Thoughts on Tolerance
Most of us today live in complex urban societies. These by nature are diverse. Diversity often nurtures strength and vibrancy. We can expect to encounter people from a variety of backgrounds and customs in them, harbouring a smorgasbord of beliefs and opinions. They may wear strange clothes or speak languages that we don´t understand. These can be a birthplace of new ideas.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary a tolerant person is willing to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from their own, although they might not agree with or approve of them.
I think that we should be tolerant of others, notably if they are expressing an opinion, idea or belief, or are doing something that does no harm to others.
A tolerant person does not discriminate because of someone´s appearance or membership of another group. However we (humans) are animals that live in groups. We cooperate, and naturally protect those who belong to our group. It is also common for us to alienate those who are not. In order to justify this, we often make sweeping generalized statements about alien groups.
For instance an American president has claimed that Mexicans are rapists. This statement “Since 2013 alone the Obama Administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into US communities” may have some truth, as far as the number of foreigners allowed to return, but are they criminals? What should we do if someone who has influence is states what is clearly an opinion which is inclined to have detrimental tertiary effects?
If we evaluate what has been said, we could ignore it. The more people who become evaluative and sceptical of what they hear or read, the better our sources of information should become, as poor information is ignored.
Despite democracy and human rights being priorities in Europe, it is forbidden for a someone to cover their face with a head-dress in France. There are understandable and legitimate reasons for the ban, but should a democratic state that believes in tolerance ban something that is not inflicting harm on others?
What are the limits and boundaries to being tolerant? If we allow others to advocate or do harm to others, is that level of tolerance permissible?
The Spanish Civil Code states –
Código Penal y legislación complementaria
Artículo 525.
1. Incurrirán en la pena de multa de ocho a doce meses los que, para ofender los sentimientos de los miembros de una confesión religiosa, hagan públicamente, de palabra,
– 164 –
CÓDIGO PENAL Y LEGISLACIÓN COMPLEMENTARIA § 1 Ley Orgánica del Código Penal
por escrito o mediante cualquier tipo de documento, escarnio de sus dogmas, creencias, ritos o ceremonias, o vejen, también públicamente, a quienes los profesan o practican.
2. En las mismas penas incurrirán los que hagan públicamente escarnio, de palabra o por escrito, de quienes no profesan religión o creencia alguna.
A statement could easily be interpreted by some as being no more than an opinion, or perhaps being satirical, and by others as discriminatory and harmful. Where do we draw the line?
Causing harm to others cannot not include upsetting others (for example by disagreeing or contradicting their beliefs). If someone claims harm from something another person has said, does that not indicate that they are intolerant of others´ opinions? If we claim someone should be silenced because they have upset our beliefs, we enter this trap, from which there is no escape. We become a censored society.
Everyone should have a right to their opinion.
Some statements describe something that can only be subjective. If someone says they “like the cat”, you may be able to have a different opinion and have good reasons why, but it would be hard to have a purely right or wrong opinion.
Other statements are clearly dependent on supporting facts in order to be valid. The statement that “the Earth is flat” makes little factual sense today, when it is even possible to send a rocket or satellite into space and they are able to project images of Earth back to us. Of course there are many others ways of proving that the Earth is a globe, aside from actually sending an image back to us. While a minority of people today may continue to believe the the Earth is flat, it makes little sense to prohibit them from speaking their opinion. If they cannot produce supporting evidence it makes sense to not take them seriously. It also makes sense to always check the supporting facts, as many statements do not have any, or there are contradicting facts available.
What do we do when someone is lying outright? How do we protect ourselves from deceit and lies when presented as fact? This deceit has been around for ever, in newspapers, advertising, and is common on the internet. We read an article presented as fact, which on further investigation is totally fabricated. Someone´s face may be superimposed on another, or an article is snipped and edited into another, altering the detail of the original and disguising lies into something someone has said.
It is common for some leaders today to state that there is little difference between the press and any other opinions. They call the legitimate press “fake news”. They are debasing any available information and making it all invalid.
But none of us can know even a tiny bit of everything. We have to rely on other sources to form ideas and make an opinion. Without this, we are adrift in the ocean, with no control, at mercy of the currents and winds. How can we become informed?
We have no alternative. We need to use external sources – the media, documentaries, newspapers, magazines, articles on the internet, in order to get the information that we require. But we must be more critical and check the sources of our information.
The Columbia Journalism Review wrote – As a first line of defense, the “Calling Bullshit” professors instructed students to ask themselves three questions when encountering a news story, scientific study, or complicated data:
Who is telling me this?
How do they know it?
What’s in it for them?
They add that we can protect ourselves from fake news by checking sources. Many sources of information do not state how they received that information, which should arouse suspicion.
Although words can lead to violent actions, racism and bad deeds, freedom of speech is critical to growth, development and understanding.
Tolerance does not mean that we should not counter a false claim. On the contrary, a tolerant person should argue their point of view, and at the same time listen to the views of others, while encouraging them to listen too.
Many would agree with this, because tolerating anything said or written and not enacted upon will not keep us from danger. Today under the guise of free speech we are seeing how outright lies are being able to be disseminated without scrutiny on-line.
We often hear of the problem of hate speech, which is banned in many countries. However banning hate speech is censorship, and someone has decided what is true or right.
Surely it is better to know what people think and be able to counter that and produce arguments against what they say (if it is nonsense), than to have them go underground, and then to not know how widespread the fanaticism is? What happens when someone speaks against common rights, advocates blasphemy laws, and expresses fanatic views?