A call to limit tolerance of intolerant ideologies won a decisive Yes verdict, by more than three to one. Yet the floor’s most-respected argument came from the losing side, warning that “intolerant far right ideologies are endangering our communities” — a striking complication to an otherwise confident result.
The Yes case treated tolerance as a safeguard with limits, not an unconditional principle. Its neatest formulation was “We should not tolerate the intolerant”, while another voter argued that “Free speech can never be absolute” and is ultimately constrained by social obligations.
No voters did not simply defend unlimited speech. One accepted the danger from white supremacists and fascists, while another warned that “Free speech and freedom of expression is not and never will be freedom of consequence”. The sharper resistance attacked the question’s framing instead, citing “anti-asylum seeker government policies” and the danger of deciding which cultures count as intolerant; the two sides were often answering different threats.
The debate therefore sat inside the live argument over integration, immigration and public expression, but its language was broader than policy. Yes voices ranged from legal guardrails to demands to “Ban foreign ideology completely”, while the more measured case put “Human rights first and foremost” and insisted that religion or culture should not excuse unlawful behaviour.
The ballot was clear; the boundary it wanted to draw was not.
25 Opinions
Ban foreign ideology completely. Take it to countries that welcome their ideology.
Human rights first and foremost. Pluralisnm is already limited - we don't allow child marriage, polygamy or FGM for example. This should be broadened to cover more women's rights, true free speech, no blasphemy laws and kick the church out of the lords. The law and human rights should apply to everyone, and religion or culture is not an excuse for unlawful behaviours. There is no right not be offended and we should not tolerate people who are intolerant of our values.
Western Europe has developed increasing tolerance over 800 years as the populace fought for rights and freedoms based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Eastern Europe gained that with fall of the Berlin Wall. Intolerant idealigies must not be allowed to erode thism
When the intolerant use your tolerance to impose their minority views & practices & infringe your rights including your right to life the host country has a serious problem. In UK such views are handsomely rewarded with 2 tier policing & justice as cowardly Politicians Judiciary & Police continually indulge gross & evil criminality in return for an uneasy peace. They are petrified hence they over punish the indigenous population for noticing whilst claiming they don’t exist.
Yes, as guardrails, within which we can count on everyone having the same values and nobody taking us for mugs.
Free speech can never be absolute ' one is free not to be a nuisance to others' one is not free to incite criminal activity so ultimately free speech is constrained by societal mores
I voted no but agree that intolerant far right ideologies are endangering our communities, as is seen in the last two years in the violent pogroms against minority groups by white supremacists, civic and ethno ultra-nationalists, and literal Hitler-saluting fascists. We should have limited tolerance when these thugs – and those supporting them from the sidelines – endanger people in our communities.
Free speech and freedom of expression is not and never will be freedom of consequence its will be unfeasible to apply
We should not tolerate the intolerant.
Voted yes BUT Let's call the question as it is.. Let's hate & ban Islam! Why stop there, just ban all religion. We shouldn't allow ANY religious fairy stories to influence modern society. Religion was afterall just something invented by an ancient educated minority to keep an uneducated majority in control In ancient times death was an every day occurrence, so death wasn't scary enough, so they invented the possibility of eternal damnation to control the masses instead