[forgive my poor english in such a long comment]
... "tolerance ideology", "inquisition of tolerance"...
...of course inquisitions is always wrong...
...but... you know... I mean... how to say it...
No there's no way to say it, yet, I'm puzzled. :S
Must think through it.
And you and the clipping community can help me!

This is not the first time I ask myself about such topics – yes, because this article is about a more general topic... it doesn't matter if "inquisition" is done by banning people from a country or through law. Or does it?
If we say that it doesn’t, that we have to ask ourselves:
Is it a law against racism a law against liberty of conscience? Well, theorically yes.
...

[forgive my poor english in such a long comment]
... "tolerance ideology", "inquisition of tolerance"...
...of course inquisitions is always wrong...
...but... you know... I mean... how to say it...
No there's no way to say it, yet, I'm puzzled. :S
Must think through it.
And you and the clipping community can help me!

This is not the first time I ask myself about such topics – yes, because this article is about a more general topic... it doesn't matter if "inquisition" is done by banning people from a country or through law. Or does it?
If we say that it doesn’t, that we have to ask ourselves:
Is it a law against racism a law against liberty of conscience? Well, theorically yes.
I'm Italian. Is it the italian law against "apology of fascism" restricting freedom in political belief? Again, yes.
Do you remember the dutch pedoparty?
WIKI: "The anti-pedophile foundation "Soelaas" petitioned the courts to ban the party, but the judges ruled in the PNVD's favour. "The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association ... should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms," the court said in a statement."
Ok, WIKI says also that it didn't reached the needed number of 570 public declarations of support from Dutch citizens in order to partake the elections. And I guess this is “democracy”, right? But, is it then just this? A matter of numbers? If I was a member of that party I would say that to keep the party from participating in the elections is a form of inquisition against a party that couldn't find enough declarations of support due to conformism (and we all know how conformism is not just about buying the right sneakers, it's a system of powerful non-written rules).

So… do we have to CHOOSE WHO OR WHAT WE MUST… LET IN or not? And if we have, then HOW?

... I still do not have the answer, but did I at least make my point about which is my question?

...

I will now quote a book that I have never read (Democracy in America, Tocqueville):

"I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law, which bears the name of justice, has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are therefore confined within the limits of what is just."

The limits of what is just… sometimes it is nice to believe that this is what we have to look for, to believe that this reall...

I will now quote a book that I have never read (Democracy in America, Tocqueville):

"I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?
A general law, which bears the name of justice, has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are therefore confined within the limits of what is just."

The limits of what is just… sometimes it is nice to believe that this is what we have to look for, to believe that this really exists.
If this does exist, anyway, the UK Home Office seems to have got it. Anti-gay protesters, hate preachers and near…ahem.. far-right US talk show host seem just to be beyond that limit!

Of course this doesn’t mean to me that we have to take whatever the “tolerance inquisition” does as good. UK, anyway, is just a nation, and it can go beyond the limits of what is just as well as individuals. ...because it's led by individuals, who have been chosen by a bigger (majority) group of individuals. It has happened, in my country, that the majority was liking fascism. Now we have a law that forbid it, restricting our freedom in politics. But, maybe also thank to this restriction, Italy, like UK(ok, a bit less than UK ) is now a nation in which people can still protest and …even refuse to obey!

“A nation may be considered as a jury which is empowered to represent society at large and to apply justice, which is its law. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society itself whose laws it executes?
When I REFUSE TO OBEY an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.”

Is it real inquisition when you can still protest against it?