Tolerance: for and against
From C. Vestey
Sir: John Gray argues that ‘relearning the habit of tolerance’ may allow us to reach a ‘modus vivendi’ with Islam (‘The best we can hope for is tolerance’, 17 February). He has learnt nothing from the events of the last 30 years. It was tolerance (and cowardice) that gave us the ‘covenant of security’ that allowed hard jihadi networks to bed down in and operate from the UK in total freedom. We already tolerate honour killings and forced marriage by backing away from a robust response for fear of ‘stigmatising’ Muslims. We tolerate the creeping introduction of civil sharia law and other parallel legal systems. We allow free speech to be threatened by violence and intimidation and we actively connive at self-censorship lest we end up like poor Theo Van Gogh. Tolerance, sir, is what got us into this situation. Our tolerance — and Islam’s inherent intolerance and need to conquer — are both the sources of Islam’s strength and our problems. Gray should read less Ian Buruma and Johann Hari and more Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. He might then actually understand the terrifying numbers game the Islamic world is quite deliberately and successfully playing — and what is truly at stake. You need look no further than the Koran to expose the wilful blindness of Gray’s belief that Muslims will ‘rub along together’ with us kuffar if only we can be more tolerant.
C. Vestey
London
From The Revd Canon Dr R. John Elford
Sir: Tolerance is not only all we can hope for — it is all we need. It has served our nation well in the past. Elizabeth I understood it well. In the 1559 Book of Common Prayer she provided equally for both the Protestant and Catholic wings of the Church with profound effect. In 1689 the Act of Toleration extended this to some nonconformists. Toleration is a secular and not, sadly, a Western religious virtue. It is the most practical and probably, also, the highest virtue a secular state can exemplify.
R. John Elford
Liverpool
Cameron’s equivocation
From Martin Newland
Sir: Michael Gove (‘The anniversary of Emperor Ming’, 17 February) rightly criticises Sir Menzies Campbell’s stance on the Middle East peace process in his excellent piece on the Liberal Democrats. But is it only the Liberal Democrats who can be accused of criticising Israel and America as a means of improving their domestic political fortunes? David Cameron has already delivered a major speech criticising American foreign policy, and his party was swift to adopt the language of ‘proportionality’ towards Israel when it was attacked last summer by Iranian-equipped forces from southern Lebanon.
The Conservatives have no discernible policy towards Europe and appear to be distancing themselves from the Americans. This latter position might gain them a few votes at home, but where exactly would a future Tory government forge its key alliances if things turned nasty? Much is made of the apparent ‘endorsement’ of Mr Cameron in these pages by the presidential hopeful John McCain. But you can be certain that once McCain or any president of either political hue takes over the geopolitical driving seat, they will be looking for less equivocal allies than the Conservatives. It would be ironic if Mr Cameron, so ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ in the field of domestic policy, were to render Britain a member of ‘Old Europe’ in the foreign-policy arena.
Martin Newland
Chart Sutton, Kent
Education ‘captured’
From John Blundell
Sir: I congratulate Fraser Nelson and James Forsyth for their two fascinating articles on our failing schools (‘Look back in anger’, 3 February; ‘Liberate schools’, 10 February). They hint at the greatest mystery of all — the refusal of politicians to allow real parental choice. In my view, freeing schools from municipal monopoly would ensure huge electoral advantage to its exponents. As matters stand, the ‘producers’ have totally captured education from their ‘customers’.
When, as education secretary, Margaret Thatcher attended the centenary celebration of the 1870 Forster Education Act, which made local authority provision mandatory, her next appointment was to launch a campaign against adult illiteracy. Could they be connected? All three parties seem intimidated by the interest groups in schooling. Only one interest matters — the pupils and their parents.
John Blundell
Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs, London SW1
No justification for torture
From P.L. Nock
Sir: On the subject of torture (‘Meeting Professor Torture’, 17 February), I would like to make two points. First, that it’s difficult to see how a so-called Christian state could practise such infamy. Second, I think it was Cicero who said, rightly, that torture is an unreliable method of eliciting information, since its victims will naturally say what they think their interrogators wish to hear — which may not necessarily be the truth. Is this really how we think civilised states ought to conduct themselves?
P.L. Nock
Windermere, Cumbria
Now we are online
From R. Molony
Sir: Charles Moore has some suggestions for updating children’s books for the internet age (The Spectator’s Notes, 13 January). May I widen the field a little? At the start of my lesson on Dickens, one student asked, ‘Sir, are we reading Great Explaystations today?’
R. Molony
By email
From Olive Cairtan
Sir: Charles Moore should have mentioned Charlotte’s World Wide Web, about a spider and her broadband connection. Quite enchanting.
Olive Cairtan
London E8
Comments