core nature of my country and its values. Same old, same old from Soumaya. Her arguments boil down to the old "paradox of toleration":the fact that toleration seems to ask us to tolerate those things we find intolerable, or intolerant. Toleration does require that we refrain from enacting the negative consequences of our negative judgments. This becomes paradoxical when we find ourselves confronting persons, attitudes, or behaviours which we vigorously reject: we then must, paradoxically, tolerate that which we find intolerable. This becomes especially difficult when the other who is to be tolerated expresses views or activities that are themselves intolerant. This can be resolved by distinguishing between emotional judgements and those based on rational universal principles.In the supposed paradox of toleration, there is a conflict between the emotional reaction against something and the commitment to the principle of respecting autonomy and self-control.The paradox is resolved when it is realised that the latter trumps the former, so when the tolerant commitment to autonomy runs up against an intolerant rejection of autonomy, then there is no need to tolerate. In other words the dilemma is resolved once it is realized that tolerance is not a commitment to relativism, but an adherence to the universal value of autonomy. @AllyF-If you'd read my post,you'd have seen that I explicitly pointed out that Popper was not speaking of any particular ideology.He would have been apalled by any unthinking orthodoxy that promoted intolerance.Quite right ,too. Most popular on the Guardian Today in pictures After advising