Majority – Minority Issues C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

9.2.5 Majority – Minority Issues c Protecting the rights of minorities is a fundamental problem of a democracy. In a situation where “majority rules,” how can a nation ensure that all citizens have equal treatment and equal opportunities, even those who are not part of the majority? Democracies and Majority - Minority Rights: • Majority rule is a way of organizing government and making public decisions. It does not mean that the majority has the right to practise oppression. No majority, no matter how large, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual. • Minorities, based on factors such as race, ethnic background, culture, language, religion, geographic location, income level, or simply because they were the “losers” in elections or in political debates, are entitled to rights that may not be denied by government. In Canada these rights are protected by constitutional law. • Minority rights need to be protected to ensure that all citizens are able to fully participate in the country's democratic institutions. • All democratic governments should take measures to protect the basic human rights of citizens, whether of the majority or of a minority (e.g., freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society). • Democratic principles recognize that a key responsibility of government is to protect the rights of minorities to uphold their cultures, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities. • Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange or unusual to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values not as a threat but as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them. • There is no single solution to dealing with minority-group differences in perspectives, beliefs, and values. Only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Minority Rights
Fact Sheet No.18 (Rev.1), Minority Rights Contents: o Introduction o Provisions for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Persons belonging to Minorities o The Implementation of Special Rights and the Promotion of further Measures for the Protection of Minorities o Complaints Procedures o Early Warning Mechanisms o Role of Non-Governmental Organizations o The Way Ahead Annex I: Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18 December 1992) Introduction "... The promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live" (Preamble of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities) (1) Almost all States have one or more minority groups within their national territories, characterized by their own ethnic, linguistic or religious identity which differs from that of the majority population. Harmonious relations among minorities and between minorities and majorities and respect for each group's identity is a great asset to the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural diversity of our global society. Meeting the aspirations of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups and ensuring the rights of persons belonging to minorities acknowledges the dignity and equality of all individuals, furthers participatory development, and thus contributes to the lessening of tensions among groups and individuals. These factors are a major determinant etc. of stability and peace. The protection of minorities has not, until recently, attracted the same level of attention as that accorded other rights which the United Nations considered as having a greater urgency.
[Show full text]
Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights a Guide for Advocates
Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights A Guide for Advocates Designed and printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations publications United Nations, Geneva — GE.13-40538 Sales No. E.13.XIV.1 July 2013 — 3,452 — HR/PUB/12/7 ISBN 978-92-1-154197-7 Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights A Guide for Advocates Geneva and New York, 2012 ii PROMOTING AND PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS Note The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a figure indicates a reference to a United Nations document. HR/PUB/12/7 Sales No. E.13.XIV.1 ISBN 978-92-1-154197-7 eISBN 978-92-1-056280-5 © 2012 United Nations All worldwide rights reserved Minority rights focus in the United Nations iii Foreword I am delighted that this publication, Promoting and Protecting Minority Rights: A Guide for Minority Rights Advocates, comes before you as we celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. This anniversary gives us the opportunity to look back on the 20 years of promoting the Declaration and use that experience to plan and strategize for the future, to decide how best to bring this Declaration further to the fore of human rights discussions taking place all over the world and discuss its implementation.
[Show full text]
Race Categorization and the Regulation of Business and Science
617 Race Categorization and the Regulation of Business and Science Catherine Lee John D. Skrentny Despite the lack of consensus regarding the meaning or significance of race or ethnicity amongst scientists and the lay public, there are legal requirements and guidelines that dictate the collection of racial and ethnic data across a range of institutions. Legal regulations are typically created through a political process and then face varying kinds of resistance when the state tries to implement them. We explore the nature of this opposition by comparing responses from businesses, scientists, and science-oriented businesses (phar- maceutical and biotechnology companies) to U.S. state regulations that used politically derived racial categorizations, originally created to pursue civil rights goals. We argue that insights from cultural sociology regarding insti- tutional and cultural boundaries can aid understanding of the nature of re- sistance to regulation. The Food and Drug Administration’s guidelines for research by pharmaceutical companies imposed race categories on science- based businesses, leading to objections that emphasized the autonomy and validity of science. In contrast, similar race categories regulating first business by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later scien- tific research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) encoun- tered little challenge. We argue that pharmaceutical companies had the motive (profit) that NIH-supported scientists lacked and a legitimate discourse (boundary work of science) that businesses regulated by the EEOC did not have. The study suggests the utility of a comparative cultural sociology of the politics of legal regulation, particularly when understanding race-related reg- ulation and the importance of examining legal regulations for exploring how the meaning of race or ethnicity are contested and constructed in law.
[Show full text]
The Model of Ethnic Democracy
THE MODEL OF ETHNIC DEMOCRACY Sammy SMOOHA ECMI Working Paper # 13 October 2001 EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MINORITY ISSUES (ECMI) Schiffbruecke 12 (Kompagnietor Building) D-24939 Flensburg Germany +49-(0)461-14 14 9-0 fax +49-(0)461-14 14 9-19 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ecmi.de ECMI Working Paper # 13 European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) Director: Marc Weller © European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) 2001. ISSN 1435-9812 The European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) is a non-partisan institution founded in 1996 by the Governments of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the German State of Schleswig-Holstein. ECMI was established in Flensburg, at the heart of the Danish-German border region, in order to draw from the encouraging example of peaceful coexistence between minorities and majorities achieved here. ECMI’s aim is to promote interdisciplinary research on issues related to minorities and majorities in a European perspective and to contribute to the improvement of inter-ethnic relations in those parts of Western and Eastern Europe where ethno- political tension and conflict prevail. ECMI Working Papers are written either by the staff of ECMI or by outside authors commissioned by the Centre. As ECMI does not propagate opinions of its own, the views expressed in any of its publications are the sole responsibility of the author concerned. ECMI Working Paper # 13 European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) © ECMI 2001 CONTENTS 1. About the Author......................................................................................................3
[Show full text]
Events of 2013
Europe Katalin Halász and Nurçan Kaya Europe Paul Iganski AZERBAIJAN AZER. ARMENIA GEORGIA RUSSIA SEA TURKEY K CYPRUS ICELAND AC BL UKRAINE VA MOLDO BELARUS ATL ANTIC FINLAND BULGARIA TVIA ROMANIA ANEAN SEA LA FINLAND OCEAN ESTONIA NORWAY GREECE LITHUANIA ovo SWEDEN MACEDONIA SERBIA MONTENEGRO AKIA RUSSIA Kos OV POLAND ESTONIA SL ALBANIA Kaliningrad (Rus.) HUNGARY BOSNIA AND HERZE. LATVIA MEDITERR SWEDEN IRELAND DENMARK CROATIA UNITED ITALY CZECH REP. LITHUANIA KINGDOM AUSTRIA AY KaliningradSLOVENIA (Rus.) NORW BELARUS LIECH. NETHERLANDS SAN MARINO GERMANY DENMARK GERMANY POLAND BELGIUM LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG MONACO UKRAINE CZECH REP.SWITZERLAND BELGIUM SLOVAKIA NETHERLANDS LIECH. MOLDOVA FRANCE SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA HUNGARY FRANCE SLOVENIA ANDORRA UNITED ROMANIA KINGDOM CROATIA BOSNIA GEORGIA ANDORRA SAN MARINO SERBIA PORTUGAL AND HERZE. BLACK SEA MONACO MONTENEGRO AZERBAIJAN ICELAND IRELAND Kosovo SPAIN BULGARIA ARMENIA MACEDONIASPAIN ANTIC AZER. ITALY ALBANIA L TURKEY OCEAN GREECE AT PORTUGAL CYPRUS MEDITERRANEAN SEA n November 2013, in her opening speech considerable anti-migrant and generalized anti- at the European Union Fundamental ‘foreigner’ sentiment across the region. I Rights Agency (FRA) conference on The internet and social media have provided Combating Hate Crime in the EU, Cecilia new opportunities for venting such sentiment. Malmström, the Commissioner of the European Individuals from minority communities who step Commission in charge of Home Affairs, into the public eye in politics, media and sport, expressed concern about the ‘mounting wave have provided new targets for hate through social of harassment and violence targeting asylum media. Between 2012 and 2014 the Council of seekers, immigrants, ethnic minorities and Europe is engaged in a major initiative against sexual minorities in many European countries’.
[Show full text]
Democratisation and Minority Rights in the Post-Communist Balkan States
PERCEPTIONS JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS June - July 2001 Volume VI - Number 2 DEMOCRATISATION AND MINORITY RIGHTS IN THE POST-COMMUNIST BALKAN STATES BİROL AKGÜN Dr Birol Akgün is Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations, Selçuk University, Konya. INTRODUCTION With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new independent states, scholars have turned their attention to developments in Eastern Europe. The expectation that a liberal democracy would soon replace ex-totalitarian regimes in the region is only partly realised. While some states (mostly in Central Europe) achieved a working democracy and were able to maintain domestic peace and security, some others (mostly in the Balkans) witnessed bloody wars and civil conflicts in the last decade. Readjustment of the borders in the Balkans reawakened old hatreds and ethnic hostilities causing unprecedented human suffering, which were quelled only by the intervention of the international community such as in the Bosnia and Kosovo wars. As Attila Agh points out, Balkan countries differ from East Central Europe in terms of political and economic development.1 None of them had previous experience with democratic government. Most of the Balkan countries are "late-comers to democratization" (Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria), or "semi-protectorates" (for example, Bosnia) of international organisations and great powers.2 Economically, they are the poorest nations of the Europe. In 1996, for instance, while six East Central Europe states had incomes
[Show full text]
Minority Rights: a Guide to United Nations Procedures and Institutions
guide Minority Rights: A Guide to United Nations Procedures and Institutions By Gudmundur Alfredsson and Erika Ferrer, as updated and revised by Kathryn Ramsay Acknowledgements The Authors Minority Rights Group International gratefully acknowledges Professor Gudmundur Alfredsson is director of the Raoul the support of all the organizations and individuals who gave Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, ﬁnancial and other assistance for this publication, in Sweden. Erika Ferrer works with the Swedish Ministry for particular the European Commission (this edition, 2004) and Foreign Affairs. Kathryn Ramsay works in the international the Human Rights Fund of the UK Foreign and advocacy department of Minority Rights Group International. Commonwealth Office (ﬁrst edition, 1998). Editor: Katrina Payne. Minority Rights Group International Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Minority Rights Group International (MRG) is a non- Humanitarian Law governmental organization (NGO) working to secure the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and Humanitarian Law (RWI) is an independent academic indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation institution dedicated to the promotion of human rights and understanding between communities. Our activities are through research, training and education. Established in 1984 focused on international advocacy, training, publishing and at the University of Lund, Sweden, the Institute is currently outreach. We are guided by the needs expressed by our involved in organizing two Masters Programmes and an worldwide partner network of organizations which represent interdisciplinary human rights programme at undergraduate minority and indigenous peoples. level. It is also host to an extensive human rights library, and engaged in various research and publishing activities.
[Show full text]
7 Cultural Diversity and Minorities
2 177 7 Cultural diversity and minorities Figure 7 A single flower does not make a garden, nor does a single bird bring spring. The Arab Human Development Report, 2003 7.1 Introduction1 Sitting in Egypt, eating Italian food, listening to French songs with a group of friends from Jordan, Lebanon, Spain or Sweden is becoming more and more commonplace for some young people. The traditional nation state, a territorial unit covering people who share a common national identity (historically, culturally or ethnically),2 faces new challenges – especially with people’s increasing mobility and globalisation, two factors which have helped to blur territorial boundaries and transform nation states, making them co-operate with each other. But still, the majority or dominant national cultures around the world are, in one way or another, imposing their identity on other groups at the nation state and global levels. Multi-ethnic environments are often faced with an official mono-culturalism that frequently comes at the expense of minority rights. According to the World directory Themes 178 of minorities, it is hard to pinpoint accurately the proportion of the world’s population that identifies themselves as minorities or as belonging to minority communities. However, this proportion is estimated to be above 10% and statistics suggest that more than 20% of the world’s population belongs to 6 000 different minority com- munities.3 As is the case all over the world, countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea contain diverse cultural, ethnic and religious groups.4 Berbers, Baha’is, Copts, Kurds, Saharawis, Roma, Jews, Indian, Alawites, Finns, Hungarians, Turks, Arabs, Catalans, Buddhists, Druze, Swedes, Italians and many more groups exist as minorities in some countries and regions, while they may belong to the “majority” in others.
[Show full text]
The Debate Over Arab and Muslim Assimilation
Volume 2 Issue 3 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND December 2015 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 American Multiculturalism vs. French Ethno-pluralism: The Debate over Arab and Muslim Assimilation Lanouar Ben Hafsa University of Tunis, Tunisia Abstract Although they have become more visible across the Western world, Arabs and Muslims remain inadequately described and poorly misunderstood. In the United States, inasmuch as in France, despite their expanding numbers and their growing involvement into the decision making process, both groups still suffer from widespread prejudice, especially the negative image conveyed about them in the media and within some political circles. Until the 1970s, Arab and Muslim immigrants had been a neglected dimension in either American or French ethnic and religious history. But the rise in the number of such foreign-born residents in both countries added to the growing fear over the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism, and generated considerable interest and public debate on how well these groups would assimilate into the mainstream culture of their host societies and fit within a pre-established order. This paper not only aims to cast a fresh and objective look into how American and French citizens of Arab and Muslim descent adjust to their new environment, but also attempts to provide some insights into how the United States and France accommodate Islam, as both nations, because of their different immigration histories and their relatively diverging ideologies, do not have a communality of views on how society should be structured and organized. Two elements have been decisive for such a study: first, my experience in France as a postgraduate student at Sorbonne University, second, the research I conducted in 2004 on Arab Americans as Senior Fulbright at the Center for Arab American Studies, at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
[Show full text]
Extending the Concept of Ethnocracy: Exploring the Debate in the Baltic Context
Extending the Concept of Ethnocracy: Exploring the Debate in the Baltic Context Timofey Agarin Queen's University Belfast Abstract The advance of liberal understanding of democracy with its interest in and constrained ability to interfere with citizens’ identities made cases of ethnocracy rare over the past decades. Over the past 25 years, Baltic politics and societies have experienced considerable change, however, as I demonstrate, considerable debate persists around the issues central to the argument about ethnocracy in the region. In the context, when discussing the central role played by state institutions in negotiating conflicts between groups over access to scarce resources of the state, it is central to see minorities as being in both the inferior numerical position as well as in a symbolically more disadvantageous place: If we see democratic politics for what they are as majoritarian politics, and if we see these as taking place in the context of state institutions designed to uphold the ethnic majority dominance, then any kind of liberal democratic politics would be a good candidate for ethnocracy. Introduction When James Anderson contacted me to contribute to the debate on ethnocracy in this special issue, I agreed without hesitation. Since my days as a doctoral student I was exposed to discussions on the politics of managing ethnic diversity in what are today Estonia and Latvia. Over the past 25 years, Baltic politics and societies have experienced considerable change; independence from the Soviet Union, a period of post-communist transition, membership negotiations with the European Union, EU accession in 2004, and more than twelve years of membership in both the EU and NATO all have changed the nature of politics in the Baltic states individually and collectively (Agarin 2010; Galbreath 2005).
[Show full text]
Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 2002 Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection MONITORING THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS: MINORITY PROTECTION MONITORING THE EU ACCESSION PROCESS: MINORITY PROTECTION Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................... 16 2. Candidate States: Assessing Government Policies for Minority Protection and Integration ............................................... 22 2.1 Programme Content .................................... 23 2.2 Programme Implementation – Problems of Coordination and Capacity ... 25 2.3 Decentralisation: the Role of Local Government ................................... 28 2.4 Evaluation and Assessment .......................... 29 2.5 EU Funding to Support Implementation ..... 30 2.6 Minority Participation ................................. 32 2.7 Minority Representation .............................. 34 2.8 Public Support ............................................. 35 3. Monitoring Minority Protection in EU Member States – the Situation of Muslims and Roma ............ 37 3.1 Public Attitudes ........................................... 38 3.2 Protection Against Discrimination ............... 41 3.2.1 Lack of data .................................... 43 3.2.2 Discrimination against Roma ......... 45 3.2.3 Discrimination against Muslims ..... 49 14 OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE 2002 OVERVIEW 3.3 Minority Rights ........................................... 54 3.3.1 Recognition .................................... 54 3.3.2 Citizenship ....................................
[Show full text]
Cultural Rights of Native Majorities Between Universalism and Minority Rights
Ruud Koopmans Cultural Rights of Native Majorities between Universalism and Minority Rights Discussion Paper SP VI 2018–106 December 2018 Research Area Migration and Diversity Research Unit Migration, Integration, Transnationalization WZB Berlin Social Science Center Reichpietschufer 50 10785 Berlin Germany www.wzb.eu Copyright remains with the author . Discussion papers of the WZB serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the discussion paper series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. The discussion papers published by the WZB represent the views of the respective author and not of the institute as a whole. Ruud Koopmans Cultural Rights of Native Majorities between Universalism and Minority Rights Discussion Paper SP VI 2018–106 Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (2018) Affiliation of the author Ruud Koopmans WZB Berlin Social Science Center & Humboldt University Berlin Email: [email protected] Abstract Cultural Rights of Native Majorities between Universalism and Minority Rights Minorities’ claims for rights increasingly clash with majorities who wish to retain and defend “national” cultural and religious traditions. Debates around minarets in Switzerland, burqas in France, Saint Nicolas’ companion “Black Pete” in the Netherlands, and about freedom of speech versus respect for minorities in several countries are cases in point. Such issues are highly salient and offer a major mobilization potential for populist parties. However, while publications about minority rights abound, the normative literature is remarkably silent on the issue of the normative legitimacy of rights claims by autochthonous cultural majorities.
[Show full text]