Madam, - John Waters sounds a paean of triumph over liberalism's difficulties with the hijab issue in France ("Europe's degeneracy unveiled", Opinion, January 26th).
He detects an inconsistency within liberalism, which he regards as an attempt to build an ideal egalitarian and multicultural society.
Bur Mr Waters's perception of liberalism is a travesty, a straw man he has set up only to tear down for his own delight. At liberalism's core are not ideas such as multiculturalism or diversity, but liberty, the same liberty in the trinity of "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity".
The hard lesson liberalism learned in the 20th century is that the members of this trinity are often incompatible. You cannot advance equality without trimming someone's liberty. What liberalism supplies is a space (a "free market" if you like) in ideas and social experiments where people are free to argue their case and express preferences.
Action is circumscribed by the concepts of "negative liberty" (freedom from interference), and "positive liberty" (freedom to act in ways that do not interfere with others). Liberalism is for the here and now; it does not seek to gain a Utopian future (no "withering away of the state", for example), or to return to an idealised past, where we can be happy peasants dancing at the crossroads. This last is what I suspect Mr Waters really wants, but he is premature in announcing the victory of irrationalism.
Liberals have no reason to be mortified by the current conflict over Muslim religious dress. As an open system, liberalism is well capable of conflict and self-correction. My own view, unlike Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, January 27th), is that the French government is interfering both with a "negative liberty", the right to dress as one pleases, and a "positive liberty", the right of self-expression. Mr O'Toole argues for equality, but it is not a good thing to advance equality at the expense of liberty.
Incidentally, I think Gloria Hamilton (Letters, January 27th) is wrong to conflate the hijab with female circumcision - no liberal society would countenance the mutilation of children under "negative liberty". - Yours, etc.,
TOBY JOYCE,
Balreask Manor,
Navan,
Co Meath.
Madam, - Debra E. James letter (January 26th) describes the "ready made gangs" that young people are divided into due to religious differences. To me this seems yet another example of older people - people who should know better - typecasting adolescents into categories invented by themselves.
Children of primary school age are completely unperturbed by any religious differences that they may encounter. This is as it should be. Any bias they may have is produced by their parents.
The same frequently applies to teenagers, the difference being that teenagers are on more of an intellectual par with their parents and those governing their dress codes than their primary school counterparts. If they are well raised and well taught, there are generally few problems between young people in this regard.
The "religious gang warfare" that Debra E. James mentions is hardly caused by headscarves, since neither of the involved groups have any sort of identifying religious garb in their doctrine. It is shortsighted to say the least to compare these situations on any level.
Approximately 10 per cent of the students who attend the same Catholic-run post-primary school as I do are of Muslim faith. They are allowed to wear their headscarves in school. I am now in my final year, and have yet to encounter, witness, or so much as hear rumour of any discrimination, isolation or bullying of anyone because of their faith. The atmosphere of the school is such that it would not be tolerated by anyone.
Adolescents are far less judgmental and small-minded than is frequently believed. Our attitudes are sometimes things to be aspired to, not guessed at and demeaned. - Yours, etc.,
CAITRÍONA BURKE,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.