Cheltenham Literature Festival has been host to many great writers and celebrities alike and this year is no exception. Journalist Abdul-Rehman Malik writer for such publications as Q-News, a current affairs Muslim magazine, led a varied panel in a debate about the limit of tolerance at Cheltenham town hall on the 3rd of October. The panellists addressed recent political developments such as the UKIP surge and the disciplinary proposal of “extremist disruption orders” and discussed the best way to deal with angry ideologies in a democratic yet multicultural nation.
‘Tolerance is a cornerstone of our society,’ announced adjudicator Malik at the start of the evening. ‘Yet if we scratch beneath British civility are there not currents of anger?’ He stated that a survey done of British voters showed intolerance towards Islam and immigration, but also cautioned about using the law as a response to such dissent: ‘when we talk about enhancing the power of the state in these matters that makes me nervous.’
Comedian Shazia Mirza not only provided the voice for Muslim women but the Indian community as a whole while David Aaronovitch of ‘The Times’, Claire Fox the Director of the Institute of Ideas and Matthew Goodwin, author of the book 'Revolt on the Right', outlined the main political concerns. These included the accurate representation of ethnic minority groups, the role and responsibility of the media in circulating extreme ideas and the issue of ignorance in both right-wing and liberal activism.
The speakers came to the conclusion that generating a more equitable dialogue was the biggest priority and that we needed to work harder to achieve this before resorting to the ultimate show of western intolerance; censorship. Fox stated: ‘with Theresa May’s proposal we will be censoring social media.’ In response to the murderous activity of ISIL ‘we are not allowing a battle of ideas. It is cowardly on our part.’ However, she also dismissed the ‘soppy multiculturalism’ that says ‘all opinions are equal and we need to always respect each other’ which sidesteps a genuine meeting of the minds in different way: ‘we need to be more aggressive intellectually and take these issues head on. People forget that to tolerate does not mean to accept. I will tolerate but I am not going to say that it’s the best.’
Mirza elaborated on the need for details and a clearer understanding of each other’s social positions when she questioned the definition of British values: ‘first we have to know what they are.’ She gave the bold example that a woman in a burka can feel as empowered as someone in a mini-skirt. In another cultural parallel one can consider why an arranged marriage that is conducted respectfully is any different to online dating.
Aaronovitch added to the consensus for proper discourse, commenting on the anti-immigration feeling in the local elections: ‘there is a problem with scared politicians who agree that people are raising genuine issues when they are the wrong.’ He was also the one to point out the impossibility of talking to a terrorist group that was as ‘nihilistic, apolitical and irrational’ as ISIL: ‘what are we going to talk about!?’
However, all in all, facilitating and striving for more in-depth discussion remained the ideal solution for tackling the issue of tolerance. This was corroborated by the success story of Luton’s Council of Faiths. Because of the Council, said the cultural ambassador for Luton, ‘the city has only known of the problem of racism as projected from the outside world.’
