Each week brings its share of indignant speeches denouncing the intolerance shown by some towards such and such a minority group. Claiming a moral position above all suspicion, defenders of active, militant tolerance express their disagreement. Less through substantive arguments, than through violent reactions carrying accusations of closure to the other, of ethnocentrism, of racism.
A final example is that of the group and spontaneous accusations of Islamophobia addressed to anyone who wonders about the appropriateness of HEC Montreal to use a veiled Algerian in its marketing strategy for its training programs. Once again, the excesses that accompany the shift from militant tolerance (quite defensible) to an activism of tolerance that leaves little room for nuanced analysis are exposed.
Tolerance, however, is based on debate that respects the diversity of positions from one side to the other. However, if the advertising strategy used by HEC can possibly promote university education for women, including in Algeria, it nevertheless raises questions with regard to the trivialization (or even, in this case, the instrumentalization for marketing purposes) of such a symbol of submission and violence against women (especially… in Algeria).
The arguments put forward by several Muslim women denouncing such disengagement find little echo in public debates. The tone and level of the debates of ideas observed in the written press and in universities are, unfortunately, all too often inspired by those observed on social networks.
However, this key humanist value deserves better. Tolerance of course presupposes respect for the Other as a prerequisite. But not everything deserves respect, straight away, without critical analysis. It cannot be reduced to a simple unconditional respect for difference, religious, political or otherwise. It will only impose itself as a unifying value around living together if it is committed to denouncing the heavy price paid by certain oppressed sub-groups in the name of religious values.
Dogmatic overtones
Unconditional respect for traditions cannot be an ethical principle. To consider that any merit of respect discredits tolerance as a secular humanist value essential to the defense of the dignity of all human beings.
Does the activism of diversity and the sanctification of difference for its own sake observed in certain media serve the interests of tolerance? Unfortunately, the radicalization of calls for tolerance in public debates too often stems from dogmatism and puts it in danger. However, it is neither passive acceptance, nor refusal to judge, nor abdication in the face of the denunciation of abuses committed in its name.
Benevolent neutrality, indulgence and indifference can lead to destructive, even immoral tolerance. Tolerance must be critical of all manifestations of racism and ethnocentrism. But its defenders must just as much be committed to denouncing the non-respect of the fundamental rights of the Other.
It is the quest for such a balance between critical tolerance of the instrumentalisations of which it is the object and tolerance engaged in the promotion of conditional respect for difference that seems to be lacking in public debates. The challenge of nuance too often seems beyond the reach of those who make it their mission to defend it.