I understand both your argument ("can't legislate morality, it's counterproductive") and the diarist's ("can't we all get along, this is a freedom of expression issue").

But at root, I disagree with both.

In the "can't legislate morality" case, I agree, we cannot legislate the content of morality. But we can influence (or reduce that influence, as in this case) one group's attempts to forcibly impose their set of morality upon another, largely unwilling group.

An example, perhaps a bit more extreme in content but all the same along the same lines: we might not be able to get men to stop thinking it is acceptible to beat their wives (and yes, imams do preach this and have been expelled from France for this), but this doesn't mean we should simply stand back and accept that they do so. There are very good public policy reasons not to accept this, not to mention moral reasons. Similarly, we might not convince islamists living in London to stop wanting to force their daughters or sisters to wear a veil when they go to school, but when we legislate that no one can wear one at school, we're supporting those majority who do not want to wear it, but are forced to.

So no your opinion does not directly support this patriarchal treatment of women, but indirectly, in many cases, it does.

I also get the freedom of expression argument, but as a matter of course, as long as we're all in a cohesive society, with strong solidarity mechanisms, where I help you and you help me under agreed-upon conditions (almost as a contract) as is the case in France (and should be moreso), there must be a mutual respect of individual and community. Community supports the individual, and the individual adheres to community standards.

And what those standards are is a matter of interpretation and taste. But if there are standards, there are standards, and those dictate the limits of acceptable expression. The limits have a political determinant of course, and there needs to be respect for proper minority rights under the universal declaration of human rights. But end of day, if you chose to live outside of the limits of acceptable expression, you break that contract which underpins solidarity, just as in undermining the mechanisms of solidarity, you break the contract which underpins cohesion. It's a two-way street.

I personally side with those who would strengthen both cohesion and solidarity, for in my view, you cannot have the one without the other, and this is exactly what we see in Europe today. Declining cohesion, and the so-called welfare state is under attack.

This is not a coincidence.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

It is a relief to me that you do not say anything unreasonable about Hegel. (Thus, my fear that you were infuenced by Popper and/or Hayek in this regard was evidently mistaken.) Now, to understand the passages you quoted, you have to realize that Hegel had a social, as opposed to individualistic, concept of freedom. That means that it contains the liberal concept of freedom (absence of coersion by state or church etc.) but adds on further requirements. This is where reason comes in. (Liberalism is unable to articulate the notion of freedom I discussed in my original post by the way, no better than Islam can, because it rejects the concept of reason, starting with Hume. Remember his "Reason is and always must be the slave of the passions"?) To be free, I must know that the institutions of the society I live in are rational. This is an extremely powerful idea. For one thing, if you find the institutions aren't rational, then they must be made rational. (After Hegel's death, there was a split into the Left and the Right Hegelians; the Left Hegelians, of whom Marx was one, picked up this thought. The Right Hegelians simply assumed society was rational, so that the problem was simply to demonstrate this. Critical theory (of the Frankfurt School type) derives from this idea, too.) The purpose of The Philosophy of Right is to show that the state is rational.

Notice by the way that by Hegel's notion of freedom, Americans are not free: and it is not just because we have an unelected president. It is because the American state is not rational. It is not rational because the Constitution is designed in such a way that states with small populations are disproportionately represented in the Senate and Electoral College. Since sparsely populated states are more rural, and rural areas are more conservative, that means that a conservative minority is able to block legislation desired by a progressive majority. Thus, the will of the American people is constantly and repeatedly blocked: a people that lives under such conditions is not free. But by the liberal notion of freedom, they are. Thus, Hegel's notion of freedom turns out to be more left-wing than the liberal one.

I think you know by now what I will say in response to Hegel's being in favor of monarchy and against democracy. In the Preface, Hegel states that any philosophy reflects its time. The state of the early 19th century is an absolutist state; the state of the 20th century is a democratic state. (Since the British, unlike the Continental Europeans, did not go through a period of absolutism, it appears that the English-speaking world wants to have its experience with absolutism in the 21st century.) I don't know if Hegel really privately was against democracy, but if he advocated it in print, he would have gotten into trouble (or the book wouldn't have passed the censors). When it came to disputes between reformers and proponents of the status quo in Prussia, Hegel was always on the side of the reformers.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

It's not because they're Hegelians: it's because they're Europeans. Hegel just articulated their own self-understanding better than anyone else did.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns