Clear and convincing, as ever, Andrew. It’s significant that the two groups who are the least tolerant and the most inclined to violence in our society are those whose ideologies are least capable of being defended in rational argument: the Islamic fundamentalists and the believers in the nebulous concept of a gendered soul.
I spent a glorious summer in the early 80s InterRailing around Sweden and thought it a wonderland full of shiny, happy people who all seemed to have summer and winter homes as well as perfect English. Which ever government wrecked that country needs to be held accountable unless they were elected on a migration ticket just as Blair should face criminal charges for changing our own society irrevocably (unless his actions had been forewarned in a manifesto.) This wishful notion that African or Southern Asian migrants are suddenly going to turn into Bertie Woosters upon entering the country is imbecilic and dangerously naive.
This is a really well thought out article. Thank you. Our challenge is to get this into the mainstream thought processes. How best to do this? Do we start at the hysterical Uni’s? Obviously in an ideal world we would start everywhere but that’s simply not possible.. but we have to do something and fast - is it an idea to get all those smaller groups who do ‘recognise’ this problem together and formulate a clear collective strategy? We would need to do this without compromising their hard won bravery and small groups. We need a clear and punchy paragraph that all can understand . 90% of the people, and I mean the reasonably well educated public that I talk to just cannot grasp what’s going on not least because it’s so unpalatable and under reported . They honestly think you’ve lost your marbles! Many young out there simply have no concept of what’s happened in the past and find even a basic discussion on the potential reality totally beyond their understanding . We older farts with the benefit of a decent historical education and the ability and desire to engage can grasp it, but the young? Honestly, having had the benefit of mixing with large groups of inner city youths (by default) over the last ten years or so has been a massive and distressing eye opener.. they honestly have no idea what a Nazi is or even heard of Hitler, Stalin let alone have any grasp of what the right or left are .. we are really really looking at the very basics being completely out of their reach. Almost all young (I mixed with mostly inner city notably London male 15-20 year olds) with no clue, none.. at all! It is Beyond scary .. where and how to start? Honestly (and reluctantly) I think we need a Dominic Cummingsesq type of simple messaging and the ability to enthuse and create desire for the average individual to grasp and develop the courage to say what needs to be said.. frankly, it’s needs to be as simple as offering someone a cuppa? Andrew you are doing this but we need to simplify with a brave and crucially happening youth icon - who? We need to engage with people we wouldn’t naturally engage with and get them on board. Anyway, just my morning thoughts .
I was shocked to learn the existence of Sharia "courts" in the UK, although I understand these don't have the same power as the actual courts. All citizens of the UK should have the same rights and freedoms. By allowing these courts and thus forming a two-tier justice system, the UK governments ironically pander to the powerful Muslim middle-aged men and take away rights from Muslim women, young people, gay men and lesbians. Isn't this a paradox with the identity politics that the current government embraces?
I must also say that if Sharia courts were formed in my home country, Turkey, this would shake the country to the core and you would see massive demonstrations. Not in spite of Turkey being a 99% Muslim country, but because of this.
Like you I think that hate crime should be abolished since it is just used to try and suppress free speech and to intimidate people.
Even if hate crime is abolished, it seems to me that there is sufficient potential criminal action to hold back the 'intolerant' when they go too far. Hitler and Mao didn't build their tyrannies on 'hurty words'!! It involved action starting with ,for example, incitement to...violence, harassment, breach of the peace....And this is despite the fact that I agree that the Brandenburg Test really needs to be brought in in the UK with regard to incitement. Trouble is we need a police force that will actually take action and currently they are in the grip of The Woke! For example at Let Women Speak events where the (so called) trans rights activists or antifa turn up and use excessive noise to drown out or intimidate the women speakers the police already have sufficient powers within the Public Order Act to deal with this but I have never seen them do anything.
When I came home in 2010 I was shocked by how much immigration had changed my Wiltshire town. Entire foreign communities seemed to have decamped en masse. Some days I didn't hear English spoken at all. My friends all parroted the 'Diversity is wonderful!' line but why would you want your grandkids to grow up in a Caliphate? Please God, you're right, Andrew, and it's not too late but many will only change their minds when a situation affects them directly. By the time they hear a call to prayer on their village green it will be too late. I've tried to be tolerant with my intolerant friends but one by one they've drifted away because, of course, underneath it all, still, there's the assumption that those on the left are cultured, educated, humanitarian and enlightened whereas we on the centre right are base, bigoted and beyond redemption.
Such a delight to hear you on with Tom Slater on Talk Radio this morning, Andrew. Along with Brendan O'Neill, I often think you three superb broadcasters could have had stellar careers at the Beeb with super salaries and fat pensions if you'd only toed the line. Instead you stood up and spoke the truth. God love you all for that. And Neil Oliver. What was that Peter Cook line from The Music Teacher? "Integrity? I like that word - and I'm willing to pay for it!"
Chris has put it well below. People don't know stuff! But unfortunately making ppl feel useless or stupid encourages the Trumps and Farages who manage to simplify complex subjects into sound bites that their supporters feel they understand; that resonate.
I think the only way of moving forward in an exhausting, frantic, advanced capitalist society is for governments to gently legislate around a clear and unifying agenda. One that is explained to people clearly and that makes sense with clear benefits for society.
I'm not sure this can happen with our adversarial political system.
But basic historical education surely is not beyond reach.
But with child poverty at current UK levels, and so many people struggling financially, I won't give up on the Liberal agenda - but it is a bit of a luxury, an irrelevance, for a lot of people who feel ppl like me think they are stupid.
To maintain liberal democracy...The question before us is not "What do you or I think is intolerant, and let's apply laws to that?" - as we will all have our individual subjective views. The question is "Who decides what is tolerant or intolerant?" And the answer must be Parliament. And specific laws. The Public Order Act 1986 and its further interpretations are far too vague. Vague law gives power to proximate political activists and their narrow-context ideas influencing the judiciary. This means free speech is already lost as no-one knows how they will be judged for anything - especially as we have made potentially criminal 'anything that someone said that might cause a theoretical third party offence and distress'. What cannot meet this criterion?
So, a liberal society needs to be intolerant to the point that it needs to protect its liberalism from vague law and from importing illiberalism; equally it must, by Andrew's resolve and vigilance in us all, maintain a constant battle to support itself through democratic means and insistence. We need to educate each other about the importance of free speech (within explicit defined legal limits eg defamation, harassment, fraud, libel/slander, genuine incitement etc) and ensure political parties that do not hold to this never get elected by popular vote. The battle for freedom in society is a vital but never-ending one, as both left and right will only see the intolerance in the other; never in themselves - and then either side may enact laws and cultures of oppression of the other, not recognising they've destroyed freedom in general, in so doing. Be a radical moderate!
Do you truly believe they don’t recognise they have destroyed freedom in general? I believe they do, they just at war and want to win at any cost.. they actually couldn’t care less about ‘freedom’ in anyway shape or form.. this is about their needs only and the Vague law has allowed the despicable yuks to go and party at everyone else’s expense. And the Vague weak laws.. are they genuine mistakes? Or does chaos ensue once weak laws are introduced ? Will This eventually justify other types of laws to be introduced is it not already happening?
Well put together ideas, and was surprisingly pertinent word for word against phenomena as diverse as rightwing supremacy and trans (no debate, no argument) movements.
There’s a little explored but valuable idea which may be applied to this objectively called the “Friston Principle”.
Diversity and regulation are both expensive. However both allow for a system (societal, political, linguistic, scientific, etc.) to adapt to changing environments, because maladaptation (surprise) is also quite expensive.
Systems which persist the longest minimize the cost of diversity and regulation, and while also minimizing the cost of maladaptation to contextual change.
Over-tolerance is maladaptive (Popper) and could be measured (in social, economic, political, business, other terms) by the average increasing cost of persistence, or average decline of “flourishing” for constituent elements.
That’s why democracies work better, over time, and on average, than authoritarian states. They adapt.
Tolerance is a dynamic property of systems, and has no absolute answer I think, but effects can be measured.
You’ve given several good measures.
Lifespan, cost of living, violent death, all relate to flourishing. When they on average decline, social systems are not meeting needs and irrespective of regulation and diversity, must adapt or fade away. The cost of tolerance has exceeded the ability of the system to support it.
Very thoughtful piece Andrew, I fear under this current government they will be deaf to any pushback on free speech. We can only hope we get rid of this current outfit as soon as possible.
Clear and convincing, as ever, Andrew. It’s significant that the two groups who are the least tolerant and the most inclined to violence in our society are those whose ideologies are least capable of being defended in rational argument: the Islamic fundamentalists and the believers in the nebulous concept of a gendered soul.
I think The Gold- Kisin, Heretics interview podcast makes the same point but misses the crucial aspect of the Swedish example...
there are many Swedish folk, only now realising just how the mass immigration without filters has led them to a breakdown of their state zeitgeist.
THEY are advising us...
stop the boats.
Turn the criminal incomers away and insist in proper integration of those who do come legally.
It's not about the specific attack incidents, and it's not hypothetical.
It's the reality that Popper's paradox was all about.
I spent a glorious summer in the early 80s InterRailing around Sweden and thought it a wonderland full of shiny, happy people who all seemed to have summer and winter homes as well as perfect English. Which ever government wrecked that country needs to be held accountable unless they were elected on a migration ticket just as Blair should face criminal charges for changing our own society irrevocably (unless his actions had been forewarned in a manifesto.) This wishful notion that African or Southern Asian migrants are suddenly going to turn into Bertie Woosters upon entering the country is imbecilic and dangerously naive.
This is a really well thought out article. Thank you. Our challenge is to get this into the mainstream thought processes. How best to do this? Do we start at the hysterical Uni’s? Obviously in an ideal world we would start everywhere but that’s simply not possible.. but we have to do something and fast - is it an idea to get all those smaller groups who do ‘recognise’ this problem together and formulate a clear collective strategy? We would need to do this without compromising their hard won bravery and small groups. We need a clear and punchy paragraph that all can understand . 90% of the people, and I mean the reasonably well educated public that I talk to just cannot grasp what’s going on not least because it’s so unpalatable and under reported . They honestly think you’ve lost your marbles! Many young out there simply have no concept of what’s happened in the past and find even a basic discussion on the potential reality totally beyond their understanding . We older farts with the benefit of a decent historical education and the ability and desire to engage can grasp it, but the young? Honestly, having had the benefit of mixing with large groups of inner city youths (by default) over the last ten years or so has been a massive and distressing eye opener.. they honestly have no idea what a Nazi is or even heard of Hitler, Stalin let alone have any grasp of what the right or left are .. we are really really looking at the very basics being completely out of their reach. Almost all young (I mixed with mostly inner city notably London male 15-20 year olds) with no clue, none.. at all! It is Beyond scary .. where and how to start? Honestly (and reluctantly) I think we need a Dominic Cummingsesq type of simple messaging and the ability to enthuse and create desire for the average individual to grasp and develop the courage to say what needs to be said.. frankly, it’s needs to be as simple as offering someone a cuppa? Andrew you are doing this but we need to simplify with a brave and crucially happening youth icon - who? We need to engage with people we wouldn’t naturally engage with and get them on board. Anyway, just my morning thoughts .
I was shocked to learn the existence of Sharia "courts" in the UK, although I understand these don't have the same power as the actual courts. All citizens of the UK should have the same rights and freedoms. By allowing these courts and thus forming a two-tier justice system, the UK governments ironically pander to the powerful Muslim middle-aged men and take away rights from Muslim women, young people, gay men and lesbians. Isn't this a paradox with the identity politics that the current government embraces?
I must also say that if Sharia courts were formed in my home country, Turkey, this would shake the country to the core and you would see massive demonstrations. Not in spite of Turkey being a 99% Muslim country, but because of this.
Excellent piece, Andrew.
Like you I think that hate crime should be abolished since it is just used to try and suppress free speech and to intimidate people.
Even if hate crime is abolished, it seems to me that there is sufficient potential criminal action to hold back the 'intolerant' when they go too far. Hitler and Mao didn't build their tyrannies on 'hurty words'!! It involved action starting with ,for example, incitement to...violence, harassment, breach of the peace....And this is despite the fact that I agree that the Brandenburg Test really needs to be brought in in the UK with regard to incitement. Trouble is we need a police force that will actually take action and currently they are in the grip of The Woke! For example at Let Women Speak events where the (so called) trans rights activists or antifa turn up and use excessive noise to drown out or intimidate the women speakers the police already have sufficient powers within the Public Order Act to deal with this but I have never seen them do anything.
Dusty
Will cross post in due course 😊
Cross posted 😄
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/hes-a-man-kellie-jay-keen
Dusty
BTW I enjoyed your Afterthoughts pieces and hope you might bring those back 😊
Dusty
Yes!! Impossible to know what intolerance is unless we’re exposed to it!!!
When I came home in 2010 I was shocked by how much immigration had changed my Wiltshire town. Entire foreign communities seemed to have decamped en masse. Some days I didn't hear English spoken at all. My friends all parroted the 'Diversity is wonderful!' line but why would you want your grandkids to grow up in a Caliphate? Please God, you're right, Andrew, and it's not too late but many will only change their minds when a situation affects them directly. By the time they hear a call to prayer on their village green it will be too late. I've tried to be tolerant with my intolerant friends but one by one they've drifted away because, of course, underneath it all, still, there's the assumption that those on the left are cultured, educated, humanitarian and enlightened whereas we on the centre right are base, bigoted and beyond redemption.
Such a delight to hear you on with Tom Slater on Talk Radio this morning, Andrew. Along with Brendan O'Neill, I often think you three superb broadcasters could have had stellar careers at the Beeb with super salaries and fat pensions if you'd only toed the line. Instead you stood up and spoke the truth. God love you all for that. And Neil Oliver. What was that Peter Cook line from The Music Teacher? "Integrity? I like that word - and I'm willing to pay for it!"
Chris has put it well below. People don't know stuff! But unfortunately making ppl feel useless or stupid encourages the Trumps and Farages who manage to simplify complex subjects into sound bites that their supporters feel they understand; that resonate.
I think the only way of moving forward in an exhausting, frantic, advanced capitalist society is for governments to gently legislate around a clear and unifying agenda. One that is explained to people clearly and that makes sense with clear benefits for society.
I'm not sure this can happen with our adversarial political system.
But basic historical education surely is not beyond reach.
But with child poverty at current UK levels, and so many people struggling financially, I won't give up on the Liberal agenda - but it is a bit of a luxury, an irrelevance, for a lot of people who feel ppl like me think they are stupid.
To maintain liberal democracy...The question before us is not "What do you or I think is intolerant, and let's apply laws to that?" - as we will all have our individual subjective views. The question is "Who decides what is tolerant or intolerant?" And the answer must be Parliament. And specific laws. The Public Order Act 1986 and its further interpretations are far too vague. Vague law gives power to proximate political activists and their narrow-context ideas influencing the judiciary. This means free speech is already lost as no-one knows how they will be judged for anything - especially as we have made potentially criminal 'anything that someone said that might cause a theoretical third party offence and distress'. What cannot meet this criterion?
So, a liberal society needs to be intolerant to the point that it needs to protect its liberalism from vague law and from importing illiberalism; equally it must, by Andrew's resolve and vigilance in us all, maintain a constant battle to support itself through democratic means and insistence. We need to educate each other about the importance of free speech (within explicit defined legal limits eg defamation, harassment, fraud, libel/slander, genuine incitement etc) and ensure political parties that do not hold to this never get elected by popular vote. The battle for freedom in society is a vital but never-ending one, as both left and right will only see the intolerance in the other; never in themselves - and then either side may enact laws and cultures of oppression of the other, not recognising they've destroyed freedom in general, in so doing. Be a radical moderate!
Do you truly believe they don’t recognise they have destroyed freedom in general? I believe they do, they just at war and want to win at any cost.. they actually couldn’t care less about ‘freedom’ in anyway shape or form.. this is about their needs only and the Vague law has allowed the despicable yuks to go and party at everyone else’s expense. And the Vague weak laws.. are they genuine mistakes? Or does chaos ensue once weak laws are introduced ? Will This eventually justify other types of laws to be introduced is it not already happening?
It is undoubtedly what we are being instructed to do.
Well put together ideas, and was surprisingly pertinent word for word against phenomena as diverse as rightwing supremacy and trans (no debate, no argument) movements.
There’s a little explored but valuable idea which may be applied to this objectively called the “Friston Principle”.
Diversity and regulation are both expensive. However both allow for a system (societal, political, linguistic, scientific, etc.) to adapt to changing environments, because maladaptation (surprise) is also quite expensive.
Systems which persist the longest minimize the cost of diversity and regulation, and while also minimizing the cost of maladaptation to contextual change.
Over-tolerance is maladaptive (Popper) and could be measured (in social, economic, political, business, other terms) by the average increasing cost of persistence, or average decline of “flourishing” for constituent elements.
That’s why democracies work better, over time, and on average, than authoritarian states. They adapt.
Tolerance is a dynamic property of systems, and has no absolute answer I think, but effects can be measured.
You’ve given several good measures.
Lifespan, cost of living, violent death, all relate to flourishing. When they on average decline, social systems are not meeting needs and irrespective of regulation and diversity, must adapt or fade away. The cost of tolerance has exceeded the ability of the system to support it.
Very thoughtful piece Andrew, I fear under this current government they will be deaf to any pushback on free speech. We can only hope we get rid of this current outfit as soon as possible.