On Tolerance

A vast majority of Canadians desire an open, peaceful, and tolerant society. 

We are right to recognize tolerance as important to a healthy society.  However, the dominant definition of tolerance used (and abused) by many Canadians is fundamentally flawed and needs to be challenged.   

Too often, we see tolerance as the sacred Canadian virtue and equate disagreement with intolerance, when in actual fact; disagreement is exactly what makes tolerance necessary. 

How we define Tolerance is important. 

A definition of tolerance that requires agreement or shrugged acceptance is a direct threat to the very human rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion that undergirds our society. 

In contrast, a definition of tolerance predicated on treating with respect people whose ideas and practices we find objectionable, is an essential lubricant to a truly democratic society.

There are two critical challenges I want to make to the former definition of “tolerance”, which is unfortunately followed by many Canadians:   

1.  Tolerance is not a virtue.

It is important to recognize that tolerance is not in itself a virtue but rather it is a chosen response or gesture to something or someone we disagree with. 

Tolerance is not inherently good.  We ought to be intolerant of certain things.  In fact, we could not have a just or safe society established on the rule of law if we were not.  For example, if I know my neighbour is abusing his wife, I do no good by tolerating his bad behaviour, and in fact have become complicit by my silence.  Beliefs have consequences and beliefs often lead to actions that have either positive or negative impact on those around us.  

Practicing tolerance also does not require an individual to pretend they like something they do not like or accept something they believe to be wrong, even if it is seen as legal and socially acceptable by society.

Too often, accusations of intolerance are used as a weapon to silence those who disagree with us.  The end result of this definition of tolerance is not peace, but forced compliance, and an erosion of free speech and our democratic principles. 

2. Tolerance assumes disagreement.

In fact, Tolerance is only important when we do not agree with the opinions or practices of another.  The very word assumes or presupposes dislike or disagreement.  If another person holds our same viewpoint or cultural practice there is absolutely no need to tolerate them.  But if another person holds a different viewpoint or cultural practice, tolerance becomes important.

An intolerant person personally attacks those they disagree with.  They tend to misrepresent, twist, or stereotype another person’s beliefs.  The goal of an intolerant person is often to be provocative, cause hurt, or generate a negative reaction.  In contrast, a tolerant person can state their disagreement with respect and civility, valuing the individual they disagree with, despite their differences. 

Practicing tolerance in this circumstance means we will still listen to and support their right to their opinion and treat them with dignity and respect.  We will actively protect the ability of individuals to state opinions different from our own. 

It does not require us to pretend we are okay with something we do not like or casually accept something we fundamentally believe is wrong.  Nor should tolerance require us to sit idly by for fear of offending someone by acting on our beliefs.  Too often, we accept the label intolerant being used as a weapon to stop people from legitimately acting on their beliefs.   

For me, this really matters.  As a Christian, I am often labelled “intolerant” because I hold views that political commentators or even the majority of the public find offensive.  But I believe it should be okay for me, and others, to express our values and opinions publicly as long as it is done in a civil and respectful manner that values those individuals who I disagree with.         

What do you think? 

• What is the consequence of our current definition of tolerance?
• Have we twisted the true definition of tolerance and started using it as a weapon to silence legitimate free speech or is the widely accepted definition of tolerance serving our society well?