ROWAN Atkinson was brave to come out in defence of Boris Johnson and to do so by saying that he thought Boris’ remarks about burkas and letterboxes were funny was an important demonstration of what a genuinely tolerant, free and progressive society looks like. Whether or not Johnson was right to use such remarks however is debatable.

Boris is a curious product of our times, part politician, part comedian, an apparently libertarian chap who occasionally appears to be saying something important but in a manner that is schoolboyish. His self-deprecating manner has made him both likeable and ridiculous at the same time. It is as if to stand up for basic liberal principles today you have to do it through the persona of a clown. And in this respect we get the Boris we deserve because British society has becoming remarkably illiberal. We can see this in the outrage over his letterbox remarks about the burka.

Johnson’s arguments were essentially this: Denmark should not ban the burka, it is illiberal to do this even if you think it is oppressive to women, looks ridiculous and is alien to your culture – you should not ban it. However, where communication is necessary between people in an ‘official’ situation, in court, being a teacher, being a student in a class and so on, then people should have to remove their veil and communicate like everyone else. In making these remarks he also said that the burka makes women look like bank robbers and that it is ‘ridiculous’, in his opinion, ‘that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes’.

Following these remarks, the debate we should be having is should the burka be banned? This is an important discussion about religious freedom and about allowing people the freedom of conscience. It is a discussion and matter that goes to the foundations of what it means to live in a free society, a discussion that goes back to the 17th century philosopher and ‘Father of Liberalism’, John Locke.

In this respect, rather than being outraged by Boris it would seem far more appropriate, from a liberal perspective, to be outraged by Denmark’s decision to ban the burka, to fine women who wear it and to essentially undermine the important principle of religious freedom – something Boris was rightly defending.

Johnson was taking a classically liberal and tolerant stance by defending the right to express your religion but also criticising what he dislikes about it. This is the tolerance of John Stuart Mill, another giant of the British liberal tradition, where tolerance was about opposing the state’s right to interfere in your private thought, of speech and behaviour, but also about making a judgement. You cannot tolerate something, Mill argued, unless you first think about an issue and are opposed to it. You cannot tolerate something you like or love, only things you disagree with or hate. Or as the great Enlightenment thinker Voltaire argued, you may hate what someone says but should defend to the death their right to say it.

Unfortunately, British society and the British political and cultural elites have become confused about the issue of tolerance and through the prism of multiculturalism now think about tolerance in terms of being offended. If my students are anything to go by most young people think that being tolerant means not offending people or groups. In this respect, tolerance, a key principle of freedom, has been transformed into a matter of etiquette. Essentially to be tolerant today means ‘respecting difference’, being ‘non-judgemental’ and not offending anyone. Consequently, freedom of speech has become increasingly problematic because to think, judge and speak freely about other people and other cultures is to risk offence. To be ‘tolerant’ today means not speaking your mind and increasingly means that people who do so (and offend) are forced to apologise, are sacked or even arrested.

This is the profound illiberalism we have witnessed with Boris, with the Tory Party ‘investigating’ him (whatever that means); the Conservative peer Lord Sheikh demanding he be thrown out of the party, and remarkably, Scotland Yard chief Cressida Dick asking officers to investigate whether Boris Johnson’s remarks had broken the law.

Lord Sheikh and others have argued that Johnson’s remarks will inflame Islamophobia, which will lead to violence against Muslim women. On this basis, all negative comments or even jokes about Islam could and perhaps should be banned. Ironically, one could equally and perhaps more convincingly argue that it is Lord Sheikh’s comments and those of the ‘liberal’ media and establishment who stamp down on any criticism of Islam that have heightened the tension around this issue. See for example the ex-English Defence League founder, Tommy Robinson, and the hay he makes out of the silence being imposed on any critique of Islam.

The presumption that people will be violent because of what Johnson said reflects a modern day illiberal and elitist contempt for ordinary people who they see as animalistic. Boris is using ‘dog whistle’ ideas, they claim. In other words, the little people, the stupid people are racist and easily led, so censor yourself, be quiet about these matters, and no more jokes please. Ironically, this idea that we must not offend certain groups, that we must ‘protect their characteristics’ is a mirror image of old fashioned racism that separated people into different categories, some being more feeble than others.

In so many respects, the outrage at Boris, not his jokes, should be seen as the problem, the problem of illiberal Britain.

Nevertheless, we can still question whether a statesman should use jibes, jokes and put downs in what should be a serious discussion. In this respect, I find myself irritated yet again by Boris Johnson, not because he is being offensive, but because he is not being serious enough about something that should be understood as one of the most important debates of the day.

The debate we need to be having is what is good about British or Western culture, what is important about freedom and liberty? Because all cultures and practices are not equally good. Oppressing women is backward, so too is a society, like Denmark’s that now does not allow freedom of religion. But equally, a society that does not tolerate different opinions and ideas and even jokes is going backwards. It is illiberal and intolerant.

Dr Stuart Waiton is a senior lecturer in sociology at Abertay University