The Truth About Liberal 'Tolerance' (2019-02-05) #

0:00:00 not kind of saw that the state
0:00:01 guarantees security so if there's no
0:00:04 freedoms and security without state so
0:00:06 if there are any ideas or beliefs that
0:00:09 could potentially threaten the stability
0:00:11 of the state then that'sthat's a good
0:00:13 reason to limit and prevent people from
0:00:17 from holding those ideas and he also
0:00:20 mentioned and you were correct when you
0:00:22 mention about Mohammed ins right so he
0:00:24 said that Mohammed ins don't have a
0:00:26 claim for toleration as we've got the
0:00:27 court here actually yeah if you can read
0:00:30 out the exact quote so that people I've
0:00:32 got the one for atheism though yeah
0:00:33 it says here those those are not at all
0:00:37 to be tolerated who deny the being of a
0:00:39 God promises covenants and and oaths
0:00:43 which are the bonds of human society can
0:00:46 have a can have no hold upon an atheist
0:00:48 yeah
0:00:49 he says the to the taking away of God
0:00:52 though but even in thought dissolves all
0:00:55 besides also those that by their atheism
0:00:59 undermined and destroy all religion can
0:01:01 have no pretense of religion whereupon
0:01:03 to challenge the privilege of toleration
0:01:05 yeah so clearly I mean this is joy once
0:01:09 again John look he's opposing I actually
0:01:14 know what iíve got the I have the quotes
0:01:17 here actually and this is in I think
0:01:20 took a chapter 20 of us yeah there you
0:01:22 go
0:01:22 so he says I'll try to kind of I'll just
0:01:25 talk about the Muslim side of it so he
0:01:26 talks about he alludes to Catholics and
0:01:29 then he says and this probably sounds
0:01:32 like some Islamic folks today right he
0:01:34 says it is ridiculous for anyone to
0:01:36 profess himself to be a muhammad in'
0:01:38 only in his religion but in everything
0:01:40 else a faithful subject to a christian
0:01:43 magistrate which bases government whilst
0:01:46 at the same time he acknowledges himself
0:01:48 bound to yield a bit blind obedience to
0:01:51 the mufti of constantinople who himself
0:01:54 is entirely obedient to the ottoman
0:01:56 emperor basically the caliph and frames
0:01:59 the feigned Oracle's or columns of the
0:02:01 identities what hook misses Oracle's but
0:02:03 it means outcome of that religion
0:02:06 according to his pleasure pleasure
0:02:07 and this muhammad in living amongst
0:02:09 Christians would yet more apparently
0:02:11 renounced their government if he
0:02:13 acknowledged
0:02:14 the same person to be head of his church
0:02:16 who is the supreme magistrate in the
0:02:18 state
0:02:18 so basically Muslims can't be trusted
0:02:23 yes because they're the the head of
0:02:26 their religion or their leader is the
0:02:29 Caliph it isn't the leader of the
0:02:31 Christian State they live in the
0:02:33 conflict of interest yes which is why
0:02:35 he's argues that it is ridiculous just
0:02:38 to think that we should only that with
0:02:41 that Muslim can only be can only be a
0:02:44 Muslim in a spiritual aspect and not in
0:02:46 a political aspect - right so it shows
0:02:49 you I'm intrigued the extent to which
0:02:50 liberalism is malleable from the inside
0:02:54 and elastic if you like is all from from
0:02:57 it's very fun outside because obviously
0:03:00 here if toleration can be stretched
0:03:03 according to public good and community
0:03:07 interest and social interest to this
0:03:09 extent then to what extent is liberalism
0:03:12 in fact individualistic in this in the
0:03:14 sense I claims to be you know it's it's
0:03:17 gonna be as we would call HD handy right
0:03:19 yeah I got something from Miller so I
0:03:21 know we're kind of skipping 200 years
0:03:23 it's all right
0:03:24 but this is what I found quite just
0:03:25 interesting I mean I'm not sure once
0:03:30 again I think I was talking to you about
0:03:31 this before but I'm not sure if this is
0:03:34 authentic or not so I have to put as a
0:03:36 big caveat in before I read this out but
0:03:38 he's talking about blasphemy sure and
0:03:40 blasphemy laws and he says yeah if such
0:03:42 prosecutions be necessary for the
0:03:44 well-being of the community
0:03:45 if the prosperity of England requires
0:03:48 that some martyrs should be made by the
0:03:50 religion for which so many have been
0:03:52 made in former times then by all means
0:03:55 let them continue and be multiplied and
0:03:57 let Christianity which benefits the
0:03:59 country in so many other ways also
0:04:01 benefit by the sacrifice of its own
0:04:03 character for mercy toleration and
0:04:04 consistency it is however worth well
0:04:07 worth considering whether we will be
0:04:09 reduced to style Emma so otherwise here
0:04:10 I'm not sure once again up as a caveat
0:04:13 I'm not sure to what extent this is
0:04:15 accurate but what Mills seems to be
0:04:17 indicating here as well once again fast
0:04:20 wording a hundred fifty years or 200
0:04:21 years or whatever it may be is that
0:04:24 there are certain things
0:04:26 that society are unacceptable and
0:04:28 therefore should be universalized in law
0:04:32 and and those things would then be used
0:04:36 to curtail human interaction and liberty
0:04:39 if you like from an individual I got one
0:04:41 more example of looking at this because
0:04:44 this could be contested manuscript right
0:04:46 but in page 166 on Liberty very famous
0:04:54 book he basically John Stuart Mill talks
0:04:58 about certain acts which are done
0:05:00 publicly and not acceptable and he talks
0:05:03 of you know potentially like for example
0:05:06 about like a husband wife having sex
0:05:09 Marshall if he talks about himself life
0:05:11 but is from a second resource to maybe a
0:05:14 husband wife having sex in public right
0:05:15 so this kind of thing sex in public is
0:05:18 an unacceptable offense
0:05:21 according to even I think law today its
0:05:24 public yes yes it's not lawful
0:05:25 percentage guys even though you might
0:05:27 think it's not in by some people's
0:05:29 antics we hear about on the news and so
0:05:31 on but no it's generally prohibited it's
0:05:32 prohibited yeah that kind of thing so if
0:05:35 there is something which can be
0:05:36 universalized in law and enshrined in
0:05:40 law in such a way as would prevent human
0:05:43 beings from enacting their kind of
0:05:46 individual or doing what they want to do
0:05:48 individually then according to mill and
0:05:51 Locke and all of those theorists once
0:05:54 again there is a intrinsic malleability
0:05:57 or we can say such a malleability eyes
0:05:59 ironically would allow for rigidity at a
0:06:02 certain stage you can't be free at all
0:06:05 stages because you could argue this
0:06:07 doesn't harm anyone it goes against the
0:06:09 harm principle right yeah so you know
0:06:11 two people having sex maybe could harm a
0:06:12 child but if they do in the same area
0:06:14 yeah you know I mean why not you know
0:06:17 Quantic wanted it's their Creed
0:06:19 according to the Creed and so the point
0:06:22 I'm making is that it's always I'm
0:06:24 probably this is probably a good way to
0:06:25 segue into this there's always going to
0:06:28 be that tension between social contract
0:06:31 the universality of law and the
0:06:35 individual self-expression
0:06:38 so this is a problem for liberalism
0:06:40 right how does you how do human being so
0:06:44 out these things especially when you put
0:06:46 democracy into thee because I think I
0:06:48 saw you one time on YouTube you are
0:06:49 you're not sure if this is correct you
0:06:51 can correct me wonderful you questioning
0:06:54 someone on on like I think it was Middle
0:06:58 Eastern context and you were talking
0:06:59 about politics and say for example let's
0:07:02 just be controversial here and this is
0:07:03 kind of bringing out right I think me
0:07:05 controversial so one of the punitive
0:07:09 laws of these are kinds at the hand of
0:07:11 the thief
0:07:12 for example say for instance which is in
0:07:14 the Quran okay and we're not saying it's
0:07:16 applicable for all times and places
0:07:17 certainly we're not saying it's
0:07:18 applicable in the United Kingdom right
0:07:20 for the non-muslims or whatever it may
0:07:22 be right we're not gonna say we cut the
0:07:25 hands off we were judge judy and
0:07:26 executioner judge jury sure yeah yeah
0:07:32 but what I was gonna say was that say
0:07:34 for instance right we're bringing the
0:07:38 democratic element right you have a
0:07:40 society which the majority principle
0:07:42 dictates from for in for example in a
0:07:46 referendum decide that this this should
0:07:47 be the method by which and through which
0:07:49 thieves ought to be punished now you've
0:07:54 got lots of tensions here you've got the
0:07:55 tension between a social contract the
0:07:57 death the majority principle human
0:07:59 so-called human rights and the vigil
0:08:01 Human Rights which one should take
0:08:03 primacy in the in the struggle for
0:08:08 making it onto law what should be
0:08:12 enshrined and become universal as law
0:08:16 but well you like when people look at
0:08:19 her Dourdan a thing oh isn't that isn't
0:08:21 that so barbaric and so on no they don't
0:08:23 they don't look at let's say in look the
0:08:27 history of English law even during its
0:08:29 post enlightenment develops stage listen
0:08:32 19th century so it wasn't that long ago
0:08:34 in terms of history Victorian Britain
0:08:37 yeah if you if you commit theft you
0:08:39 could be executed you know and killed
0:08:41 and rendered dead just for committing
0:08:44 theft really the who do doesn't do that
0:08:46 it's non doesn't say it doesn't say that
0:08:47 is worth it's much more harsh yes
0:08:49 certainly much more harsh you also had
0:08:51 forced
0:08:52 for many petty crimes yes in so Bessey's
0:08:56 made into slaves but those who know
0:08:59 they'll say Abdullah look removed all
0:09:00 for that that was something of the pie
0:09:01 no I I know but I would argue they've
0:09:03 replaced it with something which is
0:09:05 still I would argue inhumane compared to
0:09:08 the shoddy of the mercy of the Sharia
0:09:09 because the Sharia the punishment system
0:09:12 is very it's usually it's corporal
0:09:14 punishments so punch him the ball of the
0:09:16 body but the person is released back to
0:09:17 their family that very day right their
0:09:20 family doesn't suffer when that person
0:09:22 is punished the person who commits the
0:09:23 planet commits the year that the crime
0:09:25 they're punished not their family but in
0:09:28 in Western countries they put people
0:09:30 into these cages humans they put humans
0:09:32 into cages for long periods of time
0:09:35 and have created human zoos it's become
0:09:37 an industry in United States of America
0:09:39 with the highest prison population in
0:09:42 the world more than China - got a
0:09:44 billion people is that is that correct
0:09:46 is accurate yeah it's the largest prison
0:09:49 population in the world not not as not
0:09:51 as a ratio as numbers of individuals as
0:09:53 numbers as numbers and we're paying I
0:09:56 think it's over I think that run a
0:09:59 million or so people and million
0:10:01 Americans are in cages and what I was
0:10:06 gonna say to you here going back to the
0:10:07 problems of liberalism
0:10:08 yeah because couldn't one easily argue
0:10:11 right just potentially as Locke John
0:10:13 Locke did and potentially as John Stuart
0:10:15 Mill fall is worth okay
0:10:20 would would indicate himself that I mean
0:10:23 this this might sound a bit wacky here
0:10:24 right but let's bring one of the abdomen
0:10:27 huddled for honest or now one of the
0:10:29 punitive laws of Islam right say for
0:10:31 example cutting the hands of the thief
0:10:33 well I could even bring us suppose an
0:10:36 execution death penalty not the flogging
0:10:39 for zina basically for yeah Ming
0:10:43 Xin yeah according to the logic of John
0:10:46 Stuart Mill here in 866 of his book on
0:10:49 Liberty if there are certain things
0:10:51 which are unacceptable publicly so this
0:10:55 this point it's unacceptable publicly
0:10:57 who's to who's to decide it would be
0:10:59 either either or there will be the the
0:11:03 population and all the
0:11:05 yeah so if it's the ruler and the
0:11:08 population so there's kind of like well
0:11:10 the majority principle if they want to
0:11:11 bring him democracy wherever it may be
0:11:13 but if that's the case so from this
0:11:16 logic you can actually justify using
0:11:18 liberal principles couldn't you I mean
0:11:20 couldn't you justify the cutting the
0:11:22 hand of a thief but they don't really
0:11:24 have an argument like John Locke John
0:11:26 Stuart Mill Thomas Hobbes Sonya Thomas
0:11:28 of Leda wouldn't could not actually
0:11:30 produce any argument to actually
0:11:33 criticize they might say it's against
0:11:36 our tastes to do so but they were doing
0:11:38 far worse in England round-nose at those
0:11:41 times much much worse then O'Neill
0:11:44 Empire mm-hmm I'm not sure what they
0:11:46 were their thing was I mean I read it in
0:11:49 two treatises of government is a lot
0:11:50 discussion on slavery and obviously
0:11:52 there's no doubt in the United States
0:11:54 they were amputated and putative knee
0:11:56 hands of of slaves that ran away and so
0:12:00 and so forth whereas in the Sharia you
0:12:02 don't know you can't amputate slaves and
0:12:05 so on and so forth but what I was gonna
0:12:07 say was that there's no doubt on John
0:12:08 Locke's position for example on slavery
0:12:10 he's unequivocally against it right he
0:12:12 talked about for the most part for irony
0:12:15 and it's there's some reports of him
0:12:16 actually having slaves but in America
0:12:18 okay what he did weigh against them and
0:12:21 that's from what from what I remember he
0:12:22 definitely wrote against it slavery is
0:12:24 an institution or what can I he
0:12:25 definitely wrote against against they
0:12:27 said the human being should never be
0:12:28 enslaved and so on to an extent he but
0:12:32 he also defended he defended slavery in
0:12:35 the Bible by arguing it wasn't exactly
0:12:37 are you probably I think he went to my
0:12:39 kind of Islam and slavery lecture when I
0:12:40 brought this up yes where he said that
0:12:44 if you're not allowed to execute your
0:12:47 slave at will and we're quantitive the
0:12:51 laws of Moses and what have you
0:12:53 after I think seven or six years you
0:12:54 release them or or that they can be
0:12:56 released if they pay off a debt or
0:12:57 what-have-you but basically you didn't
0:12:58 you don't have unconditional absolute
0:13:00 control over someone to do whatever you
0:13:03 want and we know that in Islam you don't
0:13:04 you know there's fish ins that there are
0:13:08 rights better safe has it over you so
0:13:10 Quinn to John Locke
0:13:11 that's not slavery mmm so Jewish the
0:13:14 kind of slavery did as defining Jewish
0:13:17 law and slavery as they
0:13:19 we would say is in Sharia or least how I
0:13:22 am Eric manages it according to John
0:13:24 Locke he isn't slavery and that's what
0:13:26 he writes in his two tiers of government
0:13:27 that you put that section on slavery he
0:13:29 writes he actually did it mentions it by
0:13:32 name which is saying that liberals would
0:13:34 find them probably disconcerting if they
0:13:36 knew that now and you're right what you
0:13:39 said about they these guys would not
0:13:42 have any crystal of the Sharia in fact
0:13:44 they could even argue I could be argued
0:13:47 that according to John Locke an Islamic
0:13:50 government under a caliph with it with
0:13:52 implementing Sharia is a free government
0:13:54 it's it's a free state on the basis that
0:13:57 he said the same thing about a Jewish
0:13:58 government no not even that he gave a
0:14:01 definition so Robert Robert filmer
0:14:04 argues that well if you believe in
0:14:08 freedom you believe that people can just
0:14:10 do whatever they want and he was real
0:14:13 buts in response they no no I didn't say
0:14:14 that
0:14:14 I what I meant by freedom is that you
0:14:17 live under a government with known laws
0:14:20 that apply for everybody equally where
0:14:23 the ruler can't do anything he wants to
0:14:25 just because he doesn't like you so I
0:14:27 don't like that hat you're wearing I'm
0:14:28 gonna kill you he can't do that
0:14:29 because the law is prohibited right all
0:14:32 the laws the laws of defined so whatever
0:14:35 is is within the permissible area and
0:14:37 the moba you have freedom that's what he
0:14:40 means by freedom