A few days ago, The Parliament rejected the motion of the Catalan Alliance to ban the Islamic veil. All of this generated, in turn, significant ideological turbulence within Junts and, consequently, within the chamber that represents the entirety of Catalan society. Allow me to raise the question beyond the purely partisan bickering: are we debating a political issue here or a question of cultural values in a broad sense? It's worth remembering that they are different things. If it is a question of values, is the center of gravity of the debate the idea of tolerance understood in the pre-political sense? permissiveness or in political terms of recognitionClarifying this ambiguity, in any case, would not resolve the true core of the problem, which is not that of tolerance itself but rather its limits in the context of a democratic society that participates—regardless of the degree and language—in the phenomenon of cultural diversity. Clarifying the limits of tolerance can easily shift to two rocky extremes: the adoption of attitudes close to extreme cultural relativism ("anything goes," "every difference is good," etc.) or to exclusionary ethnocentrism (even if camouflaged, in this case, by the defense of Western values).
The dilemma is not new, and it has placed many European governments in delicate situations. One need only think of the discussion generated decades ago by the use of the veil in secular schools in France; in a few weeks, a symbolic and rather trivial issue degenerated into a dialectical confrontation that could have led to a serious social fracture. The notion of tolerance was at the basis of most of the arguments, in both directions. What was being debated was, in reality, a dilemma: either a state model based on the old republican ideals of Jacobin origin, or an institutional emphasis on multiculturalism. However, as has long been common, the juxtaposition of the different meanings of the notion of tolerance acted as a factor of political distortion. The debate—perhaps inevitable in a country with France's demographic characteristics—was beheaded by the confusing rhetoric associated with the term. In that context, and in many others, this attitude represented a convenient, easy way to postpone sine die A very complex political problem that has only just begun. Be that as it may, it's hard to imagine the functioning of a state in which the legislative and judicial branches sided with cultural relativism. with all its consequencesIt's also difficult to imagine, however, the viability of a multicultural society that only reflected the values and customs of a portion—not the majority—of its citizens. In the first case, there would be a great deal of mutual tolerance, but no possibility of drafting common, operational laws; in the second, the law would be monolithic, but based on intolerance and exclusion. These are, currently, the extremes of the dilemma.
There are cultural practices that are incompatible with both current legislation and the human rights enshrined in the 1948 Declaration. An extreme case would be clitoridectomy, which, by the way, has nothing to do with Islam. In this case, there is no, nor should there be, any debate: this is a crime, period. Although they are not as serious, neither should certain rules related to the health of restaurants or shops, regardless of the location of their owners, be discussed. Allowing certain situations has nothing to do with tolerance understood pre-politically as permissiveness, nor with recognition of diversity. In the case of clothing, however, I don't see the issue as so clear in ethical terms. The sexual mutilation of a girl is not—should not be under any circumstances—"interpretable"; the clothes she will end up wearing when she grows up, on the other hand, are another story. I understand that there are people who, honestly, interpret this as an imposition incompatible with modern values, and others who, equally honestly, perceive it as a personal and free choice derived from certain beliefs. I haven't repeated the adverb. honestly in the same sentence by mistake: I think this is the key to the debate. This topic can be discussed from many perspectives, and as long as they're not malicious, they can all contribute something interesting to the debate. I don't know if this is the case, but...
