Today’s ‘new tolerance’ is intolerance in disguise –Louise McEwan "I am intolerant of intolerance" has become something of a mantra for suppressing unpopular opinions. Today's "new tolerance," as it is called in academic circles, is redefining our understanding of tolerance and shaping our behaviour in public spaces, but it is no friend to the exercise of conscience and freedom of speech. In the past, we used to "agree to disagree." It was a respectful way to end debates before they degenerated into personal and hateful attacks. We used to define tolerance in the phrase, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We allowed others their opinions and the right to express them. New tolerance requires something different. It demands that we accept either the most popular view or the view of the most vocal group. If we believe differently, those who hold the dominant view, or shout the loudest, accuse us of bigotry. They cannot countenance our intolerance; we must be muzzled. This is especially evident when it comes to issues surrounding sexuality and gender. The no-platform movement that is taking hold of western universities is the poster child of new tolerance. The movement, which denies speakers a platform, fosters intolerant behaviour in its misguided attempt to protect democracy and equality. Notable feminist Germaine Greer is the latest fatality of the no-platform movement. Greer was to lecture on "Women and Power: Lessons of the 20th Century" at Cardiff University in Wales. Twenty-seven hundred students signed a petition that accused her of misogyny and inciting hate and violence against transgender people. Greer's unspeakable crime was to say that she does not think "a postoperative transgendered man is a woman." But others required Greer (and anyone who might hold the same opinion) to think differently. Payton Quinn, a Huffington Post contributor writing in support of the petition, asserted, "If you believe that trans women are women, as you should because they are, then what Germaine Greer is espousing in her campaign against them is misogyny." Greer, incidentally, was not campaigning against anyone. She has not written about transgender issues for years, nor was her lecture about transgender issues. In her words, "It's not my issue. I don't even talk about them." New tolerance is not limited to the no-platform movement on university campuses. In Canada, some political parties require all candidates to be pro-choice. A person who questions abortion must want to limit a woman's right to choose; that person has no place in government. Trinity Western University requires students and staff to sign a covenant agreement with a clause that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The institution must be discriminating against LGBTQ people; it must not be allowed in a law school. It is no longer enough for a tolerant individual to treat people with the respect and dignity that all individuals — gay, trans or straight — deserve. We must now accept the most popular views and believe what the most vocal group tells us to believe. To do otherwise is anathema. Tolerance does not come easily or naturally to us. It requires practice. From time to time, we need to check our attitudes. We need to make sure that our concern for one group does not express itself as intolerance for someone else, that we do not become violent, hateful or self-righteous in the name of tolerance. Social media has done little to promote tolerance. Social media sites that invite us "to join the conversation" frequently become platforms for intolerance. Outrage, insult and hatred characterize many social media exchanges. These exchanges do little to foster understanding of "difference," or to improve society. It is easier to spew contempt than to allow different voices the latitude to speak. If we are serious about the freedoms of conscience and speech, we cannot bully or exclude others when their opinion goes against the grain. Rejecting an opinion is not the same thing as rejecting a person, or discriminating against a group. Louise McEwan, of Trail, B.C., holds degrees in English and theology.

PRIVILEDGE TO ISLAM DESTROYS FREE SPEECH

“Extending special privilege to Islam corrodes free speech” –Mark Steyn Media Are Culpable Cowards Steyn gloriously opines that the political and standard response to Islanmic extremist atrocity initially reflected the “moral vanity” of showing solidarity by “waving pencils” and publishing cartoons about the pen being mightier than the sword". The cowardice then looms large as the majority media refused to publish the cartoons for fear of being fingered racist. “Free speech has to include the right to insult Islam,” Steyn said. “Not because necessarily anyone approves of insulting Islam, but simply because free speech by definition is for the stuff you don’t approve of." Free speech may not suffer from any political or cultural restriction or it ceases to exist. "So when the CBC say they’re not going to show these critical elements of a news story because it will offend people, they are on the wrong side" of truth and ironically as they will discover, history. M.Bream's Story at: