Should society tolerate intolerance?

BY SIMONE J. SMITH

“An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance” Karl Popper (Philosopher)

As a journalist, it is my responsibility to be receptive to the community, and to provide for them information that is meant to: educate and empower. What I have witnessed lately is a direct breech of our constitutional and civil rights as humans to speak our minds, and to live life the way that we see fit.

This goes beyond COVID-19. Intolerance (not putting up with something) has been witnessed in history before. Nazi Germany was intolerant of the Jewish community; Caucasians living in the Americas were intolerant of Africans. This intolerance was a brewing pot for violence and discrimination.

Now, intolerance is witnessed daily; whether it is silencing individuals who are speaking out against societal issues like lockdowns, or shaming people who do not want to tolerate mask wearing, it seems like history continues to repeat itself.

The quote, “An open society needs to be intolerant of intolerance,” has been invoked to give a free pass to shutting down, censoring, and de-platforming ideas. It is being utilized as a loophole within the broad liberal principle of free speech: ideas can be expressed, only if they are in line with the given narrative.

Popper believed that utterances of intolerant philosophies should not be suppressed but should be countered with rational discourse. This thought is key. I have watched mainstream media skew their reporting; showing the public only what they want them to see. This most recently happened in Toronto; there were anti-lockdown protests at Nathan Phillips Square, and I had the opportunity to see videos from people who were actually there, and then of course, I saw what the media reported.

Clearly, the police were not even trying to hear what the protestors were trying to say. The protestors might have appeared to be intolerant, which is why the government felt the need to suppress them by force, even though the protestors were prepared to meet them on a rational level. Why is this you ask? It could be that the government does not want their followers (majority of the population), to listen to rational arguments. It now seems that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law.

Here is where there is a paradox; the tolerant (majority of the population) are drawing the line to restrain the intolerant (those who oppose what is happening with COVID-19), because they may feel that the tolerant will be swept away by what they feel is “Fake News,” or “Misinformation.”

Karl Popper felt that we should tolerate the intolerant up to a point, but keep ideas in check with open discussions, rational debates, and public opinions. Yet, this is the issue. There are no open discussions or rational debates when it comes to the communistic type restrictions that we are now facing here in Canada. New laws are created every day, and the people don’t seem to have any say at all. The question here is how do we foster a community that is inclusive of everyone and their perspectives?

Clearly, there are some issues with the tone of many conversations that we now see unfolding around the world. Points of view are horribly prejudiced, which is driving a wedge into rational public discourse. If an idea is so atrocious (not wearing a mask), that we believe it is dangerous to the welfare of society, we witness several things:

• People pretend it is not happening
• People respond articulately and reasonably (counter-protesting, publications, blogs, refutations, calling out half-truths and lies, asking questions)
• People use humour or parodies to poke holes in the ideologies presented.

It is truly unfortunate that many of the unscientific arguments offered on social media take the form of “Prove it,” or I’ll take your lack of a proof as evidence that my thoughts are right.” The thing is; the very strength of a theory is the degree of criticism it can be subjected to. Theories are a giant pile of evidence that says you might not be totally wrong.

Theories are meant to be questioned, tested, and observed whether or not they align with reality. If your predictions do not align with reality, then your theory is wrong. If they do, you now have a larger body of evidence supporting your theory.

With this in mind, I want to end with a couple questions: Do you think all speech should be free, or should limits be placed on some speech? Should social media companies allow all speech? Should society tolerate intolerance?

I am looking forward to hearing thoughts from all perspectives on this discussion.