Should
Individual Rights take Precedence over Collective Rights?
By: Saheb
Singh
Importance of Group Rights
(No)
Summary:
® The accepted notion within our society is that politics must be boiled down to one aspect. The government
and the Individual. For the most part, people who have lost their way to speak about politics believe individuals
are all that really exist, because groups are “just” collections of individuals.
® If minorities in our society are secure in their individual and collective identity, then their culture, religious practices, and language would naturally survive. If we focus on each and every individual right of the community (i.e. collectivism) and those rights are exercised to its fullest extent then culture, language, and religious beliefs would not be open or vulnerable to assimilation.
® “..The world is so widespread, it thrives only by ignoring or denying certain fundamental realities about the world in general”.
® An example of the aforementioned quote was in 1969, when Prime Minister Trudeau introduced a White Paper on the treatment of Native Peoples. Its purpose was to “liberate” Canada’s Native population. He stated that their desperate situations was due to the fact that they had been victim to discrimination for so long. Trudeau believed the way to end such discrimination was through stripping the Natives of their special legal rights which they were granted because of the discrimination that they were objected to.
® Due to protest, the proposal was eventually scrapped. Our Native population rejected this proposal because they
saw themselves as a Community rather then Individuals. For the natives, life is in terms of collectivism, traditional
way of life involved a community consensus.
® Over two-thirds of Canadians are involved with voluntary associations. Canada is home to a plethora of
associations such as churches, political parties, trade unions, cultural groups, academic associations, and
public interest organizations. Collective organizations are apart of Canadian life “.. they are the public life of
the country”.
® However, many countries are homogeneous. Many countries encompass language, ethnic, racial, and religious
groups and organizations. They are not only important to personal life, but to public life.
® Group identity can be dangerous in public life as witnessed in history, but we cannot eradicate it from our political
system. We must ensure that is dealt with responsibly.
® Despite tensions, many communities/countries have found creative and tolerant ways to live together and respect
one another. “Essentially,
instead of treating every person as if he or she were the same for legal
purposes, we
should..
develop rights that do justice to communal differences”.
® This can happen through giving special rights to members of different groups and organizations. Or, by giving
to the group in its entirety (collectivism).
® In Canada many critics of the "Meech Lake Accord" of 1987-90 and of the "Charlottetown Accord" of 1992
believed, that the commitment to group rights were unjust and prejudiced. Moreover, in severe instances there
has been an inclination towards group rights to be fascism.
Ending Quote for
Summation of The importance of Group Rights.
Canada.. is
composed of cultures, groups, associations and institutions. There is cultural
and ethnic diversity , a plurality brought about by the French, English, and
many other languages, varied by sub-cultures.. They are central to the public
life of the country”.
Examples:
à Aaland Islands is an Island apart of Finland, but the majority of their inhabitants only speak Swedish.
The islanders were fearful that their language and culture could easily be assimilated by surrounding Finnish
speakers. The Finland government began to pass laws that restrain "non-islanders" to buy land or houses in
Aaland, essentially protecting their language and culture The purpose was not to maintain a privileged group but
to protect a culture that was eventually going to be assimilated into the Finnish way of life.
à The original settlers of New Zealand were known as the Maoris. They suffered discrimination from the
immigrating European population. As the Europeans continued to immigrate, the Maoris eventually
became outnumbered only representing 5 percent of the population. They were not represented in the country.
The government of New Zealand created separate voters lists, one entitles the Maoris vote, and 4 seats were set
set aside in parliament. Therefore, the Maoris have a voice to represent them proportionate to their population.
à India faces a serious dilemma when coming to languages, it has 281 on of them not including languages spoken
by less then 5000 people. It is impossible for India to provide services in each language, India has struggles to be
balance fairness with cost effectiveness for a developing nation. However, it has decided to create two national
languages; Hindi (largest language group) and English (official languages of the Union) and an official language
each province. India has committed itself to provide basic education in all languages, and gives a guarantee to all
groups that it has the right to conserve its language.
Conclusion for Examples:
Group rights are
not some peculiar feature of totalitarian
or authoritarian regimes. They are not holdovers for some previous less
enlightened age. They are widespread and accepted measures to preserve and
enhance community life and harmony.
Glossary:
Homogenous:
Of the same or similar nature or kind: “a
tight-knit, similar in kind society”.
Community: A group of people having
common interests.
Communal: Marked by collective
ownership and control through the public.
Rights:
Conforming
with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.
Eradicate: To get rid of as if by
tearing up by the roots.
Provision:
A
stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement
Denomination: A name or designation, especially
for a class or group.
Individual: Existing as a distinct
entity; separate.
Fundamental: Forming or serving as an essential component
of a system or structure.
Authoritarian:
Characterized
by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom
Constitutional:
The system
of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and
limits of a government or another institution.
Totalitarian: imposing a form of
government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized
control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state,
and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.
.Charlotte
Accord (1992): PM Mulroney
and the federal government began another attempt at constitutional reform
almost immediately after the unsuccessful Meech Lake
Accord.. In fall 1980, Mulroney appointed former PM
Joe Clark, Canada's First Minister of Constitutional Affairs.. His job was to
Oversee constitutional negotiations with provincial premiers and other
interested groups.
Meech Lake Accord (1987): The Meech Lake
Accord as created to address these challenges, and to bring Quebec into the
constitution and to amend the constitution to answer the concerns of other
groups as well.
White Paper: “In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the White Paper, a policy paper intended to end any recognition of special status for Indians. After a year of angry protest from Aboriginal leaders, the White Paper was shelved”.
*All definitions provided by http://www.dictionary.com* with exception to White Paper and
Accords*
Guiding Questions:
1) What was the initial
reaction towards the “Meech Lake Accord” and the “Charlottetown
Accord”?
2) In your opinion, why did the
Natives reject the “White Paper” treatment introduced by PM Pierre Trudeau?
3)
In your opinion, do you think Canada has subjected unfair treatment
towards French speaking
Canadians
and Native citizens over the years?
4)
In your opinion, should Canada have adopted the same voting system as
New Zealand in accordance
with
our native peoples?
5)
Discuss this statement, “The world is so widespread, it thrives only
by ignoring or denying certain
fundamental
realities about the world in general”.
6)
Do you believe collective groups are the public life of Canada?
7)
Does collective groups promote and eventually turn into a fascist
community?
8)
In your opinion, do you feel that collective groups are just “collections
of individuals”?
9) Can Canada employ the same procedure used
between Finland and Aaland Islands for their benefit?
10)
Lastly, should Individual rights take precedence over collective rights?