“I am intolerant of intolerance”
has become something of a mantra for suppressing unpopular opinions. Today’s “new tolerance”, as it is
called in academic circles, is redefining our understanding of tolerance and
shaping our behavior in public spaces, but it is no friend to the exercise of conscience or the freedom of speech.
In the past, we used to “agree to
disagree”. It was a respectful way
to end debates before they degenerated into personal and hateful attacks. We disagreed without rejecting each
other.
We used to define tolerance in
the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.” We allowed
others their opinions and the right to express them.
It is no longer acceptable to agree to disagree
New tolerance requires something
different. It demands that we accept either the most popular view or the view
of the most vocal group. If we believe
differently, those who hold the dominant view or shout the loudest accuse us of
bigotry. They cannot countenance our intolerance; we must be muzzled. This is
especially evident when it comes to issues around sexuality and gender.
The no-platform movement that is
taking hold of western universities is the poster child of new tolerance. The movement, which denies speakers a
platform, fosters intolerant behavior in its misguided attempt to protect
democracy and equality.
Notable feminist Germaine Greer
is the latest fatality of the no-platform movement. Greer was to lecture on
“Women and Power: Lessons of the 20th Century” at Cardiff University
in Wales. Twenty seven
hundred students signed a petition that accused her of misogyny and inciting
hate and violence against transgender people. In an obvious twist of irony that
students seemed to have missed, the no-platform campaign triggered its own form
of violence against Greer. Her
opponents attacked her on social media sites, verbally crucifying her. Even
though the university rejected the student petition, Greer declined to speak,
citing concerns for her safety.
Greer’s unspeakable crime was to
say that she does not think “a post-operative transgendered man is a
woman”. But, others required
Greer (and anyone who might hold the same opinion) to think differently. Payton Quinn, a Huffington Post
columnist writing in support of the petition, asserted, “If you believe that
trans women are women, as you should because they are, then what Germaine Greer
is espousing in her campaign against them is misogyny.”
Greer, incidentally, was not
campaigning against anyone. She has not written about transgender issues for
years, nor was her lecture about transgender issues. In her words, “Its not my
issue. I don’t even talk about them.”
New tolerance is not limited to
the no-platform movement on university campuses. In Canada, some political parties
require all candidates to be pro-choice.
A person who questions abortion must want to limit a woman’s right to
choose; that person has no place in government. Trinity Western University requires
students and staff to sign a covenant agreement with a clause that defines
marriage as between one man and one woman. The institution must be
discriminating against LGBTQ people; it must not be allowed a law school.
It is no longer enough for a
tolerant individual to treat people with the respect and dignity that all
individuals – gay, trans or straight – deserve. We must now accept the most
popular views and believe what the most vocal group tells us to believe. To do otherwise, is anathema.
Tolerance takes practice
Tolerance does not come easily or
naturally to us. It requires
practice. From time to time, we need
to check our attitudes. We need to
make sure that our concern for one group does not express itself as intolerance
for someone else; that we do not become violent, hateful or self-righteous in
the name of tolerance.
Social media has done little to
promote tolerance. Social media sites that invite us “to join the conversation”
frequently become platforms for intolerance. Outrage, insult and hatred
characterize many social media exchanges.
These exchanges do little to foster understanding of difference or to
improve society.
It is easier to spew contempt
than to allow different voices the latitude to speak. If we are serious about
the freedoms of conscience and speech, we cannot bully or exclude others when
their opinion goes against the grain. Rejecting an opinion is not the same thing as rejecting a
person or discriminating against a group.
New tolerance is a form of
intolerance in disguise.
No comments:
Post a Comment