Former President of the United States Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Within this document lies the words, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The unwritten clause within the document is that for one to enjoy their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness means that they too must allow and tolerate a stranger’s life, a stranger’s liberty, and a stranger’s pursuit of happiness even if they do not personally approve of it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness fall under the umbrella of personal freedom, which is one of the four vital principles of the political philosophy that is liberalism. For a society to function freely and peacefully, individuals must learn to cooperate, accommodate and tolerate personal freedoms as long as those freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others around them. And so this essay will argue that tolerance, even in intolerant times, is and always will be a central commitment of liberalism. Although tolerance may be selective in the acceptance and allowance of personal freedoms, it is critical in the government’s role of protecting the freedoms of the community it serves.
Many political philosophies have come and gone in the world’s history. This is predominately due to the change of times in regard to values and ideas. Each political philosophy has a desired goal that it strives to attain. Liberalism, in the words of Nicholas Kristof, “should model inclusivity and tolerance, even in intolerant times, even to the exclusive and intolerant”. The goal of liberalism then becomes a world where people live freely and peacefully through inclusivity and tolerance. Liberalism is built on the belief of liberty which demands the inclusivity of all human beings. To be inclusive is to embrace and execute tolerance for others. Our world today faces this cruel truth that we grow more exclusive every day. Liberals who aim to be inclusive and tolerant at times, demonize those who are not inclusive and are intolerant to others and their personal beliefs. However, one must be tolerant of the intolerant so that they may remain tolerant. If one were to always contradict and fight about another’s beliefs and opinions, then liberty in society would not exist because the agents, inclusivity, and tolerance would not function leaving the goal of a peaceful and free life to not exist. Tolerance, according to Kriostof’s model, therefore, is a central commitment to liberalism because, without tolerance, liberalism cannot function. If these goals were to not be attained, then like fascism and communism, liberalism would be written out of the history books.
Now that I have argued that liberalism cannot function without tolerance, then it is appropriate to state why tolerance is needed for liberalism to exist. Liberalism is a worldview that is based on liberty and equality that believes in personal expression. For these ideas to flourish, tolerance is needed. Individuals in a liberal society have every right to say and believe what they want as long as it does not intrude on the rights of others. Today, we see a lot of opposition to ideas and values. Religious beliefs and dress, the use of personal pronouns, and the choice to have an abortion are some of the various examples of ideas that are opposed in our daily lives. It is part of human nature to be opinionated, but it is also human to be respectful and compassionate. Kristof believes that “if you want to win an argument, you have to allow the argument”. His statement is what tolerance is in a nutshell, the idea that for peace to be maintained, both sides must agree to disagree. Tolerance is needed for liberalism to function or else liberalism is not liberalism. Liberals in theory are supposed to be open-minded and inclusive of differences. Without tolerance liberalism then becomes more authoritarian with the idea of no personal freedoms and fascist, with the idea that others and their ideas are superior to another’s personal views.
I have now stated and argued two points in relation to tolerance, but I have not shown through examples why tolerance is necessary to maintain peace and equality according to the liberal viewpoint. Without tolerance, some of the most pressing issues we face in Canada today would be catastrophically worse. Issues such as the use of the Niqab in civic ceremonies and procedures, the idea of legislation to tell someone how to speak, and the battle between the use of the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment are all examples of issues that test our tolerance towards one another. Alan Ryan argues that “The sting in the claims that these are essentially contested concepts is the thought that any elaboration will provoke further argument”. In a democratic society, liberals must debate properly and effectively. Not through slander and misguided opinions, but instead, through allowing the other side’s argument and thoroughly analyzing and accepting that argument, no matter if it contradicts one’s own opinions. The main issue that I would like to analyze is the issue involving Legislative Bill C-16. Bill C-16 in short is a bill that legislates individuals to avoid discrimination on several factors including race, sex, and sexual orientation. The issue that many people have with this bill is the idea that one is forced by the government to use the personal pronoun of choice of the person with whom they are speaking. This is mostly aimed toward the LGBTQ+/Transgender community. In regards to the use of tolerance, the government has chosen to be selective about whom they tolerate. By legislating individuals, one side may argue that the government has not been tolerable and instead chose to infringe on personal freedom which is freedom of speech. This law in theory determines the words individuals must utter and does not allow for an individual to the choice of words they choose to use. Although the government’s idea was to put an end to this kind of discrimination, one may argue that the lack of tolerance leads to being more exclusive. The personal freedom that is freedom of speech is what allows citizens in civil society to debate their difference in opinions by agreeing to disagree. By creating this law, the government has in a way, taken the people's voice away and has tolerated a selective few over the majority of the nation. If the government wanted to be tolerable in negotiating the terms of this bill, they would’ve made the terms of the bill more inclusive of both sides of the argument. Instead, they were more tolerant of one side and exclusive to the other which led to the legislation that interfered with free speech. This instead of inclusivity and tolerance has led to the opposite of maintaining peace and equality among Canadians.
In conclusion, the idea that liberalism is in need of tolerance to function, that liberalism can not exist without tolerance, and the several examples that I argued would not succeed without tolerance in liberalism are why I believe that tolerance is a central commitment of liberalism. This is the role of the government, to be both selective and tolerant of different ideologies and opinions, and to serve and protect its community through those views. The inevitable truth is that the definition of tolerance and what to tolerate will always be subject to dispute. What should never again be subject to discussion is the importance of the general idea that is tolerance in liberalism. That is to maintain liberty and liberalism one must be tolerant even in the most intolerant of times, and to be inclusive of those who are exclusive.