Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:52:17.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Political Toleration: A Reply to Newey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2010

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jones, Peter, ‘Making Sense of Political Toleration’, British Journal of Political Science, 37 (2007), 383402CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Newey, Glen, ‘Political Toleration: Reply to Jones’, British Journal of Political Science, forthcomingGoogle Scholar; Newey, , Virtue, Reason and Toleration (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

3 I do not, for example, share Newey’s sense that ritual abuse hurled at one another by rival sets of football supporters is ‘the epitome of intolerance’.

4 ‘I have expounded a three-part structure for toleration, comprising classes of reasons of the following kinds: (a) reasons for disapproving of a practice; (b) reasons for failing to act so as to prevent the practice; (c) reasons explaining why, in other cases of disapproval, prevention is justified.’ Newey, , Virtue, Reason and Toleration, p. 48Google Scholar, my emphases; see also pp. 25–35.

5 For further discussion of this issue, see Jones, Peter, ‘Can Speech be Intolerant?’ in Glen Newey, ed., Freedom of Expression: Counting the Costs (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007), pp. 929Google Scholar.

6 I previously noted this possibility in ‘Making Sense of Political Toleration’, p. 395, fn. 21.