Should we tolerate the intolerant?

The famous ‘paradox of tolerance’ posed by Karl Popper asked whether a society that tolerates the intolerant ultimately undermines itself. But what once seemed a fairly abstract philosophical puzzle has today come to feel practical and consequential.

Exercising toleration has never been easy. Yet because it was seen as a cornerstone of a free society, defenders of liberty resisted calls for censorship or ‘zero tolerance’, whether directed at blasphemers, gays, smokers or climate sceptics. John Stuart Mill argued that the safest and most consistent rule is still to tolerate almost all speech and association, including ideas that are themselves intolerant. But is the ideal that bad ideas are best defeated by better ideas, rather than handing over power to the authorities to suppress ‘intolerance’, naive in today’s politically polarised times?

For example, multiculturalism, identity politics and concerns about extremism are presenting practical challenges to social cohesion and often fuel new debates over the boundaries of toleration. Increasingly, even those generally on the side of supporting freedom call for society to be intolerant of intolerant behaviour and ideas. Arguably, we are seeing inconsistent two-tier approaches to tolerance. Many calling for a clampdown on intolerance themselves exhibit an intolerant attitude – like the trans-promoting, migrant-defending, pronoun-declaring, lanyard-wearing advocates of identity politics.

More seriously, some of the thorniest dilemmas are seen in a quandary about religious freedoms that seem to clash with established secular norms. The Batley teacher who showed a cartoon of Muhammad, protests over the film The Lady of Heaven and the Wakefield schoolboys accused of damaging the Koran were all victims of a form of intolerance that resulted in death threats, censorship and police intervention.

But is the reaction itself intolerance, and damaging to freedom? While the political class often points to the ‘far right’ as the leading example of intolerance today, religious issues can often be the thorniest. Some argue burkas should be banned to protect women pressured to conform to religious customs. Others contend that non-stun slaughter, Sharia councils or other faith-based practices must not be tolerated where they conflict with British cultural norms. The Green Party is considering restricting circumcision, challenging a long-established religious practice. Public expressions of faith are also contested.

As the hand-wringing over the AfD’s victory in Saxony-Anhalt state election shows, the extent to which extremism – and anti-extremism – threatens a tolerant society is also under scrutiny. Whether it is Islamism or Islamophobia, far-right or pro-Palestinian demonstrations, or environmental protests, demands for a zero-tolerance approach have become increasingly common.

Some argue that principles of tolerance must give way when a society’s right to self-preservation is threatened. They argue we need a selective approach to tolerance, including being prepared to censor speech and constrain certain behaviours. But who decides what is ‘beyond the pale’ – and is such an approach itself an abrogation of the values we’re supposed to be preserving?

To what extent should a society tolerate groups who themselves are said to promote intolerance? Should the state step in to police the boundaries of tolerance? Or must civil society itself find a way to negotiate these tensions? What principles should guide our response?