The Paradox of Tolerance

Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) first articulated the Paradox of Tolerance: If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. If intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices. It’s a bit like the Paradox of Freedom, in that it’s necessary to limit both unchecked freedom and intolerance in order to prevent despotic rule.

I’ve already argued that our institutions will not save us from despotism and intolerance unless the people involved—us, the voters; us, the community and neighbours and co-workers; us, the lawmakers and judges—believe in them. And if we believe liberal democracy is worth fighting for, then we need to close down intolerance at its source—we must not tolerate it.

I first encountered Popper when I was 17 and taking a class on the philosophy of science. I was reminded of him in the mid-80s when Thatcher began to bang the Section 28 drum, in late 90s when the Contract With America Republicans and its adherents first came on the scene, in the aughts with the Tea Party movement, and again, more strongly, in 2016 when followers and proponents of both Brexit and Trump were fear-mongering about the Other: those bloody foreigners (and uppity women, crips and queers) taking our jobs/security/sovereignty/women. Let’s throw them out/throw them in jail and Make England (and it was always England, not Britain) and America Great Again!

And the nice straight white nondisabled middle classes on both sides of the pond, at least the ones who believe in the basics of decent human behaviour and were used to being in the majority, being the norm, mostly a) did not take the mouth-foamers seriously and, b) if they did, could not respond in kind—could not shout them down, close the spigots of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech because, well, part of being a good human being was being tolerant. And freedom of speech is sacred.1

Meanwhile, us women/crips/queers/Black and brown/poor/immigrant people who understood, viscerally, the paradoxes of tolerance and freedom, were pleading with the Nice People, trying to explain that liberal democracy will not survive unless we all fight back and shut them down.

Yet, here we are. Again. Six days from an election that could tear apart the liberal order in this country, if not forever then for a very long time, and give free rein to autocrats of all stripes. It beggars belief—or it would if you are a nice, ‘normal’ white, middle-class, straight, nondisabled citizen who has never been Othered, never been hungry a day in your life, never known real uncertainty, never been thrown in jail for just being; never been attacked and put in hospital for just being; never been refused access to your sweetie in hospital; never been refused entry to a country because of who you are; never had people threaten to rape you and burn down your house while the police laugh; never been invited to a party you can’t get into because no one thought about wheelchairs and steps… I could go on, but why bother? I’m preaching to the choir, here: I firmly believe every human being of a certain age and reasonable mental capacity understands these paradoxes of freedom and tolerance. Those who say they don’t are lying, at best to themselves and at worst to others, because it suits them to do so.

Time to stop.

So many free speech absolutists confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences. They are not the same. If you deliberately yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre and twelve people die in the stampede to the exit, you would most likely be prosecuted. You most likely would go to prison. You absolutely would deserve it. ︎