The outcome of the Yorgen Fenech trial deeply radicalised public debate, shifting mainstream discourse toward extreme, intolerant, or polarised viewpoints, often aligning with already polarised political views. But on top of intolerance to different viewpoints is the further reinforcement of bigotry.

The dictionary definition of bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."  Bigotry is not intolerance toward the opinions or beliefs of others, but intolerance of other persons. Bigotry goes beyond disagreeing with what someone else believes; it is an unwillingness to tolerate or accept the person who holds those beliefs.

The world is full of intolerance.  Although over the last few decades we have seen significant gains in human rights, we still have a long way to go.  For example, for a period we had seen substantial progress when it comes to such issues as sexism, homophobia, and racism, but now it appears that there are consistent attempts to roll back the hard-won progress we had made.

Sometimes, it feels like we have started to lose some of the tolerance we have been cultivating, allowing intolerance to grow and spread.  I sense an ideological shift whereby previously unacceptable or extremist views are becoming normalised while the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse is narrowing.  The public debate is characterised by black and white perspectives.  Nuance, compromise, and democratic norms are being replaced by absolute, single-minded collective goals.

A small but telling example of this concerns my proclivity for sarcasm.  I resorted to it in a recent comment about the claims surrounding MEP Alex Agius Saliba.  I was then berated by a civil society NGO for using sarcasm.  It seems that the rule-of-law NGO is unaware that courts and human rights frameworks   ̶   such as the European Convention on Human Rights and international free-speech principles   ̶   protect irony, satire, parody, and humorous remarks.

A further cause for concern is the widespread use of 'Us vs. Them' framing.  Thus, the issue is not whether it is right or wrong that there should be a second trial of Yorgen Fenech.  The debate descends into an Us (the often-labour trolls who inexplicably have become Fenech's rabid defenders) vs Them (the 'Daphne' gang, in itself a loaded description). This process divides society into rigid in-groups and out-groups, delegitimising political opponents rather than engaging with their arguments.

One might say this is an inevitable consequence of social media's digital algorithms. which highlight sensational, polarising, and emotionally charged content, emphasising increased engagement rather than balanced dialogue.  The process is exacerbated by echo chambers where online and media bubbles exclude groups that have different perspectives, thus attenuating empathy and hardening ideological stances.  To cap it all, politicians and their media outlets increasingly use cultural and identity grievances to mobilise supporters, making moderate stances politically costly. 

In this warped world, the advancement of rule of law principles, which both political groups say they support, fall victim to a divide between those who see them as a tool to bludgeon an otherwise winning political group and those who perceive the principles as a tool for the opposing party to win something they didn't get during the election.

Thank God, so far, the existential or moral battles between the "good" side and the "evil" one, whichever one it is, have not resulted in significant physical violence, but it is surely leading to illiberalism and democratic erosion.  It is having a chilling effect on freedom of speech by silencing moderate voices who fear public backlash or harassment.  It also fosters social fragmentation, deepening societal divides and often making compromise difficult.

Of course, it's one thing to demonise one's opponents and to use quasi-legal or administrative methods to coerce them but another altogether to take them out and shoot them.  Short of violence, though, illiberalism may evolve into political coercion. 

We live in intolerant times, and we ignore this growing phenomenon at our peril.  The situation reminds me of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, where the philosopher noted that a fully tolerant society risks self-destruction if it grants unlimited tolerance to intolerant ideologies that reject rational debate.  It led Popper and later thinkers like John Rawls to argue that society must defend its core liberties against concrete, violent threats of intolerance, but warned that suppressing ideas prematurely   ̶   before they pose an active threat   ̶   undermines open democracy itself.

The traditional view of tolerance had two characteristics:  first, respect for the right of a person or individual to hold his beliefs and voice his opinions; and second, the right to disagree with those beliefs and contest them both privately and publicly.

D.A. Carson famously paraphrased it in "The Intolerance of Tolerance" as, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  One does not have to like the person with whom one disagrees, but one must respect and tolerate his right to speak.

The problem is that what many intellectuals and common people have forgotten is that the traditional understanding of tolerance implies that there is such a thing as truth   ̶   truth that can be known, discovered through debate, reflection, and analysis.  However, finding the truth requires mutual cooperation, deep consideration of opposing beliefs, and persuasion through the use of reason.  Accordingly, exclusion, coercion, insults, and threats of violence have no place in the search for truth.

The new idea of tolerance rejects "dogmatism and absolutism," affirming instead that each person has the right to live by his beliefs, and that the majority should not impose its views on him.  In fact, it goes further to claim that to be intolerant toward another's beliefs is to be intolerant toward the person, which is what bigotry is about.  Thus, voicing dissent against the array of beliefs held by sexual liberals is equivalent to a rejection of the people who hold those views.

What this means is that the rejection of same-sex marriage, homosexual practice, and transgenderism is perceived as an attack on the dignity of people with such lifestyles. This is why many liberals repeatedly refer to the dignity of LGBT individuals as a basis for their inclusion in the institution of marriage (as opposed to the metaphysical nature of marriage). To exclude them would be an intolerant act and a defacing of their human dignity.

But the other face of this is that people who have a different view of marriage and sexual mores are being branded as bigots.  If this view prevails, conservatives will be systematically discriminated against and socially ostracised. Education will exclude conservative views, people will be forced to abide by laws that conflict with their religious beliefs and consciences, and the media will find it almost impossible to publish opinions that conflict with the prevailing perspectives.

This is why the battle for freedom of conscience is so important. There is the very real possibility that conservative voices and freedoms will be stamped out. This would be wrong.  I am a liberal at heart, but I cannot contemplate a society where I cannot listen to conservative thinkers, not can I accept a society where I do not have the freedom to accept certain conservative ideas that other liberals might object to.  

In a complex world like ours, it is entirely possible that an individual might hold conservative views regarding personal fiscal responsibility and family traditions yet hold liberal views on social welfare or criminal justice reform.  You can support government action to protect the environment (a liberal value) while fiercely defending free speech or noisy fireworks (a traditional or conservative value)

Of course, this brings a tension between the two, but in a democratic system this is healthy.  Conservatism provides stability, structural order, and preservation of the old laws that sustained our society and nation, while liberalism drives reform, questions authority, and highlights gaps in civil rights.  After all, both ideologies stem from a shared desire to protect people from harm, even if they disagree on who is vulnerable or how to achieve safety.  

For example, over several decades, politicians, elected officials, and civil society found ways to work through some of the inequality that women and persons with disabilities had long experienced. These people became protected classes whose diminished social status was redefined as a legal issue affecting their rights as citizens. Stretching their legal protections into the economic realm - covering anything that might affect a woman's or any disadvantaged person's standing as a wage earner or homebuyer, for instance - was more difficult.  Yet, we have made tremendous progress.

Another example concerns economic inequality and risk of poverty.  Extreme liberalism and the excesses it permitted increased income and wealth inequalities everywhere, though Malta has lower Gini coefficient and S80/20 rates. Anything politicians might do to change people's economic fortunes would be hard to square with ideas about personal liberty and freedom, which would include an individual's "right" to have more money and spend it as they like.  Yet, politicians on both sides of the divide have found a way to persuade higher-income people to accept income redistribution measures.

Sometimes we tend to think that the world has gone bonkers.  But the situation today is no different than in the good old days of Roman politics, where the Optimates ("best men") believed in preserving tradition while the Populares ("favouring the people") proposed welfare programmes and the expansion of citizenship rights.  Although presented in changed forms, these early conflicts form the basis of liberalism and conservatism today.

It is up to Maltese citizens to decide whether they want their different opinions to divide them and bring strife, or to collaborate on finding solutions that go beyond partisan divisions towards better societal outcomes.

Frans Camilleri is an economist