Tutorial #2- Should Individual Rights Take Precedence over Collective Rights?

The importance of Group Rights (No) Written By: Paul Marshall (a political theorist at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto).

Tutorial Leader: Derek Neale

Summary:

The Current Impression on Individual Rights

*In the U.S. it is very common to understand politics in terms of “the government and the individual.”

*Because of this, general beliefs adhere to groups being comprised of collections of individuals (group rights break down into individual rights).

*People who believe this to be true would argue that in order to protect the culture of French Canada the government would have to protect the language rights of individual French Canadians. “If francophones were secure in their individual identity, then their language and culture would naturally survive.”

*Same applies to Canadian Native culture (culture and tradition would survive).

The Truth About Individual Rights

*Current views thrive on ignoring or denying realities about Canada (and world).

Example: 1969- P.M. Trudeau introduced “White Paper” on treatment of Native peoples. It was meant to stop discrimination by eliminating the Native people’s special legal status with hopes that they would “have no more and no fewer rights than any other Canadian.” The Natives rejected the “Paper” because they did not see themselves as individuals, but as a collective/community. Their problems simply couldn’t be dealt with in terms of individual rights. They reacted strongly with political action. The Trudeau government eventually backed off from the proposal and apologized. “We have learnt in the process that perhaps we were a bit too theoretical, we were a bit too abstract,” Pierre Trudeau.

*Canada is comprised of many group-oriented collectives: cultures, associations, institutions, cultural and ethnic diversity, different languages, varied subcultures, many Native bands and nations, diverse school systems, variety of religion and denominations.

*Over 2/3 of Canadians are members of voluntary associations- (tens of thousands)- churches, political parties, trade unions, cultural groups, cooperatives, academic associations, public interest organizations.

*Violence can occur between different groups (Breakup of Yugoslavia, wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina)- sometimes group claims are a cover for racist, fascist, or communist goals that can produce bigotry, prejudice, persecution and civil war.

*These dangers only mean that the government should learn how to deal appropriately with group identity issues, not eliminate groups from politics. Different policies may be needed in order to satisfy the needs of groups and their rights.

Past Government Approaches to Group Rights

*Canada has viewed collective rights with suspicion- many critics of Meech Lake Accord (1987-1990) and the Charlottetown Accord (1992) believed that the groups were unjust and prejudiced.

*There have been examples where the government has classed the concern for group rights as a type of initial fascism that “needs to be both rejected and fought.”

Other Approaches to Group Rights

*Many countries see obtaining group rights (not as exclusion and control) as means of mutual respect and harmony.

In Finland: Aaland Islands (part of Finland, but most inhabitants speak Swedish). Islanders afraid of losing identity. The Finnish government (in an effort to protect the islanders) restricted the ability of non-islanders to buy land in Aaland. (Swedish culture is preserved).

In New Zealand: Original inhabitants called Maoris. Discriminated against by European immigrates. Maoris eventually outnumbered so that only make up 5% of population. It would be very difficult for a Maoris to become elected because population is so spread out. The New Zealand government made two separate voting lists- one for the Maoris people, and one for the others. Maoris vote for the four seats that have been set aside for them; others vote for remaining eighty-three seats (Maoris always have seats in Parliament-maintaining roughly the same proportional to their position in society).

In India: Over 281 languages spoken. Government faced with dilemma- balance the need to be fair to all the language groups while saving costs in a poor country. Decided to make Hindi and English official languages of the Union and also allow each province to choose its own official language(s). Tries to provide basic education in all languages, and gives guarantee to each group to conserve language.

*“Group rights are not some peculiar form of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. They are not necessarily expressions of prejudice or bigotry. They are present in most countries of the world: western as well as eastern, democratic as well as authoritarian. They are widespread and accepted measures to preserve and enhance community life and harmony.”

The United Nations Approach

*Recognizes group rights within its subculture. They give status to different languages (only those deemed “official” have status- there is no way that the UN could deal with every language in the world).

*International treaties on human rights help to deal with group rights (such as minorities). Example: The Genocide Convention forbids action against individuals who belong to groups, and action against the group itself. Doesn’t let children out of threatened group (adoption) unless the culture itself is weakening.

Canada Cares Too

*The Canadians have tried to follow the example of the UN model by giving constitutional guarantees (“provinces could not prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools”). This means that Catholics and Protestants could have a fixed right to schools reflecting their beliefs.

*The Constitutional Act allows: governments to intervene and help groups who need it, specific language rights to speakers of two languages (English and French), recognition for rights of Aboriginal people.

*The rest of the world sees giving these groups rights as nothing more than giving individuals rights, only that they choose to belong to a group consequently sharing the rights. Criticism says that both individual and group rights are important, but group rights should never over ride individual rights. Sometimes they are correct (the right to life vs. the right to choose schools.)

*With Native cultures, the group right has won over the individual claims. (Self-government, fishing, hunting).

*With Denominational Schools, the group right has the edge (Rights of Catholics to have schools reflecting religious beliefs vs. all schools giving equal access to people despite their religious beliefs.

In Closing

*Canada must understand both individual and collective rights.

*Groups need to be protected by being recognized as groups

*Individual rights can’t be forgotten, but must be overridden by important group rights (Internationally known and respected policy, Canadian historic roots and legal practice).

*In future, must not assume all group claims are valid, mustn’t assume that they aren’t valid, must see that they can overthrow individual rights, be open to either claim.

Discussion Questions:

1) What were the motivations behind the Natives peoples of Canada rejecting the “White Paper” proposal (make them equal to the rest of Canada- put them on an individual level with all Canadians)?

2) What could the Canadian government do to ensure that French-Canadians will remain happy?

3) In Finland, (Aaland Islands) what is the worst that could have happened if the government hadn’t restricted the buying of land to Islanders (i.e. let Finnish people buy land)? The best that could have happened?

4) Should Group Rights be something to reject and fight from the Canadian government’s perspective? Explain.

5) How can group rights be seen as “a cover for racist, fascist, and communist goals”? Provide examples from real life.

6) Do group rights simply boil down to rights of the individual? Why or why not?

7) Since educational systems have a focus on individual effort, should there be group rights for schools as we know them? Should anyone be allowed to go to any school despite their religious background?

8) Are there currently too many group rights in Canada today? Are these rights overpowering the individual rights? Why or why not?

9) When comparing the government of Finland to the government of Canada, what are the similarities and differences? Who has the optimal political philosophy- Canada or Finland?

Glossary:

Authoritarian- A governing system, where there is an emphasis on absolute obedience to authority so that the individual freedom is repressed.

Bigotry- Intolerance and hatred toward a particular group of people.

Communal- Shared by two or more people.

Consensus- An agreement between the members of a group.

Denominations- The different classing categories that an object can fit in.

Entrenched- Something that is fixed, or certain, deep-rooted.

Francophones- A common term used to describe French-speaking Canadians.

Galvanized- A word to describe the stirring up, or starting of an action.

Ideological- A style of thinking that a person uses which entails idealistic realness.

Incipient- Early- as in this type of early fascism needs to be abolished.

Phenomenon- An occurrence, or experience that is unique and special.

Plurality- A variety of choices that are available to you.

Prejudices- Having a bias toward one particular group- often classing them, or discriminating against them to feel better about oneself.

Totalitarian- A government asserting authority over all aspects of individual life.

Undercut- A weakening state of being, slowly deteriorating.

White Paper- 1969- PM Trudeau sets up this offer of equality amongst Canadian Natives and the rest of Canada. The offer was supposed to ensure that the group had no more or no fewer rights than any other Canadian.