could be the result.
If a female is beaten by her parents or husband for refusing to wear a veil, then it has to be dealt with the same way that we deal with other forms of child abuse and domestic violence. That requires victims to come forward and report it.The reluctance of victims to report assaults is a problem for non-muslims as well, and short of the state monitoring our homes by CCTV 24 hours a day to look out for oppression in the home there is no other option. Confidential help lines and women’s refuges can help, and the readiness of the police to help victims, regardless of nonsense about respecting other cultures. Progressive voices from co-religionists, like Yasmin Alibhai Brown, can encourage these women to find more liberating strands in their faith. The abolition of faith schools, leading to the integrated education in which girls and boys are taught as equals can boost the self-confidence of girls, as well as the presence of a wider society in which women have an equal place with men. In short, giving oppressed women the confidence to say, “I don’t have to live like this,” is the best way forward.
Branding is not the same. Veils can be removed, but brands cannot be applied without pain or permanent disfigurement. That’s why I accept veils but not female circumcision. But let’s say we change your hypothetical from a brand to a tattoo, which can be removed and the application of which is regulated. Forced tattooing would be difficult to legislate against, because even if you restricted it to adult women who signed a permission slip for the tattooist, you wouldn’t be able to prove that the women signed it under threat. Abolishing the tattooing of foreheads would only lead to those sort of men demanding tattoos on other parts of their women’s bodies. Only teaching people that wives aren’t cattle would lead to the decline of the practice.
Edgar is a prat.
I’ve already commented on the Grauniad’s web-site…
But, if he is correct, then we must tolerate suttee and thugee as well, mustn’t we?
Oh, but the evil, oppressive, colonial Brits crushed both of those in the 19th Century – oops.
‘… giving oppressed women the confidence to say, “I don’t have to live like this,” is the best way forward.’
I fear too many have no idea such an option exists, even theoretically.
So much for the value of membership in the Royal Society of Literature. The notion that we should “tolerate intolerance” leads to intolerance, so his proposal is self-defeating.
Anyway, “tolerance” is a quasi-legal concept and has little to do with “respect.”
I didn’t say the subjugation of women was less offensive than ethnic separateness but maybe I wasn’t making myself clear. My suggestion was that even if the subjugation of women weren/t involvd–even if were just a matter of strikingly distinctive costume for both men and women it would be offensive and, more importantly, harmful to members of visible minorities whose interest in assimilating is set back by the “cultural affirmation” of others with whom they’re identified.
You are right, Ophelia, that it is already worrying. I’m guilty of complacency in my previous comment. I’ll modify my position to say that it would be more worrying if the state was imposing the veil, because then there would be nowhere in civil society for Muslim women who didn’t want it. The desire to be able to identify fellow believers in the street is harmless enough – I’m always happy when I see a fellow Harry Potter reader on the train ;-) It is a pity that they can only identify them through this cumbersome outfit. Why not a little crescent they could wear on their lapel? As long as it was optional, obviously.
No argument there, Andy: it would be a lot more worrying if the state were imposing the veil! (Or, in a more plausible version, if there were say a very local council ordinance that imposed it.)
I’m not so sure about the fellow believers in the street thing. I tend to think the street should be cosmopolitan, and anonymous. But, still, it is harmless enough, as you say. The little crescent would have the additional huge advantage that it would not be aysmmetrical by gender. It’s noticeable (though apparently not noticeable enough) that men don’t recognize each other as Muslims via their dress – as Catherine Bennett points out, they just dress like generic men.
‘If people can’t be themselves on a public street then where can they be?’
At home!
But all the same I take your point about cosmopolitanism. Seeing burqas (and hijabs) is where my interest in cosmopolitanism screeches to a halt, but the rest of it is part of the mix.