e). Freedom of Speech:

As Landsburg says, we may disapprove of bigotry, but the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things of which we do not approve. The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds paradoxical but so do many other good ideas, like freedom of speech and expression does to the advocates of censorship. In fact freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance. Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us viscerally. Freedom of speech that is restricted to speech that offends no one is not really any freedom. Freedom of speech is to be limited only by Laws of slander or by calls to prove the assertions.

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” – Voltaire

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

The best answer to a bad speech or expression or book or cinema is, a good speech or expression or book or cinema, if possible, or just ignoring it. If that is not a possible option then seek redress in filing a defamation or slander or libel suit and seek recompense. But think before doing so about the additional exposure and interest the bad speech, or expression, or book or cinema may get as a result of the publicity of such a suit and only then decide if it is still desirable to seek such redress. Most times shrugging your shoulders or laughing it off maybe the best response. ‘Bandhs,Disruptions’and violence are not the answer.

f). Tolerate Intolerance:

“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.”– Karl Popper.

As the Economist-May 18-2019 writes-Moral conservatives mistake toleration for permissiveness. But they are distinct. In a democracy, if everyone thinks certain conduct is abhorrent, the case for prohibition becomes compelling. If nobody thinks it wrong, the case vanishes. Where opinion is split, as it often is, tolerance enjoins the law to stand –back. In short, a public divided in its moral opinions cannot guide the State reliably, and as experience suggests, policing morality tends to invite law-breaking.

Tolerance is not a favour you do to those whose words or actions you do not approve of, that would be patronizing, a fraud arising from a conceptual muddle. It confuses equality under the Law with equal social prestige. Toleration, it is complained, demeans by holding back positive approval of belief or of the believer. But laws neither approve nor disapprove; only people do. The most citizens can ask of Law is not to be discriminated against. Laws cannot eradicate prejudice; for that they must rely not on coercion but on free speech. ‘The limits of Tolerance’ end with liberal opinion.

Every child has felt the pain of exclusion and every child eventually understands that such pain is part of the price we pay for freedom. He will not get invited to every birthday party or to join every team. If someone excludes him out of sheer meanness, he has got a right to feel hurt, but no right to crash the party or to insist on being made a team member. The child who excludes others or shows partiality in his choices is also, entitled to his freedom of choice as much as that child who may refuse to join even if asked has.

As Landsburg notes adults manage to remember and forget this principle all at the same time. For example; the owner of a vacant apartment has as much right to refuse to rent it to someone for any reason whatsoever, as that someone has the right to refuse to choose to take that apartment on rent. But the apartment owner is today by law required to swallow his misgivings and rent the apartment or be penalized for discrimination while the prospective tenant continues to enjoy freedom of choice. The owner may be seen as a bigot, but that cannot by itself be a crime.

The law which requires the landlord to rent to any person who is willing to pay the rent is one sided as it does not compel a prospective tenant to take the apartment belonging to the landlord which for his own reasons he may not like. Why should there be asymmetric duties under anti-discrimination laws?

There are two reasons to be concerned about this kind of hypocrisy. One is principled; asymmetric burdens are unfair. The second is practical; a system that restricts your neighbours’ freedom today can expand to restrict yours tomorrow.

Today it says who you should rent to, tomorrow it will tell you who to employ and in what position and the next day tell you where to work and in what position. These asymmetries grate against the most fundamental requirements of fairness – that people should be treated equally, in the sense that their rights and responsibilities should not change because of irrelevant external circumstances. If such asymmetric principles of natural justice are applied consistently and broadly, then in the surreal future they will govern every aspect of the housing market, the job market and for that matter perhaps even the marriage market. In that future it will be illegal to consider the ethnicity or religion or looks in your choice of your spouse. Then statisticians of the justice department, or a future matrimony/lovers department, will scrutinize your dating patterns to make sure you have sampled a reasonable cross section of the people (reasonable by their standards). When you finally settle down you will have to prove (to their satisfaction) that the spouse you chose is objectively more qualified to meet your needs than any other applicant. Once the system is in place it could expand (as affirmative action abroad, and reservation in India has) to cover age or looks as well as ethnicity or religion or any other factor they decide, perhaps even gender.

If the above vision sounds implausible, remember that Affirmative action / Reservation in its present form and extent, would have seemed equally Implausible 75 years ago when the laws calling for reservation were meant to be only for TEN years. If it sounds like a nightmare, remember that it is already a nightmare come true for many and it continues to spread its tentacles into evermore areas and will end up as a disaster.

Religions encourage misunderstandings and intolerance of others beliefs.(See- ‘Religious Cultures & Dharmic Culture’ and Annexure – III).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12