by Chris Bayliss, The Critic
We should stop assuming that our values are universal
A lot of Britain’s problems with integration stem from our failure to perceive the ways in which our own society is different to others in the world. Principles that seem fundamental to us are often the result of unique circumstances that caused certain European societies, and their offshoots, to think about morality, property and the individual in a very particular way.
Because we associate these principles with basic decency, it can be difficult to appreciate that they are not universal without feeling prejudicial toward other cultures and peoples. We forget to consider how and why our particular principles emerged; we assume they were just always there.
Our very broad approach to freedom of speech is one such principle. There is a basic idea that one should be able to say what one has to say — but without a grasp of how and why this concept emerged in England, for the reasons that it did, it is hard to get a feel for why we insisted that the boundaries extended as far as they did. In particular, the freedom to cause offence to religious sensibilities is understood to be a fundamental part of the concept. Even very religious people brought up in the British tradition are comfortable enough with the idea that others have a right to denigrate their beliefs, and that this is inextricably bound up with the rights that protect their own religious freedom. But this is by no means universally understood outside the Western context, where religious people have very different ideas of what it is that protects their position in society.