My understanding of this is that communication  is what is heard; not what is intended.  Today I heard one of the Muslims questioned about the 'kidnap plots' say that Muslims are 'living in a police state'; the response from govt officials was that 'this was nonsense'.  Surely if this gentleman's experience is of victimisation, then that is his experience; as William James said; 'for the moment what we attend to is reality'.  (If I believe that the rope in the dark is a snake then i treat it as a snake).  It is the job of communicators to convey their message, and if this is misunderstood then it is up to them to clarify, not to criticise the intelligence of the listener.

In his writings on 'Non Violent Communication',  Marshall Rosenberg talks of avoiding imperatives such as 'should, must, shouldn't, mustn't' etc, and of finding a way to understand another's point of view and speaking to them in their language.  (see the attachment for an essay by Rosenberg).  

I believe this is not about moral relativism, but about clarity of expression.  As the Humanists say, 'all actions have positive intent;' even the mugger has the positive intent of reducing his / her suffering, they may be deluded, and that is something different, the communication is about introducing another perspective in such a way that it is heard.

Cait you say 'interfere so far as to take steps to try to enforce new rules until they become the norm?' I agree, however I disagree about 'enforcing.'  I believe that true democracy is about government by consent, not by force of law, sometimes this may be necessary; but only as a last resort, surely it is more effective to convince than to enforce? 

I know this is rambling a bit, but these are my thoughts as they occur.............. !!

with love Ian