The Limits of Tolerance

Contemporary Political Theory, 2015

The Scope of Tolerance, 2005

The conflict between tolerance and freedom is a topical subject to discuss. The Israeli author of this book shows clearly that he has a lot of expertise in the field. He deals with the topic through analyzing different situations and experiences. The accent is mostly that of law and the analysed cases are often related to court. Because of the differences in law systems, it is questionable if this approach is very fruitful for fundamentally dealing with the topic. In his first chapter, the author makes an attempt to draw an ethical framework. In this very Anglo-Saxon approach, the author does not succeed in presenting a robust and solid ethical point of view. A tighter ethical framework would have had the advantage of allowing the author to evaluate the different situations he draws in the next chapters more adequately. In the book itself, there are too few hard arguments for the different evaluative conclusions. The different chapters deal with topics related to tolerance and freedom. Although his approach lacks an adequately strong ethical evaluation of the different situations, the book show us the meaning of the discussion. Interesting parts of the book deal with the right to privacy, the discussion of sensibilities and freedom of speech, hate speech in Canada, media coverage of terror, and other questions. The book is nevertheless quiet interesting because of the different situations that it adequately presents. Although the basic ethical framework is weak, there are a few interesting statements and conclusions, in particular concerning the discussion on freedom of speech and the media.

“The subject of tolerance is very important in our pluralistic world, requiring the necessity of transcending and overcoming intolerant outlooks, and by recognizing the right of diversity, a prerequisite for the flourishing of democracy and human rights in society. The quest for tolerance is tantamount to making the phenomenon of diversity a reality, so that a dialogue might take place between individuals and groups. “Contemporary studies have shown that the concept of tolerance had existed prior to our modern times. It was necessary for the rise of a peaceful coexistence within society. It had not always been observed because political authorities often imposed their outlooks on society. On occasion, they acknowledged the legality of pluralist groups, affording them minimal freedoms, in harmony with the values of the time.

2004

This essay aims to consider the scope of tolerance and its moral reasoning. I first discuss the reluctance of prominent philosophers to prescribe boundaries to liberty and tolerance. I then focus attention on Rawls’ discussion on tolerance, which I find quite disappointing, yet argue that his line of reasoning on the question of tolerating the intolerant contributed to the very fashionable consequentialist approach. After criticizing the consequentialist reasoning I introduce an alternative approach: the principled reasoning. I explain that much of the liberal reasoning is inspired by the 1 . Raphael Cohen-Almagor, D.Phil. (Oxon) heads the Center for Democratic Studies, University of Haifa, Israel. He is also Chairperson of Library and Information Studies, and Assoc. Prof. at the Dept. of Communication. In 1999-2000 he was awarded the FulbrightYitzhak Rabin Award and was a Visiting Professor at UCLA School of Law and Department of Communication. In 2003-2004 he is a visiting fellow ...

Studies in Political Economy, 2000

, Maclean's magazine ran a story on "one of Canada's most successful immigrants," British Columbia's lieutenant-governor, David See-Chai Lam. Mr. Lam, it is noted, has made considerable effort to increase understanding between Canadians and new arrivals by arguing that Canadians should celebrate rather than tolerate cultural diversity. He says "tolerance is a slightly negative word ...it's like saying, 'You smell, but I can hold my breath.' "2 Implicit in Mr. Lam's statement is a recognition that to "tolerate" and to be "tolerated" involves an unequal relationship. To tolerate, as Mirabeau and Thomas Paine put it, implies that the tolerator has the authority or the power to not tolerate) This paper provides an analysis of the social construction of the concept of "tolerance," and documents the use of the term in the Canadian media. We focus on the ways in which the news media does not only reflect group and individual relations, but also constructs these relations.' On the one level, "toleration" is celebrated as a core feature of the Canadian national identity which is a source of both national pride and international recognition. Toleration allows for an enactment of Canadian multiculturalism. At the same time, we argue that to "tolerate" is to entrench the opposition between a national "self," and groups or individuals constructed as "other" (between those who hold their breath, and those who smell!). To ensure continued "tolerance," the majority "self' is seen to take on the responsibility for setting limits (or bounds) to tolerance. Tolerance is bounded by values which are identified as positive national attributes-values such as economic stability, national cohesion, and the equality of women. Justifications are provided for adopting a minimalist approach to tolerance; this minimalist approach is seen to be necessary to protect the structures which make multiculturalism and tolerance

University of St. Thomas Law Journal 3 #1 (2005): 75-91, 2005

2008

This article focuses on the difficult issue of what exactly goes on when an individual tolerates something. It focuses on the problem of why an individual would ever choose to allow for some practice that he deems unacceptable while having the power to do something about it. After distinguishing between different attitudes (tolerant as well as intolerant), this article argues that individuals can have various reasons for deciding to tolerate what they deem wrong. As such, we defend a broad conception of tolerance, which goes against the grain of recent literature in which tolerance is generally understood as a virtue.

Contemporary Political Theory, 2015

OGIRISI: a New Journal of African Studies

More often than not, intolerance is extremely rejected in favour of tolerance simply because of the belief that the latter produces a better chance of inter-personal relationship in a pluralistic society. In this sense tolerance will mean to allow others to practise their religious belief without hindrance. While the term 'allow' carries a legal import i.e. authorisation, toleration means only the absence of objection rather than genuine approval of another's religious belief. It is therefore the argument of this paper that tolerance already divides between the powerful and the less-powerful, the privileged and the less-privileged. It is this inherent weakness in tolerance that makes the paper to insist on frank dialogue; truth-meeting-truth.